These past twelve months have seen some of the worst assaults on trust in public life I have ever witnessed.
From the second jobs scandal, to Partygate, to an avalanche of allegations of sexual misconduct against MPs, hardly a week has gone by without a story dominating the headlines that our leaders are not using their power with our interests at heart.
We would be naive to assume that this is not having a long-term impact. Last December, trust in politicians reached its lowest level on record. Polling by Ipsos shows lack of faith in politics / politicians as the third most important issue to voters, after inflation and the economy.
This is not some second order issue, but an urgent priority facing us.
Writing a piece in Lib Dem Voice about the need for electoral reform is doubtless preaching to the converted. But what I urge today is that we take a much broader view of what’s wrong in our politics as stemming, at least in part, from our Victorian voting system.
MPs like Owen Paterson and Neil Parish were lords of the manor in all but name until the eye of national scandal turned on them. Boris Johnson possessed a near-regal authority with an eighty-seat majority, only able to be unseated by palace intrigue within his own party.
What’s more, First Past the Post enables feudal distribution of funding from the public purse, with the Chancellor even admitting to spending money in areas like Tunbridge Wells rather than where the money is needed most.
Even the numerous allegations of sexual impropriety against sitting MPs can be, in part, traced back to First Past the Post. While countries with PR are by no means guaranteed bastions of gender equality, Westminster culture cannot be helped by a male-dominated House of Commons. A record number of female MPs sit in the House of Commons, but even now 65 percent of MPs are male.
This isn’t helped by our voting system. First Past the Post has been called “the world’s worst voting system for achieving gender balance” in politics. Local parties are often incentivised to pick a ‘safe pair of hands’ for elections, and we all know what that often means!
Every parliament which has over 40 percent of women MPs uses a system of Proportional Representation, and PR elections often have gender quotas, as have been introduced in reforms to the Welsh Senedd.
A huge raft of reforms are needed to restore the public’s trust in the politicians meant to represent them. An essential part of that is being able to look a voter in the eye, wherever they live, and tell them that their vote matters.
If politicians trap millions in safe seats, and lavish attention on the lucky few who can actually change the outcome of an election, it should be no surprise that voters are sceptical of them.
By making governments accountable to parliament, and the MPs there truly answerable to their constituents, we can start to rebuild the trust between politicians and voters which is an essential feature of our democracy.
Only by fixing our voting system can we fix the deep-seated problems in politics, and make a government that works for the people.
Layla Moran will be speaking at Liberal Democrats for Electoral Reform’s conference fringe: How can we restore trust in our politics? at 8:15pm on 17th September with Tom Brake, Klina Jordan, and Zack Polanski.
* Layla Moran is the Liberal Democrat MP for Oxford West and Abingdon
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Green and Lib Dem Southwark brings government closer to voters
A swamp of lies and disinformation
Doing better? The goal must be Sufficeincy
Michael Meadowcroft (1942-2026) - A Liberal to His Core
Iain Donaldson
Peter Martin
45 Comments
Taking inspiration from Professor Van Tam with football analogy, the problems we’re facing aren’t limited to what system is used to elect board members. Changing the system of how board members get elected is part of it but the problems go way beyond that and it’s very possible that real power being held by very few people, who on the whole have thoroughly enjoyed majority becoming poorer and more desperate, means that leaders acting in bad faith would still get into power. Quite possibly because those with the resources to make a run at getting elected – umm, Nick Clegg – have willing partaken in the system which has put us in such a weak position or have been so active in the system since leaving frontline politics.
“From the second jobs scandal, to Partygate, to an avalanche of allegations of sexual misconduct” – at this point I’m past caring about scandals in these politician’s personal lives, although it’s a clue to how they see everything else, rather it’s the policies they’ve championed over several decades which have thoroughly screwed us over.
Excellent piece. Coming from NZ which bought in PR in 1993 it’s clear to see how more diverse NZ parliament and government have become as a result. They also cleverly thought about what might happen if the referendum was won and built in to the original legislation follow up referendums after the following 3 elections. An, aside, Cameron should have written 2nd ref (govt deal v remain) into the brexit legislation and the last 6 years would have been a lot less rancourous!
