As the Conservatives and Labour Party lose support, parties which used to receive less voter attention are on the rise. Reform UK’s projected vote share (now 35%) is the largest year-on-year gain across all parties. Polls are even predicting they will win the next General Election. The Liberal Democrats, Greens and the newly-created Your Party are also experiencing stronger public backing. What does this mean for the future composition of Parliament and the political system in the UK?
The foundations of the UK’s political system
The United Kingdom does not have a written (codified) constitution, unlike the United States. British constitutional law is a combination of different sources made up of statutes (Acts of Parliament), unwritten conventions, case law and, judicial review through the courts as well as secondary legislation. This is law made by the government when it is empowered to do so by Parliament.
The UK is a parliamentary democracy with a monarchy that plays a symbolic and representative role. It does not have a separation of powers between government, legislature and courts like the United States. The UK government is led by a Prime Minister who is a leader of a political party that has the most seats or a majority in Parliament. This flexible architecture has historically allowed the system to absorb change without sacrificing stability.
However, the modern world is changing. The question is whether the change will strengthen or weaken the political system.
Can the political system evolve again?
One of the best characteristics of the UK’s political system is its capacity to adapt incrementally to the changing world and new circumstances. Since the Glorious Revolution of 1688, a radical event which established the supremacy of parliament, constitutional change has typically happened through gradual but significant reforms: expanding suffrage, reshaping the relationship between the Commons and the Lords and devolution in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. But today’s profound shifts in the party landscape raise a question: Could maintaining democratic fairness and stability now require a radical change to the voting system?
Is the UK’s electoral system fit for purpose?
The current electoral system used for elections to the UK Parliament is First Past the Post (FPTP). This is a single winner voting system, where the UK is divided into 650 constituencies (parliamentary seats). Each constituent (voter) has one vote. The candidate with the most votes becomes the MP and (generally) the party with the most MPs becomes the government. The problem with FPTP is that vote share does not always get transformed into seats in Parliament. This is in contrast to the proportional representation system. Under this system, the number of seats for each party better reflects the percentage of votes they have received.
FPTP has been losing support in Britain. A recent YouGov poll shows 49% of British people would support a system of proportional representation. Only 26% support retaining FPTP. 46% think that having a proportional allocation of seats in Parliament is important. 44% back a system which would support a greater number of smaller parties. However, Britons are divided over whether they prefer single-party government or coalition government. Coalitions are significantly more likely with a proportional representation system.
The case for and against First Past the Post
FPTP has been criticised for suppressing support for smaller parties. The system causes people to vote tactically: choosing a candidate with the best chance of winning, rather than one which most closely matches their views. In practice, this means voters back one of the two largest parties to prevent their least-preferred option winning, even if their true preference lies elsewhere.
However, one of the arguments in support of retaining FPTP is that the existence of an effective and accountable government is more important than perfectly mirroring the political attitudes of the electorate in Parliament. FPTP supporters contend that this system creates a single-party government that works more efficiently than coalition governments, which are unstable and fragmented; or minority governments, which depend on the support of smaller parties without a strong mandate from the electorate.
The rise of issue-based voting in the UK
For much of the modern era, FPTP delivered a two-party system in the UK. Either the Conservatives or Labour formed the government, while smaller parties held the government to account. The only exception has been the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition between 2010 and 2015.
Current polling suggests rising pluralism: Reform, the Liberal Democrats and the Green Party are increasing their following. And different parties hold different levels of voter trust depending on the issue at hand. Reform are most trusted on immigration, the Conservatives on taxation, the Green Party on the environment, the Labour Party on the National Health Service and the Liberal Democrats on protecting minority groups.
Does this mean that in the future, it is possible that no party will routinely secure an outright majority in Parliament and a coalition government or confidence-and-supply arrangement will have to be formed so a laws can be passed? For example, Reform and the Conservatives, or Labour with the Liberal Democrats, Green Party or Your Party? Such multi-party coalitions would hold a patchwork mandate rather than a single dominant platform.
Where does the UK go from here?
One option is to abandon FPTP and introduce proportional representation. This would be a radical change to the political system. Ironically, such a change is more likely to happen if smaller parties gain additional seats under FPTP, giving them greater leverage to push for change. Reform UK , the Lib Dems and the Greens are all advocating for changes to the system. In 2011, the Lib Dems successfully forced the Conservatives to call a referendum on introducing the Alternative Vote , which was rejected by 67.9% of voters.
But the political environment today is very different. Could proportional representation deliver an effective and stable government and legislative chamber, which are necessary in the face of a dangerous world? Will democracy be enhanced because more people vote, as they have more confidence their vote for someone who best represents their views, beliefs and values will count? And will the government be better held to account through having more parties in parliament? Or would this lead to instability, with fragmented legislatures and fragile coalitions?
Another possibility is that FPTP will remain the electoral system. This is the likely outcome if Labour and the Conservatives win back the support of the voters who have become disillusioned with them. But even with such a system, small parties can gain footholds where their support is concentrated. The Lib Dems have 72 MPs, Reform: 5, the Green Party: 4 and Your Party: 1. There are also ways to adjust for the challenges of FPTP without changing the voting system. Parliament could develop new procedures or unwritten conventions to balance both representation and stability. For example, establishing clearer thresholds or supermajority requirements for certain constitutional changes.
The UK at an electoral crossroads
The UK’s political landscape is pluralising, and that raises valid questions about whether FPTP still serves the public interest. There are strong democratic arguments for considering proportional representation. But the country’s constitutional culture favours evolution over rupture and the likely path is pragmatic adaptation: preserving stability while improving how votes are translated into power. The key is to design reforms (or conventions) that respect voter choice, sustain accountable government, and keep Parliament effective in a more competitive party environment.
