UK's Political System – Does it need Reform ?

 I first published this blog in October 2022. Since then, if anything the political wrangling has worsened, and opinion in the UK became even more polarised in the run up to the July election. Many now argue that the results suggested a voting system at odds with the will of the electorate.

Time then, perhaps, for a second look at possible alternative systems....

Introduction

The events of the past three years, and in particular the last few months, have shown us that UK politics have entered a state of turmoil that we haven’t seen since the 1970s. As an institution, our post-war political system has never been particularly trouble-free, and the increasingly fractious state of our world is placing ever more strain on both the system and those in charge of it.

Can anything be done to improve things, and make our politics more resilient in the face of worldwide changes to come ?

Why should we change anything ?

Radical change in any system should always be carefully considered and its effects fully evaluated. There has been much talk among opposition parties about political change recently, and Proportional Representation (PR) is suggested on a regular basis by minor parties as an alternative to the current system. 

PR has of course already been implemented in the devolved national parliaments in Scotland and Wales, and was the model employed in NI at Stormont before the DUP withdrew their support in January 2023 and left NI governance in limbo for over a year (fortunately this has finally come to an end). PR is also almost universally employed in one form or another in western European nations, so we have plenty of data on which to base an assessment of its suitability or otherwise for UK-wide use.

Our ‘First Past the Post’ (FPP) system as it's called certainly has its disadvantages, and can also be a rather blunt instrument when it comes to adapting to, and implementing, political change. We should remember, however, that it has served us well for many centuries. The events of summer 2022 should already have convinced us that careful thought and perhaps even more importantly, detailed peer review, is required before any substantive changes are made to established government policy, or indeed to the political system itself....

Adjusting the wording of the old moral slightly, the updated 'mantra' our politicians should adopt in future should be: ‘...look before you leap, check whether anyone else is prepared to jump with you…and then look again to see if the ground itself has moved...before you jump’.

Which Voting Systems might work in UK ?

In terms of electoral systems available, for a mainstream western democracy with a functional constitutional monarchy the choices are limited, and there are really only two viable and acceptable alternatives: PR and FPP.

PR is arguably a fairer representation of the collective wishes of an electorate, since the weight given to different political factions in the resulting government is technically proportional to the number of votes cast. In practice, though, this method can still lead to unrepresentative minority governments via factional coalitions – we saw the results of this  this last year in the case of the Italian voting system. It remains to be seen how much long-term damage the new far right alliance will do to Italy and EU cohesiveness as a result. The French establishment had a shock in the first round of the parliamentary elections, and will no doubt be watching closely to see what might ensue there if Le Pen maintains her more moderate stance and gains ground over an increasingly vulnerable and unpopular Macron in the next set of presidential elections.

PR’s other main problem is that it rarely gives rise to majority governments, and this leaves the resulting governing elite dependent on maintaining whatever coalition it was able to form to put it in power. This, although not necessarily a bad thing, can in turn result in wide swings in policy and endless rounds of general elections if political support in the country is evenly balanced. It can also lead to extremists holding a government to ransom by holding the balance of power, and creating havoc as a result - as we've seen in the Middle East recently. Even where this doesn't occur, it can take many months for an effective coalition to be established in the first place, which can be dangerous if important political or economic decisions need to be made quickly. However, when it does work, and both voters and politicians are well-adjusted to it, PR can serve a country well.

FPP by contrast can, and quite often does, lead to majority governments, particularly in a system such as ours with only two major parties. This is partly due to what is often referred to as the ‘pendulum effect’. In a two-party system, with five-year maximum terms, by the time one or other main party has been in government for two full terms, both it, and its policies, are becoming ‘tired’ and both the government and the electorate need a change. The ensuing election often results in an abrupt voting swing and a majority for the erstwhile opposition. This is not, of course, universally the case, but ‘policy fatigue’ as I like to call it, is a factor to be reckoned with by any ageing government. The last two elections have shown us how abrupt the swings can be, and bring into question the fitness for purpose of FPP once again.

Are majority governments an advantage ? It depends....

A new government with a strong mandate, a sizeable majority and sound policies certainly has a better opportunity to implement those policies without major impediment, and the continuity this provides allows voters and institutions alike to plan more effectively. On the other hand, the knowledge that they will not be accountable to the electorate again for another five years, can make ministers cavalier about imposing unpopular and sometimes risky measures. 

