The Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) is now, as it was in Blair's days, Labour's favoured think tank. Half of its leadership from a year ago now seems to be in Downing Street. Those that are left are used to fly kites for potential Labour policy. So, its new report on democratic reform needs to be noticed.
IPPR says in the introduction to that report:
One in every two adults living in this country voted at the 2024 general election. This is the lowest share of the population to vote since universal suffrage.
The 'turnout gap' has also widened – turnout was very unequal. While inequality across age and income groups has stayed roughly constant across the most recent general elections, the turnout gap between graduates and non-graduates has doubled since the 2019 election and grown by a quarter between renters and owners since the 2017 election.
The only solution to the heightening doom loop of voting patterns, skewed policy and populist politics is democratic reform.
So, what do they propose? They say their focus is on:
1. Make voting easier. By taking down the barriers to electoral registration before election day, and barriers to arriving at the ballot box on election day. This could include automatic voter registration, removal or relaxation of voter ID requirements, moving polling day to a non-working day, and extending voter rights to some long-term residents with permanent residency rights.
2. Make voting more worthwhile. By ensuring there is a perceived ‘return' on voting relative to other forms of political influence, and that individuals have roughly equal ‘returns' on their vote. This could include capping political donations, stronger rules and enforcement on political donations, electoral system reform and population-based constituencies.
3. Create norms of voting. By cultivating a stronger culture of democratic participation using state and civic institutions. This could include extending voting rights to 16- and 17-year-olds, citizenship education at school, compulsory voting and an election day service.
I noted all that and then looked for what was not mentioned. Proportional representation is not mentioned. This is what the report had to say on that issue:
In UK general elections, geography matters. In our electoral system, there will always be ‘safe seats', where votes for parties other than the dominant one in that area are unlikely to change the outcome of the election. Where you live determines how influential your vote is on election outcomes. Some voters matter more than others, which is why it is not surprising that turnout is significantly lower in majoritarian electoral systems than proportional ones (Geys 2006, Blais and Carty 1990).
A full discussion of the electoral system for UK general elections is beyond the scope of this paper. In truth, there is little prospect of change in this parliament. The Labour Party won a historic majority with an extremely ‘efficient' or ‘disproportionate' distribution of votes, depending on which way you look at it. It is not surprising that the government has been clear that proportional representation is not on its agenda.
In the longer run, the prospects of electoral system change are probably waxing. That is because of structural changes in the party system. The growth of ‘smaller' parties, or the collapse in vote share for the two main parties (who received the lowest combined vote share in at least a century), is likely a new structural feature of party competition. Whether parties as varied as Reform and the Greens will coordinate on issues of electoral system transition is another matter. At the same time, a growing number of Britons support adopting a proportional system (NatCen 2022).
In other words, they will not upset their political sponsors by suggesting PR, even though they recognise that its absence is the biggest reason why people do not vote in the UK.
What a farce, in other words. This is a meaningless whitewash, and any Democracy Act - which Labour is promising - will similarly miss the point.
Democracy does not matter to Labour. No wonder our politics is in a mess.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
My conclusion to this informative post is that it is just locking out more disparate voices in politics and it is yet another indicator of the Single Transferable Party system in action controlling the narrative and preventing change.
Until this changes, I will not take any further part in this fake democracy and I have a first class degree and and MBA so what does that say about the IPPR’s stats? I would not call myself uneducated yet I have consistently not voted since the early 2000’s.
Why? Because I know when I’m being ripped off that’s why. Would anyone from the IPPR care to talk to me and people like me? So typical that they seem to ascribe not voting to a lack of intelligence? That’s what they seem to be doing.
Poppycock, basically – from the IPPR that is.
Could the problem be the existence of political parties? They are the equivalent of playground gang fights, with the same intellectual input. Ban them, I say. It is possible; Hamas are banned in spite of being voted for. Sinn Fein were silenced by Thatcher-`My enemies` policies are spoken by an actor, my own policies are spoken by an idiot`. The d`Hondt system is based on equivalence of voting and representation, but only for parties. Surely the most beneficial system is from the roots upward locally, even as local government is being quashed by Starmer. That benevolent being who professes to being simultaneously a zionist and a socialist..
I`m also aware that there is a big problem in both rural and urban vote gathering by interested groups. Perhaps an inquiry into candidates` financial probity might help there. Otherwise, we really are stuffed, by the `sound money men`, who are reducing Europe, as the E.U., to being a less prominent force in the balance of power, deliberately, by means of the impoverishment of millions.
With apologies, I`d like to comment on a past skirmish with Prof. Gunter Kuhnle. (No internet etc for weeks as a diseased ash tree fell on a telephone pole.) The hyperliterate University of Reading does employ him in their massive human nutrition department, but his interest is in inserting chemicals into good food, whereas inserting good food into people might be a better idea.
I was amused by your last paragraph.
Re your bigger idea, I am sure John Warren will agree.
The reality us parties help. The labels, like it or not, help us decide who to vote for. How else would most people do that?
There are no parties in Jersey. 90% of candidates are right wing.
