Voting reform has been a key Lib Dem issue for many years now. It’s not necessarily primary concern of the average voter, but the way in which we choose who governs us is one of the most important aspects of democracy and cannot be dismissed.
The latest election has provided us with a stark display of why a more proportional system is vital for Britain’s future. Those determined to protect that status quo will point to the referendum in 2011 and claim that the British public has already rejected reform, but this is nonsense. AV may be fairer than FPTP, but it was ultimately a fudge, and no more proportional than the current system. We’ve never been allowed a vote on whether we want PR.
So how do we push for voting reform? The Lib Dems cannot afford to be inward-looking on this. The biggest mistake the ‘Yes’ campaign made in 2011 was allowing the ‘No’s to frame the vote as a referendum on the Liberal Democrats. Being perfectly honest with itself, the party is no more popular now than back then – possibly even less so. A campaign for proportional representation led primarily by the Lib Dems would fail because of this, so other allies need to be found.
The Green Party are an obvious choice. They are ideological bedfellows with many to the left of the party and another party who are consistently denied fair representation by FPTP. The other ally the Lib Dems must seek the support of will no doubt cause more of a stir in party ranks: UKIP.
I should at this point offer a caveat. I despise much of what UKIP stands for. Even those policies that I don’t despise, I often disagree with. They are at the opposite end of the political spectrum to my views, and indeed much of what the Liberal Democrats stand for. But it would be utterly hypocritical to campaign for a fairer voting system while shutting out one particular party because we disagree with their views. The public would be much more likely to back a change in the system if we could prove that reform is an issue supported by a broad church, rather than just sandal-wearing Guardian readers (a demographic I mean no offence to; in fact it is one that I consider myself to be a member of).
There is an element here of ‘be careful what you wish for’. Under PR, it is feasible that this latest election could have produced a Tory/UKIP/DUP coalition – one of the few options worse than what we have been left with under the current system. But part of wanting a more progressive voting system is accepting that a fairer method may still end up providing us with a Government we don’t like.
This is an issue for which it is absolutely necessary to put party loyalty aside. And it is the right time. The three parties I’ve mentioned mustered 24.3% of the vote between them hold 1.6% of the seats in Westminster. In this new era of multi-party politics, it is becoming increasingly difficult for anyone to maintain a passionate and reasonable defence of First Past the Post. We must do all we can to consign it to history.
* David Gray is a musician, actor and writer based in Birmingham. He is a a co-director of Keep Streets Live
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Violent Bonham Carter features on Fake or Fortune?
Have resignations led to a rethink?
High Fell leaflet watch (2)
Two new Makerfield by-election polls gives Burnham 5 and 12 point leads
GWYN WILLIAMS
Alex Macfie
Peter Martin
John Smith
Nick Baird
43 Comments
I agree we should work with other parties – Greens and UKIP included – where we have common ground. It might be sensible to have a chat with them about systems; there’s come danger in the reform lobby being seen as hopelessly divided on an alternative, leading to a “let’s stick with FPTP in the absence of clarity” view. Let’s also have channels of communication with Labour – they will surely leave their options open, however, until much closer to 2020 depending on how things pan out.
But let’s be honest. Voting reform isn’t anywhere close to the agenda over the next five years. There’s a majority Tory Government and they have bugger all interest in it. There’s a huge amount of work to do, and it must be done under FPTP. So let’s not get overly distracted please – there are threats on school funding, environmental policy, civil liberties, Europe and so on where we might actually influence the debate despite small Commons numbers, so let’s prioritise rationally.
Yes, David!
I submitted an article the other day to LDV, about how furious I am in particular with a Labour Party who given the chance to be a progressive voice with us on voting reform – decided giving Nick a kick was more important. This, continuing to disempower millions of voters.
We need to keep shouting, whispering, discussing electoral reform and make action happen. The situation has reached untenable lows.
You need to move beyond this. The LibDems can come back, but not by simply being “the PR party”. Sorry, but it’s not popular enough to be the core of a national party’s appeal, and the AV referendum cannot just be dismissed as you try to do in this piece. Also, one of your would-be allies is tearing itself apart as we speak, and may not even exist soon. Anyway, the argument certainly can’t be won by an obviously incongruous alliance.
