Is the UK’s First Past the Post Electoral System Ripe for a Change ?

 There has been much reporting in the media recently about the 'rise and rise' of Nigel Farage’s Reform party, culminating in a row between Kemi Badenoch and Farage about his claims on snowballing party membership. This, and Labour’s abysmal performance since the July election, has inevitably led to speculation about whether our UK  2-party ‘first past the post’ system is still appropriate to our electoral needs.

Before we look at the likelihood of anything replacing it, or indeed what might take its place, let’s look at the current state of the parties' fortunes.

Labour, as we’ve already discussed, has not lived up to its electors’ expectations, and have made a series of strategic blunders, starting with the removal of the pensioner universal winter fuel payment just a few days into their term. Their many broken promises have made the leadership team highly unpopular, especially their PM and his chancellor, who are seen as responsible for the damage done. They have made many enemies amongst sections of the electorate they appear to have singled out as ‘non-supporters’ deserving ‘punishment’. They are also unpopular within their own party, having overridden concerns of their union backers over ‘unsocialist’ policies affecting some of the least well-off members of society. Any brief honeymoon period they might have had in July was even more rapidly extinguished than usual. 

Six months on, with one minister and one key advisor already gone, the economy is flat-lining, and Starmer can no longer blame the infamous ‘Tory Black Hole’ for our continued economic woes. About as bad a position to be in as a governing party could be, then, 6 months into a nominal 5-year term.

Their key strategic mistake, and a common one amongst socialist regimes, has been to give the public sector priority over everything else. Applying a disastrous budget in order to fund public sector wage claims and extensive NHS ‘sticking plaster’ remediation at the expense of private industry makes no sense in a competitive capitalist world – the public sector, though admittedly important, cannot generate wealth of itself – it is always a net consumer, and is there to ‘keep the lights on and our society running’. Only the private sector can generate real wealth, and the sort of inward investment we desperately need to fund growth will only continue if business conditions here are seen as favourable. Re-nationalising everything can only have one result – economic decline and sky-high taxes.

The Conservatives, as we all know, received a justifiable drubbing at the election in return for their perceived incompetence during their last couple of years after ceremonially ditching Boris. They do at least now have a younger and more dynamic leader at the helm, but still have a mountain to climb to regain sufficient popularity and electoral approval to make much headway in clawing back their support.  

Their biggest external threat, of course, is Farage’s Reform party, which we’ll discuss in more depth later, but they also have a pressing need for internal reform i.e. learning how to be conservative (with a small c!) again. They managed to ‘lose the plot’ badly on this in a vain attempt to emulate Labour in the run up to the election, with a spectacular fall from grace as a result, so they must convince the voters that deserted them in July that they have learned their lesson. They must also ensure they stay ‘mainstream’ and avoid a lurch too far to the right in an attempt to compete with Reform. The new leadership is wisely ‘keeping its powder dry’ on detailed policy at present, and focusing on internal structural reform, but will at some point need to come up with credible specifics to avoid losing ground to the other opposition parties.

The Lib Dems, despite their bountiful yield of 72 seats (acquired largely on the back of Tory ‘punishment' vote-switching,) and Davy’s antics as a would-be stuntman, have proved decidedly lack-lustre since the election and haven’t really contributed much to the important job of opposing Labour’s many mistaken policies. For reasons we’ll discuss later, there’s every chance that they will regress back to their usual single figure tally of MPs in 2029, although if they do somehow manage to retain more seats, they could have a role as ‘kingmakers’ in a hung parliament.

Reform represents the real ‘wild card’ when it comes to assessing future electoral outcomes and possible system change. They have certainly ‘hit the ground running’ since the election and capitalised wherever possible on Labour’s mistakes and unpopularity. The recent hype surrounding the Musk/Trump connection may have impressed some, but has generally not gone down particularly well, given the UK population’s growing concern about the damage Trump may do over the next 4 years, as his inauguration approaches.

Any suggestion that Farage might try to emulate Trump by adopting similarly radical policies in UK if elected to government would probably kill off any chance Reform might have of further electoral success here, as discussed in previous blog. 

The other problem Farage has is the nature of his supporter and candidate base. The run up to the July election brought some pretty unsavoury characters out of the woodwork, with some hasty withdrawals from the candidate list, and Farage, will have a major job on his hands convincing voters that he has ‘cleansed’ his party of unacceptably hard-right activists. Given the spectrum of right wing opinion that the party tends to attract, my guess is that he will find it difficult to amass 600+ ‘squeaky clean’ candidates in time for the next election, let alone ensure that his party workers and campaigners follow the strict guidelines he will need to impose to avoid ‘frightening the horses’ in the run up to the 2029 vote. 

