The Labor Party has an uneasy relationship with electoral reform. Few postwar leaders have prioritized it, and the relationship is even more complicated for those who became prime ministers. Despite overseeing a radical program of social change, Clement Attlee – often seen as the architect of modern Labor – showed little interest in changing the voting system. Neither did Harold Wilson or James Callaghan.
Tony Blair promised a referendum on electoral reform and set up the Jenkins Commission to explore alternatives to first passing the post. But the commission’s recommendation for a new system at the end lost momentumand no referendum was held. In early 2020, Keir Starmer criticized the UK’s archaic voting system as a candidate for the Labor leadership in early 2020, but has been quiet on the issue as Prime Minister.
Attlee, Blair and Starmer all won Labour’s commanding parliamentary majority. But for Blair and Attlee, two-party politics was the safe norm. Considering the scale of the majorities delivered by the inception of office in 1945 and 1997, it is not surprising that talk of voting reform was neglected. Things are different for Starmer. Two-party dominance has weakened and a more fragmented and multi-party electoral landscape appears to be on the rise. In the Gorton and Denton by-election, Labor fought tooth and nail to retain control of what was once a safe seat. The party eventually lost to the insurgent Green Party, coming third behind Reform. Throughout the campaign, tactical voting was encouraged – the result, while unusual, illustrates the growing instability in previously safe seats.
Experts have suggested that such results expose a crumbling contract between Britain’s electoral system and its voters. Commenting on electoral confidence, Hannah White, chief executive of the Institute for Government, has written: “If voting starts to feel more like participating in a lottery than making a positive and principled decision, then voters will become increasingly frustrated. That’s dangerous.”
Subscribe to the New Statesman today and save 75%
Backed by a powerful majority, Attlee and Blair can afford to be reserved when it comes to reforming the system. With more election turbulence on the horizon, the question is whether Starmer can afford to do the same.
A small but determined group within the Parliamentary Labor Party (PLP) believes the answer is no. Backed by campaigning organizations such as Labor for a New Democracy, MPs from across Labour’s ideological spectrum are increasingly vocal on the issue. Two of his most prominent advocates are Alex Sobel, chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Fair Elections, and Luke Akehurst. Fractionally, the pair are polar opposites: Akehurst comes from the traditional right of the party, while Sobel is associated with the soft left. But for the electoral reform, they are one-sided.
Akehurst joined Labour’s campaign for electoral reform in 1990. “Even then, in the 1990s, it was difficult to justify intellectually first in office,” he said. “It would produce perverse results where you could win with a low percentage of the vote nationally.” The system, he argued, worked best when British politics was defined by two dominant parties – first the Whigs and Tories, then the Liberals and Conservatives, and later Labor and the Conservatives. With the Green Party of England and Wales, the Liberal Democrats and UK Reform all gaining ground, this assumption is becoming harder to sustain. Sobel agrees. “It’s basically a 19th century system,” he said. “It kind of worked when we had two major parties.”
The view that the UK’s electoral system needs to change is not uncommon in Westminster. APPG for Fair Elections is The largest APPG in parliamentand receives support from all parties. Neil Kinnock – once cautious on the issue – became more sympathetic to reform over time, especially when electoral distortions such as the 1983 general election became clear. Among Labor members, support is even stronger: all around two thirds support a move towards proportional representation.
Sobel’s APPG has called for a national commission to review the voting system and present options for reform. As he said, such a body “may find that first post is the best system – and we will have to accept that”. Others argue that now is a politically opportune moment to act, with enough time before the next general election to consider implementing changes or committing to them. Simon Opher, Labor MP for Stroud, who is a member of the APPG, said now is the perfect time for the Government to set one up. “I think it’s clear politically, the timing is perfect,” he said, “before the next election, we can either pass it or we can say we’re going to pass it… I think politically it’s a sound move. And morally, it’s the right thing to do.”
Opher noted that in 2024, Labor won a majority with 33 per cent of the vote. “It’s the most disproportionate election we’ve had,” he said. “But more worrying for me, is that Reforma is on the verge of getting 31-32 percent,” Opher added. (Current polling places Reform ca 28 percent). “The problem with the first post is that it suddenly turns against you. And what you could be looking at is a majority far-right government.”
The 2024 general elections have added weight to these arguments. Labor secured a large majority with around a third of the vote – the Electoral Reform Society has claimed this result was the most “disproportionate in British electoral history”. Some MPs worry that the same system, under different circumstances, could produce similar skewed results in favor of other parties. The instability of the starting post, they argue, cuts both ways.
However, resistance remains. Some Labor MPs fear proportional systems could enable smaller or more extreme parties to gain a foothold in government. Others see electoral reform as a lower priority than more immediate challenges.
There are also cultural barriers. As Akehurst notes, the debate about electoral reform within Labor has historically been fraught. “The language around it was terrible. It was really divisive,” he said. “If you called for electoral reform, you would be called a traitor or a secret Libyan.” That hostility has faded, but it has been replaced, he argues, by a degree of complacency. “The tone isn’t there anymore – but the intensity isn’t either.”
Have Gorton and Denton changed things? Scott Arthur, another APPG member and MP for Edinburgh South West said that while he was in favor of eventual reform “it would be wrong to introduce PR to deal with an actual electoral problem”. In response to such a damaging result for Labour, PLP members are turning their focus elsewhere. According to Beccy Cooper, MP for Worthing West and a member of the executive of the resurgent soft-left Tribune group, the result in Manchester “doesn’t seem to change the number”.
She explained that the party’s focus is more on where Labor is positioned to deal with the growing threat of Reform and the Greens. “There is a reactive conversation about the positioning of Labor in its current form,” she said, “as the voice of the progressive left within the Labor Party makes a good argument that can be heard among progressive voters.” But she added that “being a responsible and progressive government means promoting electoral reform, because I think this is part of a progressive mindset”.
However, the current Labor leadership is showing little sign of moving to make a major constitutional change such as reforming the UK’s voting system. None of the current cabinet members have expressed full support. As Sobel noted, right now, Starmer and his team have more pressing things to deal with — the war in Iran, high energy prices, immigration and the cost of living — so election reform is unlikely to be at the top of the list.
But Sobel hasn’t given up hope. He added: “The government will have to reckon with him sooner or later.” With the May election looming and the possibility of more damaging results to come, a pro-PR campaign is building within the Parliamentary Labor Party. Every MP involved is convinced that it won’t be long until something has to give.
(Further reading: Inside Labour’s escalating immigration row)
Content from our partners
