Blunkett – the Prime Minister’s political mentor – said a move away from Westminster’s first-past-the-post (FPTP) electoral system towards proportional representation (PR), would opens the door to small parties with “outlandish views” calling the shots.
The former home secretary urged his “friend” Burnham, and other advocates of electoral reform, to be “extremely careful” what they wish for.
The comments were echoed by multiple Labour MPs who told The i Paper that they oppose moving to a system of proportional representation, with Burnham facing significant internal resistance to his vow to include electoral reform in Labour’s next manifesto.
Among them was a Welsh Labour MP who warned the fallout would be felt by voters: “You’ll end up like a situation in Wales where no one knows who their representative is,” they argued.
Blunkett is among a number of Labour grandees who have long opposed PR. Writing for The i Paper, he pointed to Israeli politics as a warning to the UK.
Under Israel’s PR system, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu currently leads a coalition government that includes several far-right parties who reject a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Blunkett said: “Later this month we will have a demonstration of what is the purest form of proportional representation in the world. Namely, the Israeli general election.
“If there were ever an example of how tiny minorities representing not only outlandish views, but providing a blockage on progress, compromise and long-term outcomes, it has to be this form of PR.”
Blunkett also said he did not accept the argument made by some proponents of PR that Britain had moved irreversibly to a system of multi-party politics, or that a change to the electoral system was needed to lock the hard-right out of government.
“The message has to be clear to the zealots for electoral change. Be extremely careful – extremely careful – what you wish for,” he said.
‘The last ever majority Labour government’
Blunkett remains an influential voice in the Labour Party, but what may be of greater concern to Burnham is the fact that his scepticism is widely shared in the current crop of Labour MPs.
One “Red Wall” MP said that if Burnham pushed through proportional representation he could end up being “the last ever Labour prime minister of a majority Labour government”.
The Welsh Labour MP said embracing PR would be a “terrible idea”, and said the Welsh Senedd – which uses a form of PR involving large multi-member constituencies – was not an example Westminster should follow.
In some quarters of the PLP, opposition to electoral reform has hardened because of recent events involving the Green Party of England and Wales.
If the UK adopted PR, many Labour MPs think that their party would be forced to cut deals with smaller progressive parties such as the Liberal Democrats and the Greens to govern.
However, many Labour MPs were appalled by a motion passed at the Greens’ conference in Brighton earlier this month which defined Zionism as a form of racism.
The Red Wall MP called the Zionism motion “completely hideous”, adding: “I could never, ever be in a coalition with people that hold the views that they expressed,” they said. The Welsh Labour MP said Zack Polanski’s party had “gone crazy”, while a Labour MP from the 2024 intake said the episode had “brought the prospect of future coalitions into rather cold light”.
That sentiment appeared to be shared by Burnham himself, who said at Prime Minister’s Questions on Wednesday that the motion was “antisemitic” and that Labour could not “support a partnership” with a party holding such a position.
People, power and representation
The MP from the 2024 intake questioned whether electoral reform should be a priority for a second Labour term. “Do we really want to spend two years debating and implementing a completely different electoral system when we’ll still be talking about the economy, welfare reform, defence?”
Some would oppose electoral reform for self-interested reasons, he added. “Any proportional system is likely to mean Labour giving up a significant number of its current seats. I’d be fascinated to know which of the 400 Labour MPs would voluntarily give up theirs.”
There are also concerns that moving to a PR system would hand excessive power to the Labour leadership. Some forms of PR involve lists of candidates drawn up by party management. The Red Wall MP said: “I don’t trust Andy Burnham to put me anywhere near the top of that [regional] list… it will give too much power to party leaders.”
For others, any move that would break the constituency link is a red line. Jonathan Brash, MP for Hartlepool, said: “I would never support a system that weakened that relationship between an MP and the people they represent. I don’t want to be an MP for somewhere. I want to be the MP for Hartlepool.”
Despite these objections, Labour supporters of electoral reform believe they are on the right side of history and that opinion in the party is shifting towards them.
Majority of Labour MPs ‘support independent commission’
The Prime Minister claimed that if the UK carried on under FPTP, Labour risked opening the “door of Number 10 to a divisive government on less than 30 per cent of the vote”.
