logo
PR is the way to stop Farage ever becoming PM

PR is the way to stop Farage ever becoming PM

New European22-05-2025

At a meeting of Labour MPs after unveiling his Brexit reset deal, Keir Starmer was clear about the danger that lay ahead. 'The Conservatives are not our principal opponent. Reform are our main rivals for power,' he said, telling his audience they had 'a moral responsibility to make sure Nigel Farage never wins.'
But what if there was a way to take the fight to Farage – one that would indeed ensure he never reached power – that the prime minister is ignoring?
Whatever you think of the trade deals and benefit cuts engineered by Starmer and Labour's chief strategist Morgan McSweeney so far, their willingness to take decisive action cannot be denied. So the duo will miss a trick if they fail to consider using their control of the statute book to reform Westminster's electoral system.
Of course, Starmer is right to be wary of Farage. The English local elections and the Runcorn & Helsby by-election show why. So do the last 24 national opinion polls, 20 of which reported Reform Party ahead and four joint-first with Labour.
Britain seems to be transitionining from a two-and-a-half- to a five-party system; or a six-party system in Scotland and Wales. The BBC projected the May 1 votes as Reform 30%, Labour 20%, Liberal Democrats 17%, Conservatives 15% and Greens 11% while YouGov's latest poll, released on May 20, had Reform 29%, Labour 22%, Lib Dems 17%, Tories: 16% and Greens: 10%.
This new multiparty shape of Britain's electorate was also evident at last July's general election when the combined Tory-Labour vote share slumped to 58%, a record post-war low in a long decline from 1951's 97% peak. Now, the BBC's 35% and YouGov's 38% joint share for the two former main parties underline the old duopoly's demise.
Whatever the attractions of more voter choice and fluidity among parties along a left-right spectrum of Greens, Labour, Lib Dems, Tories and Reform, multiparty politics is a bad fit for Britain's first-past-the-post (FPTP) election system for Westminster. Potentially delivering Farage as prime minister on a Reform national vote share in the high 20s would be a defeat for pro-Europeans as significant as 2016's referendum or 2019's general election. Nonetheless that is the direction in which polling and elections point.
Entering YouGov's latest poll into the Electoral Calculus seat predictor produces a hypothetical House of Commons in which Reform has 346 seats, up 341 from the five Reform MPs elected last July, with an overall majority of 42. Labour would be the official opposition with just 145 seats (down 267); the Lib Dems would be the third party with 73 (up one); the Scottish National Party fourth with 39 (up 30); and the Tories' fifth with 17 (down 104). British politics would be turned upside down, all on a 29% Reform vote share.
One way to prevent this – and the most far right and inexperienced government the country has ever endured – would be to introduce the Single Transferable Vote for Westminster elections. There are several good reasons for Starmer to do so.
First, in a lesson that shouldn't be lost on Labour's leadership, STV would more evenly divide the nationalist right. Because STV produces more proportional results than FPTP, both Reform and the Tories would be broadly represented according to their national vote share in parliament. In 2024's general election, the Tories took 24% of the vote to Reform's 14%, splitting the combined right's vote roughly 63% to 37% in the Tories' favour. But under the current electoral system the right's share of seats divided 96% (121 seats) for the Conservatives and 4% (five seats) for Reform.
YouGov's latest poll, with Reform at 29% and the Tories on 16% is a roughly 64% to 36% share of the right's vote in Reform's favour but would translate into a seat share of about 95% for Reform and 5% for the Tories.
Such results are a travesty of current party support. A purely proportional parliament with 2024's results would have given the Tories 24% of MPs and Reform 14% of Parliament's 650 constituencies, and the total for a divided right 38% of MPs, making a coalition of the two impossible. A purely proportional parliament on YouGov's latest poll would give Reform 29% and the Tories 16% of MPs, 45% of all seats, still not within reach of a Reform-Tory majority.
A broadly proportional parliament isn't instant good news for the parties of the left either. 2024's combined shares for Labour plus Lib Dems plus Greens equal 52% while YouGov's latest poll gets the pro-Europe three to only 48%, and only to 51% if the SNP are added – problematic for Labour and the Lib Dems as unionist parties. Nonetheless the left's range of support is higher than for the two parties of the nationalist right – and a far cry from FPTP's extreme distortions, with Labour's recent decline somewhat compensated by Lib Dem and Green upticks.
STV produces more proportional results in terms of party vote share by using multimember constituencies in which voters rank their candidate choices in order of preference. Under STV, the Boundary Commission might divide Britain's 650 current single-member constituencies into 130 five-member constituencies.