As part of the constitututional reset – which is desperately needed, parties would have to register and to be recognised would have to be run on democratic lines – not seperate factions funded by dark money. They should have incentives to recruit members and their subscriptions would represent a major source of their funding. The present setup makes it too easy for a faction to capture a party using dark money – and opaque rules to parachute cronies into ‘safe’ seats.
I do agree. I also accept that identifying the problem is not the same as offering the solution. Your defence of ‘Party’ Richard, suggests you are making the best of a very bad job. The fact is that Party; notably Conservative and Labour are the reason we are. in the dire mess we are in. Party is responsible; nobody else. And that does little to persuade that Party is the answer. David Hume is my insightful source; he called it ‘faction’, and faction defines Party. Party is corruptible, which Hume knew, and was pessimistic about any fix being possible; and in turn Party corrupts everything it touches.
I do not have the answer; but I can see ways to restrict the rot and decay it brings.
1) End FPTP.
2) Implement Proportional Representation (PR).
3) Ban forms of PR like de Hont or any form of PR that awards control of member lists; ensure the selection of list MPs/MSPs/AMs are controlled directly by the voter.
That makes life more difficult for Party, and better representatives.
On Jersey, if you can fathom how that election system works (and remember it was half-heartedly reformed in 2022), you are a genius. Here is the Electoral Reform Society on the Jersey system:
“Jersey’s previous voting system involved three different types of members being elected using three versions of First Past the Post style plurality voting. The most numerous type were the deputies, who made up 29 of the 49 members of the States. Deputies were elected in 18 districts covering Jersey – half of which elected one deputy, with the others choosing two, three or four. Voters had as many votes as there were seats to fill, this is often known as the Bloc Vote.
The second largest group were the twelve connétables, who were elected by First Past the Post in each of Jersey’s twelve parishes. The final eight members were the senators, chosen in a single island-wide Bloc Vote, with each voter having eight votes.
The new system doesn’t remove all the flourishes of its predecessor, but it does simplify the system somewhat. Senators have been abolished, with the number of deputies being expanded to compensate. The number of districts has also been reduced to nine with all deputies now being elected in multi-member constituencies of three, four or five members. The connétable system remains, including the fact that the largest parish is more than seven times as populous the smallest.
A smaller reform is the introduction of a ‘None of the Above’ option where the number of candidates is the same as the number of seats to fill. Previous Jersey elections had seen many members, particularly connétables, being returned unopposed.”
“flourishes”? “simplify… somewhat”? “connétable system”? I rest my case.
We agree on the mitigations.
“Democracy does not matter to Labour” falls into the same class as Gandhi’s observation on “western civilisation” – good in theory – democracy in the Uk does not exist.
Quintin Hogg in the 1960s & others since noted that what the Uk has is a elective dictatorship “Hogg during the 1966 general election. ‘Of all the democracies Britain is nearest to an elective dictatorship’. It was a charge Hogg would repeat many times (whenever Labour was in office) over the next 13 years”. He also noted that “Apathy is the greatest danger to democracy”.
Labour inaction on electoral reform reflects happiness with the former (dictatorship) and abject failure to recognise the latter (apathy). The attitude (towards democracy) extends to party membership – where the surge in members during the Corby era – was resented – because that meant loss of control. The same applies to electroral reform, substantive action carries with it loss of political control over the faux-democratic process. It is also worth noting that Hogg was unhappy with “elective dictatorship” because Labour in the 1960s did something with it – as opposed to the LINO ciphers now – who do very little.
Lastly, we should be careful what we wish for. Electoral reform + the Internet + oligarchs could give a very unpleasant result (ref the USA) & yes reform of political finances could change things – but how to regulate Twitter? and all the other “entertainment” platforms.
Mr Parr, I suspect Hogg’s remark was the wisest thing he ever said. He was right. And that is what we have – an elective dictatorship run by the single Transferable Party.
Labour needs to be listening more to Compass – who passionately advocate for PR – and not a seemingly compliant IPPR.
As well as full voting rights at 16 and 17, full voting rights must be extended to all foreign citizens who are permanent residents. Labour needs to be under pressure to do this, as it was mooted (by Labour themselves), and Scotland and Wales have full voting rights at Holyrood and Senedd elections for overseas citizens who are permanent residents.
Agreed, entirely
The first admin change directive at branch and constituency level following Starmer’s accession to leader was to rule what was ‘not competent business’ ie what could not be discussed in meetings. It was of course the treatment of Corbyn and the antisemitism smear. This was immediately enacted by the local machine politicians (including our present MP). This was the start of the strangulation of what was left of party ‘democracy’; I quit the party as a consequence. The plans were those of David Evans 9until recently Gen Sec, now ennobled), who had urged the dismantling of effective democracy in the party during the latter Blair years. I have since pointed out that Evans’ plan has left Labour less internally democratic than the Tories.
The report states “ In UK general elections, geography matters.” but doesn’t say why other than pointing out one of the main failings of FPTP.
Until the UK adopts proportional representation real democracy will continue to be suppressed and government will not be truly representative.
