I am regularly contacted by constituents about political reform in the UK including Proportional Representation, the House of Lords, devolved power and standards in public life and am happy to set out my thoughts on the subject.
I understand the passion to try and improve the UK’s political system and it is crucial that as politicians we always look for ways to improve. However, I do believe we should be proud of the peaceful and democratic way we govern ourselves as a nation.
Upholding public trust is essential to maintain a robust political system. Members of Parliament are expected to adhere to high standards in their public life and we have rigorous processes in place for this. The UK already has strict laws regarding MPs behaviour, with legal convictions of over 12 months resulting in MPs automatically losing their seat, and automatic recall elections if an MP is convicted of a crime. In Parliament the Code of Conduct, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and the Committee on Standards and Privileges each regulate the conduct of MPs.
If an MP becomes a Minister they are bound by the Ministerial Code of Conduct. There is always more we can do to make sure these standards are upheld which is why the Parliamentary Code of Conduct was altered as recently as the 1 March 2023. These rules mean that politicians are governed by the same rules as everyone else and are also rightly held to a higher standard.
The First Past the Post (FPTP) system, for the most part, produces governments with working majorities in Parliament. This allows for a more decisive and stable form of government. As well as decisive government, a clear opposition is often an outcome of elections using FPTP, allowing for effective scrutiny of the government of the day.
I believe that alternative systems are less transparent, more complicated and less likely to lead to effective government so you will not be surprised to read that I fully support First Past the Post and I do not share your view that Proportional Representation would be a preferential system of voting for three fundamental reasons:
Under the system of proportional representation, seats are not awarded based on community or district voting. That means those who serve in the government are less likely to focus on local issues as they have no local representation responsibilities. It creates a system of government where more voices can be heard, but fewer actually receive a listening ear. Many communities under this system can come away feeling like they don’t matter to the governing coalition.
Italy has proportional representation built into their government structures. Over the last four decades, the government has been forced to dissolve its parliament 8 times. In Belgium, the negotiations required after their 2010 election to form a governing coalition took 18 months to complete, leaving a crippled government in its place where nothing got done. Having more voices can be a good thing, but it can also create a discord that makes it impossible to government.
Under the system of proportional representation, any party with a high enough percentage of the vote will receive a seat in the government, allowing a disproportionate influence by minority parties with minimal public support who typically end up holding the balance of power in PR systems. That structure can also make it easier for extremist views to find official representation.
Fundamentally, FPTP is a tried-and-tested system that ensures stability and clear accountability to voters by giving them a direct relationship with their MP. The British people were clear on this matter in a referendum on voting systems in 2011. FPTP is well established and understood by voters. It provides a clear and robust way of electing Members of Parliament and there is an unambiguous link between constituents and their representatives in Westminster.
I do not believe a citizens' assembly on electoral reform or a change to our electoral system is necessary; indeed, I would like to point out that the United Kingdom already has a citizens’ assembly – in the form of the House of Commons – which is made up of public representatives, directly selected by the British people, in every part of the country.
I do agree that political power should be spread more evenly across the UK which is why the former Conservative Government made significant decisions which devolved power away from Westminster. By January 2024, in total, 60 per cent of England had a form of devolution, compared to the position in 2010 when there was none in England beyond Greater London. Also, the former Government moved 22,000 civil service jobs outside London so that the important decisions that affect all of us are note merely made in the capital.
With regard to the civil service, I believe that it is perfectly reasonable for a new Government to make appointments of political special advisors to assist them in the delivery of government. However, appointing party donors to the civil service when their donations haven't been disclosed during their recruitment can never be right. Protecting the independence and integrity of civil servants must be maintained for their benefit as much as anyone.
And finally, I think we greatly benefit from having a chamber of experts that revises and scrutinises legislation while respecting the primacy of the elected House of Commons. In terms of individuals who are offered places in the Lords, all prospective members are rigorously vetted by the House of Lords Appointments Commission.
I understand you will not agree with all of my thoughts above, but I do hope you found them helpful.
