Andy Burnham is facing an early test of his stated support for electoral reform, as 185 MPs call for a national commission into replacing first past the post.
The amendment to the representation of the people bill has been signed by 98 Labour MPs, alongside MPs from seven other parties and several independents. It calls on Burnham’s government to establish the commission during his first 100 days as prime minister and ensure it reports before the next general election.
New YouGov polling also suggests that support for reviewing first past the post now extends across a majority of the Commons, with 53 percent of MPs surveyed backing a review.
Burnham has supported electoral reform for years. Speaking at last year’s Labour conference, while still mayor of Greater Manchester, he backed “a manifesto commitment to a system of proportional representation to be introduced into Westminster elections in the next parliament.”
Now that he has the power to begin that process, however, Downing Street is already putting distance between the prime minister and the proposed commission. Number 10 says Burnham remains committed to putting electoral reform in a future manifesto but hasn’t endorsed the amendment.
A Labour source said: “The representation of the people bill has been designed to deliver our manifesto commitments on votes at 16 and strengthen political donation rules to guard against foreign interference, and that’s what the government is prioritising.
“Andy remains strongly committed to electoral reform, and has indicated this is a matter for a future party manifesto, given a mandate would need to be secured for it.”
This appeal to the need for a future mandate is thin. Establishing a commission wouldn’t change the voting system or even require legislation. It would merely examine the available alternatives. Postponing even that limited step until another manifesto creates plenty of room for the commitment to be delayed, diluted or abandoned.
The amendment will be considered when the representation of the people bill returns to Parliament on 2 September. It may be ruled outside the scope of the bill, but its backers intend it to demonstrate the scale of parliamentary support for faster reform.
Several signatories have since entered the government, including energy secretary Miatta Fahnbulleh, communities minister Florence Eshalomi and Burnham’s parliamentary private secretary Jo Platt. They may now withdraw their support under the convention that ministers and their aides don’t back amendments from the government benches. That convention is one of the mechanisms through which the executive disciplines MPs and turns their publicly stated positions into obedience once jobs and careers are involved.
First past the post awards each constituency to whichever candidate receives the largest number of votes, regardless of whether most voters opposed them. Across a general election, it can turn a minority share of the vote into a large parliamentary majority while leaving millions of votes with no effect on the result.
Its function isn’t simply to produce an inaccurate reflection of public opinion. It protects the two-party management of the British state, pressuring workers to vote for whichever established party they dislike least rather than the party that actually represents their views. Parties with geographically concentrated support can win substantial representation, while millions of votes spread across the country may return only a handful of MPs.
Labour MP Lizzi Collinge said first past the post “particularly devalues the votes of renters, young people and BAME people, and delivers parliaments that do not represent what most people voted for.”
The existing system has served both Labour and the Conservatives well. Each can secure almost complete control of Parliament without winning anything close to majority support among the electorate. Labour’s leadership therefore has a material interest in preserving a system it periodically condemns but still hopes to exploit.
Proportional representation would make election results more closely reflect how people voted and could weaken the artificial Labour-Conservative duopoly. It could give smaller parties and organised working-class political forces greater space in Parliament. That makes it a real democratic reform, not merely an administrative adjustment.
But no voting formula can by itself change the class character of the British state. Under capitalism, the owners of capital retain control over investment, employment, the press and the vital sectors of the economy. The permanent institutions of the state aren’t placed under working-class control by making Parliament more representative. A proportionally elected Westminster would still preside over a capitalist economy and an imperialist state.
The government’s emphasis on guarding against “foreign interference” also leaves the domestic power of capital safely outside the frame. British billionaires, wealthy donors, business interests and the corporate press don’t need instructions from abroad to shape political life. Their influence is rooted in private ownership and class power, not merely in gaps in donation law.
The UK’s last nationwide vote on changing the Westminster electoral system took place in 2011, when voters rejected the alternative vote. AV allowed voters to rank candidates but retained single-member constituencies and wasn’t a proportional system. The present proposal would therefore open a broader discussion about how closely the composition of Parliament should reflect the votes cast across the country.
The proposed commission remains a modest measure and could itself become another means of postponing a decision. Even so, Burnham’s response will show whether his support for electoral reform survives contact with power. First past the post helped create the parliamentary dominance he now enjoys. His government’s first instinct has been to promise reform later while keeping that advantage intact today.
