I posted this video on YouTube this morning. In it I argue that people in the UK like to think we live in a democracy. But we don't. Not really. When all elections result in just one of two parties winning, we live in a country where rigged elections are the norm, and most of us are not represented by people whose opinions we even vaguely share. It's overdue that we had proportional representation in UK elections. Even 80% of Labour members want it. But the leaderships of the two largest parties are conspiring against us to deny us what we need. That has to stop.
The transcript is as follows:
The UK likes to claim it's a democracy. If only, I say. I wish it was, but I don't believe it. We are a long way from being an effective democracy.
What do I mean? Look, when I come to the general election later this year, I know that there will be only one of two outcomes. Right now, we think there's only going to be one, but in any general election, we only think there's going to be one of two outcomes, and we've thought that for a century. We're either going to get a Labour government, sometimes, or a Conservative government, most of the time. Does that represent democracy when so many people support other parties in the UK?
In fact, there are more than 10 parties represented in Parliament. So why is it the case that we must only end up with a government from one of those two parties when lots of people support the Liberal Democrats, the Greens, the SNP, Plaid and the parties in Northern Ireland? Maybe others as well. Reform is obviously on the list at present, but who knows whether it will last longer than the Brexit party and UKIP that went before it.
My point is the same whichever parties want to contest an election and this is that we should have the right to choose who we think should best represent us with a good chance that somebody from that party will end up in parliament if enough of us do decide to support the party in question.
But that doesn't happen right now. Throughout most of my life, I've lived in constituencies where, for better or worse, I have not been able to vote for somebody who goes to Parliament. My choices have not reflected that of the majority of the people in the communities in which I've lived, and therefore I've ended up with an MP who does not reflect my views.
If only we had proportional representation in this country, instead of the first-past-the-post electoral system, I would have got the chance to elect an MP in a bigger regional constituency, where multiple MPs would have gone to Parliament, and there was a good chance, if I supported one of the mainstream parties, then at least one member from that party would have ended up in Parliament. And I would, therefore, have ended up with an MP to represent me.
We would end up with a more diverse parliament.
We would end up with coalitions. But frankly, we've already done that in the last few years anyway. Did it end the world? No.
We would end up with people having to negotiate their positions openly and honestly with each other to make sure that we had accountable government, and that would be a benefit.
But most of all, people would believe that voting mattered and that government represented them.
And in a democracy, that is crucial. Right now, most people in the UK are, in my opinion, alienated from everything to do with politics. And I wholly understand why it's quite reasonable to feel that way when the two major parties that we have are, even in the opinion of the Financial Times, offering almost identical policies to us at the forthcoming general election.
So, we need a better system to choose parties that might break the terrible state that this country is in by putting forward new ideas, when neither of our major political parties are willing to do so. And we can't do that until we get proportional representation in this country.
We have to change our electoral system to represent the will of the people. And the absurd thing is, that Labour's membership voted for this by 80 percent at a recent Labour Party conference. But the Labour leadership is ignoring them. They are opposing that democracy that we need. It's time to hold them to account and demand what their members want, which is a fair electoral system for this country, which will deliver a true democracy for the people of the UK.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Isn’t it a coalition when the two main parties have the goal of making sure the needs of the very rich take precedent?
Gets my vote.
If you look across Europe where they have PR there is a slightly better outcome but even so the big questions are skirted and the evonomic system is still mainly run for the benefit of the few.
Extraction from the poorer nations and from mother nature knows no boundaries with or without PR.
Poorer nations are in the eyes of most westerners sub human. So unlikely any change towards them.
I think marx said capitalism alienates through commodification. So understanding nature is beyond most capitalist societies.
Without mother nature we are toast.
There are fundamental underlying issues which I think PR would only window dress.
I accept al, that
The required reset is massive
The point is Sanjay that PR offers a better chance for the voices of people like yourself and myself being heard through the medium of an organised political party. More hands on deck if you like!
Don’t get me wrong Schofield I still vote for it and will be again at the next election but more and more believe the problem is now much bigger than PR can do anything about.
Politics is 24 hours a day, 365 days a year
“I think Marx said capitalism alienates through commodification. So understanding nature is beyond most capitalist societies.”
Well the fact we’ve done almost nothing to remedy damaging externalities and trashing of the commons first articulated formally by Pigou et al in the 1920s, proves that.