I know I will be unpopular here, but bear with me, I think the NZ (and German) system of mixed member proportional is better than STV for the following reasons:
1 It incorporates fptp in that approx two thirds of MPs are elected inthe same way and so people still have their local MP. This makes explanations easier.
2 Counting results is easier, which means explaining how it works is easier. Remember the AV campaign – people couldn’t/wouldn’t concentrate for the 2 minutes explanantion required.
3 It is more proportional. eg in the recent NI elections the Alliance got 19% of seats from 13.5% of votes.
Germany and NZ seem happy with it.
@Russell “I know I will be unpopular here … mixed member proportional is better than STV”
Given that I can’t imagine any opposition to electoral reform and more proportional representation in this neck of the woods, I think there are two key points:
1. The party must decide exactly what form of PR it wants so that if the opportunity arises to do something (e.g. in negotiations within a coalition delivered by FPTP) then it is not squandered by arguing over details that should have already been settled. Similarly, a clear position will make it easier to discuss the issue with those outside the party without being derailed by confusion over alternative approaches.
2. No matter how unpopular the Tories become, I can’t imagine the electorate getting excited by a campaign that prioritises PR, especially coming from one or more of the minor parties for which it might appear self-serving. First, the party needs to get voters enthusiastic about how it [the party] can improve other aspects of their lives so that they are more receptive to an electoral system that will deliver it.
@Peter
I agree. There are several different methods in the UK. Mmp is used in Scotland but you need to go into the detail as it’s not proportional in Scotland due to not dealing with the overhang. It would be interesting to know what system was preferred by electoral reform groups in Labour/Greens. I gather stv is the libdems preferred system but the devil is in the detail. Not all “PR” systems are proportional.
Not all headlines make good campaign slogans – but this one does.
The advantage of STV is that it has operated for 100 yrs in a part of the UK where politics is particularly important. That is a good test for any electoral system and over the years it seems to have been accepted by all parties in Northern Ireland. Should we not expect it to be equally well received in the rest of the UK?
@John
“Been like that for 100 years” isn’t very persuasive I’m afraid.
In the wake of all the catastrophes that are happening now and presumably over the next 2 years we are finding the answer in Electoral Reform!! It is not a vote winner.
The public want to know answers to Inflation, Cost of Living, Energy, Ukraine, Regional Divide etc etc, one could go on all night, but to be seen as going on about Electoral Reform is a potential death wish. Surely we have made a hash of several recent general election campaigns, let us not repeat that failure.
https://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/democracyscience
Proportional representation was invented, over a century and a half ago, as the proportional count of a preference vote. It has stood the test of time, as the single transferable vote. The preferential reform of the vote is the neglected representation part of proportional representation, without which, electoral reform is degraded to making parties the ruling class from party lists.
Oh dear, still thinking rearranging the deck chairs will change the Executive and the way business is conducted at Westminster…
Hi Layla,
Look across Europe and you will find many countries with PR and far higher levels of political corruption than the UK.
PR generates its own opportunities for malpractice. You can rely on human beings to seek out and take advantage.
So PR is a much fairer system, but let’s not over-sell it.
Disappointed that Ms. Moran introduced a gender issue into the debate. Any voting system should be aimed at producing the best candidate/ party based on the electorates view, not creating a gender balance just for the sake of it. I am all for a PR system and think we need to promote the idea as much as possible. However, I won’t be distributing this article.
PR/STV Never gets mentioned on the doorstep…
The only hope would be the adoption of it by the labour party – who’d have to gain a majority of seats under FPTP – they’ve a mountain to climb in that respect.
Cost of living, crime & ASB, hospital & GP services , immigration controls , housing , insecure low paid work…Those are the most discussed in my experience ..
“PR/STV Never gets mentioned on the doorstep…”
Might that be because appropriate questions are not being asked?
e.g. if campaigning in an area where tory (or any other party) gets a majority via FPTP which it wouldn’t get under PR – maybe ask the voter if they’ve ever had a councillor from a party they’d support? If no then get on to why that might be.
I’m not saying fair voting should take precedence over other issues – especially in the present situation. I’m suggesting that perhaps we might not be using the best approach for campaigning on this issue.