You need to rebuild on the basis of policies that are about society, not about Westminster and the constitution. The EU referendum is an opportunity for you. So is the debate about civil liberties. I think your recent mental heath focus was a good idea (it will appeal strongly to the sort of educated and caring people who traditionally like the LibDems) and you’ve had good ideas like the pupil premium. I’m not a LibDem, so you may dismiss me as just biased. But as an outsider, I am telling you what would increase my respect for you (even though I don’t agree with you on all the things I’ve just mentioned). I think many others are likely to think the same.
Come back a bit on the basis of actual social policies, and one people might start to listen to you about PR again. At the moment it just sounds like a loser’s complaint that “we wuz robbed”. It’s no basis for a revival.
Right I’m going to get some pelters here. Having stood as a Parliamentary candidate for the first this time, I’ve come into contact with ‘The UKIP’ face to face for the first time. And yes, there are some borderline bigots and plenty of golf club bores, but there are also perfectly reasonable people who believe that Britain would be much better served out of the EU and in complete control of its borders. Douglas Carswell also has some excellent ideas on voting reform and constitutional change. I’d definitely recommend his book ‘The Plan’ as essential reading. He could have been a Liberal in another dimension..
So, what I’m saying is – we shouldn’t be shy of working with UKIP on voting reform. They’re not all the ‘swivel eyed loons’ we sometimes make them out to be.
Agree.
However, there is no need for the caveat “I despise much of what UKIP stands for.” It is not the way to build bridges. People are entitled to have different views, and when there’s enough of them, they should have representation at Westminster.
At the moment, Westminster is not representative of political views across the country, which is why we need PR, and why all parties should work together to further that. Those that don’t will increasingly seem self-serving and protective of their own power.
@ Carl
I wouldn’t be so sure that people aren’t interested in voting reform
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/generalelection/general-election-2015-sixty-per-cent-of-people-want-voting-reform-says-survey-10224354.html
It comes up a lot on talk radio and the like. And it appeals to our core supporters. Our new members are very keen on it
It’s not going to happen for at least a generation if that ,the 2011 referendum was such a massive rejection by the public.
Better to focus on issues that the public care about and not ones that they have completely rejected..
I agree with what David has to say about working with other parties on voting reform, including UKIP. I think it is also a matter worth pursuing with the SNP, who are so far unequivocal in their support for STV despite the way they have recently benefited from FPTP.
Now we have the least representative government in Westminster since 1983 (which was my first vote in a general election – my vote didn’t count then and it has never counted since), the media is more interested in electoral reform than usual and calls for an end to FPTP are gathering momentum. Some of them come from unexpected quarters – Lord Ashcroft thinks we need a royal commission on the electoral system and, no doubt due to UKIP’s experience, even the Daily Mail seemed to think for a moment that the way we elect MPs to the Commons might be a bit unfair. I do think it is crucial for us to be actively and visibly involved in making as much noise as possible about the need for change.
The figures we’ve been looking at showing what the outcome of 7 May would have been under PR have the problem that they don’t take into account the tactical voting that FPTP encourages. I gather YouGov are now following up on earlier ‘how did you vote?’ surveys with the following:
“Please imagine that the voting system used for the General Election in the United Kingdom asked you to rank the candidates in the order that you wanted to vote for them. Please indicate how you would have voted in the General Election on Thursday 7th May, if you had been asked to rank the parties in your order of preference. Put 1 for your most preferred party, then 2 for your second party, 3 for your third choice etc. You may rank as many or as few choices as you wish. If you would not vote, or do not know how you would vote, tick the boxes below.”
I am interested that they are doing it at all, and much more interested in the result and its impact.
I do realise that in practice, voting reform is likely to be a slow business, so it is also important to take up opportunities to do what we can a bit at a time, like supporting the Electoral Reform Society’s moves to call for local voting reform (introducing STV) to go with the planned devolution of power regionally.
