Britain used to have political titans in charge, who knew what they believed in. Harold Wilson was driven by a modern socialism of technological advancement and industrial planning, fuelled by a more accessible education system. Margaret Thatcher, a methodist who believed in individuals working hard to improve the lives of themself and their family, was all about free markets and privatisation. Andy Burnham’s speech yesterday was refreshing — a departure from his predecessors who cared more about polling than making meaningful changes which they believed would improve Britain, even if this led to them losing votes.
The Prime Minister outlined Burnhamism yesterday, what he called his “theory of growth”. “It starts by retaking control of the essentials that make a place work or not,” he said. “You’ve got to have that control over the fundamental things that everybody needs. And from there you devolve more power to places to put them in charge and decide their own destiny. And then in doing those things we optimise the conditions for businesses to grow. And make sure we support our people so they are there for our business to employ.”
Andy Burnham delivered his speech at Labour’s party conference yesterday (Image: Getty)
You may not agree with this — but at least it is a clear plan that includes enacting proper changes.
Another promising development was Mr Burnham’s announcement of a national care service which, if formed correctly, would represent a huge societal advancement, cementing his name in history like Aneurin Bevan.
I was also pleased that he said Brexit has done more harm than good, and the UK needs to improve further its links with the European Union. I happen to personally agree.
However, one part of the speech left me worried.
The Prime Minister announced a new national commission on electoral reform, with Labour contesting the next election with a manifesto commitment to change the voting system “so that everyone’s vote counts and everyone’s voice is heard”.
Mr Burnham said: “We can’t succeed in the eyes of the world if we continue with the levels of political turbulence we have seen in recent times.
“It is always in my mind that I’m the seventh Prime Minister in ten years.
But one of the functions of Britain’s first past the post system is to provide stable governance.
Proportional electoral systems a lot of the time do not result in single-party majorities, resulting in coalitions or minority governments.
Get the latest politics news – straight from our team in Westminster and more
Invalid email
You agree you are 18 or over. We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and third parties based on our knowledge of you. You can unsubscribe at any time. More Info.
Many bemoaned the coalition between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats following the 2010 general election, claiming nobody had voted for it.
Other electoral systems can result in smaller parties having lots of power while attaining a relatively small percentage of the vote, able to extract significant policy concessions by putting themselves in a so-called “kingmaker” position.
This does not chime with the Prime Minister saying: “We will all have failed in our public duties if we carry on as we are and open the door of Number 10 to a divisive government on less than 30% of the vote.”
Yes, it is looking like there will be a hung parliament following the next general election.
But this is a rarer instance under FPTP than it would be under a new way of voting.
Markets desire certainty over all else.
Aside from this, having a constituency MP who is obliged to help you out and represents your interests in Parliament is a great thing.
Mr Burnham has made a massive error, seemingly to boost his popularity with his own party members, and a change would be a disaster.
Andy Burnham Just Made a Massive Error — This Would Be a Total Disaster for the Country
Andy Burnham has opened a fresh political controversy after proposing a major review of Britain’s electoral system, raising the prospect of changes to the way voters elect their representatives at Westminster. The Prime Minister says the country needs a system in which every vote counts and every voice is heard. But critics warn that changing the rules could create new political problems rather than solve the existing ones.
At the heart of the dispute is a fundamental question about British democracy: should the country preserve the first-past-the-post system that has shaped its politics for generations, or move towards proportional representation, where parties receive parliamentary representation more closely aligned with their share of the vote?
Burnham believes electoral reform deserves serious consideration. His critics argue that the existing system provides something equally important: the ability to form a government with a clear mandate and the stability to implement its programme.
The debate is particularly significant at a time when British politics is increasingly fragmented, with Labour, the Conservatives, Reform UK, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens competing for support across different parts of the country.
Changing the electoral system would affect every major party. It could alter the balance of power in Parliament, change how parties campaign and reshape the relationship between voters and their local MPs.
For that reason, the proposal deserves close scrutiny. Electoral reform could address genuine weaknesses in the current system, but any change would need to demonstrate that it could improve representation without creating new problems of accountability and government stability.
What Has Burnham Proposed?
At the Labour Party conference in Liverpool in September 2026, Burnham announced plans for a national commission on electoral reform. Labour would then contest the next general election with a manifesto commitment to change the voting system so that every vote counts and every voice is heard.
