As Liberal Democrats, we all know First Past the Post is a terrible voting system. But in this year’s local elections it has sunk to new depths.
With the arrival of genuine four-party politics in England, the proportion of votes that actually make a difference to the result has reached an all-time low. And of the 16 county councils that returned a single party majority, not one of those ruling parties gained a majority of votes – in fact most got less than 40%.
This is not just a dry academic point or a moan about unfairness. It makes a real difference to the quality of local government and its responsiveness to the people it is supposed to serve. After all, why should councils bother to pay any attention to voters if their votes don’t matter?
Meanwhile, in Scotland a quiet revolution is under way. Forget independence, the real change is in local government and it’s due to electoral reform – a reform that only happened because Scottish Liberal Democrats made it a red line issue in the Lib-Lab coalitions of 1999 and 2003.
Using the Single Transferable Vote (STV), over three quarters of Scottish voters got their first preference as a councillor in last year’s elections (and if you count lower preferences almost everyone has someone they voted for). After just two elections using STV, the impacts are already starting to be felt. Single party fiefdoms are a thing of the past, scrutiny has become more effective and councils more responsive.
We now have an excellent opportunity to deliver electoral reform to local government in England and Wales. Here are my top 10 reasons why:
1) With the difficulty Labour and the Conservatives face in gaining an overall majority and Lib Dem support holding up in our held seats, a hung parliament in 2015 continues to look likely.
2) In the eyes of national politicians it is lower profile than reforming the system for the Commons, so would be easier for Labour or the Conservatives to concede in any coalition negotiations.
3) We can give good reasons for the other parties to support reform; it would breathe life into their parties in their current electoral deserts as well as helping to address problems they have with certain local parties that have held unchallenged power for decades (this was a significant argument for Labour in Scotland).
4) Traditional arguments used against proportional representation such as the “need for strong government” are even less relevant when it comes to local government.
5) We can point to the successful introduction of STV in Scottish local government (as well as its beneficial use in Northern Ireland for over 40 years).
6) Many English local authorities already have multi-member wards, which would facilitate the introduction of STV; we could start by using existing wards, then at a subsequent boundary review allow ward sizes to vary to align wards more closely to natural communities.
7) It is the only tier of government for which electoral reform has not yet been actively considered by Government; no-one can claim it’s been dealt with.
8) Unlike reforms relating to Parliament, it does not directly affect MPs, so they are less likely to rebel against a coalition agreement (we will not be asking turkeys to vote for Christmas).
9) It is easy to argue that it doesn’t need a referendum (unlike a change for the Commons where there is a good argument that MPs should not be able to choose their own electoral system).
10) It is increasingly seen as a priority by cross-party democratic reformers – for example, the Electoral Reform Society has recently launched its “Rotten Boroughs” campaign.
So, as we start to debate the 2015 Manifesto, let’s make electoral reform in local government our top priority for constitutional reform, and a red line policy for any coalition deal.
* Dr Crispin Allard is Chair of Liberal Democrats for Electoral Reform
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Lord Bonkers: "Something less terrible than the truth"
Two new Makerfield by-election polls gives Burnham 5 and 12 point leads
Reform under water
David Raw
Tom Reeve
paul barker
Neil Hickman
Tom Bailey
22 Comments
Excellent article. Agree with every word and the most persuasive case I’ve seen on the issue.
I don’t question for a minute that we need electoral reform in local government; we need it just as much in electing MPs. However, I doubt the appetite and the will is there for this change given the other pressing matters on the agenda: it’s difficult to think about the iniquity of a voting system when you’re opening a new food bank (as is happening here in Bradford) to help the hungry and destitute.
Great article
STV has been great in Scotland – it broke up the unfair monopoly of local government by the Labour Party.
I agree, worth considering for the manifesto.
I agree with your points that will make it easier, and support fairer elections at all levels of government, but one point you don’t consider is that after what happened this parliament with AV there will be strains in the media who interpret this as Lib Dems lost the battle for general election reform so try to sneak through electoral reform in other areas where no-one’s looking/a first step towards general election reform which has already been rejected (but phrased into catchier and less kind headlines), Probably not a reason to not do it at all, but something to consider.
I agree with Scott. It will be seen as a starting point for general election reform. However, as a town councillor, my fellow councillors say “there are no politics here”. Issues are decided on their merits. So it would be hard to argue against the view that ALL perspectives should be considered in a council’s deliberations.
Agree with the article’s sentiments but it’s a complete non-starter following the abject failure to deliver the right result in the AV referendum.
In a multi-member ward there are not necessarily 3 strong candidates from the same party who want to do it, while there may be at least one strong candidate from the second party. The best second-party candidate is likely to be better than the the third-best leading-party candidate.
Well I’d agree with most of this but “the arrival of genuine four party politics”is possibly giving UKIP a bit too much credibility.
@Kevin White:
” “the arrival of genuine four party politics”is possibly giving UKIP a bit too much credibility”
Out canvassing last night in a former Conservative constituency. UKIP outpolling Tories four to one..
