2019 General Election results under Proportional Representation

After every election, there are numerous discussions that come to light about possible results under a different electoral system. While it is unlikely the electoral system will change any time soon, it is useful to understand the biases that can have a notable impact on the results.

For this exercise, I used a similar approach to that for European elections, where the UK is split into regions, and a list of candidates is pre-supplied by parties.

When the votes are counted, seats are assigned according to something known as the D’Hondt formula. More details here. Jeremy Vine also did a great explainer for the BBC below.

Here are the results when the data from the most recent General Election is pulled through.

A note here that I used the House of Commons’ full published data on the election results and the region from this data to calculate the number of seats allocated to each location.

As can be seen, the Conservatives would still be the largest party, but would fall short of an overall majority (326 seats). This could have a number of implications, a couple of which are outlined below.

As smaller parties could be represented better, it might also change perceptions of who to vote for. Voters may feel more empowered to vote for smaller parties as they have a realistic chance of gaining a seat.

While many voters vote for the party over the candidate, in some areas there is less space for independent candidates to succeed. This may also have an impact on party selection because the focus is much more on the national picture than local issues. That said, it may increase the significance of elections for other, more local bodies such as councils or the devolved administrations.

Parties would have to do more to co-operate with one another, as coalitions would become the norm. As the barrier of entry is much higher to gain a majority, parties would have to remove clauses from their party rulebook to enable this. This could potentially lead to more consensus-based policy making and a higher degree of stability when decisions are made.

Of course, the voting system is not likely to change. The Conservatives and Labour have been the biggest benefactors from the current First Past the Post arrangement, and public opinion surrounding coalitions or voting reform is often negative – seen often as an academic issue or leading to weakness and indecisiveness. Some argue that the rejection of AV towards the start of decade proves this, although this is not exactly the same system as has been discussed here.

However, it is interesting to speculate how things would be different if smaller parties were more empowered, and each party had to work harder to get into power. Would it make policy-making better, or would it make things more unstable?

How can Labour review its election failure properly?

Tired eyes? Listen to this piece above.

Today, we awoke to reports that Ed Miliband will sit alongside Jeremy Corbyn and others including Lucy Powell (who ran Miliband’s 2015 campaign) on the Labour Together panel.

While the overall idea behind Labour Together is sensible – looking at all of the data, running focus groups and interviewing candidates about what went wrong – the image this evokes is painstaking and rife with division.

It demonstrates the abdication of responsibility by Jeremy Corbyn to accept that he was a major factor in Labour’s defeat on the 12th December. Many Labour supporters I have had conversations with are quite rightly angry and frustrated with the approach to leadership and the people around Corbyn.

To add to this, the responses to the defeat from these circles have appeared self-righteous and ignorant to the truth. It is not possible to say you have “won the argument”, when your party’s election result is the lowest in almost 90 years. An important step is for the people in charge of the party to admit they got it wrong, which is not incompatible with reviewing other things to change. Lessons can be learned from the resignations of those like Gordon Brown, after the 2010 defeat.

A second point is about the members on the panel. This panel does not contain any party leader who has actually won an election or led a Labour Government. It is understandable that Tony Blair has a lot of baggage associated with him (namely Iraq), but one thing that cannot be doubted is he knew how to win elections and get people on side. Admitting him to this forum would provide invaluable insight about what needs to be in place to make the party electable.

There is benefit to Miliband and Corbyn being involved as they are arguably more in tune with the views of many Labour members; and the policy positions have shifted to some extent since the last Labour victory in 2005. Labour as a party is viewed as a broad church, so getting all these views in one place in a constructive manner would help to bring these different elements together.

Furthermore, the image this panel evokes is a divided, indecisive party which is struggling to find itself. It is possible that the process could become drawn out, and factional. This appears to already come across in a tweet from Labour Together this morning using the word “faction”. 

Just this single use of language has far-reaching implications, and only provides the Conservatives with an open goal. Appearance is as important as the substance; the panel needs to be effective and conciliatory, but also needs to be seen as decisive. Otherwise, there is a risk of similar policies to the Brexit ‘final say’ referendum coming through and suggesting a sense of inertia.

While the idea of the panel is not a terrible idea, it needs to be executed in a way that listens, engages and effects change in a decisive, constructive way – conscious of the scrutiny it will receive. It also needs to ensure Labour starts to not only be seen as a protest movement, but also as a viable party of Government. Only then can Labour start to rebuild.

Read more here 👉 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-50888060