Has the Moment for Electoral Reform at Westminster Finally Arrived?

SUMMARY

• The case for reforming the Westminster voting system has strengthened in recent years.
• The rise to power of Andy Burnham, a vocal critic of first past the post, has put reform back on the political agenda.
• The necessary conditions for reform are a legislative majority for change in principle, a legislative majority for a specific change proposal and a means for securing public consent.
• With the chances of meeting all three conditions looking higher now than at any point for generations, electoral reform may plausibly happen.

The 2024 General Election was shaped like no other by Britain's first past the post (FPP) electoral system. A record number of MPs entered Parliament with under 35 per cent support, and more than eight in ten were elected with under half of the local vote. As Alan Renwick, [electionanalysis.uk]Director of the UCL Constitution Unit, observed, this was ‘the most disproportional victory in British electoral history’.

Under FPP, each constituency elects the candidate who comes first, regardless of how small their winning share may be. As party competition has fragmented, with more votes than ever cast for smaller and newer parties, the relationship between votes cast and seats won under this system has broken down. Westminster FPP contests are now much more volatile and unpredictable.

Perhaps partly as a result of this, more parties than ever now back shifting to a more proportional electoral system, while, as Figure 1 illustrates, public support for electoral reform has also hit record levels (figures are interpolated for years when a survey was not conducted). Yet while calls for change have grown louder, advocates of electoral reform have been disappointed before.

Why political fragmentation strengthens the case for reform

By giving a large bonus to the strongest party, FPP enables single-party governments with a clear power base. Accountability follows the same logic in principle: if governing parties fail, FPP makes it easier to remove them, and each MP has a direct link to a single community. FPP delivered predictable outcomes when two large parties dominated, but it has now become unstable, as seen in the 2024 general election and 2025 and 2026 English local elections – in all of these cases the relationship between votes won and seats awarded was very weak and inconsistent.

Fragmentation can also weaken accountability and the ‘constituency link’ between local voters and a local MP. For example, when most voters back someone other than the winner, the MP representing a seat has in fact been rejected by most of the participating voters there (while others abstain). She may win election not because she is popular, but because her opponents are evenly divided.

A growing cross-party coalition for reform?

The Liberal Democrat, Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru 2024 manifestos all called for the single transferable vote (STV) [electoral-reform.org.uk]in Westminster elections. This is already used for elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly and in local elections in Northern Ireland and Scotland.

Other parties support reform but have made vaguer commitments. The Greens’ 2024 manifesto called for a ‘fair and proportional voting system’, without saying which system they would prefer, while support for ditching FPP among Reform voters and politicians has waned since the party took the lead in national opinion polls.

Labour passed a motion backing electoral reform at its 2022 conference. Andy Burnham is a long-standing supporter of electoral reform who recently reaffirmed his commitment. Burnham has stated he wants to put electoral reform into Labour's next manifesto following a national commission on the issue, and announced at the 2026 Labour conference that his government would organise a national commission on electoral reform.

The Conservatives remain officially committed to FPP. Polls conducted in 2025 suggested a majority of Conservative voters now backed electoral reform, though support has dipped since. [electoral-reform.org.uk]. Tory politicians and voters may become more open to electoral reform if evidence that FPP poses a threat to the Conservatives’ survival as a major party continues to mount.

How might reform happen?

Though momentum is building for electoral reform, lessons from four previous failed reform efforts – in 1918, 1929, the first term of the New Labour government, and 2010 (as detailed in my full journal article [onlinelibrary.wiley.com]) suggests three conditions still need to be met for reform to succeed. These are a majority in both houses committed to change; a majority in both houses for a specific reform; and a process for securing public consent.

A route to reform is now visible. A Commons majority for change is now likely, as most Labour MP’s will follow the Prime Minister’s lead, and several smaller parties back reform too. But even with a supportive leader and a Commons majority for reform, it will take time to agree a proposal, and Burnham has stated he wants any agreed proposal presented to voters in a general election manifesto before progressing further, and this may change the Commons arithmetic, with current polling suggesting Labour would lose seats and perhaps lose its majority.

However, the next Parliament could be reform-inclined even if the Labour Party does not win another majority, given support for reform from other parties including the Liberal Democrats and the Greens, who might support Labour in a hung parliament.. Electoral reform could be a key issue in cross-party negotiations in such a hung parliament .

Choosing a new system could prove a bigger stumbling block, as it has before Electoral reformers tend to agree more on the shortcomings of FPP than on what should replace it. The simplest solution would be for multiple parties to all propose the same new system in their manifestos, which would greatly expedite post-election negotiations, if these were needed.

Several smaller progressive parties already back STV, so this is a theoretically possible option, but it would require Labour to commit to STV as well. Alternatively, the Labour government’s national commission could recommend a different system, and smaller progressive parties could switch to endorsing this. If the specifics are not set out in advance of the next election, for example if the commission offers a menu of reform options without endorsing one, reformers will then need to agree a process to decide which system to adopt later on. The risk is that the process does not produce consensus, or takes too long. Such obstacles have scuppered past reform efforts several times. Agreeing on a single reform is much harder than agreeing reform is needed.

Once a new system is agreed, it needs to be passed into law. If the reform is a manifesto pledge, then by convention the government could pass it into law. However, there is a competing convention that significant constitutional changes require a referendum. Such a route brings its own risks: voters could easily sour on proposals in any referendum campaign.

Implementation would also not be a trivial task. Most reforms will require drawing new electoral districts, a complex tasks which takes years even under the existing system. Administrative challenges could delay or even defeat an agreed reform. Minimising the cost and disruption of implementation, so the new system can bed in quickly, may prove to be an underappreciated factor shaping future debates.

Given these challenges, perhaps the most likely reform are STV or an additional member system (AMS) combining constituency MPs with “top op” seats awarded proportionally via regional lists. Both have the advantage of familiarity, as each has been used for decades in some UK elections – STV in Northern Ireland and Scottish local elections, AMS in Scotland, London and (until recently) Wales.

Conclusion

If reform succeeds, some of its effects are easy to foresee. More parties would be represented in Parliament, the legislature would become more politically diverse and cooperation between parties would become more important as the disproportionate power of the largest parties is curtailed.

Traditionally, that has been one big reason why both Labour and the Conservatives have resisted reform. But if current polling is to be believed, one or both may before long be among the smaller parties who stand to gain from a more proportional system.