 |
| Andy Burnham (Photo: politics.co.uk) |
For Liberal Democrats, Andy Burnham’s announcement of a National Commission on Electoral Reform deserves a welcome that is both enthusiastic and demanding. Enthusiastic because a sitting Labour prime minister has publicly challenged the electoral system that delivered his party its parliamentary majority. Demanding because we know how easily promises of reform can become commissions, reports and eventual silence.
Burnham’s warning about a divisive government entering Downing Street on less than 30% of the vote identifies a fundamental democratic danger. We know exactly what he is referring to and that risk is real. His proposed commission, invitation to other parties and commitment to fight the next election on changing the electoral system create a significant opportunity although, ironically, postponing implementation until after another election leaves the country exposed to precisely the risk he describes.
We should therefore welcome the announcement for what it is: a statement of intention. The task now is to turn a prime minister’s conviction into a commitment that his party, his government and his successors cannot quietly abandon.
How Labour reached this point
The Liberal argument for proportional representation has always started with voters. Their influence should not depend on where they live, whether they support a locally competitive party or whether they are willing to vote tactically. Parliament should broadly reflect the choices the country makes.
The 2024 general election illustrated how poorly FPTP serves the nation. Labour won 411 seats on 33.7% of the vote. Reform UK received 14.3% and won five seats; the Greens won four. These were the results of an electoral system struggling to represent a country whose political choices had become much more diverse.
Labour’s historic attachment to that system was understandable in terms of party advantage. Its ambition was to replace the Conservatives as the sole governing party, secure a Commons majority and implement its programme. Sharing power could consequently look like surrendering the means of achieving social change.
Yet Labour has never been uniformly hostile to reform in the way the Conservatives have. John Smith committed the party to a referendum, and Labour’s 1997 manifesto promised one, preceded by an independent commission recommending a proportional alternative. The Jenkins Commission followed. Later, grassroots campaigners and trade unionists helped secure Labour conference’s support for PR in 2022.
Burnham’s announcement therefore represents the convergence of two forces: a long campaign within the Labour movement and a changed calculation about how Labour can survive and govern. Reformers have supplied the democratic argument. The fragmentation of British politics has made it harder for the leadership to dismiss it as it has become undeniable that our politics has changed beyond the two-party dominance of the past..
The threat that changed the calculation
Andy Burnham may not have mentioned them by name, but the threat from Reform UK is central to that change. Burnham’s warning makes sense because FPTP offers no guarantee that Labour will necessarily benefit from its distortions. A system that magnifies Labour’s support today can magnify Reform’s tomorrow; indeed, only a year ago, opinion polls were giving Reform 367 seats. The machinery that once reassured Labour now presents a danger.
That is the political significance of this announcement: Labour’s leadership appears finally to recognise that retaining FPTP no longer reliably serves its own interests. Political institutions rarely change simply because those benefiting from them discover an abstract principle. They change when principle, public pressure and political necessity align. That does not invalidate reform; it may, however, make delivery more likely.
What should replace FPTP?
Labour has indicated that it will preserve the link between MPs and their constituencies, which is reasonable. It should inform the commission’s work, but it must not become an excuse for ruling out meaningful proportionality.
My preference, unsurprisingly, is the single transferable vote (STV). The result is broadly proportional representation combined with considerable choice between individual candidates. STV has a particularly liberal virtue: voters can choose between candidates from the same party as well as between parties. An effective local representative can earn support personally. Party allegiance need not determine every preference on the ballot. The fact that STV is used in local elections in Scotland, is understood and is widely felt to work well, should give it an advantage.
It also preserves a constituency relationship. Constituencies would be larger and represented by several MPs, which requires careful attention to geography and accessibility. But voters would gain a choice of representatives, with a better chance that at least one reflected their outlook. A constituency link need not mean one MP monopolising representation for an entire community.
The alternative vote, or AV, retains single-member constituencies. Voters rank candidates, and the lowest-ranked candidates are successively eliminated, with votes transferred until somebody obtains a majority of the continuing votes. There is some merit to this approach, but it is not proportional representation (Nick Clegg famously referred to it as a “miserable little compromise”).
The additional member system, or AMS, combines constituency representatives with members elected from party lists to compensate for disproportional constituency results. Voters normally have separate constituency and party votes. It offers Labour an obvious route to retaining single-member constituencies while making the overall result more proportional. We also have experience of this in Scotland which I personally feel offers the worst of two systems (FPTP and the closed list system with the D’Hondt method, which was used for UK European elections and also for elections to the Senedd). It has, however, provided reasonably proportionate results.