In the curent climate, attempts at ‘electoral reform’ would get shredded in polarised debate. But there is much agreement on the need for ‘cultural reform’ in our political system. This could be achieved in the short term by rearranging the House of Commons so our elected representatives do not eye-ball each other with gladiatorial insults backed by baying mobs. Why not sit MPs alphebetically or by region and have the party leaders side by side by the Speaker’s chair, and so on. Democracy was created as a system of compromise, not of confrontation and is reflected in the design of more modern legislatures.
Layla, I’m rather confused by your comment “Local parties are often incentivised to pick a ‘safe pair of hands’ for elections, and we all know what that often means!” I honestly don’t know what it means. Do the Lib Dems give extra funds to by election campaigns that select a “safe pair of hands”? Indeed what in modern UK politics constitutes a “safe pair of hands2?
Could you explain?
I think the article slightly misses the point about the behaviour of MPs in the House of Commons. It is more down to culture than gender on its own. As Humphrey rightly points out the House of Commons is set up in such a way for MPs to act in a confrontational and aggressive way unlike the Senate where debates are more civil. I worked in Parliament many years ago and would see this first hand coupled with the effects of the excessive drinking culture.
Of course Parliament, like other institutions, needs balance in terms of gender equality but you could say the same about race, social status and background. How many MPs are from council estate backgrounds I wonder? As for Tunbridge Wells, well it does have poorer bits as do rural areas often perceived as wealthy. The Lib Dems picked up on this in the by-election wins.
There is no doubt that the way we are governed is broken.
There is a huge disconnect between those who govern and those who are governed. Change is needed. But what form should that change take?
Mention any form of change on the doorstep and nine times out of ten the response will be along the lines of “So what. You’re all the same”. Why is that the case? In the main it’s because we get technical and wax lyrically about the features of what we are trying to get across.
Folk aren’t interested in features. Features are a big turn off. Folk want to know how what we are proposing, be it PR, Devolution, or dare I say it, “A Fairer more Equal Society” will be different for them? What’s in it for me? How will it benefit me? is what they want to know.
To be fair to Layla, she did say writing this article for Liberal Democrat Voice would be a bit like talking to the converted. She put here slant on how what she felt PR would change the way we are governed to the benefit of all.
So, let’s start turning “Features” into “Benefits” Just what would a “Fairer, more Equal Society look like? Liberal Democrats are not short on ideas, it has been said that we have policies coming out of our ears. So let’s start turning those ideas benefits and answer those questions on the doorstep, “What’s in it for me? How would it benefit me?
@theakes/Roland/Humphrey
“Fair votes” was on the front summary of our 2010 manifesto and (along with supporting the EU) is the main reason I support the Libdems. I imagine I’m not alone. I remember listening to an interview by Vince Cable after he lost his seat in 2015 and he was asked what one thing he would do if he was PM. His answer was, bring in proportional representation. Not only is it fair, not only does most of the western world have PR, you can’t do anything from opposition! This isn’t a budget where we’re deciding how to allocate funds. Changing the elctoral system clearly isn’t the only thing the Libdems want to do but if it ceases to be one of the Libdems priorities I will find another party.
@Trevor
I will be distributing this article and I think Layla is quite right to point out that PR systems around the world have produced greater diversity. I’m not a fan of positive discrimination but moving from fptp to PR is not positive discrimination but rather removing the discrimination that exists in fptp.
@Richard
I understand that STV can be proportional but in practise it often isn’t. As i said, if you look at the recent NI elections, not only are the Alliance over represented but TUV are under represented (1 seat from 8% of the vote). This is because NI has been broken into areas and their continual half a seat is never carried forward. Likewise, in the ROI Sinn Fein got the most votes but not the most seats. What is the point of a proportional system that isn’t proportional? More to the point, how do you expect to sell a system to the public that doesn’t do what it says on the tin?