To summarise and simplify, ballot papers are sorted by first preferences and a quota established: in a five-member seat, one-fifth of total votes plus one. Any candidate reaching the quota is automatically elected. Votes surplus to the quota are then distributed to remaining candidates who don't meet the initial quota until all five members of parliament for the constituency are elected.
Multimember constituencies and preferential voting empower voters, potentially better reflecting the 60% of voters who want to rejoin the European Union – a swing of 12 points toward membership since the 2016 referendum..
Obviously, a Reform-majority or Reform-led coalition with over 50% of the seats in a FPTP parliament gives anti-EU parties 100% of the legislative power while representing only 40%, the minority, of voters on this issue.
The biggest reason why pro-EU membership opinion runs at 60% while backing for the three pro-Europe parties of the left currently runs only to the high 40s is the share of pro-rejoin Conservative voters who continue to vote Tory – including even in 2024's general election when so many of the party's former voters deserted them. Per YouGov, 85% of Labour and 75% of Lib Dem voters – the vast majority. For the Tories, the figure is 29% – a minority, but still sizeable. These Rejoin Tories would be better represented under STV with its multimember seats and preference voting.
Under FPTP, a pro-rejoin Conservative voter has only one Tory candidate to vote for, currently someone backing the party line on the EU, or they can abstain, or vote for a non-Tory. But in a five-member constituency with preference voting, the one-person party-candidate monopoly ends. That voter could rank Tory candidates according to the mood music of their stance on the EU even if the party requires all candidates to sign up to the party line, or vote for some but not all the Tory candidates.
The flexibility afforded by a system without 'safe' seats that never change party control at general elections, even in landslides like 2024's general election, won't only offer Tory candidates incentives to differentiate. Labour, Lib Dem and Green candidates might also go out of their way to stress pro-Europe credentials, attracting stray Tory voters' subsequent preferences but also boosting their chances versus other candidates of the left, as they aim to make the quota and get elected. By better representing the Rejoin 62% on YouGov's numbers, Labour and the Lib Dems can more easily move to back membership.
By opening up elections and constituencies, STV could be a game-changer in the Tories' overall direction of travel on the European issue. It potentially encourages a more nuanced, pro-Europe position, enabling the Tories to cleave closer to public opinion. This matters for the future as returning to the European fold ought to mean at least one party of the right backing EU membership, as in other European nations and in the UK for 65 years pre-2016.
Electoral reform also could be a game-changer at local government level, also preventing Reform winning on low vote shares in low-turnout elections. Restoring the supplementary vote (SV) system, in which voters get second choices counted if no candidate exceeds 50% of the vote, to London mayoral elections would benefit pro-Europe parties in a city in which YouGov says 70% back rejoining the EU.
To encourage candidates to embrace the mainstream, SV should be reinstated for all mayoral elections. This would potentially prevent repeats of Reform's Andrea Jenkyns becoming Greater Lincolnshire mayor with 42% on a 30% turnout or former boxer Luke Campbell's election as Hull and East Yorkshire mayor with 36% of the vote on another 30% turnout.
Taking the easiest items first, the Conservatives under Boris Johnson used their overall parliamentary majority won in 2019 to change mayoral elections from SV to FPTP, so there is a clear precedent for Labour using their majority to revert to these elections' original SV system.
For Westminster elections the stakes and therefore the lengths to which parties will go in pursuit of their own interests are far higher. No 10 would have to consider how best politically to make the move from FPTP to STV.
Referendums held late into governments, like Britain's second European vote, can unhelpfully become conflated with other issues and regarded as a plebiscite on the government of the day. But the danger of waiting until after yet another FPTP election is that it doesn't happen because Labour, even heading a coalition, don't win, as current polling and elections portend.
Starmer and McSweeney should ask themselves: is it better to introduce STV now, or gamble on waiting until after yet another FPTP general election that may not bring Labour victory or a Labour-led coalition? Reform backs proportional representation now but that could change if they win under FPTP.
A freak Farage win on a 28-30% vote is a real possibility. But it is one that can be averted by making 2024 Britain's last FPTP election.
Barnaby Towns is a former Conservative Party government special adviser

