Elections: First Past the Post
House of Commons · Westminster Hall · 24 Jun 2026 · 40 speeches · Official Report
[Karl Turner in the Chair ]
On a housekeeping matter, I should say that it is terribly hot in Parliament today, so Members and officials are very welcome to remove their jackets.
I beg to move, That this House has considered the use of first-past-the-post in general and local elections. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner, and to be in an environment with such great air conditioning. “I am committed to proportional representation…I think it would change the political culture. I don’t see how first past the post and the point-scoring inherent within it lifts Britain out of the doom loop it is in.” Those words could have been spoken by any Liberal Democrat Member, in this Chamber or beyond, but they were not: it is a direct quote from the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham), who is believed to be the Prime Minister-elect. The quote not only highlights the need for proportional representation but underscores the limitations of first past the post, which the new right hon. Member for Makerfield identifies as causing political instability. The Liberal Democrats and the Liberal party before us have called for fair votes for a century, and I am delighted that the advocacy for change has a new voice in Parliament in the newly elected right hon. Member for Makerfield. The view should not be controversial among his colleagues, either: more than two thirds of the Labour party membership have voted in favour of adopting a system of proportional representation for UK elections. I look forward immensely to prospective new leadership in the Labour party representing the views of its members and finally ensuring fair votes for...
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I thank the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and congratulate the Richmond Liberal Democrats on their universal victory in last month’s Richmond upon Thames council elections. I declare an interest as a member of the all-party parliamentary group for fair elections. Increasing political participation in a democracy is not just a nice thing to have; it is an imperative that all of us must focus on in the service of our constituents. In the years to come, I genuinely believe that it will be the difference between a politics that serves and engages all and one that continues to obscure decision making from communities, fuels rather than addresses discontent, and pushes reasonable people in the United Kingdom to lose faith in democracy and seek increasingly radical solutions. Progress has been made to increase structural participation, with the Government bringing forward votes at 16 in the Representation of the People Bill, finally aligning the voter age in general elections to that of Scottish local and devolved elections. Among other measures, the Government are taking steps in the Bill to strengthen our democracy. However, I believe that there is an omission in it: an acknowledgement that serious questions are now being asked about how we elect people to this place. Look at the general election results: turnout is decreasing. I may have won my mandate to this place by trebling my vote share in Falkirk, but...
Like my hon. Friend, I have constituents who use proportional representation to elect people to local government or the Scottish Parliament. Does he agree that we have to learn lessons from both the positive and the negative elements in those electoral systems?
I completely agree that there is a wider point about the culture of politics, especially in how we should drive everybody in this place and local government to work together collaboratively, rather than pursuing the most populist option or blaming every problem on previous Governments. That has to be broader than simply reforming how we elect people to places, but I believe-I will bear this out later in my speech-that that is an essential first step. In preparing this speech, I recalled bemused family members handing me SNP leaflet after SNP leaflet, desperately shoved through their letterbox, that warned them to vote SNP to avoid electing a Tory MP. I believe that even the most optimistic Scottish Conservative in Falkirk would have found that a pretty remote possibility in 2024, or at any other time. But when normal people who do not spend all their time obsessing about politics read that, it tends to turn them off a wee bit. If we spend our entire time campaigning in general elections against a proposition and defining ourselves against a particular political party or perspective, we fail to lead our campaigns with our solutions to the problems the public face and want us to address. We diminish the opportunity for genuine scrutiny of our propositions, out of fear that the party or person we are running against will use it against us. It tends to encourage us to hide from debate, to reduce the utility and quality of public discussion and to disengage those people do not...
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I thank the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) for securing this important debate and the hon. Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) for setting out so clearly that this is not an issue that sits on party lines. It is about the fundamental quality of our democracy and the fundamental question: are voters being adequately represented by our system? It is clear that the first-past-the-post system is broken. We have a problem with political trust in this country, and the voting system is part of that. Why is first past the post broken? It is clearly fundamentally unfair. In general elections, it has generated a two-thirds majority on just one third of the vote; in some local elections, as the hon. Member for Richmond Park set out, it can generate a 100% majority on just half of the vote. That clearly leaves far too many voters unrepresented, in the sense that their voices are not heard by the people who are elected to hold power and who have influence. That is something we can and must fix, because what principle could be more basic in a democracy than the principle that everybody’s vote counts equally? If we believe in that fundamental principle, we have to recognise the urgency of moving to proportional representation. First past the post is not just unfair because it leads to completely skewed results; it is also unpopular. According to the latest British social attitudes survey, only just over a third of...
The hon. Lady is making a very passionate speech, and she is certainly right that we have to change our political culture, but I would slightly challenge her. We have a slightly more proportional system in Scotland, but it has not led to a different culture in the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Government get elected on 30-odd per cent of the vote and pretend they speak for the entire nation, unilaterally. Does the hon. Lady agree that although proportional representation could be part of how we resolve the issue, a wider change in culture is required as well?
Order. Interventions need to be a bit shorter. Thank you.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that changing the voting system will not in itself transform our political culture. We need to do many other things, including get big money and disinformation out of politics, but changing our voting system is a key plank of that. I recognise that, as the hon. Member for Falkirk mentioned, the Labour party does not feel that it currently has a manifesto mandate to implement proportional representation-I am deeply saddened by that-but it has a manifesto mandate to take strong action to tackle the breakdown of trust in our politics. As a Green, I would like there to be no more elections under first past the post in the UK, but it would be hugely dangerous to go into the next general election under that system, because we face the very real prospect of a Government being elected with a huge majority of MPs and a small minority of votes. That should concentrate the minds of everyone in this Chamber.
