Proportional Representation: an unintended consequence?

At their annual conference, Liberal Democrats renewed their push for electoral reform with Proportional Representation back at the centre of debate over how Britain votes.

Proportional Representation back on the Lib Dem agenda

It’s no secret that the Liberal Democrats are desperate for the current voting system to change. The party that led the push for the AV referendum in 2011 has long stood against First Past the Post (FPTP) from both a principled and political perspective; a liberal mindset would dictate that a voting system in which millions of people effectively had their vote wasted needs to change, and there are also suggestions that Proportional Representation (PR) could give the party a better chance at succeeding in future elections. 

At the Lib Dem conference this year, the APPG for fair elections, reportedly the biggest APPG with cross party membership of which Lib Dem Home Affairs spokesperson Lisa Smart MP is Vice-Chair, made the case for introducing PR in the UK. Curiously, the campaign is now focused on forcing a national commission on the issue, rather than attempting to force legislation past a disinterested government. When New Zealand, often pointed to as the example the UK should follow, introduced PR after a referendum in the 1990s, it was because of recommendations from a commission.

The case for change

The session was intriguing for how the panel spelt out the arguments in favour of PR. The MP for Didcot and Wantage, Olly Glover, noted that candidates often find people complaining on the doorstep that they are forced to choose between the parties that have a chance of winning rather than the ones they actually want to vote for. Glover, a member of the APPG, tells these people they should vote for him so that he can campaign for them to never have to vote for him ever again. 

The session also highlighted how the changing political landscape has inverted arguments in favour of PR. Anyone who’s ever written an A-level politics essay will remember writing that a key disadvantage of PR is that it allows extreme fringe parties an easier path to influence in government. However, with Reform leading in the polls, the panel argued PR is needed for the opposite reason: PR would almost certainly prevent Reform from gaining a majority in the House of Commons, and limit their ability to implement their agenda. A recent poll suggested that they would be on track for over 400 seats if an election were held today. 

Glover also highlighted that because of PR's tendency to create no majority winner, politics would become far more cohesive, since politicians would be forced to collaborate with their opponents to pass legislation, as opposed to FPTP, which encourages MPs to hunker down in their tribes. 

It’s a positive view of politics, and one which polling suggests would be popular with the public but beneath that lie major questions about the growing pains that would come with a shift to coalition or minority governments. Political parties are in an especially partisan state right now, and there would need to be time to adapt to the new reality. Would anything be able to get done? 

There’s also the risk to the general public’s patience for change. The rise of Reform has illustrated that, above all, people are desperate for change. Suggestions of a move towards coalition governments and negotiations could dampen people’s hope that the parties they vote for will actually deliver the radical shifts many are promising.

From a law-making perspective, PR would represent a major shift. Engagement would need to increase across all parties by stakeholders. Politicians from smaller parties, often ignored because of their lack of influence on government policy, could become crucial in passing legislation. 

But PR also has the potential to bring a major unintended consequence through the House of Lords. Put simply, PR could see the power of the Lords increase exponentially overnight. In a system where the majority of governments tend to reign supreme, the ability of the Upper House to affect policy is generally limited to an advisory role. However, if governing parties do not command majorities, they will lose the ability to stamp out any rebellion.

The Lords question

Lords amendments could become the cause of major rifts in the Commons, as parties might not be able to stamp out their revisions with the same ease. Any measure which has the power to increase the influence of the unelected chamber could be seen as hugely controversial. 

Any move to Proportional Representation would reshape how power is balanced in Westminster, with the House of Lords potentially gaining new influence over legislation.

It is difficult to know how the Lords would use this power. A report in 2014 found that the Salisbury convention doesn’t apply to coalition agreements, in theory meaning Lords could choose not to let governments implement their agendas. In practice, it is unlikely that peers will choose to block much, since the prevailing sentiment appears to recognise the chamber's role as providing revision and scrutiny rather than killing Bills outright. That said, a move to PR could open the door for the Lords to gain a new sense of purpose, which would alarm many given its unelected nature. Many might be squeamish about the theoretically increased power of the Lords to impose changes on legislation. 

Promise and pitfalls

The case for PR is very clear: voters are disengaged from politics, with many feeling that their vote won’t make a difference since in most cases, only two parties have a realistic shot of winning. That said, it might not be as simple as just rewriting the electoral law and everyone patting themselves on the back. Ultimately, any discussions about the change will need to be acutely aware of any unintended consequences, and it's highly possible that other constitutional changes will need to come alongside it. 

PoliMonitor will be here for it all.