Elections (Proportional Representation)

Lewis Cocking Excerpts

1st reading
Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

I support continuing with the first-past-the-post system. When our constituents arrived at their polling station on 4 July, they knew what to expect: if their chosen candidate received more votes than any other, that is who would be elected as their MP. There is elegance to this simplicity. In our democracy, the person who wins the most votes in each of our 650 constituencies wins the seat. It cannot be denied that voters would be confronted with a far more complicated system if any type of proportional representation were to be introduced.

Crucially, after the election, every one of our constituents knew who to turn to if they wished to contact their Member of Parliament. For me, that is the most important feature of our democratic system. In a more proportional system, such as the single transferable vote system advocated by some across the House, constituencies would be represented by multiple Members of Parliament from various parties. Clearly, that would polarise our communities, and voters might contact only the MP they had voted for, which would absolve us of our duty to represent all our constituents. It would be far too difficult for voters to get to know the several politicians representing their area, and to hold them to account at the next general election. Constituents struggling with complex issues may already have exhausted other options. We do not want to make them ask which MP they should contact as well.

First past the post creates a strong connection, for good or bad, between residents and their representatives. Under our current system, I can represent my home of Broxbourne. Every one of my neighbours—whether they have an issue with their housing, their pension or anything else—knows who to turn to. There is a clear link that would simply be lost under a more proportional system. Having a sole representative for a small constituency allows each of us in this place to remain grounded, and ensures that every corner of our United Kingdom is properly represented.

There is also a simplicity and stability in the results that emerge from our first-past-the-post general elections. For the most part, first past the post produces Governments with clear workable majorities that can last the full length of their term. Voters want strong Governments who can deliver the policies in their manifestos, not the chaos of constant disagreement and repeated elections. Under proportional representation, the party that receives the most votes does not automatically or quickly form the next Government. Instead, as we are seeing now in Ireland, political parties go behind locked doors to do deals among themselves. Discussions last for months after the general election has taken place—that is plainly undemocratic—and voters are given no further say. When a coalition agreement eventually comes, it satisfies no one.

Under the first-past-the-post system, each party presents its policies to the British people at the general election. That is the basis on which votes are cast in our general elections. In first-past-the-post elections, it is clear who will be in power and who will be in opposition. As we saw in the recent general election, it is possible for voters to change who governs them if that is the choice they wish to make.

Finally, I remind the House that the British people have made clear their opposition to proportional representation. In 2011, 13 million people voted to remain—sorry, to retain. [Interruption.] It was less people than voted for that. In 2011, 13 million people voted to retain the first-past-the-post system, and at the last general election neither of the largest two parties proposed a change in the electoral system. For those reasons, I think it would plainly be wrong to make any changes to elections in the United Kingdom.

Question put (Standing Order No. 23).