Proportional Representation: General Elections

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I am a Liberal Democrat, a vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for fair elections and a sponsor of the debate. It is a genuine delight to see hon. Members on both sides of the House talking about this issue, which is one of the founding principles of my party. I believe firmly, though, that we will bring about the change that our country needs only on a cross-party basis, which is why working on the APPG with the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), who opened the debate, and the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns) is a delight. I look forward to working with them to deliver the change that we need.

The case for electoral reform is urgent and undeniable. First past the post is a system that no longer functions as a fair or effective mechanism for translating the will of the electorate into parliamentary representation. It is collapsing under its own weight. The time has come to take the first step in addressing this failure with the establishment of a national commission for electoral reform.

As colleagues across the House have mentioned, the 2024 general election was the most distorted in British history: Labour secured 63% of the seats with just 34% of the vote, while the Green party and Reform UK won almost 21% of the vote between them and received only nine seats. I will disagree with both those parties often and vigorously on different issues, but I defend their right to be represented when a number of people vote for them. Those results do not constitute fair representation; they represent a systemic failure.

The consequences of such an electoral mess are huge. The Electoral Reform Society has shown that 58% of those who voted in 2024 ended up with an MP they did not vote for, and that 85% of MPs were elected with under 50% of the vote, myself included. As others have mentioned, it now takes 24,000 votes to elect a Labour MP but 824,000 votes to elect a Reform UK MP.

Broader trends confirm the growing inadequacy of first past the post. According to the Institute for Public Policy Research, voter turnout has fallen from 84% in 1950 to below 60% in 2024 and trust in politics is at an all-time low. A system that continues to distort electoral outcomes so significantly will only worsen this crisis.

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

We all recognise that trust is important in politics, and we are responsible for building that trust. One way in which we build trust is by being accountable, and the current system gives us accountability to our constituents within the defined area of our constituency. How would first past the post help build the accountability of a named person—a single MP—in that defined area?

[Lisa Smart]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for intervening. I think her question was probably about how PR would deliver accountability, not how first past the post would deliver accountability. I very much agree that accountability and the constituency link are really important. I am glad that the debate has not nerded out excessively on which is our favourite form of PR, but there are many systems operating in the different nations of the United Kingdom that deliver that constituency link. I very much agree that that is an important part of our democracy.

PR provides a clear alternative to what we are currently doing. It ensures that seats broadly match votes, that every voter has a meaningful say and that Governments represent the majority of the electorate. We already have proportional representation in the UK, just not here in Westminster. In Scotland’s Parliament, 93% of voters have at least one representative they voted for, while in Westminster that figure stands at just 42% according to the Electoral Reform Society. PR in different forms is already used in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, as well as in the vast majority of democracies worldwide, so why not here? Evidence shows that PR leads to higher voter turnout, more representative Governments and more stable policymaking.

For a long time, the question of electoral reform has been viewed as an abstract debate—indeed, with people arguing over d’Hondt versus single transferrable vote—rather than one that is integral to democratic legitimacy. It is neither sustainable nor responsible to continue governing under a system where a party can form a large majority on barely a third of the vote. It is reckless to maintain an electoral model that so consistently produces such wildly disproportionate groups of MPs and leaves millions of voters feeling ignored. If these trends are allowed to continue, it is not difficult to see how turnout will fall further, results will become even more distorted and political instability will grow.

I am a Lib Dem—I outed myself earlier—and I enjoy speaking with and listening to voters. I am also a fan of a bar chart on my leaflets.

[Mr Mohindra]

Are they accurate?

[Lisa Smart]

I am delighted to report that my bar charts have been measured and are accurate to the millimetre.

[Luke Akehurst]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lisa Smart]

I would be delighted to give way on that subject.

[Luke Akehurst]

Does the hon. Lady accept that one of the great advantages of moving to a proportional voting system would be that there would be no need to put any bar charts on any leaflets—it would be highly misleading to do so—that there would be no “two-horse race” graphics or squeeze messaging, and everyone would be able to vote for the party they really wanted?