I agree with most of what Crispin Allard has written. However I have a problem with – “Many English local authorities already have multi-member wards, which would facilitate the introduction of STV; we could start by using existing wards, then at a subsequent boundary review allow ward sizes to vary to align wards more closely to natural communities.”
This would create councils where some councillors are elected by first past the post (one member wards) while others by STV assuming that we wouldn’t suggest AV. Maybe it should be rolled out as boundary reviews are carried out.
I have always seen two problems with STV:
one minority party is always in government/control; and
that there is never any huge changes in the make-up of the assembly/council.
As there have only been two STV elections since 2007 is it too early to tell if these problems are in fact real? However as the next Scottish local election isn’t until 2017 it might be a good idea to only bring this in after those elections.
with only one comment against, and one confused, this looks like a clear winner. And yes, it IS getting PR to Westminster ‘by the back door’ but perhaps, in hindsight, this is the way it should have been approached.
Can’t we just let local areas select their own electoral systems. There’s no real need for centrally dictated consistency.
An excellent article, Crispin. Agree wholeheartedly.
Peter Chegwyn: If we were calling for STV for general elections at this next election I agree that would be a non-starter. But local government electoral reform is an achievable aim. It was agreed in Scotland. And SV is not AV – remember, there was a vocal “Yes to PR, no to AV” part of the No campaign.
Amalric: A couple of things: 1 – STV needs multi member wards. Where these don’t currently exist they will need to be created by combining existing wards. But with some multi member wards already existing this process should be relatively pain-free. 2 – With genuine multi-party democracy, the likelihood of one party remaining in goverment permanently is smaller than you might think. The problem in the UK is one of perception – the Lib Dems are seen nationally as the only possible coalition partner for either Labour or Tories because that’s how it is under our current electoral system where no other third party comes close in terms of number of seats. But if the electoral system changes, so will the dynamics of our politics – the likelihood is more parties will elect a reasonable number of seats and it might not be just the Lib Dems holding a balance of power.
Thomas Long: The main problem with letting local areas decide their own electoral system (aside from the confusion of having different systems in different areas) is self-interest. Unless there were a local referendum (unlikely, as would probably be costly and poorly turned out) the choice would end up with local councillors who would likely vote out of self-interest to choose the system that they believe would most likely re-elect them.
@Julian Tisi “STV needs multi member wards. Where these don’t currently exist they will need to be created by combining existing wards.”
Interesting point. I do not know if wards have a demographic or geographic basis, but might merging them to allow STV lead to less democratic representation, e.g. if a particular “ghetto” ends up with councillors on a collective ticket which are more representative of other wards.
I think this is the only route to pursue on electoral reform for the time being and have advocated the same previously. I do think there needs to be something more than a decision by the local council to implement a new voting system. A local referendum would be one possibility and/or a greater than 60% majority in the council chamber.
I see no reason why local councils should not make their own choice about which system to employ, rather than stipulate one particular system. The point is to be responsive to local requirements. I am not sure that the ‘self interest’ argument should be taken that seriously, particularly since I do not know of any system that is worse and less representative than FPTP.
It seems like a very good idea to me but would require quite a lot of thought and modelling to ensure that the views of people were adequately represented. I haven’t seen anything but has any modelling been done on what the results would be like if the most recent local elections had been fought this way?
It will be a very hard sell to make to people as it as an issue will receive even less coverage than the AV vote did and a consensus needs to be achieved by all parties on this so that it cannot be taken as a partisan issue. the AV referendum experience of the Tories picking off the Lib Dems with personal attacks should not be repeated
On a practical level short term it could result in less Liberal Democrat councillors as we as a party have become adept at playing the local elections game so that our resources are concentrated in the wards where we can win rather than spread more evenly across the whole county/borough as would be required by electoral reform – this however is not a reason to turn it down!
@ Julian Tisi
I wonder if Julian Tisi has been involved with boundary changes, because if he had I would assume he would know that combining single member wards to others wards would be anything but “relatively pain-free”. Local government boundary reviews are carried out by the Local Government Boundary Commission and involve a process that allows anyone to make proposals and then time for people to comment on the proposals of others. While the process is not perfect it does work especially as the Commission is independent. It is not really a process that should be rushed.
The reasons given by various contributors why other people may not support this reform are all valid, reflecting the fact that electoral reform faces an uphill battle on two fronts. It will always be opposed by those who benefit from the current system. And it will never have the same traction with the public as other more immediate issues. No other issue has to contend with both of these barriers – that’s what makes electoral reform the hardest campaign in British politics.
So how do we respond to this challenge? First, seek the path of least resistance – that’s what my article is all about. And second, be prepared – the next opportunity for reform may come as soon as 2015, and we have to be ready if does come (and that means getting our manifesto and red lines right).
Excellent article, I have always advocated the AV for Local elections. Given the response from the referendum, it would have been more sensible to have started at local level. Many used the system for the election of Mayors and PCCs it would seem churlish not to push for the same in the election of Councillors.
Once the electorate had got used to the system it would be far easier to promote the election of MPs too.