I especially like the last line about doing whatever we can to consign FPTP to history. I imagine it will be very popular with LDV readers. The sooner it is past tense, the better, but let’s make sure we are in on it!
Gareth Wilson
First of all well done for flying the flag for the Liberal Democrats last Thursday. It wasn’t a great day for a first time parliamentary candidate. I hope you will be back again next time.
You make a reasonable point about some people in UKIP. I would recommend caution. The problem is that you do not know which UKIP you are working with from one day to the next. This week they do not even know who they are working with themselves.
It cannot be easy to be in a party which only has only 1 MP but has managed to have two major splits within three days.
I have been a member of ERS for 40 years and have worked alongside and shared platforms with members of various parties including Conservative, Labour, Co-op, Plaid Cymru, SNP, CPGB, Green and various Irish parties from north and south of the border. All of them have been more predictable and more reliable than UKIP if only because they usually had the same policy at the end of a sentence that they had at the beginning of the sentence.
This issue is off the political agenda for the next five years at least. The experience of the AV referendum is that even a small change can be easily squashed by the fire power of the two largest parties. We can agree with other parties, but not only does working with UKIP carry unacceptable political risk, there is little we could do with them anyway, moreover UKIP is essentially a single issue party: representative democracy is not an end in itself, rather a means to an end.
In retrospect the AV referendum was doomed, though had the FPTP lottery come up with different numbers in 2010 and we formed a coalition with Labour, then and only then could AV, with full Labour backing, have gone through. At least one of the governing parties would actually have been in favour of AV.
The 2011 AV referendum was a rejection of the LibDems, and Nick Clegg. As is often the case in referendums, it was hijacked.
The issue is not quite as completely off the agenda forever as some are suggesting. It isn’t going to happen while the Tories enjoy their majority gifted to them by their 37% voteshare. And it is pretty unlikely that a potential Labour majority after 2020 will do anything about it either.
But by making connections with these other parties, and by together refusing to vote for any Queen’s Speech that lacks a reformed system to form the Commons, we can keep it going as an idea. A blocking minority approach seems to be the best option short of a Liberal majority to secure reform. Certainly, if the 2020 election leaves Labour just short of a majority, there’s a chance we might together have enough bargaining power to secure a decent first step.
The issue many mention that a referendum on PR being off the agenda is very frustrating for me, the political parties should be more open when many voters start asking for a say.
The issue LibDems have with UKIP is when in coalition you blocked the EU referendum you used your block then even though clearly many wanted a vote.
May I suggest if you intend looking for support for PR why not start by offering something in this instance an offer of support that EU citizens who can not vote in general election are not allowed a vote in the EU referendum.
The reason PR is important is that, if we make allies with other parties (and hopefully including Labour) during this parliament, the progressive parties could make it part of their manifestos for 2020 and deliver it if we together can command a majority.
I have also argued before the election that the Lib Dems shouldn’t go into government without it being a ‘red line’. I think we have learnt now that coalition can lead to massive defeat under First Past The Post. Only a fool would do the same again and expect a different result.
From Ch4 News to be broadcast 7pm tonight —
“…Nigel Farage ‘facing coup’ over Ukip leadership
After their unexpectedly large election defeat, it might have been Labour that dissolved into mutual recriminations and finger-pointing. But they’re getting on with their (so far) collegiate leadership election – Yvette Cooper today becoming the fourth MP to declare her candidacy. Instead, it’s Ukip that is descending into civil war.
After Nigel Farage’s on-off resignation as leader, his party’s economic spokesman and campaign director, Patrick O’Flynn, today described him as a “snarling, thin-skinned, aggressive” man who is making Ukip look like a “personality cult”. It’s become clear that Mr O’Flynn is far from an isolated voice – and the party is quickly dividing into two rival camps”
So we might have to work with two different UKIPs !
Perhaps, the real reason there is little to no movement on this issue is because those who wish to see the system change ie the Electoral Reform Society and the Liberal Democrats are so wedded to one particular type of PR system ie the Single Transferable Vote? Surely, it is enough to agree upon the principle of a PR system and arguing for a national referendum process as New Zealand had: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_Reform_in_New_Zealand.
