The Labour Party has an uneasy relationship with electoral reform. Few postwar leaders have prioritised it, and the relationship is even more complicated for those who became prime minister. Despite overseeing a radical programme of social change, Clement Attlee – often seen as the architect of modern Labour – showed little interest in changing the voting system. Nor did Harold Wilson or James Callaghan.
Tony Blair promised a referendum on electoral reform and established the Jenkins Commission to explore alternatives to first past the post. But the commission’s recommendation of a new system ultimately lost momentum, and no referendum was held. In early 2020 Keir Starmer criticised the UK’s archaic voting system as frontrunner for the Labour leadership in early 2020, but has been quiet on the matter as Prime Minister.
Attlee, Blair and Starmer all won Labour commanding parliamentary majorities. But for Blair and Attlee, two-party politics was a secure norm. Considering the scale of the majorities delivered by first past the post in 1945 and 1997, it is unsurprising that talk of voting reform was neglected. Things are different for Starmer. Two-party dominance has weakened and a more fragmented, multi-party electoral landscape appears to be ascendant. In the Gorton and Denton by-election, Labour fought tooth and nail to maintain control of what was once a safe seat. The party eventually lost out to the insurgent Green Party, coming third behind Reform. Throughout the campaign, tactical voting was encouraged – the result, while unusual, illustrates the growing volatility in previously safe seats.
Experts have suggested that such results expose a fraying contract between the British electoral system and its voters. In commentary on electoral trust, Hannah White, chief executive of the Institute for Government, wrote: “If casting a vote starts to feel more like participating in a lottery than making a positive and principled decision, then voters are going to become ever more frustrated. This is dangerous.”
Backed by robust majorities, Attlee and Blair could afford to be reticent when it came to reforming the system. With greater electoral turbulence on the horizon, the question is whether Starmer can afford to do the same.
A small but determined group within the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) believes the answer is no. Supported by campaign organisations such as Labour for a New Democracy, MPs from across Labour’s ideological spectrum are increasingly vocal on the issue. Two of its most prominent advocates are Alex Sobel, chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Fair Elections, and Luke Akehurst. Factionally, the pair are opposites: Akehurst comes from the party’s traditional right, while Sobel is associated with the soft left. But on electoral reform, they are aligned.
Akehurst joined Labour’s campaign for electoral reform in 1990. “Even back then, in the 1990s, it was difficult to intellectually justify first past the post,” he said. “It would throw up perverse results where you could win on a nationally low vote share.” 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 Labour and the Conservatives. With the Green Party of England and Wales, Liberal Democrats and Reform UK all gaining ground, that assumption is becoming harder to sustain. Sobel agrees. “It’s basically a 19th century system,” he said. “It sort of worked when we had two main parties.”
The view that the UK’s electoral system needs to change is not uncommon in Westminster. The APPG for Fair Elections is the largest APPG in parliament, and draws support from across parties. Neil Kinnock – once cautious on the issue – became more sympathetic to reform over time, particularly as the distortions of elections like the 1983 general election became clear. Among Labour members, support is even stronger: around two-thirds back a move to proportional representation.
Sobel’s APPG has called for a national commission to examine the voting system and present options for reform. As he put it, such a body “might find that first past the post is the best system – and we would 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, the Labour 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 from a political point of view, the timeline is perfect,” he said, “before the next election, we can either adopt it or we can say we will adopt it… I think politically that’s a sound move. And on a moral basis, it’s just the right thing to do.”
Opher pointed out that in 2024, Labour won a majority with 33 per cent of the vote. “It’s the most disproportionate election we’ve had,” he said. “But more worryingly for me, is that Reform is on the cusp of getting 31-32 per cent,” Opher added. (Current polling places Reform on around 28 per cent). “The trouble with first past the post is it suddenly flips against you. And what you could be looking at is an extreme right-wing government with a majority.”
The 2024 general election has added weight to these arguments. Labour secured a large majority on roughly a third of the vote – the Electoral Reform Society has claimed this result is the most “disproportional in British electoral history”. Some MPs worry that the same system could, under different circumstances, deliver similarly distorted results in favour of other parties. The volatility of first past the post, they argue, cuts both ways.
Yet resistance remains. Some Labour MPs fear that proportional systems could enable smaller or more extreme parties to gain a foothold in government. Others see electoral reform as a lower priority compared to more immediate challenges.
There are also cultural barriers. As Akehurst notes, the debate around electoral reform within Labour has historically been fraught. “The language around it was horrible. It was really divisive,” he said. “If you called for electoral reform you would be called a traitor or a secret Lib Dem.” 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.”
Has Gorton and Denton shifted things? Scott Arthur, another APPG member and the MP for Edinburgh South West said that while he is in favour of eventual reform “it would be wrong to introduce PR to deal with a current electoral problem.” In response to such a damaging result for Labour, members of the PLP are instead putting their focus elsewhere. According to Beccy Cooper, the MP for Worthing West and a member of the executive of the newly revived soft-left group Tribune, the result in Manchester “doesn’t seem to be shifting the dial”.
She explained the party’s focus is more on where Labour positions itself to deal with the growing threat of Reform and the Greens. “There’s a reactive conversation about positioning Labour in its current form,” she said, “how is the voice of the progressive left within the Labour Party making 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 that is part of a progressive mindset.”
Even so, the current Labour leadership is showing little sign of movement on making a major constitutional change like reforming the UK’s voting system. None of the current members of the cabinet have voiced outright support. As Sobel pointed out, at the moment, Starmer and his team have a lot more pressing things to deal with – the war in Iran, spiking energy prices, immigration and the cost of living – so electoral reform is unlikely to be at the top of the list.
But Sobel has not given up hope. He added: “The government is going to have to reckon with it sooner or later.” With the May elections looming, and the possibility of more damaging results to come, a pro-PR campaign is building within the Parliamentary Labour Party. Each MP involved is convinced that it won’t be long until something has to give.
[Further reading: Inside Labour’s escalating immigration feud]
Content from our partners
Related
Join the debate
Subscribe here to commentgreat piece – worth noting that despite not having voiced support while in government, there are multiple frontbench members who have previously thrown their weight behind electoral reform! Jonathan Reynolds, Darren Jones, David Lammy, Ed Miliband, and Lucy Powell to name a few