Their inexperience early in their term can also lead to major policy mistakes, particularly if they feel they 'know best', and fail to consult adequately. We saw a good example of the effect an abrupt and un-costed fiscal policy change from a new and inexperienced government team can have on the financial markets in summer 2022. Fortunately the UK financial ‘ship’ was kept steady over the ensuing critical weeks by the BOE's timely intervention in the bond markets and an 'emergency' reversal of most of the mini-budget changes that had 'spooked' the markets. 

There are still questions as to why the markets reacted so negatively to Kwarteng's growth stimulating budget - the loss to the exchequer through the abolition of Sunak's 45% 'supertax' band would after all only have been ca £2Bn, and Hunt's recent proposed abolition of NI, which left many nonplussed, would have left a £46Bn hole in finances. Even this didn't seem to have raised many eyebrows in the markets. In any event, the more detailed budget forecast at the end of October, and a new, more 'economically seasoned' PM appointment probably did much to help calm the markets….Sunak's unpopularity and party disunity led to  the inevitable 'election 'rout' and we now have a Labour adminstration with a historically large majority..on only 1/3 of the total votes. 

More often than not, however, a 'mid-pendulum cycle' general election result is closer and the party in power ends up with a slim overall majority, or indeed no majority at all. As we saw most recently between 2016 and 2019, the ensuing reliance on support from other groups is just as capable of blocking effective policy decisions and ‘gumming up the political works’ as is PR. The five-year fixed term legislation introduced by the Cameron government has done nothing to help with resolving this problem and should ideally be repealed to increase flexibility and provide an effective political 'laxative' in a timely way when required.

There is one other feature of governments (of either hue!) elected with a large majority, which is not immediately obvious, but can lead to their eventual downfall. A large complement of MPs implies that the range of political views within the ranks will be considerably more diverse than for the smaller complement in a ‘conventional’ UK government with a slimmer majority. 

This makes the ruling Party particularly prone to in-fighting and factionalism, and will require a particularly strong leader to control it effectively. We have seen recently that such exceptional individuals are not always forthcoming. The opposition party also has an advantage in that it will be smaller, usually more focused on getting itself elected, and therefore less likely to succumb to the same disruptive factionalism. 

There is plenty of historical precedent for this – the terminal phase of the Thatcher government in the early 1990s was one example, with a notable 'rats in a sack' syndrome amongst Tory MPs and Major only just being re-elected in 1992, setting the scene for the Labour landslide of 1997. We saw a similar effect playing out in real time last year with the Truss regime, albeit on a much more compressed timescale; a premature end to a chaotic and exhausted government was just avoided, but without much room to spare. Neither have Labour been immune to this syndrome – the Blair government was going the same way in the late 2000s (with a little help from the financial crisis !) and had it not been for Blair’s agreement with Brown for an un-disputed transfer of the party leadership, would probably have itself imploded earlier. As it was, Brown's coronation, unpopularity and disaster-prone premiership was quickly followed by his electoral demise in 2010, completing that particular political cycle.

With a 179 seat majority and 411 MPs, given the ongoing ideological battle within the party, I would that predict Starmer will be quickly challenged deposed by the far left. If he is ousted, Rayner would take over initially as PM. Momentum will already be planning their strategy with this in mind, so Starmer will need to watch his back and quell any rebellion ruthlessly, lest we find ourselves in an even worse economic and social mess as a result of a far-left takeover. 

Even if the Labour majority had been a much slimmer one, the hard left would still have been likely to have a decisive influence on policy due to the voting leverage this would be likely to give them, and their union backers, in the house of commons. We can expect their influence to figure large in policy decisions.

As an example of what may be to come, the sort of 'tax and spend' package we might expect to see in a Spring 2025 'emergency' Labour budget following a hard-left takeover would likely include: 

• Basic tax rate up to 25%, 40% intermediate band increased to 45% (threshold lowered to £40k), top rate up to 60% above a revised £80k top threshold; 
• IHT threshold lowered to £200k, IHT rate up to 45%; 
• New wealth tax 1% p.a. on all households with combined total valued assets above £1M (includes property valuation). 
• Corporation tax up to 30%. 
• VAT up to 25%. 
• Planned public spending as a percentage of GDP: 120%. 
• Reinstatement of the Pension Lifetime allowance limit at £500k, annual tax-free pension contribution allowance lowered to £30k. 

