Andy Burnham has told Labour’s conference that the party will launch a commission on electoral reform if it wins the next general election, a move that could reshape the composition of the House of Commons. Speaking as prime minister for the first time at the annual gathering, he warned that continuing with the current voting method risks handing power to a government supported by less than a third of the electorate. The announcement opens the door to a possible shift away from the first‑past‑the‑post system that has governed UK elections for generations.
The proposal and its context
Burnham framed the reform as a response to what he described as chronic political turbulence. “We can’t succeed in the eyes of the world if we continue with the levels of political turbulence we have seen in recent times,” he told delegates in Liverpool. He added that allowing a future administration to take office on under 30 % of the vote would constitute a collective failure of public duty. The prime minister noted that he has long favoured a more proportional approach, telling last year’s conference that its time “has come”.
What the numbers show
Analysts have modelled how the 2024 election would have looked under a proportional representation (PR) formula. Labour’s 411 seats would have fallen to roughly 220, wiping out its 172‑seat majority and producing a hung parliament. The Conservatives would have gained about thirty additional seats, while Reform UK would have jumped from five to around 93 seats. The Green Party’s representation would have expanded from four to approximately forty‑four seats. These projections highlight why the prime minister’s pledge has sparked intense debate about Labour’s electoral calculations.
Possible systems under consideration
Several PR models are being discussed. The Liberal Democrats have advocated for a single transferable vote (STV) arrangement, already used in Scottish council elections, where voters rank candidates and surplus votes are redistributed until all seats are filled. Another option frequently mentioned is the additional member system, employed for the Scottish Parliament and in Germany; voters cast a ballot for a local representative and a second vote for a party, with top‑up seats allocated regionally to achieve overall proportionality. Experts note that such systems tend to produce more stable seat shares, reducing the swings that can hand a party a landslide or wipe it out entirely under first‑past‑the‑post.
Political reactions and risks
Polling expert Sir John Curtice warned that any move toward proportionality would advantage Reform UK. “Electoral systems vary in their degree of proportionality, but virtually any conceivable alternative would have treated Reform much more favourably,” he wrote in The Times. Charlie Buckley, senior research associate at More in Common, suggested Labour might be seeking to avoid a repeat of the fate that befell smaller parties under the current system. “Under a first past the post system, you can have a good chunk of the vote but absolutely collapse in seats and maybe that’s something that Labour want to avoid happening,” he said. Buckley added that Labour’s enthusiasm could wane if its poll lead widens, noting that a proportional system would deny the party the chance to turn a modest vote share into a comfortable Commons majority. He also pointed out the practical difficulty of forming coalitions when three or four parties are needed to reach a working government.
Why it Matters
Burnham’s commitment to revisiting the voting rulebook could alter the balance of power in Westminster for a generation. If Labour follows through, the prospect of a more proportional outcome would likely curb the ability of any single party to dominate Parliament, encouraging compromise and coalition‑building. At the same time, the reform threatens to diminish Labour’s historic advantage under first‑past‑the‑post, potentially leaving it vulnerable to a fragmented right‑wing bloc led by Reform UK. The coming months will reveal whether the prime minister’s idealistic push for fairer representation survives the pragmatic calculations of party strategists.