The Labour Party conference in 2023 voted in favour of proportional representation, but Starmer immediately said he would ignore that vote. Historically, the early Labour Party supported proportional representation, but Labour mostly campaigned against the Alternative Vote in the referendum held in 2011, despite Miliband’s support for it. Of course AV is not a proportional system, but it is better than the absurdly undemocratic FPTP which gave Labour two thirds of the seats on one third of the vote last July.
If electoral reform is off the table, one simple reform which would ensure high turnout would be to make voting compulsory, as in Australia where turnout is usually over 90%.
“Every policy is shaped by three forces – background critical research into likely consequences, foreground optics and unmentioned self-interest.” (From Donella Meadows)
Any suggestions on the proportions in this case?
I disagree with the premise
Labour is hopeless as far as proportional representation goes. However it seems to work well for the Scottish Parliament and Wales is going to introduce it for local elections. It worked well for the Greater London elections until last time when the Tories returned to first past the post. Those who are keen to to promote PR could join either the Make Votes Matter pressure group or the Electoral Reform Society.
I am a member of the ERS
3. Create norms of voting. By cultivating a stronger culture of democratic participation using state and civic institutions. This could include extending voting rights to 16- and 17-year-olds, citizenship education at school, compulsory voting and an election day service.
‘Citizenship’ is already on the school curriculum, what went wrong?….
Citizenship programmes of study:
key stages 3 and 4
National curriculum in England
Purpose of study
A high-quality citizenship education helps to provide pupils with knowledge, skills and
understanding to prepare them to play a full and active part in society. In particular,
citizenship education should foster pupils’ keen awareness and understanding of
democracy, government and how laws are made and upheld. Teaching should equip
pupils with the skills and knowledge to explore political and social issues critically, to weigh
evidence, debate and make reasoned arguments. It should also prepare pupils to take
their place in society as responsible citizens, manage their money well and make sound
financial decisions.
Aims
The national curriculum for citizenship aims to ensure that all pupils:
acquire a sound knowledge and understanding of how the United Kingdom is
governed, its political system and how citizens participate actively in its democratic
systems of government
develop a sound knowledge and understanding of the role of law and the justice
system in our society and how laws are shaped and enforced
develop an interest in, and commitment to, participation in volunteering as well as other
forms of responsible activity, that they will take with them into adulthood
are equipped with the skills to think critically and debate political questions, to enable
them to manage their money on a day-to-day basis, and plan for future financial needs.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5f324f7ad3bf7f1b1ea28dca/SECONDARY_national_curriculum_-_Citizenship.pdf
In Scotland we have an AMS system for Holyrood. Its main flaw is that the list MSPs are placed in order of the party’s preference, not the voters’. Also, 25 years on, there are many people who still describe list MSPs as “never having been elected” so it is hard to shake off the bad old ways of FPTP.
STV has for a long time been my preferred option but now I am not so sure. This is partly due to what Fintan O’Toole has written about its workings in Ireland but also due to our own experience in local government elections. Candidates who are well ahead on first preference votes but not quite over the required threshold end up not getting elected at all. Instead the winner tends to be “the least worst” choice, usually a Lib Dem.
Dear me,
The IPPR seem to have missed the question that was obvious to the dogs in the street – what’s the point?
The quip, “Same horse, same trainer, same owner – different jockey,” seemed apt six months ago. And the actions and statements of the Labour frontbench since then, have served to confirm that scepticism.
The current leadership team’s approach to candidate selection doesn’t give me much hope that there will be sufficient power among the backbenchers to introduce alternative viewpoints to the prevailing beliefs.
My fear is that groupthink has brought the Labour Party to their current state and that any challenge from within or without will simply reinforce their blindness.
I sincerely hope I’m wrong.
@AndrewF
Statistics on STV and other PR systems used across the UK and Ireland show that STV is consistently the most proportional, whether you measure proportionality as a single overall statistic (e.g. the Gallagher Index) or look separately also at the thresholds for achieving a reasonably proportional share of seats or for gaining an overall majority. Also, candidates who get around 70-80% of first preferences are almost always elected: but it is certainly not sufficient to be in the lead on first preferences – that’s precisely what’s wrong with FPTP!
Yes, parties that attract second preferences from other parties do slightly better – as they should – though the effect is not large. Both Liberal Democrats and Green candidates have benefitted from this, though not sufficiently overall to outweigh their (again slight) minor party disadvantage. Cross-party support like this is welcome because it encourages more collaborative politics. Under AMS minor parties simply compete.
An example of successful cross-party transfers is my own ward, where at the last election it was transfers from Liberal Democrat voters that allowed the Green candidate to win the last seat from the Conservative who had had more first preferences.
I have put a lot of effort into developing graphics that show how STV works – you can find these for each of the Scottish Council elections on my web page – http://www.macs.hw.ac.uk/~denis/ – along with a paper `Fair votes in practice’ with the analysis referred to above.
I haven’t read the paper by Fintan O’Toole, but other electoral experts think the Irish problems of excessive sometimes corrupt local politics are due to various social and political factors, not the STV electoral system – but if you provide a link I’m always happy to read F O’T’s thoughts.
Do get in touch through my web page if you want to engage further.
Thanks