The supplementary vote (SV) allows first and second preferences. It is used for electing regional mayors and Police and Crime Commissioners. It is a preferential voting system but certainly not a proportional one. It’s fine for selecting one office holder but not really fit-for-purpose in relation to producing a proportionally representative legislature.
The commission must establish clearly whether its purpose is preferential or proportional representation or whether it is considering both. I would hope that a National Commission on Electoral Reform would focus on proportionality, and it is the responsibility of Lib Dems and those in other parties who are committed to PR to press for this. The preferential systems mentioned all represent an improvement on FPTP but they are not proportional; selecting one of these would be to miss an opportunity for further-reaching and more meaningful reform..
Why believe Labour this time?
Liberal Democrat scepticism has a substantial historical basis. Tony Blair’s government established the Jenkins Commission, which recommended AV-plus: most MPs elected through AV in constituencies, supplemented by a smaller number of compensatory members. Its recommendations were not implemented, and the promised referendum did not happen.
Many of us felt let down by Labour and by Tony Blair personally. We felt that Labour could simply not be trusted to support something that worked against its vested interest in the status quo. Establishing a commission is compatible with allowing reform to disappear.
The stronger argument for believing Burnham is that the political incentives have changed. Labour can no longer confidently assume that FPTP will deliver a contest in which it is the principal alternative to the Conservatives. Reform, the Greens, Liberal Democrats and nationalist parties make that assumption increasingly precarious. Indeed, I would argue there is no realistic way that UK politics can return to two-party dominance.
Burnham also has an established record of supporting reform. His position is consistent with views expressed before entering Downing Street, rather than a concession first extracted through coalition negotiations. That gives his announcement additional credibility.
Credibility, however, is not permanence. A future Labour leader could reverse the policy, dilute it into a non-proportional alternative or postpone it indefinitely. Even Burnham might face pressure to retreat if Labour’s electoral prospects improved.
The answer is that Burnham is more likely to be trusted if he makes reform institutionally and politically durable. The commission needs an independent chair, transparent membership, public evidence and a firm reporting deadline. Citizens should participate alongside parties and specialists, in much the same way as the Scottish Constitutional Convention. Its work should lead to a specific proposal and an implementation timetable.
Labour should adopt that commitment through its own decision-making structures, rather than leaving it dependent on the leader’s personal enthusiasm. Ministers should explain what preparation can happen before the next election, including work on legislation, boundaries and electoral administration.
Liberal Democrats, Greens and other reform-supporting parties should take part constructively while maintaining public pressure. Labour MPs committed to PR have a particularly important responsibility to ensure that the promise survives internal resistance and any leadership change. Campaign organisations can help build a public constituency for reform that extends beyond Westminster.
We should also challenge the delay. If the danger is urgent, the government must explain why another election under first past the post is unavoidable. A future manifesto commitment is progress, but it leaves open the possibility that the next election prevents the promised change from ever happening.
A different political culture
The most far-reaching question is whether Labour accepts what proportional representation would mean for its political identity. I do not profess to know the answer to that particular question.
For Labour, accepting that the era of winning huge majorities on the back of less than 40% of the vote – or, indeed, the likelihood of winning a majority at all – is a thing of the past would require a cultural shift. Other progressive parties would have to be treated as legitimate representatives of voters, rather than inconvenient obstacles to Labour’s rightful majority. Negotiation would become an ordinary part of democratic government. Coalitions would become the norm. Is Labour ready for this?
Liberal Democrats must approach that change with equal seriousness. Cooperation should not mean becoming an automatic Labour accessory. We would retain our own policies, challenge Labour where necessary and negotiate openly where agreement was possible. The experience of coalition also makes us alert to the need for clear commitments and accountability.
In my judgment, this is the most positive statement about proportional representation made by a serving prime minister – and that includes the coalition years. This is why Liberals should feel positive about Burnham’s announcement. Blair offered a process but never demonstrated the commitment needed to carry it through. Cameron conceded an AV referendum through the coalition agreement and opposed the change; voters rejected AV in 2011. Burnham is making reform part of his own argument about how Britain should be governed.
The opportunity is greater because Labour’s democratic reformers now have a prime minister whose convictions appear aligned with his party’s changing interests. That alignment gives us reasonable grounds for optimism.
Our response should be to welcome the promise, argue confidently for STV and help build the pressure and cooperation needed to secure delivery. After decades of campaigning, fair votes have gained a powerful advocate in Downing Street. Liberals should recognise the significance of that moment—and work to make it last.