Given the very effective pushback against climate change policies and practices from the corporate sector, I just cannot see the inertia of mindless exploitation being succeeded by sustainable resource management under capitalism either, even in the current crisis.
Polanyi described how pre-industrial society was transmuted from largely reciprocal and redistributive arrangements to purely transactional relationships, and that progressively has defined our society as well as economy.
All the global empires have been incredibly exploitative, both in resource use and environmental despoilation, especially the British, French , Spanish and current American versions, so the social and moral values that concern environmental balance and sustainability have long been lost from every day life, most particularly in exploited countries. It is almost a miracle that they remain at all.
PR might help in broadening out the range of ideas and policies represented in parliament to some small degree, but I agree Sanjay, that the reset needed is much bigger.
Again England is the odd one out. Robert Jenrick made all English elections first past the post, hoping it would advantage them as the -then-biggest party and as the left was divided with Lib Dems and Greens. More would vote for the Greens but the risk is letting in the least favourite.
The Mixed Member system as used, e.g. in Scotland, still has single member constituencies and a party list. Single transferable vote as used in the Republic of Ireland enables the possibility of choice within parties or electing a non-party candidate. It is more complicated to count but, IMHO, fairer.
We also need automatic registration of voters-millions, mainly younger people are not on the rolls.
We need better controls of political donations (and the newspapers. Their record of lying, especially over the EU, should not be forgotten)
and the Lords, in its present form should go and a constitutional commission should lay out its powers and functions. This could and should happen even if we don’t have PR for the Commons.
I think there would be widespread support for these reforms.
68% of the electorate said no to pr in the referendum in 2011.
They were a dire form of PR and times change
Haven’t you noticed?
‘My choices have not reflected that of the majority of the people in the communities in which I’ve lived’
Isn’t this exactly the point? Whilst you might like to claim otherwise, your views are in the minority. This is how a democracy works.
Which elections in this country have been rigged? It’s a bold claim which you should follow up on if you have evidence for the police or electros; commission to investigate?
Politely, stop being stupid.
Being a person likely to vote for a left of centre party in a rural community might make you part of a minority in the rural community when it might not elsewhere,
And if you think first-past-the-post is not rigged, you just prove you’re stupid.
It seems the trolls have moved on from football players to deceased World Cup referees. Is there no end to their powers of imagination? Except when it comes to imagining a different way for things to be.
Wasn’t punishment for Nick Clegg the main reason for that result? I know that was why I voted against it.
Quite likely
In fact, the majority of *the electorate* did not vote at all in the 2011 referendum. The number of registered voters was about 46 million, of whom 6 million voted for, and 13 million voted against, but more than 26 million did not vote at all.
Agreed.
A very practical thing to do is to join Compass – the cross party progressive group that has PR at the centre (I am a member, and there are local groups across the country). The Electoral Reform Society and Make Votes Matter are other valuable groups campaigning for PR and should be supported (Compass coordinates and works closely with them).
Three out of the four countries in the UK have proportional voting systems in Scotland, Wales and NI so it is not unknown around these shores. Also people were used to voting with a PR system (d’Hondt) in Euro elections (which we very sadly no longer participate).
I think that Labour members are key to the immediate future here, in that 80%+ of members support PR, and that the more the leadership rejects this the more members need to press and push. When a potential Starmer government hits choppy waters, they will need the membership in more ways.
Another great thing that PR could and would unlock is the path to joining the EU, as quite a few commentators and experts in EU accession mention that it would be far easier for the EU to look at a potential application to join in the future with a PR system.
Musing on the extent of cross-party support for replacing broken FPTP with a more proportional system is it possible it could be introduced despite the Labour leadership, that they can be by-passed with a fair wind.
Hear me out…
Post Election: If the polls are vaguely accurate then in broad terms we’re looking at around 380 Labour MP’s, sub-200 Tory MP’s probably 180, and very roughly 40 Lib Dems, 35 SNP, 3 PC’s, 2 Greens and 11 NI MP’s who turn up.
326 is the target to form a government, but in practice a lot less is needed to pass a single piece of legislation. Very few bills are voted on by the entire House.
So cobbling together an alliance of the PR willing is not an impossible dream.
