Sign up to this free newsletter using the linked banner above.
LABOUR will win the General Election and likely by a record margin.
The first MRP projection at the start of June suggested that Keir Starmer could be heading to Downing Street with a historic majority of 194 seats – or 422 seats total.
But imagine for a second that the UK used proportional representation (PR) – not first past the post (FPTP) – a system in which the distribution of seats corresponds closely with the proportion of the total votes cast for each party.
READ MORE: Nigel Farage is Tory voters' top pick to replace Rishi Sunak, poll suggests
A rolling average of UK-wide polls puts Labour on 41%, with the Tories and Reform on 20% and 17% respectively.
That is just a 4% swing if the two right-wing parties signed a pact or (hypothetically) entered into some sort of a coalition. Some polls would even put them ahead.
Hell, Nigel Farage signalled he was open to such an arrangement a few weeks ago. And a YouGov poll last week said that among those who backed the Conservatives in 2019, most (54-57%) would either be happy or at least unbothered by a merger.
I hear what you might be saying. FPTP has been used in the UK since 1950 with no indication that will change anytime soon.
Some might even say this is a pretty solid argument against PR. A common complaint with the system is that it reduces accountability since an ousted party of government can retain office by finding new coalition partners. Another one is that PR can potentially provide a route for extremists to force their way into the political mainstream.
But it's also easily the most popular form of democracy for countries in the world today and, if it were implemented in the UK, certainly paints a different story of the current political reality.
Keir Starmer’s Labour barely beating the Tories and Reform percentage-wise is still hardly a full vote of confidence from the British public.
And it points to a serious point of concern for the party going forward, even if they win by a landslide as expected.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel