The debate on proportional representation in the Commons last Thursday was all fairly predictable, with few Conservatives bothering to turn up, and Labour MPs as likely to defend first past the post as not, but it was interesting that while several speakers mentioned the experience of other countries, usually in apocalyptic tones like Israel, none mentioned New Zealand.
In an article for the politics.co.uk website in 2023, Tim Bale, Professor of Politics at Queen Mary University of London, once a New Zealand voter himself, advised advocates of proportional representation in the UK to manage their expectations of it; namely that if they think it will benefit the Liberal Democrats, they should think again, if New Zealand’s experience is anything to go by.
The problem with this is that comparing New Zealand to the UK is not really comparing like with like. Granted, New Zealand is a Commonwealth common law Westminster-style parliamentary democracy, but it is much smaller in population, with a much smaller parliament even for its size, and a single-chamber one at that; few remember that an upper house, the appointed Legislative Council, existed before 1950, the only purpose its chamber now serves is for MPs, summoned by Black Rod from the House of Representatives, to attend the Speech from the Throne.
Consequently, a third party of any description never had much presence in a single-chamber parliament elected by first past the post, with no more than 99 members; despite getting nearly 21 per cent of the vote in 1981, the Social Credit Party failed to get more than two MPs elected. Indeed, even in Australia, where the Senate is elected by the Single Transferable Vote, as are the Legislative Councils in most of the states that still have one, smaller parties have risen and fallen, the Australian Democrats being a prime example, having been eclipsed by the Greens.
As a result, when proportional representation was introduced, it was to the benefit of maverick MPs in the main two parties, like Roger Douglas in Labour, a free marketeer Finance Minister, who formed ACT (which originally stood for Association of Consumers and Taxpayers). Or Winston Peters in National, who formed New Zealand First, a populist drawing support from older socially conservative voters, who has been a kingmaker in forming coalition governments, on and off, since 1996.
But the UK? Leaving aside its retention of a second chamber, albeit still an appointed one, having a much larger population and much larger elected chamber benefits third parties, and regional or nationalist ones, all of which have outlived breakaway parties like Change UK (remember them?). While Reform UK, like Liberal Democrats before it, complains about its disproportionately small number of seats, neither party would have to worry about being eclipsed by breakaway parties were proportional voting introduced here.
If there is a Westminster-style democracy we should look to for comparisons, it is Canada, as third parties, and regional parties, have had a much stronger presence, not only did the Bloc Québécois become Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition in the House of Commons after the Tories were wiped out in 1993, but later, so did a party in the western provinces by the name of Reform.
Yes, Nigel Farage called his new party that intentionally, mindful that its Canadian namesake merged with what were once called Progressive Conservatives, if not taking them over; the present Tory leader Pierre Poilievre, and his predecessor, former Prime Minister Stephen Harper, both came from Reform, whose culture has been described as one based on anger, resentment and dogmatism.
Adopting a proportional system in the UK would not necessarily weaken the populist right, the rise of the AfD in Germany giving the lie to that, but it could thwart a Canadian-style bid to ‘unite the right’; if Reform UK had a presence in parliament proportionate to its share of the vote, it would have less incentive to merge with the Conservatives, who might prefer their rivals outside their tent spitting in
than have them inside their tent spitting out, even as a coalition partner.
While a poor general election result under proportional representation wouldn’t banish Reform UK from parliament completely, as those in 2008 and 2020 did New Zealand First, it would be a reflection on its track record in government; at least Winston Peters, unlike Nigel Farage, served as a minister before setting up his own party, even if he was later sacked!
* Ken Westmoreland is a member of the Taunton and Wellington Local Party.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Has the time come for the United Kingdom to reconsider who its true allies are?
Cat Stevens: Matthew & Son
The prince is no pauper
Fleuchar Street #dundeewestend
How to explain, and beat, populism
nigel hunter
Joseph Bourke
Slamdac
Nigel Quinton
22 Comments
One of the crucial argument for PR is that would prevent a “Majority” Reform Government being Elected on a quarter of the Vote.
That is an argument for much later in this Parliament, The Reform bubble could burst before then.
Indeed, when I wrote this, there was talk in the media about Reform UK eclipsing the Tories, but if a week is a long time in politics, a full parliamentary term is even longer, with a lot happening in the interim.
The SDP-Liberal Alliance won 25.4% of the national vote in the 1983 general election, compared to Labour’s 27.6%, but that was in an election under first past the post, so only got 23 MPs. On the other hand, New Zealand’s three breakaway parties, New Zealand First, ACT and Alliance (now Greens) have never got more than 19%, often polling much less, but benefited from a proportional system.
Closer to home, the FDP in Germany, a ‘classical liberal’ party, has never got more than 15% of the vote in federal elections, but again, under a proportional system, they’ve always had enough seats to act as kingmakers.
All I want out of a voting system is that, provided any party -and I mean ANY party – can get the number of seats its proportion of the popular vote entitles it to, that’s fine by me. By some quirk of the system, the Lib Dems actually got more or less the percentage of seats to which their support entitled them last time. The same could not be said for Reform and that is wrong. The threshold for representation should be 5%, which is something the German FDP May struggle to reach in the forthcoming national elections.
@Ken Westmoreland
As regards the ‘pro business’ FDP (often called ‘das Zünglein auf der Waage’) it hasn’t always managed to overcome the 5% threshold and rarely gets any directly elected MPs, relying almost exclusively on MPs ‘elected’ by PR from regional party lists.
This is the problem with PR though, isn’t it? We have become as a party so fixated on the idea of PR that we have essentially become blind to any other alternative; even to the point of disregarding the warnings other countries using similar styles of governance give us. The reality is, at the moment, PRA would benefit LDs but it would also benefit Reform, and given the current numbers it would actually benefit them more – to the point that the LDs would become the FOURTH party. Reform UK currently have more paid up members than both the LDs and the Tories, and their figure is increasing each month. I love the idea of PR, and I hope one day the LDs see the representation we deserve in Parliament, but I’d rather we not risk electing a far right wing party – or even putting them near a minority government or being part of a coalition – in the process.
@John Marriott
Thanks for this – and for introducing me to the German term Zünglein an der Waage.
I’m not keen on the idea of list MPs, and it’s one of the things I didn’t like about Mixed Member Proportional in New Zealand. New Zealand First and ACT have usually managed to get one electorate MP voted in, which helps them get over the threshold, entitling them to list seats, though Winston Peters lost his seat in 2008, and with it, all his party’s representation.
As it happens, when New Zealand had its referendum on changing electoral systems in 1992, it was a multi-option referendum; STV was on offer, as was AV, but MMP was what had been recommended by a Royal Commission and won hands down because of it. On top of that, it had another referendum a year later, with voters being asked to confirm if they wanted to change to the new system, which they did.
By contrast, we’ve never had a UK-wide multi-option referendum, and I don’t see us ever having one.
I don’t think Reform getting more MPs than us (on the 2024 vote share) is a reason not to embrace electoral reform. We (hopefully) want electoral reform so that all voters’ voices can be heard more effectively, the distribution of MPs in Parliament better reflect how people voted, it becomes less likely that a party will gain absolute power on less than halft the votes, and parties are better encouraged to work together. Hopefully the aim isn’t to benefit or disbenefit any particular party.
btw pedantic point but is it correct to say that we support PR? I thought the system most LibDems wanted was STV. There are good arguments for thinking STV is one of the overall best/most democratic systems, but it’s not proportional and will still tend to under-represent very small parties, so I don’t think it really counts as ‘PR’. I think the only truly proportional systems are those based on national or regional lists, which we tend not to favour because of the power they give to central party organisations and the lack of link between MPs and local areas.