It’s all very well talking about reforming the electoral system, but the five-letter word that politicians never talk about is MONEY. Isabel Hardman’s book “Why we get the wrong politicians” exposes just how important it is for would-be MPs just to get to the starting line of being Parliamentary Candidates for their party. For Liberal Democrats in 2015 the average loss (from Hardman’s own survey of 554 candidates of all parties) was £26,608. She also includes the distressing story of Vikki Slade (Mid-Dorset and North Poole Lib Dem candidate in that election). When you consider that the median annual salary in the UK was just £27,615 in 2015, it is obvious that only a small proportion of the population can afford to lose sums of this size and that severely limits the pool from which we can draw our candidates.
@Russell
“What is the point of a proportional system that isn’t proportional? ”
Do we need – or want – perfect proportionality or do we need an element of compromise? Such as the vast majority of electors being reasonably sure that their vote will count towards electing someone who does represent their views and who listens to them.
“More to the point, how do you expect to sell a system to the public that doesn’t do what it says on the tin?”
Should we be campaigning for PR or fair votes? ‘Fair’ might not necessarily mean perfect PR. Do you want a PR system which uses party lists where a party controls (through the list order) the likelihood of some of its candidates being elected as opposed to others? STV allows voters free choice – to spread their preferences across parties if they so wish. Takes power away from parties.
@nonconformistradical
So stop calling STV proportional representation. I like and want it to be proportional. To me that is fair. I have no problem with party lists. People are mostly voting for party/PM and under MMP most MPs are not from party lists.
Hi Russell, no one here is suggesting PR is not desirable. It’ll always be a Lib Dem policy.
But 1 It’s not a panacea.
It certainly wouldn’t reduce corruption, for example. PR list systems have notorious loopholes in that regard. And have under-pinned serious corruption in various European countries. (We’re not talking about somene glancing at a domina -tor/trix on his phone in the Mother of Parliaments: we’re talking about billions of Euros creamed of public contracts.)
And 2. It would be a serious error to base our GE campaign around PR. The only voters for who changing the electoral system is a top priority are already party supporters who have contributed several passionate articles on PR to LDV.
To be relevant and seen as relevant we need to campaign on the serious bread and butter issues which are making life so difficult for very many electors.
So in the Welsh, Scottish assemblies or germany/nz parliaments (where mmp gives rise to party lists) what corruption are you referring to?
Its somewhat irrelevant whether we need to fix the electoral system or not. The LibDems are not in power in Westminster and there is no incentive for either of the two main parties to change things, so unless we form a government, things will never change.
Russell, I am saying PR is NOT a panacea: Layla was arguing that introducing PR would help clean up public life.
I regard that as obviously false, as political corruption CAN and does thrive under PR.
It doesn’t mean ALL states with PR will be notably corrupt, anymore than all states with FPTP will have notable levels of political corruption.
I believe there is little correlation between democratic electoral systems and overall levels of corruption. Those levels reflect other factors in political culture.
We shouldn’t make unsustainable claims about PR. We should stick to what’s true: that it’s a fairer system.
@Chris
You haven’t identified the corruption you mentioned coming from party lists
Russell, No system of selecting MPs can ever be fully proportional, but STV generally comes close. But proportionality is only one consideration, unless you consider party affiliation to be the only relevant criterion for selecting an MP. Most Lib Dems consider local representation also to be important (which leads to local multimember constituencies), also that people may not support a party 100%, but has some split affiliation (which leads to second preferences in those constituencies), they also consider extremism to be divisive and counterproductive (leading to voters to stop indicating preferences at any stage they want).
This could easily and understandably lead to the Alliance getting more seats than first preferences, Sinn Fein getting more first preferences, but less seats, and TUV being seen as an obscure anachronism and so never getting enough votes anywhere.
Life is a set of compromises. If a person believes everyone must only support one party 100%, and has no problem with extreme parties getting in power, and wants small one issue parties to get an undue share of power if it is a very close election, by all means support some other means, but don’t believe it is a failure of STV. It’s made that way.
Spain, to take just one example: long-serving corrupt MPs, local councillors, regional reps etc were never able to be voted out because of their position at the top of party lists.
@Chris Moore
Your Spain example shows one of the benefits of STV over party list systems – in STV the voters put candidates in order, not the parties. So individual candidates have to work for votes. Much lower risk of safe seats.