I don’t think we will ever get a chance to change the system because the Labour and Tory Parties are so full of selfish, self-seeking and grasping individuals who have an absolute contempt for democracy and are not prepared to change the system because of these human ‘qualities’. We will, I fear, have no alternative but to take matters into our own hands and use the methods of the Suffragettes ie civil disobedience and violence.
The conversation about electoral reform is not going anywhere, however much some people want it to. It is that badly needed that nothing can prevent things happening that prove it is needed. They just do keep happening, as they would in a country that needs electoral reform. Whatever the Tories think they can do to prevent it, they are going to fail at some point. The sooner the better.
Work with UKIP ? They can’t even work with themselves.
It was bad enough working with the Tories – but to co-operate with a bunch of sub-fascists is akin to the Weimar Republic in 1930. If you ride a tiger don’t be surprised when it gets hungry.
never work with UKIP
Now, now. Weimar was a very different situation: the Social Democratic Party were the only ones committed to parliamentary democracy, the left wanted to join the USSR, and the “moderate” right wing were a bunch of spiked-helmeted, sparkly-buttoned, monocle-touting Kasier restorers. Even if UKIP were to practice arson, assassination, mob violence, voter intimidation, and highly polished propaganda campaigns, I don’t think the British state as it stands would be likely to roll over and take it. Invoking the National Socialists is not a fair thing to say about a fellow party engaged with the democratic process, even if Farage himself is guilty of the soft bigotry of the cul de sac.
The long and short is that UKIP, the Lib Dems, and the Greens will never, ever be able to exercise the influence their voters deserve in government so long as the big two are thwarting and delaying reform in their own self interest. Vetoing every minority government who doesn’t offer reform, forcing another election as a referendum on voting reform, and doing tactical deals with the other two parties on target seats is the most feasible way that we might get voting reform though, unless we want to be Britain’s equivalent to Canada’s NDP.
If people bother to look at the Green website you will see that Lucas and Carswell have already made common ground on this and personally I think we should join a broad alliance including the SNP to call for it.
Just because something is not likely to happen does not mean we should not call for it… And STV would transform local government (as it has in Scotland, not to our advantage so far, but eventually it will be…)
As a Grimond Liberal, we’ve been there before and we’ll bounce back.
On PR, if the boundary changes go ahead as Shapps smugly implied, then Labour faces an uphill struggle to EVER get a majority again, particularly if the SNP continue at similar support levels,
So support for PR could (and should) be a rainbow coalition involving all the under represented opposition parties. If every opposition party entered 2020 with identical proposals for an agreed fairer voting system, 2020 could turn out to be the mother of tactical voting elections, with non Tory people lending their vote to whichever party has the best chance of delivering a fair system.
@redndead Labour are not under-represented using FPTP; they are hugely over-represented and have been since the 1920s
This is exactly the time to push PR, and ukip is not a proscribed party and therefore one we should work with, along with the Greens (which we need to settle upon a new rationship with more widely), the various Nats and the odd genuinely democratic bits of the conservatives and broader Labour movement (the unions are more pragmatic than the parlaimentary Labour party these days). Tie this in with Lords Reform and you will re-engage a section of the population.
If working with one’s ideological enemies helps create a more just, more fair, more democratic country, then I support it.
odd coincidence, but Farage made the case for reform very well indeed tonight on BBC QT!
If we can co-operate with other parties to agree on a system (perhaps STV with a small open top-up list to ensure proportionality – this would address the main Green criticism of STV at a price that I would be prepared to pay, and it is the system used in one of the two countries to use STV nationally) and reach the point where all the major pro-reform parties are agreed on a draft Bill that is jointly published, then we would put electoral reform on the agenda for the next election. While the Labour Party would not endorse any joint proposal, we could reasonably hope for them to acknowledge is as not being a red-line against.
By making it a joint proposal, it would be much harder for parties to compromise on the details of the system, which would be useful insurance against the Conservatives or Labour offering a compromise system (ie it gives some insurance against them offering AV again).