The announcement marked a significant step towards reconsidering one of Britain’s most important constitutional arrangements.
Under the current first-past-the-post system, voters choose one candidate in their constituency. The candidate receiving the most votes wins the seat, even if they receive less than half of all votes cast.
The party that wins the most parliamentary seats is usually best placed to form a government. If it secures an overall majority, it can generally pass legislation without needing a permanent coalition with another party.
Supporters say this system makes it easier for voters to identify who is responsible for governing the country. It also gives every constituency a named MP who can be approached about local problems and held accountable at the next election.
However, first past the post can produce a significant gap between a party’s share of the national vote and its share of parliamentary seats.
A party can win a large majority of seats without winning a majority of votes nationwide. Conversely, a party with substantial support spread across the country may win relatively few constituencies.
Burnham argues that this imbalance raises questions about democratic representation. His proposal would begin a process of examining alternatives, although a commission is not itself a decision to adopt a particular voting system.
The details matter. Proportional representation covers several different systems, each with its own rules, incentives and potential consequences.
Why Critics Fear a More Fragmented Parliament
One of the strongest arguments against proportional representation is that it can make single-party majority governments less common, depending on the system adopted and the distribution of votes.
Under a proportional system, parties generally receive seats in closer proportion to their share of the vote. That can give smaller parties more parliamentary representation and make coalition governments or minority administrations more likely.
Supporters see this as a strength because parties must negotiate and compromise to build a governing majority.
Critics, however, argue that negotiations between parties after an election can make it harder for voters to know which policies will ultimately be implemented.
A party may campaign on one set of commitments, only to accept compromises during coalition negotiations. Smaller parties can also gain considerable influence if their votes are necessary to sustain a government.
The experience of the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition formed after the 2010 general election illustrates why coalition politics remains controversial in Britain. Supporters argued that the arrangement produced a workable government, while critics objected to compromises that they believed had not been presented clearly to voters before the election.
That experience does not prove that proportional representation would necessarily produce unstable government. Coalition arrangements differ between countries, and some proportional systems have supported governments that remain in office for substantial periods.
Nevertheless, the risk of fragmented parliaments is a legitimate consideration.
Before proposing a new system, Burnham’s commission would need to examine how different models might affect government formation, the passage of legislation and the ability of voters to hold ministers accountable.
The Case for First Past the Post
Supporters of the current system argue that its greatest strength is simplicity.
Every constituency elects one MP. Voters know who represents their area, and the MP has a direct incentive to respond to local concerns.
If a government performs badly, voters can remove it at the next general election. If it performs well, they can choose to return it to office.
First past the post can also produce clear parliamentary majorities, allowing governments to pursue their programmes without prolonged negotiations between multiple parties.
That can be particularly valuable during periods of economic uncertainty or international crisis, when ministers may need to make decisions quickly.
The system is not perfect. It can leave millions of votes without a direct effect on the distribution of seats, especially when voters support parties that finish second or third in many constituencies.
But its defenders argue that this is the price of a system designed to connect individual constituencies to Parliament and make the governing party identifiable.
They also warn that changing the voting system could produce unintended consequences. Electoral rules influence how parties organise, which candidates they select and what issues they prioritise. A system that appears fairer in theory may create different difficulties in practice.
The question is therefore not whether first past the post has weaknesses. It clearly does. The question is whether an alternative would provide a better overall balance between representation, accountability and stable government.
Does Every Vote Really Count Under the Current System?
Burnham’s central argument is that Britain’s existing electoral system does not adequately reflect the choices made by voters.
Consider a hypothetical general election in which a party wins 35% of the national vote but receives 55% of parliamentary seats. Under first past the post, this can happen if that party wins a large number of constituencies by relatively narrow margins while its opponents’ votes are distributed less efficiently.
A different party might receive 15% of the national vote but win only a handful of seats because its support is spread across constituencies rather than concentrated in particular areas.
Under a proportional system, the second party would generally expect to receive a larger share of seats, although the exact outcome would depend on the rules and any minimum vote threshold.
Supporters of reform say this would make Parliament more representative of the electorate’s political preferences.
Critics respond that national vote share is not the only way to measure democratic representation. First past the post gives importance to local constituencies and allows voters to choose a specific representative rather than simply contribute to a party’s national total.
