Urgent reform is needed to fix our broken electoral system

Editorial / 28 September 2026 Labour is moving left – but not far enough or fast enough to defeat the right 28 September 2026 Editorial / 27 September 2026 Why the Garvaghy Road crisis matters for both Britain and Ireland 27 September 2026 ‘Reviving the Garvaghy Road route for an Orange Order parade after 28 years, when it was a focal point of lethal violence back in the 1990s, looks like a bid to take us backwards too’

ANDY BURNHAM’S renewed commitment to electoral reform in his first conference speech as Labour leader is a welcome development.

The present first-past-the-post system has become increasingly indefensible. The case for reform has grown as the electoral landscape has fragmented.

The Communist Party has advocated proportional representation as a matter of democratic principle since the second world war. However, in the 1950s, when up to 98 per cent of the electorate voted Labour or Tory, the issue could gain only limited traction.

Even then, there were perverse outcomes: Labour gained most votes in 1951, its best ever share of the poll in fact, yet Winston Churchill formed the government.

The rise of what was then the Liberal Party from the 1970s onwards, securing a vote many time greater than its small Commons representation, put the issue back on the agenda.

However, as long as the system delivered parliamentary majorities for what were then the two “main parties” no Prime Minister was motivated to act. A half-way house plan was rejected in a referendum in 2011.

Now, however, first-past-the-post is coming apart at the seams under the pressure of multi-party politics.

At the last general election Labour won two-thirds of Commons seats on little more than a third of the popular vote — and the vast majority availed it little in the face of Keir Starmer’s unpopularity.

Moreover, Reform won more votes than the Liberal Democrats, yet ended up with five seats to the latter’s 72.  No-one wants to see more Farageists in Parliament, yet this disparity is scarcely defensible.

In fact, under a reformed system more reflective of votes cast, it is more likely that Reform could be locked out of office and there is certainly no chance they could govern on their own.

Despite their recent drop in the polls, the quirks of the present system could still propel Nigel Farage into Downing Street with a Commons majority behind him.

PR would, of course, force Labour to look for allies to share government with too — preferably among the Greens and other left parties, which could only gain from proportional representation.

A majority of Labour MPs favour a review. More than 100 have already gone on record in Parliament for considering change.

Thus Burnham’s renewed pledge to bring in democratic change, via a national commission on electoral reform, is a step forward. He also committed Labour to fighting the next election on a pledge to introduce a new system.

However, the fear he expressed — that a Reform government could be elected on under 30 per cent of the vote — will not be dispelled by this plan because, evidently, any changes will not be in effect at that point.

If the proposed national commission does its work briskly, there is no reason why a new system could be ratified democratically and in place before 2029.

The left needs to use the time to work out developed proposals for a better electoral system, drawing on the diverse international experience available.

It needs to address likely counter-arguments, above all the constituency link between voters and their MP, win broad backing for this essential change and push for its swift introduction.

BURNHAM is wrong to scrap the pensions triple-lock. The national care service he plans is welcome, but the burden of funding it should not fall on the elderly.

State pensions in Britain remain among the worst in Europe. The triple lock has ameliorated but not overcome that disparity. Unite’s Sharon Graham is right — this plan is morally wrong.

It will be used against Labour by demagogic rightwingers over the next three years. The Prime Minister should think again.