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Kemi Badenoch blasts Nigel Farage's Reform over support for a burka ban saying enforcing it would be a waste of police time
Kemi Badenoch blasts Nigel Farage's Reform over support for a burka ban saying enforcing it would be a waste of police time

Daily Mail​

time17 minutes ago

  • Daily Mail​

Kemi Badenoch blasts Nigel Farage's Reform over support for a burka ban saying enforcing it would be a waste of police time

Kemi Badenoch hit out at Reform MPs for backing a burka ban today, saying policing what people wear would be a waste of officers' time. The Opposition leader said that she was against women being forced to wear clothing against their wishes. But she suggested that Reform's support for a ban on the Islamic outfit - which covers the whole body, apart from a gauze veil over the eyes - was 'a policy without a plan'. At the weekend Ms Badenoch backed giving employers the right to insist staff wore clothing that showed their face at work. But speaking to BBC Radio 4's Today programme this morning, she appeared to rule out going any further. She said that women should not 'be forced to wear things that their husbands and their community want', but added: 'Are we going to send police officers into people's homes to check if they are wearing the burka at a time when we cannot even keep prisoners in prison, (when) we are releasing them? 'Do we have space in prison to put people wearing the burka in? 'This is what I mean by people just saying things, announcing policies without plans.' The last week has seen Nigel Farage's party riven by a row over the idea of a burka ban. Chairman Zia Yusuf briefly quit after MP Sarah Pochin asked about it at Prime Minister's Questions last week. But other Reform MPs including Lee Anderson and Richard Tice have also backed a law telling women what they can and cannot wear. Ms Badenoch revealed at the weekend that she will not see anyone at surgeries in her North East Essex constituency if they have a face covering. And this morning she told Today that she had done so. British employers are able to set their own workplace dress codes, but could face legal challenges under equality law if they tell staff to remove religious clothing without demonstrating it is 'proportionate' and for a 'legitimate' aim, such as health and safety.

Lesley Riddoch: The SNP's usual attack lines won't work now
Lesley Riddoch: The SNP's usual attack lines won't work now

