First past the post electoral system has surely had its day
Forget the local election fallout for a moment. It's the four-way by-election bunfight unfolding in Runcorn & Helsby that should be turning heads — not so much for who gets elected but because of how low the bar has fallen to secure election victory.
With turnout expected to slump below 50 per cent, it is plausible that Britain's newest MP could take office with as few as 10,000 votes, just 14 per cent of their constituents. How did the 'mother of parliaments' end up here?
Let's first recall how we earned that accolade, with centuries of reform that shifted power from the monarch to the people: from Magna Carta, Simon de Montfort's parliament, an early civil war, the Glorious Revolution and a Bill of Rights
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
26-05-2025
- The National
Be on side of politics that's about what you are for, not against
That is, that I believe everyone associated with The National is here for one very good reason. We believe in what this paper has to say. We believe in Scottish independence. We believe in this paper's stance on Gaza. We believe in this paper's desire to hold Scottish politicians, whoever they are, to account. We want to talk about what matters. I believe we do this based on a simple, mutual understanding, which is that we think a better world is possible for the people of Scotland. We are, therefore, 'for' something. We work, we write, we edit, we photograph, we make social media, we agonise and we sweat tears, all because it is our hope that at the end of the day there will be something to show for all this. You could, of course, argue that given the current state of Scotland – its politics, its economy, and the denial of its freedom – it would be hard for us to think otherwise. But again, I am making the point for a very good reason. READ MORE: Man charged following crossbow incident at Glasgow hospital What I see all around me, in Scotland, in the UK, in the United States and beyond, is politics which is, at best, 'against' something and, at worst, based on hate. Labour, like the Tories before them, seem to hate the young; the vulnerable; those with disabilities; people who are without work through no fault of their own; homeless people; children in poverty and their parents; hard-up pensioners; migrants; civil servants and all public-sector employees; anyone who has the temerity to ask for a pay rise; people who raise their voice; anyone who protests, someone who thinks that the future of our planet matters; and a great many others besides. The list appears to be endless. Unless you are wealthy, have a very high income, have power and influence, are probably male as a result, and can make a very large donation to a political party of your choice, then it seems that you really do not matter in the world in which the Tories and Labour reside. They believe in a politics of division, where the vast majority of people are placed by them on the losing side and they then have no intention of helping them. When it comes to Reform, matters just get worse. They don't just seek to divide society between the ultra-wealthy – who are the only people that the far right ever seeks to serve (as Trump's Big Beautiful Budget Act in the US proves) – and everyone else, they actively hate everyone else except when they might put them into power. After that, who knows whether they will follow Trump's precedent, which looks very likely to lead to the end of democracy, and so voting, in the US? These English parties are not defined by what they are for. They are defined by what they are against. Worse, what they are against is most of us. I will be candid, the rise of fascism is scaring me. In time, I suspect it will scare most people, but by then it might be too late. It took seven centuries from the time of Magna Carta until we got a universal franchise in the UK for every man and woman of adult age. The positive processes of democracy took a very long time to build. I, among others, have related that the process of democracy is being destroyed in the US, is almost over, and all in a matter of months. This is not a moment for sitting on the side. This is not a moment when waiting to make up your mind is an option. This is a moment when you have to decide whose side you are on, which voices you wish to hear, and what causes you wish to promote. This is a moment to reject the politics of division, and the politics of hate. This is a moment to be for things. In that case, it may be just one small gesture among many you might need to take, but might I suggest that if you have not already done so, you might subscribe to The National? This is a moment when it needs your support. This is a moment when you need to express that support . This is a way of doing just that. Freedom requires a free press. The National has shown its capacity to offer opinion free from fear. That, surely, is a cause worth supporting at this very precarious moment?