@Ken Westmoreland
Yes, the ‘Zunglein’ analogy is interesting (I realised I had got the wrong preposition after having pressed ‘Send’). For the uninitiated the expression refers to the influence of the FDP, until fairly recently the natural go to partner of either the SPD or the CDU/CSU, as the tip of the tongue placed on an evenly balanced scales to tip them one way or another.
The argument against most PR systems, and certainly STV, is that they destroy the link between the MP and their constituency. That’s why I think a system that delivers roughly 50/50 between directly elected MPs and MPs from party regional lists is a reasonable compromise. However, under whatever system of what the Lib Dems used to call ‘fair votes’ you can devise, it is unlikely that ‘liberals’ will ever get much more than 10%. Liberals are born, not made. They serve, as I said in my recent article, to keep the major (or should that be the larger MINORITY parties’ ) feet to the fire. It’s just a pity they didn’t do a more effective job between 2010 and 2015!
@Simon R “
STV is a form of PR, as are the various closed- and open- list systems.
You’re right that we tend not to favour closed list systems because they give power to the central party organisations over the voter. There are open-list PR systems which aren’t STV, though – Cyprus uses one, for example.
Spot on article.
Be careful what you wish for!
Make sure it is as good for democracy as you hope it will be.
@David Garlick Thanks – Tim Bale used ‘be careful what you wish for’ twice in his arrticle. Ironically, in March 2019, he was pushing NZ-style PR as a game changer – https://unherd.com/2019/03/lets-junk-our-electoral-system/ – but that was overtaken by events.
@Simon R Fair point, but while some of Ireland’s multi-member constituencies have been gerrymandered, there are constituencies with as many as 7 members, like Kerry, where there are no fewer than two independents, the Healey-Ray brothers, Michael and Danny, both of who you can see in action here – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3r8IBlVtys
Michael (the one with the hat!) is now a Minister…
‘No-one mentioned New Zealand’. Did anyone mention Wales?!
Till now, it has been FPTP for the constituency member and PR for the regional one. (And never done us as a party any favours).
But that will change next year to a closed proportional list system.
The theory is that: ‘the final make-up of the Senedd will better represent voters’ choice across Wales’.
See how that works out next year and maybe then decide what would be best for Westminster.
I am in favour of proportional systems not because they are proportionate, but because – in principled, under certain circumstances – they increase voter power and control.
Systems with a significant role for closed lists don’t interest me as they limit the extent of that power and control. If proportionality is purely based on the proportion of votes given to each party but the representatives only belong to one faction within that party that has no approval in the electorate as a whole.
Systems with very large constituencies don’t interest me as they make exercising a meaningful and informed choice that much harder.
IT seems to me that the argument of ‘votes must equal seats’ is playing into the hands of those who want representatives for a large region – or a whole nation – elected by closed list. This does nothing – in my view – for the voter.
The tactical and self-interest-based arguments progressed for PR in the article are interesting, but in the long run, the question should not be ‘which parties will do better’ but ‘how much more meaningful power does the voter get when they make their choice?’
@Cassie Fair point, but proponents of electoral reform are more likely to look outside the UK than within it, though Wales has been able to introduce radical changes like extending the franchise to all legally resident adults, irrespective of nationality, with Scotland only doing so later – https://c3sc.org.uk/changes-to-the-eligibility-to-vote-qualifying-foreign-citizens-and-young-people/
As an alternative to STV, I’d prefer an open party list system in multi-member constituencies, akin to that used in Sweden – https://upgradeholyrood.com/category/swedish-politics/
The premise of the author’s article is flawed.
New Zealand uses an MMP electoral system. Ditto for Germany. MMP is not a PR system and does not produce proportional results.
Hence trying to use either to guess at results in the UK under a PR system is akin to using the results of our current FPTP system to guess at the results.
