The average seat hasn’t changed hands since the 1960s
How democratic is Britain? On the face of it, pretty democratic. We tick all the boxes: fair elections, a free press, free speech and assembly, the right to petition and more. But look a little deeper, and there are massive political inequalities that mean the UK is far from as democratic as it could be.
Most of us instinctively know this – that some people have far more of a say than others. And of course, nowhere is perfect. But the cracks in our democracy need dealing with soon if we are not to become democratic in name only, according to a new report by the Institute for Public Policy Research on our ‘Divided Democracy’.
Unfair odds
The cracks are clear to see. In 2010, it took over 33,000 votes to elect a Labour MP, 35,000 for a Conservative and nearly 120,000 to elect a Lib Dem. UKIP got nearly a million votes and no MPs, while the Greens got over a quarter of a million and just one representative. In the process, millions of voters were written off by the disproportionality of the voting system. The fact that some votes are worth much more than others should raise alarms bells.
Nowhere is this more evident than in ‘safe seats’ – constituencies where the same party has been elected for decades, with little chance of them being challenged. In the 2010 General election, the Electoral Reform Society were able to call the winners in nearly 400 of Britain’s safe seats. Out of a list of 382 MPs we got two wrong. This election we’ve predicted a similar number of seats. Sadly, it looks like we’ll be mostly right again.
The average seat hasn’t changed hands since the 1960s, while some haven’t switched party since the reign of Queen Victoria. Holding a seat this long means parties build up major incumbency factors, and other parties give up on fighting for them.
The result of this is that parties focus on the small number of marginal seats – while the rest of us are ignored. It’s a postcode lottery – and like most lotteries, most people end up losing.
There are other ways our democracy is stacked in favour of some voters more than others. Between 2001 and 2010, just 224 donations from 60 sources made up nearly 40 per cent of the three main parties’ donation income. This raises inevitable suspicions about donors buying influence. Three-quarters think big donors have too much influence, and 61 per cent believe the whole party funding system is corrupt and should be changed.
These problems are reflected in people’s attitudes to our democracy. According to IPPR’s research, just one in four people from ‘DE’ (traditionally working-class) backgrounds think our democracy serves their interests well, half the figure for more middle-class AB individuals. Participation in democracy is still greatly weighted by class and age, something which can only damage the policy agenda.
At the same time, formal participation in politics has collapsed (perhaps with the notable exception of Scotland). Just one per cent of the population now belong to political parties, a quarter of the figure 50 years ago, while turnout among the young in particular has plummeted – a trend that is set to continue. And when certain groups don’t vote, it’s likely that they’ll be ignored by policy-makers.
It doesn’t have to be this way. These political inequalities are unusual by European standards – most advanced democracies have far higher levels of participation in politics among the young and a far smaller voting gap between demographics.
Where do we go from here?
Improving our democracy and levelling the playing field therefore requires modernising the way we do things. So, some solutions.
In this multi-party era, we need a fair electoral system where everyone’s votes count equally. We need a say over who votes on our laws – instead of leaving much of it to unelected Lords. And we need a cleaner party funding system, so people aren’t put off by the suspicion that donors are buying influence.
All of these are just a start, of course. Democracy can and should go much deeper. In the wake of the Scottish independence referendum, we need to have a UK-wide conversation about where power should lie. And for democracy to flourish, that conversation must be led by citizens. A ‘Constitutional Convention’ of citizens discussing the future of our democracy would be a great way to lay out a clear path for reform.
The IPPR’s next report will set out their own response to the problem of political inequality. But we all have to start taking the problems with our democracy seriously. We need to see real reform of our system in order to meet the promise which democracy makes to its citizens.
Josiah Mortimer is communications assistant at the Electoral Reform Society. Follow him on Twitter
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
45 Responses to “Our ‘democracy’ is stacked in favour of certain voters”
Gary Scott
People often forget that we had a referendum on proportional representation. The LibDems didn’t persuade the public.
Now, with the possibility of EVEL and how that would translate across to the Lords, we have a crisis. England COULD have dedicated representatives dealing with England specific legislation. This would leave both the Commons and Lords to deal with those matters reserved to Westminster. The risk of doing this, for the government, is that you could find an English Chamber produced very different political make up than for Westminster!!
However, keeping the power for England in the Commons gives disproportionately LESS power in Westminster to parties depending on votes outside England, like, for example, the Labour Party.
So rather than being about parity or fairness its about power – again. English MPs retaining powers that none of the rest of the UK have means retaining power for the Tories…
ForeignRedTory
You are conflating Democracy and Liberalism.
Does the largest minority get the first and the last word or not
Political inequality has nothing to do with Democracy – that is merely a been in the bonnet of liberalism. Democracy does not require liberal values, and indeed it is better than there should be no toleration of liberal values.
Having said all that, PR is a good idea,and long overdue.
ForeignRedTory
EVEL, just like devolution, is treason towards the principle of Centralism, and should not be tolerated at all.
The Conxervative Party is stooping towards the same mentality as Sin Fein and the SNP – curses be upon them.
Chris Oakley
We did not have a referendum on proportional representation. We had one on STV because the complexity of that approach gave the Tories and Labour more opportunity to bamboozle the public into retaining FPTP, which favours the Tories and the Labour party. Our system is hopelessly undemocratic and calculated to maintain a two party state.
If we look at Scotland, under PR the majority vote would go to the left be it Labour or SNP but the Tories would be better represented than they are now. In England the Greens and Ukip would have more seats than they do now, The government would almost certainly be a coalition but one based on the genuine beliefs of the electorate rather than tactical voting.
PR is fairer and encourages people to vote based on their principles. The impact on the increasingly despised two party system we have at present should not be an obstacle to more inclusive politics.
Leon Wolfeson
What? Plenty of democracies have checks and balances against the tyrrany of both the majority and the minority. The UK lacks many of them, and PR is one of the important ones – if done right (i.e. MMP) then it even helps both ways.
Find me a democracy where there’s actual voter choice where liberal values don’t exist!
(One great example of “democracy” without liberal values and thus voter choice is Russia)