There has been a significant intervention in the debate around electoral reform recently, in the guise of former prime minister John Major. The Conservative politician has questioned the “validity” of the First Past the Post system for Westminster and said the case for examining its role is “growing”.
This is the latest in a growing drum beat of politicians on the right of British politics asking whether it’s time to ditch First Past the Post and move to a more proportional voting system. The case has long been made by Conservative Action for Electoral Reform, and since the last election figures such as Tobias Ellwood and Nigel Evans have both made the case for electoral reform.
Major’s intervention adds to this momentum, not least as it comes from a PM who directly benefited from Westminster’s voting system. His comments came when he gave the latest Attlee Foundation Lecture at King’s College London last month. The speech’s theme was that we are in the midst of a pivotal moment for democracy at home and abroad.
The former PM pointed out that democracy is in retreat in many parts of the world with only around a quarter of the globe living under a system where they get to genuinely choose who governs them.
Against such a backdrop, Major urged us not to take our own liberal democratic settlement for granted and warned that not addressing the declining faith in our political institutions could open up a vacuum into which a future autocrat could step.
‘Our democracy has fallen short of expectations’
He praised British democracy as a system that has been ‘an enabler’ for peace, as well as one that promotes justice, wellbeing and the transformation of life opportunities.
Yet, he warned:
“Along the way it makes mistakes, but its purpose is to extend freedoms of choice and action that more extreme politicians would curtail.
“But … but … we cannot ignore the uncomfortable truth that, in recent years, our democracy has fallen short of expectations.”
The speech noted that many parts of our political settlement are now under strain, a theme typified by the waning dominance of the two traditional main parties. This can be seen in the fact that the last general election was the first time we saw four parties get over 10% of the vote, and since then that trend has only advanced and we now have five parties consistently polling over 10%.
In 2024 this helped create the most disproportional election result in UK history as Labour received two-thirds of the seats on a third of a vote, and the Greens and Reform together received less than 2% of the seats in Parliament despite garnering more than 20% of the vote combined. This means the current parliament is the most unrepresentative of how the country voted in history.
As voting preferences spread more widely First Past the Post provides distorted results
Major acknowledged in his speech that First Past the Post, which is designed for two parties, is acting more erratically as it struggles to cope in the current multiparty environment.
He said:
“Recent General Elections have thrown into doubt the continuing validity of the “first past the post” system of voting.
“As voting preferences spread more widely it provides distorted results. The democratic case for examining this is growing, although changes would come with distinct drawbacks.”
While the former Tory leader stopped short of voicing support for electoral reform or moving to a more proportional system, it is significant to have a former Conservative prime minster openly question the ‘validity’ of the Westminster voting system.
In 1992, Major was the beneficiary of First Past the Post’s disproportional winner’s bonus, as his 41.9% of the vote was boosted into 51.6% of the seats in Parliament. However, his comments also make sense in terms of his thesis that democracy needs to be seen to be serving the interests and meeting the needs of its citizens.
If First Past the Post continues to behave in a chaotic way, then we risk having an even more disproportional result and an even more unrepresentative parliament after the next election. The Institute for Government recently warned that voters will become “ever more frustrated” if “casting a vote starts to feel more like participating in a lottery”.
We have argued that this concern is particularly acute when trust in politics has already slumped to record lows in recent years. The case for moving to an electoral system that ensures seats in parliament properly represent how people voted is becoming stronger by the day.
Major calls for a cap on political donations
In his speech, John Major also called for a wider ‘updating’ of our politics, starting with a clean-up of donations and honours.
He said:
“Politics has a grubby underbelly that can make it look seedy. We need a spring clean.
Is political funding corrupted if ‒ with no qualifications other than money ‒ donors receive honours or preferential access to Ministers?
“Should political donations be capped to protect against undue influence? I believe the answer is – yes.”
This is an area where we also agree with the former prime minister, as we’ve called for a donations cap to stop money pouring into our politics and further corroding public trust. There has been some movement on this front, with the government pledging to cap overseas donations at £100,000 a year following the recommendations in the recent Rycroft report.
This is a welcome step in itself, but a cap needs to be applied to domestic donations as well, especially as massive donations from ultra-wealthy individuals are becoming an increasing feature of our politics.
Aside from his policy suggestions, one of the most striking messages from Major’s speech was his message on how democracy binds a society together while allowing it to work out its differences and find a way forward. He underscored this by addressing the optics of a Conservative prime minister giving a speech in honour of a Labour PM. Major said despite their differing political philosophies he admired many of Attlee’s achievements, from the creation of the NHS to his commitment to public service.
He added: “Of course, where he and I both active in politics today – there would be differences of policy, of priority, of philosophy. We are political opponents. But mark this: Opponents, Yes. Enemies, No.”
Have you been ‘questioning the validity of First Past the Post’?
Add your name to our call to scrap First Past the Post