@Ken: The reason I consider STV to be not really proportional has nothing to do with gerrymandering. The issue is that, as I understand it, in – say, a 5-member constituency, a party needs to get about 20% of the vote in that constituency (maybe, after allocating 2nd preferences) in order to get an MP. If a party has, say, 9% support and is no more likely to receive 2nd etc. preferences than the larger parties, it will not get an MP for that constituency. If that party has 9% support across the country and 5 MPs is the typical seat size, it could end up with no MPs despite all those votes, even under STV. So STV is not proportional. In practice, STV doesn’t discriminate against smaller parties as much as FPTP because the bar to getting an MP in an individual multimember seat is much lower than for FPTP so smaller parties are more likely to win MPs because of geographically uneven distribution of votes. And for centrist parties like the LibDems, STV offers the additional benefit that centrist parties are less likely to be hated by opponents, and therefore more likely to receive 2nd preference votes than more extreme parties.
@Paul R The term ‘PR’ is generic, and I avoided going into the intricacies of each system because of a) lack of time and space and b) few of the general public care about them.
STV gives voters the most choice in exercising their votes because they list CANDIDATES in order of preference not parties. Also, although parties decide who to put forward the order of preference is decided by voters, not parties unlike closed PR systems. It does give broadly proportional results, although clearly not as proportional as say the Israeli system with its national constituency. The truth is that almost any system gives more proportionality than FPTP, but surely voter choice trumps all the other proposed system. And by the way, why has no-one mentioned Scottish local elections, where Councillors are elected by STV introduced in the early Labour/Lib Dem coalitions?
STV really only gives you a choice between candidates within parties that do OK but worse than they hoped. If we are on 10% in an area, we put up one candidate. Whether we get them elected or not, we have not offered a choice.
What we would offer is a reason why supporters of other parties should give us their second preferences. Negative campaigning is less effective under STV. PR generally eliminates the tactical voting argument so parties might need to come up with some positive messages for a change.
Where a party is hoping to win more than one seat, there is also a benefit in a diverse slate where individual candidates can pick up preferences from people who would not necessarily back the party.
@Simon R
STV is in practice more proportional than list-PR or MMP. While what you say is more or less right for an individual constituency (the quota in a 5-member constituency is 1/6th, i.e. 16.7%, not 20%), across a whole country small parties (down to well below 5% national support) have in practice got close to a proportional share of seats in both Ireland’s and Northern Ireland’s elections.
STV also comes out well if we look at crucial details of proportionality, such as whether a coalition of parties can get more than 50% of seats from less than 50% of votes across a country; and of course it offers proportionality through the voter’s eyes, not just through party labels.
My paper Fair votes in practice gives more detail than there’s room for here.
@Denis Mollison
Yes, that’s a good summary of the various options. Assuming that we normally use a range of 3-7 representatives per constituency for STV and the current size of Westminster Parliament, I think the sort of questions we need to be able to answer are: Do we make Cornwall one constituency or two (this could also apply to parts of Wales)? Do we continue to treat the four existing island constituencies (Orkney & Shetland, na h-Eileanan Siar, Anglesey and Isle of Wight) as individual constituencies, returning 1 or 2 members? How do we treat the part of mainland Scotland and the nearer islands north and west of the Great Glen? Should we retain these as single-member constituencies electing by AV, on the grounds that constituencies that are physically too large are undesirable? To what extent is it right to combine previous Borough constituencies with previous County constituencies, bearing in mind that the interests of those who live in cities can be very different from those who live in the country, even when they are voting for the same Party.
While these decisions will likely have little effect on proportionality, if we are to persuade the electorate to support a change to our electoral system, then we need to have good answers to them and similar questions.
@Laurence Cox
Good questions about how you draw constituencies in practice, especially for the most awkward cases. You can find my suggested answers in “STV for Westminster” on my web page, and some analysis suggesting that using natural variable sized constituencies gives better proportionality in the paper cited in my first comment.