The National

time29 minutes ago

  • The National

Lesley Riddoch: The SNP's usual attack lines won't work now

Joani Reid must possess steely determination to be Labour MP for East Kilbride and Strathaven. But then she is grand-daughter of the shipyard legend and independence campaigner Jimmy Reid. And he must have been birling in his grave yesterday as his lass contemptuously stuck it to the SNP during Prime Minister's Questions. 'Can I ask the Prime Minister, has he seen calls from within the SNP for John Swinney to resign? And does he agree with me that a leader who's only ever lost elections to the Labour Party should stay put?' This prompted gales of laughter from the Labour front bench. And that hurt. There wasn't even a cutaway showing a furious Stephen Flynn. With just nine MPs, the SNP is now treated as a spent force at Westminster (even though they have a bigger parliamentary group than Reform UK). And as a friend of mine observes, 'no-one kicks a dead dog'. So, the fact a Labour MP saw fit to take game at a recent moment of weakness, suggests they know fine well the SNP is still tipped to become the biggest party in the 2026 Holyrood elections. Yet it felt as if she had just kicked sand in nobody's face. Hard to watch. But then mockery is just one of the things that come your way when you lose. And defeat in the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election was certainly a loss, no matter how much the SNP dresses it up otherwise. The other thing that happens is public questioning of the man in charge and his suitability to lead. READ MORE: SNP minister responds to 'secret meeting to discuss John Swinney leadership' reports This was turbo-charged by news that 25 'senior SNP figures' held a secret meeting on Monday where the removal of John Swinney as party leader was discussed. According to this paper: 'Attendees said the First Minister has two weeks to come up with a new strategy on independence or face a 'bloodbath' at the SNP conference.' For those of us bemoaning the indy-free nature of the Hamilton by-election campaign, such straight-talking and muscular movement within the party is long overdue. And it's tempting to join the ranks of those commenting on Swinney's leadership. But there's a more important question that needs greater focus. What will boost support for independence through the 2026 election and beyond? When that is answered, we can see who is right for the tough task of inspiring a new, more engaged and more combative SNP. First Minister John Swinney is facing unrest within the SNPJust challenging the current leader with no clear vision of what lies ahead, risks upending the boat without a canny new captain and prompting more barbed remarks at Swinney's expense. And that actually helps no-one but his Unionist opponents. As it is, the terrain leading to 2026 brings to mind the Battle of Flodden Field, fought in 1513, where the Scots were exposed on all sides and suffered heavy losses, including the death of their king. Let's be clear, it's not going to come to that. But the SNP finds itself politically outflanked on all sides. And it'll take energy, purpose, dynamism and a clear unapologetic strategy for independence to fight clear, and as Jonathan Shafi notes, that means more than occasionally intoning the I-word. Why? Because after years and even decades in the doldrums, Labour is out confidently gunning for the SNP. And if they don't hit their mark, there's every chance Reform will. READ MORE: 'Everything for Keir Starmer is England': Brian Cox calls for Scottish unity The polls still suggest the SNP will be the largest party in 2026 and many supporters will feel there's no need to panic. But a year is a very long time in politics. And it's been ages since the SNP faced challenge from two parties 'on the rise'. Let's take Labour first. In yesterday's spending review, the Chancellor pledged defence spending cash for the Clyde and Rosyth and finally gave the thumbs up to the Acorn carbon capture project near Peterhead, thus pledging jobs for the oil and gas-focused Grampian area while also stealing one of the SNP's biggest grievances about the Westminster Labour Government. Scottish Finance Secretary Shona Robison was right to tell Radio Scotland she fears that 'only development and not delivery costs are being covered. If there was a big figure to come, I think they'd be giving it now'. That's a fair point, but right now it can easily look carnaptious. The SNP have got what they wanted and are still not happy. You can see Ian Murray's script already. Scottish Secretary Ian MurrayOf course, there IS a critical position on Acorn but the CCS-supporting SNP can't make it. According to Oil Change International: 'CCS (carbon capture) has been failing for half a century and its only significant success has been the billions pocketed by industry in public subsidies. 'With the decision to grant funding for the Acorn and Viking carbon capture projects, Rachel Reeves has added to that track record. Instead of funding real transition policies like training for workers, port upgrades and investments in the UK wind industry, the Chancellor chose to funnel more money to the oil and gas industry's latest distraction tactic. 'The Government still has an opportunity to get serious about a just transition and put money where it is really needed, which is not the pockets of oil and gas bosses.' I'd say that is very fair comment. But it's not a defence line the SNP can use unless they get real about the very marginal part CCS can play in a future without fossil fuels. Other SNP attack lines were also closed down by yesterday's review. READ MORE: UK Government announces funding for Acorn carbon capture project in Scotland Scotland will now host the UK's most powerful supercomputer following a U-turn on the University of Edinburgh project. It was selected to host the project years ago by the Tories who promised £800m. But last August, Labour scrapped that plan claiming it was an 'unfunded commitment'. Cue academic fury. But now that faux pas has been corrected. So, like the Winter Fuel Payment U-turn which lets the brass-necked Scottish Secretary accuse the SNP of failing pensioners (breath-taking cheek), so the new £750m 'landmark' investment is being larged up by Labour as 'placing Edinburgh at the forefront of the UK's technological revolution'. Which means SNP complaints will sound like sour grapes. That is the intention. Ditto £250m for the Faslane nuclear base which fits into Murray's Radio Scotland pledge on nuclear power in the wake of Rachel Reeves' £14 billion to complete Sizewell C. 'If Labour wins in 2026, we'll reverse the SNP's veto on nuclear energy.' Now nothing nuclear would be needed in Scotland if we could develop our own energy mix. But we don't. And more engineering jobs pleases unions like the GMB. It works for substantial nuclear industry and pressure groups. And it works for some climate change activists willing to overlook the facts of exorbitant cost, decade-long delays, Fukushima-like safety concerns and Dounreay-like radioactive contamination. The Faslane nuclear base will undergo a major renovation (Image: PA) Yip, it's crazy, but if the Scottish Government wants to maintain its nuclear veto, it must make the arguments instead of resting on CND laurels and fight for its right to party. It needs a wholesale critique of a UK energy system that was privatised to within an inch of its life by Thatcher 30 years ago. A system that doesn't work for Scotland. But we don't hear a peep. Without some coherent attack lines, Scots may think the hardware piling up in our landscape extracting energy for southern shareholders is done at the behest of the Scottish Government, since they are last in the food chain giving planning consent. It's not true. Energy, grids, pylons, cables and turbines are all reserved to Westminster. But if the SNP does no serious work to reallocate responsibility, the underwhelming jobs and tiny income boosts of the green transition will all be blamed on the SNP. And if people don't come to that conclusion themselves, you can bet your bottom dollar Nigel Farage will be there to help them. So, the SNP's old attack lines are almost gone. Claims of success belong largely to the old glory days. There's the problem. Who in the SNP has the courage, energy and collaborative spirit needed to unravel it?

