solving the UK's democratic deficit 0v11
Adressing the UK's democratic deficit. 29aug26 v0.11
This page direct link...
https://poelposition.blogspot.com/2026/08/fixing-uks-chronic-democratic-deficit.html
The UK already has a long record of governments taking office on well under half the votes cast. First-past-the-post does not require 50%, let alone 55%. In 2024 Labour formed a very large majority (somewhat outrageously claimed as a landslide by Kier Starmer as he tried to justify extreme policy that was not mentioned in any sort of pre-election manifesto) on 33.7% of the vote. In 2019 the Conservatives did so on 43.6%, somewhat bolstered by having won the brexit referendum with a genuine but slim majority. Even in the more two-party 1950s the winning share rarely exceeded 49%. No post-war government has come close to 55% of the total vote.
FPTP turns geographically concentrated pluralities into parliamentary majorities and leaves large numbers of voters without representation. Reform’s 14.3% in 2024 produced five seats; the Liberal Democrats’ 12.2% outrageously produced 72. Combined Labour-plus-Conservative vote share has fallen to historic lows. Polling and local results in 2026 show further fragmentation. The system that once produced alternating single-party governments now magnifies whichever bloc is least split in particular constituencies.
A 55% threshold?
Requiring a government to rest on 55% of votes cast is a high bar by international standards. Most countries that insist on majority support use 50%+1, usually via run-offs, two-round voting, or coalitions after a proportional election. A 55% rule would, in today’s electorate, make single-party full-term government almost impossible. It would force either:
formal coalitions that together pass the threshold, or
a second-round or transferable-vote system that requires parties to seek second preferences from voters they did not win first time.
Both outcomes move politics toward the “broad church” bargaining.
They also increase the chance of lengthy negotiations, smaller-party leverage, and governments that fall short of a full term if the coalition fractures. Countries that operate this way (Germany, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Ireland) treat coalition-building as normal adult politics rather than a shambles; others regard the resulting compromise and delay as a cost.
How a referendum would actually start
There is no citizen-initiated national referendum in the UK. Parliament must pass an Act specifying the question, franchise, date and rules. The 2011 Alternative Vote referendum happened because the Coalition government put the bill through. A new voting-system referendum would require the same: a government willing to legislate, or enough MPs to force the issue.
Practical starting points that already exist:
An amendment to the current Representation of the People Bill calling for a National Commission on Electoral Reform has attracted well over 100 signatures across parties. That is the nearest live parliamentary vehicle.
Public support for changing the system has been recorded at around 60% in recent British Social Attitudes data. Campaign groups (Electoral Reform Society, Make Votes Matter) and some Labour, Liberal Democrat, Green and SNP figures are already pushing for a commission or citizens’ assembly first, then legislation, then (almost certainly) a confirmatory referendum given the 2011 precedent.
Petitions that reach 100,000 signatures trigger a Commons debate; they do not bind the government. Frankly, they are a waste of time and probably not even a safety valve to let off steam.
A referendum on a specific 55% rule would first need that rule to be drafted in legislation. Vague “let’s have a new system” questions tend to fail or produce unworkable results.
Big tents versus more than three parties
Time and again opinion pulley suggests that the public really don't care too much about the sort of obsessive politics that absorb politicians and media, they just want a competent government that keeps the lights on and strong enough to stop bad things happening - like wars and famine.
Labour and the Conservatives were themselves coalitions of factions for most of the twentieth century. The British remain fundamentally conservative with a small "C".
FPTP rewarded them for keeping those factions inside one party rather than splitting. The current splintering (Reform on one flank, Greens and others on the other, nationalists in Scotland and Wales) is what happens when those internal bargains break down and voters no longer treat the two historic parties as the only viable vehicles.
Whether “more than three parties is a recipe for a shambles” is a value judgement. FPTP currently converts that fragmentation into highly disproportional seat totals rather than preventing it. Proportional or majority-threshold systems would make the fragmentation visible in Parliament and force a coalescence to happen after the votes are counted, not before. Some voters prefer the current decisive-but-unrepresentative outcomes; others prefer seats that more closely match votes even if that means coalition arithmetic.
The moderate-centre voters are not a single organised bloc with one preferred system. Some of them want the old two-party alternation restored; some want a more proportional settlement that still produces governments with broad support; some simply want any government that can last a full term without constant leadership crises. A referendum or commission would have to choose among those preferences rather than assume they all point the same way.
The process therefore starts with Parliament, not with a spontaneous popular vote. The live debate is already about whether to set up a commission to design a replacement system that could then be put to the public. A hard 55% rule is one possible design choice among several; it is unusually stringent and would need to be sold as such.
Jimmy, Carr's best, bits?
Most people will have a pretty good idea of what to expect from Jimmy Carr. Although he has many more thoughtful observations than many expect, viewer discretion is advised - as they say. He can be a bit explicit
So I will gather the links to some of Jimmy Carr's more thoughtful pieces at the end of this blog.
Let's prepare the world for the idea that Jimmy Carr is a worthy and fearless candidate, and also disarm the use of profanity in day-to-day speech - so that it cannot be used to shock and intimidate...
Comments
Post a Comment