Invigorating. That’s the best word to sum up the LDER (Liberal Democrats For Electoral Reform) fringe last night.
The panel, brimming with optimism and passion, was (L to R in the photo above): Chair Keith Sharp (LDER), Emma Harrison (Make Votes Matter), Lena Swedlow (Deputy Director, Compass), Lisa Smart MP (Cabinet Office spokesperson & Vice Chair Fair Elections APPG (All Party Parliamentary Group)).
The Representation of the People Bill (ROPB) is going through Parliament, currently entering the committee stage.
While it contains some good things such as votes for 16 and 17 year olds, Lisa Smart said that the bill seems to have been carefully written to exclude an amendment introducing proportional representation (PR) for Westminster elections.
Due to some parliamentary sleight of hand (specifically sitting on the Tory front bench – which caused palpitations in the whips’ office), Lisa Smart put down the first amendment to the ROPB which was simply to introduce proportional representation for Westminster elections.
This amendment is likely to be ruled “out of scope” by officials, which could lead to a similar amendment in the next stages or third reading.
The House of Lords is all-important – Liberal Democrats hold the balance of power there. So PR might be added to the bill there.
Lisa Smart thinks that the chances of PR coming out in the final Act of Parliament is “not zero” and “not 100” – somewhere in between. Which narrows it down…not.
A lot is riding of the proposal of a year-long National Commission in Electoral Reform (NCER), proposed by the Fair Elections APPG. If this reports promptly, it could allow a well supported PR proposal to be brought in for the next general election.
Emma Harrison of Make Votes Matter said that there is a “cliff edge” in timing that comes this time next year. For technical reasons (inc. boundary changes) STV is probably not feasible for the next general election – but a lookalike Scottish system might well be doable.
I did ask what the difference is between the Jenkins Commission in the late 1990s (last seen heading speedily towards the long grass) and this latest commission. Emma Harrison pointed out that the NCER has a substantial public participatory element in the form of 100 representative voters feeding into the deliberations.
As Liberal Democrats we are going to have to restrain our natural inclination to talk obsessively about voting systems. In order to secure public support we will have to focus on principles – that there is a feeling that Westminster is distant, detached and dysfunctional – and that First Past the Post is at the heart of that breakdown. For evidence we need only cite the current Labour government, elected by 34% of the vote to receive 63% of the seats and virtually 100% of the power of government.
There are some encouraging signs that now is the time for change. 79% of people believe the present voting system could be improved (More in Common 2025). 60% are in favour of changing the electoral system rather than keeping the current system (British Social Attitudes Survey 2025). There’s been a groundswell of opinion in favour of change from businesses and academics. Sarah Olney’s December 2024 10 Minute Bill passed with a majority of the Commons in favour of a proportional voting system.
* Paul Walter is a Liberal Democrat activist and member of the Liberal Democrat Voice team. He blogs at Liberal Burblings.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Following the course of the River Leen through Nottingham
Trumps' White House thuggery appals the world including most Americans
The toxic legacy of Brexit
David Le Grice
Simon Banks
Cassie
Nigel Jones
12 Comments
What if people don’t want to vote Reform?
With their dwindling support, it may be that Labour would save more seats under a PR system in 2029 than they would with FPTP. The problem is persuading them to take their collective heads out of the sand and realistically look at the current polling levels and apply the results to 2024 polling returns. One can hope that the dire results for them on 7th May will make some of their brighter elements think about it. One must have patience (like me, I was founding secretary of LAGER in Feb 1974!), but it’s becoming urgent if we need the system changed before 2029, when there remains a strong danger that Reform could win a majority of seats under FPTP – even on 25% of the vote. They wouldn’t need Conservatives to back Farage, just to abstain!
There doesn’t really need to be a national commission on ER as STV is by far the best PR system, maintaining a constituency link and giving max choice to the voter. The problem with the Scotland and German system is that you end up witb two classes of MP and the regional top up party list order is dictated by the parties so their favoured candidates are the ones elected and this is not much better than FPTP. The party list system removes the local link entirely.
The current first past the post system is not fit for purpose and is distorted and discredited.
David, as a democrat, do you agree that people are entitled to an informed choice on what system they live in? That they are allowed to weigh the pros and cons? That the right way of doing things is not the authoritarian way, imposing the ‘best system’ for an entitled/educated few on the whole community?
Then you have to have a process that secures wider buy-in and allows the public the risky decision to say no to change and accept a system that ‘experts’ might consider inferior. Because of the hope that the public will engage and educate itself and a consensus will emerge.
Whether that is a commission I don’t know. But telling people what’s best for them and not giving them an alternative doesn’t seem – at face value – a very Lib Dem principle.
Ok matt good point. Sincere apologies
Whilst a national commission seems the right way forward, the labour and conservative party high command will only accept PR if they are forced to. I am interested why the lib dems in coalition after 2010 supported AV which is barely better than the dreaded fptp. Every manifesto says thst lib dems would enact STV if they get into power.
The Lib Dems supported AV in 2010 because a referendum on AV was in the Labour Manifesto and it was assumed Labour would be fully behind a “Yes” vote. Unfortunately, they weren’t!
It was also the only system on offer. Both the Conservatives and Labour offered a referendum on AV. (Labour did offer AV without a referendum right at the end of negotiations, but it was far too late.)
AV is massively better than FPTP. The country paid a price for rejecting it.
This time we want a system which is not only far better than FPTP, but better than AV. Something which meets the requirements for The Good Systems Agreement.
@ Duncan Garland
Duncan, as a point of information the last time the Liberals (of both shades at the time) had enough parliamentary votes to get PR for Westminster was in the debates on the Representation of the People Act way back in 1918. They rejected PR because a) they thought the constituencies would be too big (Asquith), and, b) because they thought it might increase the number of Labour MPs and reduce their chances of forming a future majority government.
Funny how some things don’t change, although it improved a bit in Paddy’s time with the devolved governments and local government outside England. As to events post 2010, what should have been a red line was another bit of an own goal by Sir Nicholas.
@Duncan Garland “The Lib Dems supported AV in 2010”
No, sorry, Duncan, the 2010 Lib Dem manifesto advocated STV.
The UK is a parliamentary system where decisions are made by MPs in Parliament. If the LibDems ever did obtain a majority under FPTP they would have a mandate to introduce STV if it was in their manifesto.
No need for referenda, commissions or anything else, just an Act of Parliament. The details of constituencies and council wards can be left to the boundary commission as they are now. To ensure this happens quickly the party should draw up the necessary bill now so it can be introduced immediately if the LibDems end up in government either on their own or in coalition. And yes, for me it’s the reddest of red lines, as it should be for the party.
The Lib Dems manifesto in 2010 was for STV. The Labour manifesto was for a referendum on AV. In the coalition talks with the Conservatives, the Lib Dems negotiated an agreement for a referendum on AV and supported a “Yes” vote.
It was the best on offer and in my view the correct decision.
Maybe we’ll get STV this time.
I’d prefer the word inspiring to invigorating if we’re going to get PR. However those present felt during the meeting it is what they do afterwards that is important. There must be a feeling throughout the country that now is the time to change our electoral system. This requires much more discussion, commentary and education. It is the responsibility of everyone who is remotely involved in this movement to go that extra mile and build the nationwide concensus that no politician dare ignore.