In the event, he may also struggle with funding – even if a large donation of the sort Musk was promising recently isn’t forbidden by new electoral rules, he will want to avoid any controversy about his sources of financial support. This issue has surfaced regularly in recent election campaigns, and can adversely affect vote share. Last but not least, perhaps his biggest obstacle to a breakthrough is…fear of the unknown. All of his competitor parties are well-known and have clear political ‘profiles’, allowing the electorate to predict reasonable accurately what they might be expected to do in government. Reform doesn’t have this ‘luxury’, so will have a much higher ‘trust bar’ to overcome. It’s one thing using your vote as a protest against a particular party if you’re pretty sure it won’t get the beneficiary elected. Quite another if you think they might actually become your MP….and even end up as part of a government.

Although not strictly an English issue, for completeness we should also consider the fortunes of the SNP, as they could become important in any UK hung parliament situation that develops post election at Westminster. The party has been mired in scandals since the pandemic, and got a comparable drubbing to the Tories in July from a dissatisfied Scottish electorate. Two leaders on, they show little signs of reviving much support, and although they may just be able to hang on to power at Holyrood in 2026, they are unlikely to make many Westminster gains, given their current performance. Their seat yield in 2029 will depend very much on Labour’s popularity (or rather lack of it!) – neither the Lib Dems nor the Tories are likely to make much impression on their vote in Scotland. They could make a few gains in some  Labour seats, and could also see more of a resurgence if the Independence debate takes off again, and Labour really hit the buffers. Scottish Labour benefited significantly from SNP 'punishment' losses in July, so will be vulnerable themselves in 2029 if switched voters return.

So much for party fortunes….how likely is it that these will actually induce a change of electoral system ?

The short answer to this is still…highly unlikely. Why ?

The crucial obstacle, as always, is that neither of the two traditional ‘main’ parties want it.

Both of them know that their monopoly on power depends on ‘first past the post’ and that once this was broken, it would be impossible to reclaim it. This is a powerful deterrent to either of them accepting any change to the voting system. 

Clearly, nothing will happen until after 2029, given Labour's 170+ seat overall majority. 

Thereafter, constitutionally, the only way a change could occur would be by parliamentary statute. Provided both main parties agree (as they almost certainly would) to block any such move, it just won’t happen. It would take a massive change in the distribution of seats in 2029 to give the Lib Dems and Reform a combined majority, from the 72+4 now to at least 340 – i.e both parties would need secure in excess of 170 seats to be sure of voting such a change through – and would need to agree to combine. Then there is the Lords to consider – as an un-elected chamber, the same radical change in distribution could not occur during the course of one election campaign, and the current predominance of Tory and Labour peers would ensure the upper house fought the bill ‘tooth and nail’, which would probably ‘kill it by amendment’ in a hung parliament situation. What form of representation might we end up with ? See my previous blog for some possibilities.

We shouldn’t, however, rule out a change of system entirely – politics has undoubtedly entered an unstable and unpredictable phase pretty much worldwide, so anything can, (and probably will!) happen in the next 4 years.

Happy New Year !

Update 4.1.25: Those of us with an interest in what happens to our NHS, and in particular how it proposes to deal with the Adult Social Care crisis, are still trying to digest yesterday's news of yet another major delay to any sort of permanent solution. Labour have set up yet another enquiry, with all the associated costs to the taxpayer, which isn't due to come up with final recommendations until 2028. They claim that this is to allow 'due time' for a full review and to secure all-party agreement on a way forward. Both claims are clearly an attempt to cover up the real reason, which is to an extent given away by the timing. Starmer has decided in his impeccable wisdom that anything concerning the elderly should always take second place, and has elected to 'kick the can down the road' sufficiently far for the problem to fall to the next government. he may also be hoping it will provide an election opportunity to help save his government from a landslide defeat. This in itself is interesting because it suggests even he has realised that Labour is extremely unlikely to be re-elected with a majority in 2029. 

Re the need for a full review, we have had countless re-examinations of the social care problem over the past 20 years, so yet another re-hashed 1000-page report gathering dust in the archives is a waste of time...and money-lots of it. We know what the problem is - adult social care needs to be fully integrated within the NHS and provided to all without means testing free at the point of need. Our EU neighbours have already provided a template on which to build (see previous blog) and a funding model for the service. We just need to grasp the nettle and run with it. 

Regarding the claim of seeking 'all-party agreement', the record of this government so far, with its 'we know best' and 'steamroller majority' approach on most issues doesn't suggest they intend to aim for agreement on anything, let alone something this contentious.

First published 29.12.24

Revised 4.1.25