The stark reality of Britain's electoral landscape is laid bare by a simple truth: as citizens are denied a vote on how they vote, power remains entrenched with the beneficiaries of a corrupt and outdated system. This fundamental flaw in democracy is not just a theoretical concern; it has dire practical consequences, potentially enabling a hard-right party to seize control with minimal public support.
The Splitting-the-Vote Scare Tactic
Labour's persistent warnings about "splitting the vote" in upcoming by-elections and general elections ring hollow when examined against the backdrop of electoral fairness. With proportional representation, this fear would evaporate entirely. Voters could freely support the parties they genuinely believe in, without resorting to tactical voting to block a greater evil. Yet, the Labour government, under Keir Starmer, adamantly clings to the first-past-the-post system, a mechanism it then uses to blame voters for undesirable outcomes.
This stance is not rooted in public opinion. Recent surveys, including the British Social Attitudes survey, reveal that 60% of Britons desire a change to the electoral system, compared to only 36% who wish to maintain the status quo. However, without a democratic referendum on voting methods, the decision rests solely with those who profit from the current setup.
Starmer's U-Turn on Fairness
Ironically, Keir Starmer once acknowledged the inherent unfairness of first-past-the-post during his leadership campaign. Since assuming power, he has performed a complete reversal, dismissing any moves toward proportional representation. The reason is transparent: the system's unfairness is its very purpose. It allows the two major parties to manipulate voters with threats of vote-splitting, a tactic that defines the electoral framework rather than arising from it.
Now, as political alliances fragment, first-past-the-post poses a new threat. Analysis indicates that Reform UK could secure 48% of parliamentary seats with just 27% of the national vote, potentially forming a government with a minor coalition partner. If Reform UK ascends to power, it will be solely due to the distortions of our electoral system.
Labour's Self-Interest Overrides Democratic Principles
Why does Starmer's government resist change so vehemently? Initially, the motive was clear: in the 2024 general election, Labour garnered a mere 33.7% of the vote—the lowest share for any winning party since World War II—yet claimed 63% of seats, a massive majority. Today, the rationale has shifted. Starmer's leadership has squandered that advantage, and Labour recognises that under proportional representation, it faces near-annihilation.
Evidence from Wales underscores this point. The upcoming Senedd election, using a fairer closed proportional list system, projects Labour—historically dominant in Wales—to win only about 10% of seats based on current trends. In contrast, under first-past-the-post in a 2029 general election, Labour could focus efforts on key constituencies, emerging with a respectable minority or even a coalition government despite a small vote share. Thus, the choice between fair and unfair systems determines whether Labour is relegated to obscurity or retains political relevance.
The Reform UK Paradox
Under proportional representation, Reform UK would stand no chance of winning a general election given current polling. The 2024 election already disadvantaged the party, awarding it just five seats despite 14.3% of the vote. Nigel Farage, once a critic, now praises first-past-the-post, noting it can become an ally after a certain "inversion point." This sets the stage for a potential horror show: Reform UK governing with an even smaller vote share than Labour's 2024 result.
The aftermath could be tumultuous. While Starmer's bland governance has prevented widespread unrest, a Reform UK victory might spark fierce resistance from a majority who explicitly rejected its platform. If this occurs, responsibility lies squarely with Labour's self-interested refusal to reform the electoral system, betraying any pretence of putting "country before party."
Leveraging Fear for Political Gain
Labour exploits this precarious situation to maintain leverage, threatening voters that failing to support them will usher in Farage. This panic-inducing strategy obscures the fact that the electoral system itself makes the threat viable. As the Gorton and Denton by-election nears, Labour preemptively blames the Greens for "splitting the vote," asserting that "only Labour can beat Reform." Yet, bookmakers predict a Green victory, suggesting that where Labour offers disappointment and Reform offers division, the Greens provide hope.
The path to a fair electoral system is clear: voters must support the parties they truly desire, organising and defying threats. By recognising the changed political landscape and voting with hope, we can escape the cycle of depressing choices. The future of British democracy hinges on this courageous shift.