@David
Of course you can have an electoral system that is proportional. If the greens or tuv gets 8% of votes I say they should get 8% of seats. If they only get 1% that’s not a bit proportional, it’s not proportional.
Russell, No you can’t, unless you have a parliament that has exactly the same number of members as there are voters. There will always be rounding. The maths is that simple.
Yes, Nonconformist Radical, that’s certainly true.
However, if we changed from FPTP to STV, I think there would be no difference in levels of corruption. Likewise if Spain moved to FPTP, I don’t think this would have any impact.
@Chris Moore
“However, if we changed from FPTP to STV, I think there would be no difference in levels of corruption.”
Under FPTP or party lists a corrupt candidate could be given an almost ‘divine right’ to a seat by their party in a safe seat. But if, say, a sitting MP was found to be corrupt (or not acting in the interests of their constituents) and this became public then at the next election – under STV the voters might not like the party even putting that candidate forward….
@David
I’m not sure if rounding is the correct term (you can round up or down) but clearly there is a point where one additional vote will move a seat from one candidate to another. Under, eg mmp in NZ if the greens get 8% of votes they are guaranteed to get 8% of seats. That’s what I call proportional. I don’t see the greens (and I’m sure tuv don’t see themselves) as an obscure anachronism. Under STV the greens could get 1 seat from 8% of votes. That’s not a system I’d campaign for. I could also have a guess at what “most libdems consider”. Instead, I’ll guess that most voters vote for a party, not a candidate. It is the party that has a manifesto. In any case, most MPs/MSPs are local candidates. I don’t understand your fear of (open) party lists as operating in Germany/NZ/Wales/Scotland where mmp/ams is used. STV can be proportional but the proportionality is diluted as soon as you break the country into areas and it starts to resemble fptp. TUV missed out on seats because it only once got enough votes to win a seat and its unused votes in one district didn’t carry over to the next district. For STV to be proportional you’d need to not break the country into districts. I maintain, if STV implies breaking a country into districts then it ceases to guarantee a proportional result. As evidenced in NI 2022 elections.
Hi, Nonconformist Radical,
Levels of corruption reflect wider social and political factors.
Replacing a list system with STV in Spain would make no difference to the many social factors that make Spain (and Italy and France – 2 round AV system) vastly more corrupt polities than the UK.
Work rounds would be found: delicious sticky irresistible corruption would continue.
Summary :
Present government is rubbish (agreed).
PR would be better (agreed)
Benefits of PR would be……not sure, but we’d get more women MPs (Sigh, is this what the British public want to hear, above all else, at this time ?)
According to yougov and removing “don’t knows”, the public is in favour of PR over fptp by 62:38 so we shouldn’t be coy about making it one of our main policies. I can think of lots of benefits.
Unfortunately, the number of people whose votes will be CHANGED by having PR at the centre of our electoral campaign is tiny.
Those who will see us as irrelevant, privileged and out-of-touch with ordinary people’s concerns will be significant.
PR is far down the list of priorities of nearly everyone.
@Russell – “Fair votes” was on the front summary of our 2010 manifesto
No problem with that, but it isn’t going to “fix our politics”, as others have observed the problems with our politics go deep and have roots dating back centuries.
With the seismic shifts we are witnessing, there is an opportunity to promote real political change. The challenge is as history tells us, the Tories are good at doing just enough to appease people and making the alternative look scary and so keep people voting for their oppressors…
Couldn’t agree more Layla and hope the leadership is listening. Electoral reform will alter the culture of our politics in a positive and significant way. We also need more accountability between elections. Five years is far too long for a manifesto to have any significance. At the very least we need more use of recall and substantial fines for infringing codes of conduct.
I can imagine a boring, arcane debate over minutiae, which would be lost on a confused and disinterested electorate . It’s not an election debate and I agree wholeheartedly with the comment above that this sort of debate is best had, and resolved, long before an election. Don’t forget local government needs fair votes too, sadly ignored when we last had power,
We would still need a recall process or we could be in a position where the party leadership refuses to sack one of its cronies. Think how that might have played out with party lists and the present PM in charge. Whatever system we have people need to feel it’s honest and can understand it.
We have a national recall process