TERM BEGINS: Constitutional Reform

First Past the Post

Few subjects in British politics arouse as much debate as the electoral system itself. The UK’s First Past the Post (FPTP) system, in which the candidate with the most votes in each constituency wins, has long been accused of being “unfair,” “unrepresentative” and “out of date” – mostly by supporters of parties that have little chance of ever winning under the FPTP system. Proportional representation (PR), its advocates claim, would be fairer, ensure that “every vote counts” and bring Britain into line with many of its European neighbours. Beneath the rhetoric, FPTP has one virtue that no PR system can match: it reliably produces clear and workable governments.

Since 1945 FPTP has delivered outcomes that allowed governments to govern decisively, often in moments of acute national crisis, when proportional systems would have left Britain mired in uncertainty, horse-trading, or outright paralysis.

The Case for Decisive Government
At its core, FPTP transforms fragmented public opinion into clear parliamentary outcomes. Critics deride this as distorting the electorate’s will, but the system’s genius lies precisely in its ability to avoid fragmentation (Farrell 2011, p. 186). Left unchecked, Britain’s diverse party preferences would translate into a splintered House of Commons where no party held a majority and fragile coalitions would become the norm.

Comparative evidence illustrates the danger. Belgium holds the record for the longest period without an elected government: 541 days in 2010–11, as parties haggled endlessly across linguistic and ideological lines (Deschouwer 2012, pp. 68–70). Italy has endured decades of notorious instability, cycling through over 60 governments since 1945, ie about one government every year (Newell 2010, p. 22). Both countries show how PR can embed instability. By contrast, Britain has had governments lasting an average of 4-5 years, with smooth handovers of power and little disruption to administrative continuity (Bogdanor 2011, p. 117).

Decisive Elections in Britain Since 1945
Consistently, FPTP has delivered decisive results in British elections since the war.

1945: Labour’s Post-War Transformation
Although shocking in itself, the post-war election of July 1945 remains a striking illustration of FPTP’s virtues. Labour, under Clement Attlee, secured 393 seats to the Conservatives’ 197, despite winning only 47.7% of the vote (Butler 1989, p. 94). Under a proportional system, Labour’s vote share would have translated into something closer to 313 seats out of 650, leaving them short of a majority. They would likely have required Liberal or minor-party support, diluting their ambitious programme. Instead, FPTP gave Labour clarity and strength to create the NHS, nationalise core industries and establish the welfare state (Addison 1994, pp. 214–18).

1979: Tory Mandate for Change
Margaret Thatcher’s victory in 1979, with 43.9% of the vote and a majority of 43 seats, again demonstrates this point. Under PR, her vote share would have produced about 286 seats in a 650-seat chamber, far short of a majority. To govern, the Conservatives would have needed coalition partners, probably the Liberals, who would have blunted or vetoed radical economic reforms (Evans 2013, pp. 52–4). Instead, whether you like Thatcher’s prescription or not, FPTP delivered a workable majority that enabled her to pursue the transformation of Britain’s economy and industrial relations.

1997: New Labour’s Landslide
Tony Blair’s landslide in 1997 was another product of FPTP amplifying a broad but not overwhelming shift. Labour won 418 seats on 43.2% of the vote (Butler & Kavanagh 1997, p. 311). On proportional lines that share would have yielded around 281 seats, well short of a majority. Labour would almost certainly have had to partner with the Liberal Democrats, binding them into a coalition that could have slowed constitutional reform and public-service investment. Instead, FPTP converted the peoples’ appetite for change into a government with a decisive mandate.

2019: Breaking the Brexit Deadlock
The most recent clear evidence of FPTP decisiveness was delivered by Boris Johnson’s 2019 victory. After years of parliamentary paralysis over Brexit, the Conservatives won 365 seats with 43.6% of the vote (Curtice 2020, p. 12). PR would have given them around 283 seats—again, no majority. Britain would have been plunged back into coalition bargaining, likely with parties opposed to Johnson’s Brexit deal, prolonging instability. Instead, FPTP provided clarity and, as Boris said, a government with the numbers to “get Brexit done.”

The Value of Clear Opposition
Another overlooked merit of FPTP is that it produces coherent oppositions. Britain’s two-party dominance has ensured that an alternative government is always visible. Under PR, opposition is often fragmented across several parties, as in the Netherlands and Israel. The UK election of 1983 illustrates the point: despite the rise of the SDP–Liberal Alliance, FPTP preserved the clarity of a Conservative government and a Labour opposition, avoiding the syndrome of fractured oppositional blocs (Butler & Kavanagh 1983, pp. 22–5).