Rachel Reeves fails to rule out future tax rises as economy shrinks
Rachel Reeves fails to rule out future tax rises as economy shrinks

Glasgow Times

time31 minutes ago

  • Glasgow Times

Rachel Reeves fails to rule out future tax rises as economy shrinks

The Chancellor has repeatedly said that the cost of Wednesday's spending review is covered by the tax rises she brought in last year, saying departments must now 'live within their means'. But economists have warned that a weakening economy and additional commitments such as reversing much of the cut to winter fuel payments mean taxes are likely to go up again in the autumn. Asked on Thursday whether she could guarantee there would be no further tax rises, Ms Reeves told LBC: 'I think it would be very risky for a Chancellor to try and write future budgets in a world as uncertain as ours.' But she again repeated her promise that she would not need to increase taxes on the same scale as last year, when she put them up by £40 billion. And she rejected the suggestion that she was a 'Klarna Chancellor' who had announced a 'buy now, pay later' spending review. She said: 'The idea that yesterday I racked up a bill that I'm going to need to pay for in the future, that's just not right.' Her comments come as the Office for National Statistics reported that the economy shrank by 0.3% in April – the biggest monthly contraction since October 2023 and worse than the 0.1% fall most economists had expected. In recent days, both Ms Reeves and Number 10 have said the economy is beginning to turn a corner, allowing them to fund the U-turn on the winter fuel allowance. But Thursday's worse-than-expected economic news will make it harder for Ms Reeves to balance her spending commitments with Labour's promises on tax and borrowing. The Chancellor acknowledged that the reduction in GDP was 'disappointing', and blamed 'uncertainty' caused by Donald Trump's announcement of sweeping tariffs at the start of April for much of the fall. But opposition parties have laid the blame squarely with the Government, with Conservative shadow chancellor Sir Mel Stride accusing Ms Reeves of 'economic vandalism'. He said: 'Under Labour, we have seen taxes hiked, inflation almost double, unemployment rise, and growth fall. With more taxes coming, things will only get worse and hard-working people will pay the price.' Daisy Cooper, the Liberal Democrats' Treasury spokeswoman, said the figures should act as 'a wake-up call for the Government which has so far refused to listen to the small businesses struggling to cope with the jobs tax' and urged ministers to pursue a 'bespoke UK-EU customs union' to compensate for the impact of US tariffs. The GDP figures come a day after the Chancellor revealed her spending plans for the coming years, including a significant increase in spending on the NHS, defence and schools. The biggest winner was the NHS, which will see its budget rise by £29 billion per year in real terms, leading the Resolution Foundation's Ruth Curtice to say Britain was slowly morphing into a 'National Health State'. But that rise came at the price of real-terms cuts elsewhere, including the Home Office, the Department for Transport and the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. On Thursday, Ms Reeves rejected claims that her decision on policing, which will see forces' 'spending power' increase by 2.3% above inflation each year, would mean cuts to frontline police numbers.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store