The Guardian
21-05-2025
- The Guardian
Magna Carta wasn't the first document to state that the king is not above the law
Your report claims that the Magna Carta was the first document to put in writing that the king is not above the law (Harvard's unofficial copy of Magna Carta is actually an original, experts say, 15 May). I was struck that millennia before, another iconic document commanded the exact principle. Deuteronomy 17:18-20 proclaims: 'When he is sitting upon his royal throne, he shall write a copy of this law upon a scroll from the one that is in the custody of the Levitical priests. 'It shall remain with him and he shall read it as long as he lives, so that he may learn to fear the LORD, his God, and to observe carefully all the words of this law and these statutes, so that he does not exalt himself over his kindred or turn aside from this commandment to the right or to the left, and so that he and his descendants may reign long in Israel.' Though the Magna Carta is a landmark work of jurisprudence, in this regard its authors drew from the most foundational of all Ian SilvermanMargate, New Jersey, US
The Guardian
18-05-2025
- The Guardian
Harvard, jousting with Trump, found a real Magna Carta. It's a grand coincidence
Sometimes, miraculous financial windfalls happen when you need them most. A college student finding $20 in a jacket pocket on a Friday night. A relative who you didn't really even like dropping dead and leaving you with a hefty inheritance. Or an institution of higher learning discovering they have an original copy of the Magna Carta. I'm sure you can relate. Harvard University recently found the antiquities equivalent of a $20 bill in its archives. What was once thought to be an unofficial copy of King Edward I's declaration of principles is now confirmed to be one of seven remaining legitimate documents left in the world. Harvard purchased this item in 1946 for a whopping $27.50, or $452.40 in today's money. Now that the piece's provenance is confirmed, it's fair to say it's actually priceless. I'm sure you've read the whole Magna Carta, right? But if you haven't, here's the basics. The Magna Carta was drafted by Archbishop Stephen Langton as a means to squash a conflict between King John and a group of wealthy barons who felt they were being wrongly persecuted by the crown. The king accepted it in 1215. It laid out certain protections against undue royal influence over finance, justice and religious freedom, and created a council of 25 barons who would check the king's authority. The Magna Carta fell in and out of favor and was only loosely adhered to, but King Edward reaffirmed the charter during his reign as a means of currying favor during a time of heavy taxation and to avoid a civil war. It's far from a perfect encapsulation of democracy, mostly because it focuses primarily on the rights of the wealthy barons, but it served as an inspiration to numerous nascent democracies around the world, including parliamentary Britain and the United States. It affirmed rights, granted authority to those outside the direct orbit of the crown, and created a system of checks and balances. Pretty handy thing to keep around. Not quite like a prenup, since the parties in question were unfortunately married already. More like a postnup that stipulated the rules of engagement for a couple that were already growing sick of each other. The British royal family and the people of the United Kingdom just can't quit each other, can they? This original copy of Edward's reaffirmation of the Magna Carta, which apparently dates to 1300, is not something one can just hawk on eBay, but Harvard might want to consider at least talking to Sotheby's. As of now, Donald Trump has frozen almost $3bn in federal grants and contracts to the university to punish them for what he refers to as 'radical left' ideology and the hiring of vocal liberals in positions of authority. The Magna Carta might not fetch $3bn (unless Jay-Z is feeling extra nostalgic). So, probably not the epic lottery windfall they would need. But, as it has always been, the Magna Carta is more valuable for its symbolism than its practical worth. The Magna Carta affirms rights, but it also suggests that no person is above the law, that they can't circumvent the rights of others on a whim. That someone has to have the power to push back. That is, of course, anathema to the current American administration, which values loyalty and silence above all. That Harvard, which is suing Trump over his actions, has this symbol in its archive is a grand coincidence of history, but also a powerful reminder that humanity has been fighting blind autocracy for centuries. The powerful will always seek to possess and wield more power. The only thing that prevents tyranny is a shared belief in limits. Sound governance is a constant tug of war, both sides yanking at an invisible rope. If one side lets go of the rope, the other side inevitably falls over from the lack of opposition force. Then, we're all in the mud, aren't we? There is no system if one side gives up. The game is up. I can't imagine Trump actually wants to win that way. He thrives on a fight. He yearns for the joust of the campaign. Trump had a rally to commemorate his first 100 days just because he missed the combative nature of a campaign speech. Ruling as a king is actually deeply lonely. It is against everything the US, perhaps the most ruthlessly competitive nation on Earth today, stands for. The Magna Carta should remind us all that it's our duty to push back. Not just for the sake of democratic systems of government, but also to keep Trump from getting bored. Let's do everything we can to keep this elderly mind sharp. Trump needs a sparring partner. If not the liberal intellectuals, who will it be? Who else is there for him to complain about? He probably hasn't hailed a cab in 30 years, so that won't do. The cost of eggs? He probably doesn't even know how much a dozen costs any more. This is our civic duty, folks. Think of it as elder care. If that man has nothing to fight against, what does his day look like? Some idle chit-chat with his aides? A Yankee game? A quick trip to McDonald's, perhaps? Maybe he can go touch that orb again. Or maybe he could read the Magna Carta. That'd be fun. Dave Schilling is a Los Angeles-based writer and humorist