These are not purely fictional figures, either - they are actually in the same ballpark as some of those we experienced in the mid-1970s and are etched on the minds of all of us who lived through that dreadful era. The problem is that only those who are now now over 60 will actually remember how bad it was, and I suspect it may take a dose of similar 'medicine' to convince anyone younger who did not experience it first-hand.

Although the 2024 Labour election manifesto promises "...no increases in income tax, national insurance or VAT...", sadly, by mid 2025 a fund-raising taxation package of this sort would almost certainly be required just to fund current public service levels adequately through taxation alone, given demographic trends, a stubbornly high  inflation rate and high public sector wage demands. The other likely additional funding sources such as Capital Gains, and Non-Dom. abolition and the much-vaunted clampdown on avoidance and evasion will do little to save the exchequer, and even the much-hated freeze on thresholds won't cover the deficit.

Now that little lot really would 'spook' the Markets.....and obliterate inward investment.

PR or FPP ?

I think the answer to this question is that neither system is ideal - or foolproof. Although UK as a whole hasn’t yet tried PR, it has had coalition governments, notably in recent times the Lib Dem-Tory coalition of 2010.  This certainly wasn’t the most auspicious of political experiences, although its fiscal and economic policies did manage to reverse some of the damage caused by the 2008 financial crisis and the more profligate policies of the previous New Labour term.

It became obvious quite early on in the coalition's lifetime that neither party was keen to pursue the arrangement beyond 2015, and a sigh of relief was heard from just about everyone (including the Lib Dems !) when the election results that year gave Cameron a working majority. In short, we’re not very good at coalitions in the UK, and they are perhaps best avoided - for now at least.

An abrupt transition to PR would therefore seem to offer little immediate advantage, and could do a lot of damage in an already crisis-ridden period of our history. Assuming we stay with FPP, is there anything else we could do to make the system more robust ?

What does need to change ?

Having followed UK politics for upwards of 50 years now, the main thing I can see that is lacking in our current version of  FPP is day-to day accountability of government to the electorate. This deficit would also apply to PR, if implemented here in the form it’s normally practised in Europe.

What opportunities do we as individuals have now to make our wishes known and represented ? 

In theory, any of us can apply to our local MPs for representation on a particular issue. That is a key part of their job as MPs, and they are obliged to consider each request and respond appropriately. The problem is that this is generally a retrospective intervention after the effects of a particular policy that has already been implemented feed through to the electorate at large. The MP involved is under no obligation to change their views or ask for action in Parliament as a result of the request. Each MP is, of course, only one representative among many in the governing party (ca 411 at the current count), so may have little or no opportunity to influence policy, even they feel it is called for. They are also likely to have a large case-load, and a particular request from an elector may simply end up at the bottom of a harassed researcher’s in-tray.

What is needed is a more responsive, and perhaps more importantly effective, way for individuals to influence policy from day to day. In order to be effective, it would need to feed directly into policy making…and have ‘teeth’.

To some extent, we do already have an element of 'live' representation in the form of opinion polls. These, however, are notoriously ‘blunt instruments’, and are often quite divergent in their readouts of ‘popular’ opinion for a host of reasons. Due to the small sample sizes used, they are also unlikely to be fully representative of the populations as a whole. Politicians are, of course, under no obligation to respond to any of them by altering their policies, although they rarely ignore them completely.

What might achieve useful change ?

What is needed is a representative but independent body with an agreed mandate that can feed ideas and feedback from the electors directly into cabinet in 'real time'. Only this would, in my opinion, provide the necessary additional checks and balances to avoid naïve mistakes, particularly at times when party leadership is endowed with that most dangerous of political combinations - inexperience and dogmatism.

The exact nature of such a body, and the method of selecting its members, would need much thought. The need for it, though, is clear. 

One possibility is to use a system similar to the Jury Selection System. This selects jurors on a random basis for trials in our Crown Courts, and worked well for centuries (until the recent pandemic created an enormous backlog). There would, of course, need to be an opt-out for those not feeling equal to the task they were selected for, but I suspect most would rise to the challenge. What more important service to their country than overseeing government policy could a UK citizen expect to perform ? Terms of service could be limited to 1 or 2 years and members of the 12-strong panel would have full training and support from appropriate experts, with a salary and reasonable expenses provided, and a guarantee that their original job would remain open if needed. The panel members would be expected to seek advice from the widest possible range of sources to maximise their collective wisdom before making decisions.