Andrew 14th May ’15 – 9:58pm
“…If people bother to look at the Green website you will see that Lucas and Carswell have already made common ground on this and personally I think we should join a broad alliance including the SNP to call for it.”
Andrew, you make an extremely good point. A broad alliance for electoral reform which must include the SNP (who actually have STV for local council elections north of the border) and the NI parties (who also use STV for some elections) would produce a block of votes in the Commons of around 80 MPs from more than six parties.
Osbourne’s changes for his “Northern Power House” provides an opportunity. The situation in the City of Manchester where every MP is now Labour and every local councillor is Labour is clearly not democratic with FPTP. Even some Tories might comprehend that point.
Any campaign for proportional representation should be led by a non-party organisation, such as the Electoral Reform Society or Unlock Democracy. Whilst members should be free to support such a campaign, the Party itself needs to take back seat.
The Greens and UKIP have already appeared together on the BBC News, outside parliament, calling for a combined push for reform, but only mentioning the Lib Dems in respect to our grotesque failure to do anything about reform when we had that one chance after 2010. Nigel Farage repeated that last night on BBC Question Time. If we don’t do something about this *now* and take a leading role, then we are doomed. The Greens and UKIP are both now the “none of the above” parties and also the “we want reform” parties. The Lib Dems have to work with them NOW, for there really isn’t any room in the centre-ground for another “we’re one of the big party” parties. Therefore reform needs to be top of our agend and we need to present a firm plan, a firm vision of a new constitution, to put to the electorate. The means also devising a model constitution for a federal UK rather than just hand-waving and saying “we like federalism” which is basically all we’ve done for decades.
Let’s face it, we had no policies to counter the SNP during and after the referendum and no policies on real devolution. We have no policies to make ourselves either distinct from or better than (in terms of reformist ideals) Greens or UKIP.
Get on it with!
Not only do we need to work with the Greens and UKIP but we also need to hold the SNP to their wish for electoral reform. They may have been MASSIVE beneficences this election of FPtP but before the election Nicola Sturgeon was calling for PR too. They’re in a much better position than anyone to influence a referendum on PR and turning their backs on it now just because it suits them would be politically humiliating.
Great article and I agree completely. We should be open about the faults of FPTP. For example, FPTP is not a simple system. As a voter you have to decide not just between party manifestos but also look at the one person your favoured party has chosen – like them but not the party or vice versa and you have a dilemma. Then you have to consider the likelihood of your chosen person or party to get elected and consider tactical voting and how you think others might vote. It’s not a simple choice at all.
Unlike others sho think we shouldn’t get hung up about PR systems I think we SHOULD be pushing STV as by far the best system, not so much just in terms of proportionality but in terms of voter preferential choice, voter not party power and the stronger constituency link. I’m not saying STV or nothing, but we need to put our stall out and say there are things that most British people want to see in any electoral system and some systems don’t deliver these.
And yes definitely – we should work with other parties in the way the truly awful Yes to AV campaign did not.
For about 2 weeks after a ridiculous election result people can get on tv talking about electoral reform. The fact that the Greens and UKIP have gone on tv about this and used the opportunity to criticise us is a sign that they are looking outward, while we are looking inward and have taken our eye off the ball (fortunately, UKIP have now taken THEIR eye off the ball too, in a big way!).
There is nothing to gain and much to lose for us by allowing the Greens to take over the electoral reform agenda from us. (I don’t really include UKIP, who would never introduce electoral reform if they ever got into power) It is a pity that the AV referendum was such a catastrophic mistake, but we have to just say that and get on with things.
I would come out right now and prominently call for STV in local elections. That (local elections) is where we are going to be fighting the Greens over the next 5 years. Look what happened this time in Bristol West and Norwich Sth – the Greens will see our seats and former seats as the obvious target. We need to neutralise areas of synthetic difference like electoral reform and many areas of environmental policy while emphasing the real differences such as the increasingly authoritarian/state socialist tendency of the Greens. Their policy creation system seems to have been taken over by the Militant Tendency!
Michael Kilpatrick 15th May ’15 – 9:31am
You may be right about UKIP but it would be wrong to describe The Greens as merely a “None of the above” party.