There is also no single form of proportional representation. Some systems use party lists, others use multi-member constituencies, and some combine constituency MPs with additional seats designed to improve proportionality.
Each model answers the question of representation differently.
A serious reform process would therefore need to explain exactly how votes would be translated into seats, how local representation would be preserved and how voters could remove representatives who failed to perform their duties.
Could Smaller Parties Become Kingmakers?
One of the most contentious concerns is the potential influence of smaller parties.
Under first past the post, a party with support spread thinly across the country may struggle to win many seats. A proportional system could give that party a parliamentary presence more closely reflecting its share of the vote.
This would allow more political viewpoints to be represented. It could also mean that a party with a relatively modest national vote share becomes essential to forming a government.
In a closely divided Parliament, a smaller party might demand policy concessions in exchange for supporting a coalition or minority administration.
Critics argue that this could give parties with limited electoral support disproportionate bargaining power.
Supporters counter that a party should not be excluded from influence simply because its voters are geographically dispersed. They also argue that coalition negotiations can encourage compromise and prevent a government from implementing major policies without considering alternative perspectives.
Both arguments raise questions about the relationship between electoral fairness and governing authority.
The extent of any kingmaker effect would depend on the electoral system, the number of parties in Parliament and the distribution of seats. It is not an inevitable result of every proportional system.
Burnham’s commission would need to consider these possibilities carefully rather than assuming that any reform would automatically improve democracy.
What Would Electoral Reform Mean for Labour?
The proposal could have significant consequences for Labour itself.
Under first past the post, a party’s ability to win parliamentary seats depends heavily on where its support is concentrated. A party can win constituencies with relatively small leads while losing others by substantial margins.
Under proportional representation, national support would generally translate more directly into seats. This could benefit parties whose voters are spread across many constituencies, but it could also reduce the seat advantage enjoyed by parties that win numerous constituencies narrowly.
For Labour, the effects would depend on the model adopted and the pattern of support at the time of an election.
A proportional system might increase representation for smaller parties on the left, potentially including the Greens and other progressive groups. That could create new opportunities for cooperation, but it could also increase competition for voters who currently support Labour.
The same dynamic could affect parties on the right. Reform UK and the Conservatives might gain representation in areas where their candidates currently finish second, while disagreements between them could make forming a governing majority more complicated.
It would therefore be misleading to assume that electoral reform would automatically benefit one party.
The political consequences would depend on the final design, future voting patterns and the willingness of parties to cooperate.
For Burnham, the central test is whether the proposed changes would improve democratic representation in a way that voters broadly accept, even if the new system produces a different balance of political power.
The Importance of Local MPs
Another concern involves the relationship between voters and their constituency representatives.
Under first past the post, every constituency elects one MP. That creates a direct point of contact for residents seeking help with local services, housing problems, immigration cases or disputes involving public bodies.
Some proportional systems retain constituency MPs, while others elect representatives through larger multi-member constituencies or party lists.
The choice could have practical consequences for the way people interact with Parliament.
If a new system weakened the link between a specific area and a named representative, voters might worry that their local concerns would receive less attention. If the system retained constituency MPs, it would need to explain how those seats would interact with any additional representatives.
Supporters of reform argue that a more proportional system could improve representation without necessarily eliminating local MPs. Mixed systems can combine constituency representation with seats allocated to correct imbalances in the overall result.
However, the design would need to be clear and understandable.
Voters should know whom to contact, how representatives would be selected and what responsibilities each MP would have.
The objective should be to improve the democratic system, not to create a more complicated structure that ordinary voters struggle to understand.
Would Markets and Businesses Be Concerned?
Electoral reform is primarily a constitutional issue, but it can also influence perceptions of political and economic stability.
Businesses make decisions about investment, hiring and expansion based partly on expectations about future government policy. A change in the voting system could affect how quickly policies are passed and how long major programmes remain in place.
Critics argue that frequent coalition negotiations or unstable parliamentary arrangements could make policy less predictable.
Supporters respond that proportional systems can encourage broader agreement, making some policies more durable because they have support across several parties.
Neither outcome is guaranteed.
A coalition may provide stability when its partners agree on a clear programme. It may also become vulnerable when disagreements emerge over budgets, taxation or major reforms.
Similarly, a single-party majority under first past the post can provide a clear legislative mandate, but it does not guarantee sound policy or long-term economic stability.