Politicians will no doubt all condemn the very idea of allowing electors to influence policy directly in this way, on the grounds that it would be likely to 'obstruct the process of government'. This need not be the case, however, provided both bodies are prepared to agree to work for the common good. The feedback provided would be on major issues confronting the UK, rather than any attempt to micro-manage day to day government business. Good examples of key issues at present would be the chaotic state of the NHS, how to tackle the cost of living crisis, and solutions for improving the UK's woefully low growth and productivity statistics. I'm sure I'm not alone in believing that both the current government and opposition are somewhat 'at sea' in dealing with these complex issues, and there is no guarantee that the next combination will do any better. 

The real gain of such oversight would be the additional checks and balances arising from the collective wisdom of the UK population – it is after all our country our government is charged with running – and they do so on our behalf, and with our permission.  Who better then to judge than ordinary citizens selected at random ? 

We cannot and indeed should not expect our elected politicians to trump our combined national wisdom, particularly since many of them are generalists without a specific professional expertise. The current unprecedented chaos in parliament can only add to the pressure for more immediately representative government, and we should continue to campaign for this.

Are our Political Leaders always Representative ?

There is another issue with the current two-party system which needs addressing, which has also been highlighted by the events of the past year.

When we elect a government in a general election, we choose a political party and its leader as a ‘package’. The leader is an important part of that electoral choice, and therefore gets a mandate for their policies as a result. If the political party in power then ousts its leader during their electoral term and elects another in their place, the new leader is normally chosen by the MPs and the 'party faithful’ only. The electorate at large have no say in the process, thus the new leader effectively cannot claim a general mandate for their policies. In the case of the summer Tory leadership election, the winner wasn't even the MPs' first choice, and the result was solely decided by a mere 80,000 party faithful out of a total UK population approaching 70 million - hardly a representative choice, to say the least, and obviously a bad one, given recent history.

This significant flaw in the democratic process needs addressing in the light of recent developments. The widely anticipated subsequent 'coronation' of a new PM last summer, without recourse even to the party faithful, let alone the electorate, only served to reinforce this view. Nor are Labour any better at this - their leaders are chosen by MPs and by their membership, but with an added and major component from the Trade Unions which effectively 'dilutes' and often overrides the rank and file membership's contribution. Since union membership is now close to an all-time low, this is doubly unrepresentative, and of course also excludes the remainder of the electorate.

What process might we use for ongoing electoral feedback ?

In addition to a non-political 'senate jury', we also need some form of regular all-electorate feedback process.  Formal plebiscites in the form of country-wide referenda generally are complex, time-consuming and difficult to organise, and would be impracticable for providing ongoing and rapid feedback. We do, however, need some form of slicker and more efficient nationwide feedback and approval system, particularly for providing guidance to a new and inexperienced party leader who becomes PM between general elections. 

Although the details of this would again require careful thought, the technology we now have available should be amenable to some form of secure electronic voting process. This is really the only way of generating a meaningful response from the voting public over a short enough timescale to be useful. If successful, the  technology employed could also, in time, be used to replace postal / in person voting as a more efficient means of electing representatives generally. The enhanced security possible could also make it less susceptible to fraud than the current paper-based system. The speed with which results could be processed would in turn allow rapid feedback to government in a more effective way than opinion polls alone, and would overcome the sampling size problem  that all opinion polls suffer from. To avoid disenfranchisement, we would, however, need to ensure that everyone had access to online voting - yet another reason for nationwide fast broadband provision at an affordable cost subsidised by government. The 12-strong 'senate jury' would have access to all data acquired by this online voting process and be expected to take its results into account when making their recommendations to government.

Conclusions

To summarise, although the UK political system does clearly need reform in order to be able to adapt to our rapidly changing world, we shouldn’t ‘throw the baby out with the bathwater’ by switching abruptly from FPP to PR at this stage. 

We should however think seriously about more responsive day-to-day electoral representation, including the process by which the political parties change their leaders while in power. The politicians will no doubt raise their objections to any such proposals, but change will need to come – however painful it may seem initially.

First Published: 20.10.22