My son said to me – “I have voted Liberal Democrat on every occasion in the 20 years since I was 18. I am against nuclear powr and I am against nuclear weapons. So I voted Green this time.”
A lot of our usual supporters voted Green this time because they saw more of a Liberal Democrat attitude in policies and messages coming from The Greens than they did in Mr Clegg’s shallow Anchors in The Centre.
Andrew is exactly right. We have a lot to lose and everything to gain by making sure *we* are the party of reform.
But I really don’t think you should make pronouncements about the honesty of UKIP – and we know they are not going to get into power as a majority, no more than we had the chance to do so over the last few General Elections.
Wake up and smell the coffee: UKIP and/or the Greens are quite likely to embarrass us by sticking to their guns if they were ever in a position to influence a government after a hung parliament: a change in the voting system so that they can, forever after, become decently electable and fairly so. That’s called playing the long game, something we grotesquely failed to do in 2010.
I suggest we let UKIP and The Green Party bed down. Parties tend to exercise self -control during election and the various splits come to the surface a few months after it. The Greens and UKIP are likely to have attracted people who will have some odd views and it would be unwise to be associated with them until we know more about the leading figures.
Members and supporters of ERS, including me, believe PR should always be part of the policy-mix if any party supports it too. All parties have members in ERS but it is true that consistency of support is paramount.
Charlie, so your answer is to leave UKIP and the Greens alone in the hope that in-fighting will tear them apart? While the Lib Dems sit around doing nothing? Not even talking to parties who have one goal we share with them?
Ostrich, sand, etc…
Michael Kilpatrick
No , let us see who dominates the parties in the next few months: it ‘s called due dilligence. The Referendum on Europe on Europe is likely to occur well before any change to the voting system and we know the LDs have a different view to UKIP. To be arguing against UKIP on Europe yet trying to obtain a deal on PR is likely to make us appear two faced and devious,
If we had never made a promise on the tuition fees , we would be in a different position today. A major reason for Blair’s and Cameron’s successes was not to make promises which are unrealistic to keep. If a party wants to be taken seriously , it needs to act as if it is serious about forming a government and that means rigorous assessment of all actions and policies. If a senior members of the LDs is seen with someone from another party who has a dubious past and holds absurd ideas, over the PR campaign, then it would weaken the party. One cannot chose one’s family but one can chose the people one associates with and to be naive after 25 years of age is criminal negligence.
Do the Lib Dems want to achieve electoral reform for a country that so desperately needs it? Yes or No? If the answer is a positive one, I suggest you work with as many allies as you can and yes that does include people and parties you abhor like UKIP. One of the reasons, I think, why the opponents of reform have been able to hold the tide against reform is because those who can see the need for reform (and there are too few of us. It seems as if real democracy is too often a strange and alien concept that only ‘johny foreigner’ does on the Continent to too many Brits )don’t work together as well as they should and the Electoral Reform Society has too often come across as a ‘leftie love in’ as was demonstrated during that disastrous AV referendum. If we are to succeed and we must this HAS to change.
Try also to get some of the more thinking and non self-seeking Tories (yes, there are a few ) on board as well. Point-out to them that having REAL electoral reform and a referendum and discussion on the subject as New Zealand had (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_reform_in_New_Zealand) may prove to be a good part of the further constitutional reforms needed to make devolution stable for the whole of the United Kingdom which is still in peril
Our priority right now should be staying in Europe, not Electoral Reform. If Cameron takes us out of the EU that will have an effect on the country for generations to come. So let’s not talk of any sort of alliance with UKIP but rather focus on telling the electorate why they are a danger to all of us.
Untill we get REAL electoral reform though, neither the Lib Dems, the Greens, UKIP or any other party can have the representation their votes justify them having and Britain will have no moral right to go around the world bombing and maiming people in the cause of democracy when we don’t have a real one at home. This issue is an existential matter for your party and for others. Neither Tory or Labour HAVE ANY RIGHT WHATSOEVER to deny us our real democratic rights just like those equally undemocratic and pathetic opponents of the right to vote for women didn’t have.