The relevant question is how a proposed electoral system would operate in the United Kingdom’s political circumstances.
A national commission should examine international examples, but it should also consider Britain’s political institutions, regional differences and traditions of constituency representation.
Claims that reform would automatically cause economic disaster go beyond what the available evidence can establish. Equally, promises that proportional representation would resolve political instability should be treated with caution.
Burnham’s Promise of a New Democratic Settlement
Burnham has presented electoral reform as part of a broader effort to address public dissatisfaction with British politics.
His argument is that voters should feel their choices matter and that the political system should better reflect the diversity of opinion across the country.
That objective has considerable democratic importance. When voters repeatedly support a party that wins few seats, they may feel that their political preferences are not adequately represented in Parliament.
However, changing electoral rules is a major constitutional decision. It should not be treated as a quick solution to every problem facing the political system.
A reform programme would need to address several practical questions.
Would voters continue to elect one MP in each constituency? Would parties use national or regional lists? Would there be a minimum vote threshold for winning seats? How would governments be formed if no party secured a majority? Would voters have a direct say on the proposed changes?
These questions matter because the details would determine how the system works in practice.
The commission would also need to assess whether reforms could command broad public confidence and survive changes of government.
A system that is viewed as an advantage for whichever party happens to be in power risks deepening distrust rather than improving it.
Should Voters Have the Final Say?
One possible response to the controversy would be to hold a public referendum on the proposed changes.
A referendum would allow voters to decide whether to replace the current system, although the design of the question and the alternatives offered would be important.
The United Kingdom held a referendum on the alternative vote system in 2011. Voters rejected the proposal, with approximately 68% voting against and 32% voting in favour.
That result does not settle every future debate about proportional representation, because alternative vote is not the same as the range of proportional systems now being discussed.
However, it demonstrates that changing electoral arrangements can be politically difficult and that the public may not accept reform simply because politicians argue that the existing system has shortcomings.
Any new proposal would need to explain the practical differences between the current system and the alternative.
Voters would need to understand how their ballots would work, how seats would be allocated and what consequences the change might have for local representation and government formation.
Public consultation and transparent evidence would be essential to building confidence.
The Real Test of Burnham’s Proposal
Andy Burnham’s decision to launch a national commission has brought a major constitutional question back into British politics.
His supporters argue that the current system can leave large numbers of voters underrepresented and that electoral reform could make Parliament more reflective of public opinion.
Critics warn that changing the rules could create more fragmented parliaments, give smaller parties greater bargaining power and make it harder for voters to identify who is responsible for government decisions.
The outcome would depend on the system eventually proposed. Proportional representation is not a single model, and its effects cannot be assessed without knowing the details.
The government should therefore avoid treating reform as an automatic improvement. It should also avoid dismissing the case for change simply because the current system has a long history.
The most useful debate would compare the practical strengths and weaknesses of different options, including their effects on representation, local accountability, government stability and public trust.
If Burnham’s commission can produce a transparent assessment, it could help voters understand the choices before them. If the process becomes a partisan exercise designed mainly to secure short-term political advantage, it could deepen the very distrust the government says it wants to address.
A Decision That Could Reshape British Politics
The claim that Burnham’s proposal would be a total disaster for the country reflects one side of a contentious political argument. The potential consequences are significant, but they cannot be determined simply from the announcement of a commission.
First past the post has clear advantages in simplicity, constituency representation and the potential to produce single-party majorities. It also has well-documented weaknesses in how national vote shares translate into parliamentary seats.
Proportional representation could make Parliament more representative of the electorate’s political preferences, but it could also change the process of forming governments and negotiating legislation.
The question is not whether any system is perfect. No electoral arrangement can eliminate every tension between representation, accountability and effective government.
The real question is which system best serves the country and whether its benefits justify the costs and compromises involved.
Burnham now faces the task of explaining how his proposal would work, what safeguards would be needed and why voters should trust the process.
Before Britain changes the way it elects its Parliament, the public deserves a clear explanation of the alternatives, a fair assessment of the evidence and a meaningful opportunity to influence the final decision.
The stakes are too high for slogans alone. Electoral reform could reshape British politics for decades, and any decision should be made with a full understanding of what the country would gain, what it might lose and how the new system would hold its elected representatives accountable.