The art of nuance, compromise and cooperation in Westminster is now sadly more absent than ever.

Sarah Olney is the Lib Dem MP for Richmond Park

Partisanship and party polarisation have never been more apparent in this country, and with a media rhetoric that pitches left against right to a seemingly unprecedented extent, perhaps the system we use to elect our government should shoulder some of the blame.

The Liberal Democrats’ long-held desire to adopt a proportional voting system is no secret, the party has continually achieved a significantly higher overall percentage of the vote than it has the total number of seats won. Most strikingly, a 23% national vote share in the 2010 General Election returned a mere 8.8% of MPs.

This result, although good enough to bring the Lib Dems into Government, led many to conclude that in a campaign where Nick Clegg had been considered as a potential Prime Minister, his party’s 201 fewer seats than Labour, despite achieving only 5% less of the vote, showed that the ability for the third largest party to win would always be stunted by the UK’s electoral system.

These calls for change have almost always fallen on deaf ears. Despite a referendum on changing our current ‘First Past the Post’ (FPTP) system to the ‘Alternative Vote’ system in 2011, the old argument that FPTP is the simplest and easiest way of electing a strong government with a clear mandate continued to maintain a strong section of public support, and the measure failed.

However, things are beginning to change.

In an era where the Government is increasingly adopting ideological and polarising policies, and operates with a large majority that negates the need to facilitate any form of bipartisanship, many voters are starting to feel their views are simply not being represented in Westminster.

Increasingly, public support for a proportional system of voting is becoming evident. YouGov polling from March 2022 showed that 44% of voters support the idea of a system which would directly translate the percentage of votes into an equal percentage of seats, even if this came at the expense of a majority Government. This figure has remained largely stable over the previous two years, and shows a clear divide between the 27% of people who believe that the current system should be retained.

Further, unlike much political debate in the modern era, this issue cannot be explicitly categorised as ‘young vs old’. Of those aged 25-49, 44% of individuals in favour of a proportional system can be contrasted with just 20% who support FPTP.

There are likely to be many reasons for this, however the disconnect between our increasingly polarising Government and a general public who are desperate to move past the divisive rhetoric and onto the real issues is likely a significant contributing factor.

In addition to the public support behind the change, the movement is beginning to pick up support from powerful figures across the two major parties. Most notable amongst these was the Mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham, who in May 2021 publicly issued his support for the implementation of proportional representation in Westminster elections.

Burnham’s reasoning was, as expected, due to his strong feeling that the FPTP system means that hundreds of MPs do not have competitive seats, which diminishes their desire to focus on local issues, and allows party whips to exercise greater control.

This support is quite something, as Burnham’s own Labour Party have traditionally benefited from the current system. In 2005, Tony Blair’s Government won 35% of the vote, yet took 55% of the seats, and were able to form a strong majority Government, despite achieving only 3% more of the vote than the Conservatives.

What has changed since then however, is the tone of British politics.  

This has been long in the making, and the years of debate surrounding the most divisive of issues – Britain’s exit from the European Union – have arguably been the catalyst for this problem.

Two sides were drawn, and for a four-year period after June 2016, most political debates were drawn in a binary context, a clear ‘leave’ or ‘remain’. However, this did not end with the finalisation of Brexit, and has seeped into the rest of our dialogue. The art of nuance, compromise and cooperation in Westminster is now sadly more absent than ever.

The solution, however, could be right in front of us.

If the 2019 General Election had been held using a proportional system, the Conservatives would have won 43% of seats, Labour 32% and the Liberal Democrats 11%. This would have precipitated a completely different political landscape than the Parliament we have today.

Compromise would be needed, and if not in the form of a coalition, at least in the form of opposition votes to pass legislation.

This would have an impact not only in developing more measured policy, but it would also likely improve the conduct of MPs. Representatives would be forced to feel the mood of the country significantly more acutely, with the age of safe seats, immune to public opinion, over.

This is something which, with a recent spate of damning cases of misconduct, has likely also deepened the disconnect between the public and their elected representatives, fuelling calls for a change in the electoral system.

The idea of using a proportional system to elect our Members of Parliament has therefore moved from being the far-fetched dream of smaller parties with diverse support, into the mainstream of public opinion.

If we are serious about cleaning up our politics, making our representatives more accountable, and giving a greater voice to the majority of the public, the implementation of proportional representation is the answer.

Comments are closed.