You’ll have a bloc of almost 100 certainties of LD/SNP/SDLP/G/PC members, there’s also a small number of Tory MP’s also pro-PR and I’m sure a few more ‘persuadables’ looking a way to embarrass the new Starmer regime.
So the question is how many Labour MP’s can be brought on board and how many can be persuaded not to turn up on the day of the vote.
In Westminster a huge majority brings problems of discipline and disgruntlement , so on a subject many backbenchers will feel supportive and justified to get behind, particularly with the 80% membership and large Union support.
You might say I’m a dreamer, but if I can see it coming hopefully Compass, MVM and ERS are well ahead in their plans to build this ‘Coalition of the Willing’.
We desperately need this to be the last ever UK election using FPTP.
I can hope you’re right
Johnson removed the whip from 21 Conservative MPs including formerly high ranking members of government.
Subsequently, Starmer removed the whip from Jeremy Corbyn, Diane Abott and Kate Osamor, the MP for Edmonton. The latter was suspended from Labour for saying Gaza should be remembered as a genocide. These three were telling the truth.
Obviously, the poor extent of democracy that existed prior to September 2019 was much reduced but worse was the loss of integrity in Parliament. More than ever before, MPs and Lords are required to deceive and to vote in violation of their consciences. (Also juries?)
Worse still, we now have little idea which people are pulling the strings; Cummings and others? Is it silly to worry about the influence of Lord Lebedev? Mandleson? Blair? Who else?
“When a potential Starmer government hits choppy waters, they will need the membership in more ways.”
The important thing is to implement MMT thinking but the majority of Labour Party members still accept Thatcher’s lie that the government has no money of its own. Can’t even figure out that the Bank of England creates money from thin air but needs another part of government to redeem what it creates usually partially to allow the non-government sector to save. With this level of ignorance the Labour Party has undermined itself to be little different than the Conservative Party. We need to stop pretending the current Labour Party is any kind of effective solution to the country’s many problems.
I agree
We also need to recognise that it isn’t even a FPTP democracy in England, you are voting for a coalition setup where both major parties give the interests of the very rich precedent. Part of this is monetary system illiteracy but not all. Another part is failing to understand that market capitalism is flawed because the endless drive for profit growth is destroying Earth as a habitable planet.
My neighbour is a local Labour councillor and he has read Stephanie Kelton and agrees.
I see more references to MMT ideas on readers’ comments so the understanding is spreading-if not quickly enough.
Not helped in the least by the monetarily illiterate Observer and Guardian that attempt to stand on their high horse in regard to morals but fail abysmally to see the connection between monetary system literacy and morals:-
“Labour currently has a lead on every economic indicator that Opinium tests, with the largest leads on improving public services and improving their financial situation. Its smallest lead over the Tories is on bringing down the national debt and deficit, where it only has a 5% advantage.”
Where is the challenge here about the mindlessness concern over national debt and deficits in an historical context?
I live in Somerton & Frome (as was)
There is currentlhy no chance of us ever returning a Labour MP – not that I want that to happen.
So any future Labour Govbernment never has to bother itself with us – or most rural constituencies.
Ditto Torys and urban areas etc
So from that point alone I suggest that the case for PR is a strong one, OK post PR Politics MAY be a very different place but it should mean all parties should be looking everywhere for votes not just the areas where they thinl their supporters live, and I suggest that that is no bad thing
Agreed
Both David Evans and then Starmer said that “Conference is only paramount when it is in session” as part of the denial of internal democracy. Policy is now decided by Starmer’s donors, allegiances handlers and focus groups.
PR, and my preference, STV, is further away than ever IMO.
Do you have a reference for this statement John?
Our current system of general elections are little more than ‘performance democracy’. Played out once every five years , it seems to have become more about voting for the cast than selecting the script. A tragedy.
PR would be a minor improvement, but as Sanjay said, there are much bigger issues. The 3 parties who get most of the votes (Con, Lab, LibDem) are in agreement on most major issues, sometimes clearly against public opinion. E.g. overwhelming majorities of the public favour nationalizing utilities, higher taxes on higher incomes, and more radical action on the climate catastrophe than the 3 major parties are offering (though on the latter, public opinion is probably still less radical than what is actually needed).
And before PR, I’m more concerned about the millions of people who live here but aren’t entitled to vote in General Elections. The average constituency has about 100,000 residents, but where I live has about 150,000, because there are a larger than average number with the “wrong” citizenship. Everybody over 16 who is resident in the UK should be entitled to vote in a GE.