[Lisa Smart]

I could not have been more delighted to welcome the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. I wonder if he has been listening in to the Hazel Grove constituency Liberal Democrat executive meetings. I agree with the him, though. When thinking about how to vote, I would much rather—as, I imagine, would a number of voters—talk about values, principles and policies, instead of a rather grim-looking canvasser pointing earnestly at a bar chart, worried about who might get in if the vote splits. PR would be better for our politics and better for our communities.

There is widespread and growing support for change, both in Parliament and across the country. A national commission for electoral reform would provide the necessary first step towards finally addressing the failures of first past the post—a step that must be taken well before the next general election. To ignore the urgency of this issue would be to further undermine our democracy.

Governments are not always known for doing things that they do not see as being in their best interest; however, like a number of colleagues across the House, I argue that proportional representation is in our whole country’s interest, and that is why I urge the Government to act. The public are watching, and the demand for fair representation cannot be ignored forever—our democracy depends on it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

We have to get everybody in, so we are going to have a speaking limit of five minutes. I call Jas Athwal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

I think that is a relatively lazy argument about the internal machinations of the Conservative party and is not concerned with our electoral system. I give the hon. Lady the point that it was not a good time within my party, within this country and that period of office, but it concerns the way parties elect leaders and not the electoral system for the public.

In relation to proportional representation not allowing parties from different wings to be elected, if we look at an example from 2009, in European elections under the PR system, the British National party won two European Parliament seats with 6% of the vote. In the rare cases in which the BNP won local government seats, such as in Barking and Dagenham in 2006, its support represented 35% to 50% of the popular vote in the winning wards. First past the post, by contrast, acts as a safeguard against extremism in ensuring that only candidates with broad support can win. That helps preserve the political stability and moderation that are hallmarks of our parliamentary democracy.

When coalition Governments are formed, it becomes difficult for voters to hold any one party accountable for their decisions. Blame for unpopular policies can easily be shifted between coalition partners, which, given how things are going for them, I know might be appealing for Labour Members. However, that erodes trust in politics, whereas first past the post provides clarity. Voters know exactly which party is in charge and can hold it to account at the next election.

It is also the case that under a party-list PR system, which was previously the European Parliament’s system in Great Britain, there was no direct accountability, with representatives dependent on a party patronage system. How many voters actually knew the name of their European Parliament Members when we were in the European Union? I would hazard that there were only one or two well known MEPs and one of them is still close by.

I think the choice for us is clear, although I know that I am undoubtedly in the minority this afternoon. First past the post ensures strong and stable governance, clear accountability and an electoral system that is easily understood by the public. It prevents small, unrepresentative parties from wielding disproportionate influence and upholds the direct link between MPs and their constituents. The British people have spoken in favour of first past the post and we should respect that decision. Members in other Opposition parties should learn and take it from us: we know that you cannot keep asking the same question over and over and expect a different response. The first-past-the-post system has served the UK well for generations. It delivers clear outcomes, stable Governments and a direct link between voters and their representatives. If we were to move to a PR regional-based system, that link would be lost and MPs would be scrambling and fighting to take on their constituents’ casework. We can just imagine the mafioso-style turf wars such a system would generate. To scrap those sensible and time-honoured demarcations would be terrifically reckless and fundamentally unnecessary and would do our electors a disservice.

We should not trade a proven system for one that prioritises theoretical fairness over practical effectiveness. The challenges we face as a country demand strong leadership, clear accountability and a system that works for the people. Even though I do not like the result, the Labour Government won that mandate under the system we have. First past the post has provided that Government and we should stick to that, allowing the British people to have a system they fundamentally understand and fundamentally believe in.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) in his wide-ranging comments talked about the vote that was held on 3 December 2024 relating to the Elections (Proportional Representation) ten-minute rule motion. He mentioned rightly that the ayes won by two votes, but in fact, the number of votes cast were 138 ayes and 136 noes. He mentioned that only 62 votes were cast and I am sure he would like to correct the record.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

That is a point of debate and not a point of order. I call the shadow Minister.