Stability and International Comparisons
Britain’s stability contrasts sharply with PR-based volatility elsewhere. In Israel, for example, PR produced five elections between 2019 and 2022, as fragile coalitions repeatedly collapsed (Dowty 2022, p. 131). Even Germany, often cited as a successful PR case, saw nearly six months of coalition negotiations after the 2017 election, before Angela Merkel could form a government. Germany’s post-war consensual politics has  sustained the ideal of coalition in a country where, historically, decisiveness has led to extremism that produced world-changing problems. Britain’s adversarial political and legal traditions make such prolonged bargaining alien to British voters’ expectations.

Accountability
FPTP also secures democratic accountability. Voters know whom to reward or punish. When Labour lost power in 1979 and when the Tories lost in 1997, responsibility was clear. Under PR, responsibility is diffuse: coalition partners blame one another, leaving voters uncertain who to sanction (Gallagher 2011, pp. 378–9).

Critics’ Concerns
Critics argue FPTP “wastes” votes, exaggerates regional imbalances and penalises smaller parties. Yet these “flaws” are inseparable from the system’s virtues. To deliver decisive outcomes, votes must be translated into majorities, not proportional tallies. Smaller parties may struggle, but this incentivises them either to broaden their appeal, or influence larger parties indirectly. The Green Party, despite having only one MP from 2010 until 2024 and thereafter only four, has nevertheless used its influence to shift environmental issues onto the national agenda (Carter 2007, p. 184).

Conclusion
First Past the Post is not perfect, but no electoral system is. Its enduring strength lies in transforming divided preferences into workable governments. Since 1945, FPTP has given Britain Attlee’s welfare state, Thatcher’s economic transformation, Blair’s New Labour reforms and Johnson’s resolution of Brexit—moments of clarity that PR systems would have muddled, delayed, or thwarted entirely.

The lesson from Europe is (ironically!) clear: proportional representation breeds fragmentation, delay and instability. Britain’s FPTP system delivers decisive outcomes, stable governments and accountable oppositions. In an age of democratic turbulence, fake news and electoral indifference, decisiveness is a strength worth defending.

It is true that the sense of political alienation amongst small but passionate groups whose views are not powerfully articulated within Britain’s FPTP system has become a growing danger to the inclusiveness of British politics, but this could be addressed by introducing a measure of PR within Britain’s structure. The extension of PR-elected regional bodies (and the introduction of an English Parliament to even up the arrangements in place in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) or the conversion of the House of Lords to a PR-elected “Senatorial” revising chamber with real teeth could effectively address the “wasted vote” complaint of supporters of parties unlikely to achieve substantial FPTP representation.

First Past The Post is not merely a convenience: it is the system that has allowed Britain to undergo major political transformations without the paralysis and instability so often seen in PR structures. British FPTP could be improved by the introduction of other balancing structures, but the FPTP system, which has defined the British political character since the introduction of democracy itself, is an unparalleled mechanism for delivering robust debate and clear decisions – the definition of an effective democracy.

References
Addison, Paul: The Road to 1945: British Politics and the Second World War (London: Pimlico, 1994).
Bogdanor, Sir Vernon: The Coalition and the Constitution (Oxford: OUP, 2011).
Butler, Sir David: British General Elections since 1945 (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1989).
Butler, Sir David & Kavanagh, Dennis: The British General Election of 1983 (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1983).
Butler, Sir David & Kavanagh, Dennis: The British General Election of 1997 (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1997).
Carter, Neil: The Politics of the Environment: Ideas, Activism, Policy (Cambridge: CUP, 2007).
Curtice, Sir John: Brave New World: Understanding the 2019 General Election (Political Insight, vol. 11, no. 1, 2020).
Deschouwer, Kris: The Politics of Belgium: Governing a Divided Society (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 2009).
Dowty, Alan: Israel/Palestine, (Cambridge: Polity, 2005).
Evans, Eric: Thatcher and Thatcherism (London: Routledge, 1997).
Farrell, David: Electoral Systems: A Comparative Introduction (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 2001).
Gallagher, Michael: Representative Government in Modern Europe (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2001).
Newell, James: The Politics of Italy: Governance in a Normal Country (Cambridge: CUP, 2010).