The AV referendum was a clear rejection of a system which may not even give more proportional results than FPTP, but involves ranking candidates by number instead of just placing a single X next to your favourite candidate. STV involves ranking candidates by number, and is not even fully proportional: if you have constituencies electing 5-6 members, a party needs to poll about 10-15%+ before it gets a fair number of seats, so e.g. in England currently that is only OK for the LibDems, not for Greens or Reform. If we changed the system to make the results proportional, people would expect it to actually be proportional! We could easily accommodate people’s desire to vote with a single X while having fully proportional results by using Dual-member proportional representation: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual-member_proportional_representation
So much to agree with
Continuing that thinking then, why do we need to be voting in terms of political parties even?
Wouldn’t the ideal democracy be one where citizens voted on policies and government was a long term role with best qualified civil servants who found the best way to achieve those things? Because I am sure whatever side of the political spectrum you are, most people would put provision of healthcare, housing, food, education all at the top. Yet it seems neither Labour or Conservatives seem to value these things in the policies they present us that we vote on.
It makes me not care about voting at all tbh. And PR would be great of course, but still encourage parties to create different policies to market their offering because the goal is to get votes. Even if those are popularist and go against the interests of the voter they appeal to. It is still primarily based on marketing to the vote, isn’t it?
This is just an avenue of thinking and likely entirely impractical, but if we want PR mainly because it is a lot better than what we have, what is the ideal if we were creating from scratch with today’s technologies and true democratic equality in mind?
Why parties?
Because without them it would be nigh on impossible to work out who to vote for
I hate to say it, but rosettes help
@Phil Lanch
“STV … is not even fully proportional: if you have constituencies electing 5-6 members, a party needs to poll about 10-15%+ before it gets a fair number of seats”
This is a common, and plausible-sounding, argument, but if you look at data on real elections under STV (e.g. the Irish parliament or the Northern ireland Assembly) you find that in practice minor parties do much better than this, getting their fair share of seats even when their national support is 5% or lower. The main reasons for this are variability across constituencies, and the transfer system whereby a candidate whose first preferences are only around half the number needed for election still has a fair chance of election. Dual-member systems as implemented are usually significantly less proportional. For example in the Welsh parliament, one party (Labour) has got 50% of the seats on three occasions, each time with around 36% of the vote.
I’ve written this up in a paper called `Fair votes in practice’ – https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.15310
(see especially section 5 on `Proportionality and thresholds’).
Thanks
Denis, I take your point about STV being more proportional in practice than one might expect.
However, the dual-member PR system I referred to is not quite the same as the mixed member proportional (MMP) system used by the Welsh Assembly among others. It is *somewhat* like a MMP system with 50% of the seats elected by FPTP constituencies and the other 50% by a list top-up to achieve proportionality, but differs by dispensing with the need for a party list and instead selecting the top-up members based on who was nearest to winning in the constituency vote, with one top-up member per constituency.
Dual-member PR therefore has some similar advantages to STV, compared to MMP systems: all members are elected by a local constituency, and there is no central party control via a priority list.
It has the advantage over STV that constituencies can be smaller (2 members, rather than c. 3-5), and that it respects the dislike I believe people have for ranked-choice voting (the latter being my interpretation of the anti-AV referendum result).
(I think we know that the Welsh Assembly’s version of MMP has problems with proportionality because it has only 1/3 of the members elected as top-ups, and does the top-ups regionally instead of for Wales as a whole.)
Thanks for the info about `dual representation’; I can see what it’s trying to do, but in addressing some of the flaws of MMP it introduces others. But if you’d like to take this technical digression further do get in touch (www.macs.hw.ac.uk/~denis).
Thank you for this Richard. Not many of your posts get 39 or more responses! The urgent need for voting reform is established. Does a succinct comparison of the alternative possibilities exist? – something similar to the ‘Taxing Wealth Report’.
Not from me.
Has the Electoral Reform Society done one?
Does a succinct comparison of the alternative possibilities exist?
The paper `Fair votes in practice’ (https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.15310) tries to do this, but since it covers the whole process from basic principles to practical schemes it’s not succinct!
The page https://www.lder.org/the-change-we-want links to some shorter papers which are probably closer to what you want.
Thanks