Express & Star

Nigel Hastilow: It's the Last Post for first-past-the-post

This election has demonstrated starkly that our first-past-the-post democracy doesn't really work any more.

Published

The great argument in favour of a winner-takes-it-all electoral system was that at least it produced strong Government.

In a simple two-party system, where the winner was invariably either Labour or Conservative, the victorious party usually accumulated more than enough seats to govern with a clear parliamentary majority.

This ensured stability even if it did mean smaller parties didn't get a look in – there were times in the 1950s and '60s when the Liberal Party was down to just six MPs.

Of course, we have had unstable, minority Governments before. Harold Wilson's Labour Party took power in February 1974 because it won most seats – even though Ted Heath's Tories actually got more votes.

Labour secured a working majority the following October but by the time Wilson's successor James Callaghan took over as Prime Minister, Labour's majority had been whittled away and he relied on the Liberals.

It was a nightmare of whips forcing sick MPs from their deathbeds to trudge through the Commons voting lobbies to ensure the Government's survival.

So while we think first-past-the-post gives us strong, stable Governments that hasn't always been true.

And, as we all know, it has become increasingly untrue. The 2010 election ended in stalemate and Coalition rule. This time things are even worse.

This is almost entirely due to the decline in support for the biggest two parties. Tony Blair's Labour won 43 per cent of the vote in 1997. Mrs Thatcher's Conservatives were on 44 per cent in 1979. Even John Major's Tories managed 42 per cent in 1992.

Now, with Labour and the Conservatives each struggling to win a third of the nation's support, the value of our vote is being called into question as never before.

What, after all, is the point of voting Labour if you live in some safe seat like South Staffordshire? Or voting Conservative in West Bromwich?

There were only two seats in the West Midlands where voting Liberal Democrat gave you a chance of electing a Liberal Democrat. There were fewer across the whole region where it made sense to vote UKIP or Green.

Our voting system worked well in a simple two-party era. As we have grown more disillusioned with mainstream politicians, we have been more open to the alternatives.

Inevitably all the smaller parties want a 'fairer' electoral system. They want one which gives them a bigger slice of the cake and you can see their point.

The SNP has won a landslide in Scotland. UKIP, on the other hand, ends up in third place nationally with virtually nothing to show for it.

That cannot be 'fair'. It means millions of votes were wasted, at least in the sense that people who voted UKIP won't get a Government in any way resembling the one they wanted.

The situation in Scotland is even more serious. The SNP – a party dedicated to destroying the United Kingdom – did well because the 'opposition' vote was split three ways.

Labour, the Liberal Democrats and even the Conservatives still command significant support north of the border.

But because the winner takes it all, the SNP has swept the others aside. You would be forgiven for thinking almost everyone in Scotland wants independence – yet only 44.7 per cent voted for it in a referendum less than a year ago.

Our electoral system has handed Nicola Sturgeon Scotland on a plate – despite the views of a huge proportion of the Scottish people.

Every election throws up surprises and anomalies. It is possible for minority parties to succeed under the existing system.

It has always been the case that the votes of a few people in marginal constituencies can swing the outcome of an election.

Even so, the chaos of uncertainty and unfairness we seem to have landed ourselves in now does suggest the time has come for an overhaul of the way we elect our Governments.

As part of the last Coalition agreement, the Lib-Dems tried to persuade us to vote for reform in a referendum just four years ago. Everyone said the Lib-Dems were just trying to secure a permanent position as centre-ground power-brokers and the idea was roundly rejected by 68 per cent of us.

Out of pique, they refused constituency reform so we are still stuck with the fact that an English vote is of less value than a Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish one.

An MP represents an average 72,400 in England compared with 69,000 in Scotland, 66,800 in Northern Ireland and a mere 56,800 in Wales.

This used to be seen as part of the 'English voter's burden' – the price we pay for retaining a United Kingdom rather than allowing the nationalists to break up our country.

But now voting inequality has become so blatant, and its consequences more unpredictable than ever before, there must be a chance we will soon see the Last Post for first-past-the-post.

Sorry, we are not accepting comments on this article.