He used the speech to announce a new “national commission on electoral reform” and said that Labour would “contest the next election with a manifesto commitment to change the electoral system so that everyone’s vote counts and everyone’s voice is heard”.
One of the most vocal Labour campaigners for reform is Alex Sobel, the MP for Leeds Central and Headingley who is chair of the Fair Elections All Party Parliamentary Group.
In September, he marshalled more than 100 Labour MPs to support an amendment to the Representation of the People Bill calling for a national commission on electoral reform.
While it did not end up being voted on, Sobel’s amendment helped pave the way for Burnham to announce such a commission in his conference speech a few weeks later.
Sobel told The i Paper that a majority of Labour MPs supported an independent commission, and that electoral reform was backed by most party members as well as almost every trade union affiliated with Labour.
The commission should start by looking at whether FPTP is “fit for purpose”, and if it concludes in the negative it should then consider alternatives, he said. The process from beginning to end should be concluded in 12 months, he added.
For Sobel, each of the concerns raised about PR can be answered or accommodated. For example, many countries that use PR employ a system that includes a constituency link, although Sobel said this might involve MPs representing an “area with somebody from another party”.
On the reservations about going into coalition with the Greens, he pointed out that in many parts of England there are already Labour-led local councils which “do not have a majority and are ruling as minority without having other parties in the administration”.
My message to PM on electoral reform: Be careful what you wish for
Labour Peer Lord Blunkett is Andy Burnham’s political mentor and a Blair-era Cabinet member (Photo: Nicola Tree/Getty)
By David Blunkett
In his passionate speech at Labour Party conference, my friend, the Prime Minister, proposed the establishment of a Commission on Electoral Reform.
This is nothing new – either for Andy Burnham himself, or for the liberal left in British politics.
In the months ahead, perhaps the most critical element for a rational debate must be to ask the simple question: what do you want the system to achieve?
It might seem blindingly obvious. Those in favour of change will say “fairness”. For those who are highly sceptical, the question must be: fair to whom?
Underpinning all of this is a much more serious challenge. Namely, not just whether it feels “fairer”, but is it about electing a government with a programme, and a government that can be removed; or is it simply about making people feel they have been taken more seriously at local level?
In my view, the argument can’t be that “every vote must count”. Each vote already does count, because in order to have winners and losers, people engage in the process which inevitably means that some voters’ preferences will be cancelled out by a greater number preferring another candidate.
Not everyone can have prizes in a democracy. Some candidates lose, some electors are frustrated and annoyed that their candidate didn’t succeed. Hence, the first set of questions about what it is we think this change is going to improve. The second question is why we would believe that electoral reform would change people’s interest or engagement with politics?
Later this month we will have a demonstration of what is the purest form of proportional representation in the world. Namely, the Israeli general election. If there were ever an example of how tiny minorities representing not only outlandish views, but providing a blockage on progress, compromise and long-term outcomes, it has to be this form of PR.
Many other versions are much less extreme. There are ways in which even those of us who believe that the present system, with all its flaws, is the best way of electing and removing the government, might concede that a debate is worth having
For me, keeping the single-member constituency within a defined geographic community to whom the Member of Parliament has a duty and obligation to serve, and where the electorate can hold the individual to account, is the primary principle on which we should stick.
Our system evolved not just because – with some exceptions – two major blocs representing different value sets have dominated UK politics since the beginning of the franchise, but also because we don’t elect an “assembly”. We elect a government with a Parliament normally in a position to carry through a legislative programme and to be answerable at the next general election.
Some people believe that our politics are now so fractured that we need to ensure that a small minority cannot take power by having a small lead in sufficient constituencies across the United Kingdom. I have never believed that we are in a long-term change from two main UK parties dominating the scene, and I’m even more convinced now that we’re moving back to that more traditional position.
Whilst we cannot read too much into the outcome of the Holborn and St Pancras by-election this month, changing the electoral system for fear of a far-right party gaining power, seems, to me, to be wide of the mark.
The message has to be clear to the zealots for electoral change. Be extremely careful what you wish for.