This is quite a serious point. There are people arguing for PR to be introduced before the next general election, for the reason the hon. Lady outlined, but she must accept, as a democrat, that we cannot change the electoral system because we are worried about a certain outcome. We have to look at the bigger picture, take our time and do it right.
All the arguments I have made in the last five minutes have been about the systemic, principled reasons for change; they are not views about one particular party. I will be absolutely clear that I hugely fear the prospect of a Reform Government, and I will do everything I can to stop that. It would be hugely dangerous for this country. But the argument for proportional representation is about the representation of everybody, including people with whose views I completely disagree. If they have a degree of support in the country, they should be represented in proportion to that. The point is that under a proportional system, those of us who want to work together for the common good of the country would be able to do so. The principle of proportional representation is core to the Green party’s DNA. I have campaigned for it for many years, and I welcome the fact that so many in Labour and other parties campaign for it, too. But there are specific things that this Government can do right now. There is a cross-party call for a national commission on electoral reform, which the Government could take forward today. That would enable us to have a national conversation about how to make our democracy genuinely work for everybody, involving citizens’ voices and the voices of those with expertise, who can bring ideas from international counterparts. We must have that conversation. We cannot stay asleep at the wheel, drifting into ever-more polarised politics, ever-less representation...
Order. I am going to impose an informal five-minute limit on speeches.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I apologise for giving you late notice of my intention to speak. I start by acknowledging that although I am not a fan of PR, it is right that all of us MPs do a great job representing every one of our constituents, whether they voted for us or not. In Scotland, we have three elections over each five-year period. Two of them use PR and one, the general election, uses first past the post. I want to talk about the single transferable vote system that we use for local authority elections in Scotland, and my lived experience of it as a councillor. I was elected via the STV system back in 2017. I came second out of three councillors who were elected, and was elected thanks to transfers from Green voters. Even though some transfers also came from elsewhere, it was the Green voters who got me across the line, so I always felt an obligation to make sure that those few people were very well represented. I worked alongside two Conservatives in the ward over that three-year period. The council had 63 councillors in total. An SNP-led administration was formed, supported by Labour in a coalition, but it tended to be Green votes that got things across the line, so those three parties tended to work together. I have to say that the Greens back then were a bit more sensible than they sometimes are today. I hope the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns) is not offended by that. I must pay tribute to my ward colleague...
Order. Quickly, if you do not mind. We have an informal five-minute limit.
I apologise; I have not been looking at the clock. First, we are the only country in Europe that uses first past the post, and we should reflect on why that is. Secondly, in Scotland we use the d’Hondt-or Jefferson-system for PR for the second votes. Nobody really understands how that works, and we have to be careful about that. We have to be able to communicate how the result has been reached. I apologise for overrunning, Mr Turner.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I thank the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney). I will shed some light from a constituency that operates PR for local government and Northern Ireland Assembly elections. The hon. Lady-I spoke to her already-and I will have slightly different opinions on this matter, but I respect her greatly. Indeed, I respect all my colleagues on the Opposition Benches- [ Interruption. ] And on the Government Benches, by the way-sorry, but I corrected myself quickly. We may have differences of opinion, but there are many more things that we agree on. I will put forward the point of view from Northern Ireland. I say gently and respectfully to the House that the DUP and, indeed, the people of Northern Ireland speak on this matter with a unique form of authority. We are not better than anybody else; it is just that we have done this for a great number of years. We do not just look at alternative voting systems in theory or on academic balance sheets. Through the single transferable vote, we live it, operate within it and contest it in every single local government mandate and Northern Ireland Assembly election. STV is the law of the land. First, I want to look at the undisputed champion of stability-forgive me, those close to me who may not agree with this-the first-past-the-post system used for our UK general elections. First past the post delivers what the British public value above almost all else in Governments: clarity,...
Thank you, Mr Shannon-nearly bang on time.
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) for securing this important debate. Some months ago, I was in this room on the International Day of Democracy, and the concerns I raised then matter now more than ever. I have not seen a political discourse that is so polarised as it is today. Tensions have risen, divisions are deepening, and the public is losing faith in our democracy. I am proud that my constituency is a diverse community, bustling with local campaign groups and organisations. I love my work with those groups, building strong relations across all faiths, ages, ethnic groups and with people from all political backgrounds. However, I am not blind to the fact that more people voted for other candidates in the last general election than voted for me. The first-past-the-post system is a brutal way to determine the future of our country. It often creates a situation where winning candidates need only a small section of a community to back them, leaving many votes pointlessly cast and making some constituencies more important for determining the direction of our country than others. First past the post distorts our democracy leaving many unrepresented, unheard and disillusioned. It creates a winner-takes-all system that incentivises parties to work against each other and encourages those who want to divide our communities rather than unite them. We are at a crucial moment where progress can...
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) for securing this important and urgent debate. We have a crisis of trust in our democracy. Under first past the post, 70% of votes do not actually count. In a safe seat any extra votes cast for the winning candidate are effectively pointless, as are any votes cast for the other candidates. It is no wonder that so much of the electorate feel that they have no real voice or influence. We may be told that electoral reform is not a doorstep issue, but I wonder how many colleagues here have heard constituents say, “I am so pleased that I finally voted for somebody who won. I feel like I now personally have a representative in Westminster.” At the last general election, the current Government got 30% of the vote, 60% of the seats and they now have 100% of the power. How can that be fair? In effect, that means that 70% of votes have no power. As a Lib Dem who regularly traipses through the opposite voting Lobby to the Government, I know how that feels. Looking forward, I am even more worried about the next general election. The system that we have now was essentially designed for a two-party system and we now have seats being fought by five, six or even more viable parties. If we combine that with declining voter turnout, the results of the next general election could look like a random number generator. I cannot see that that will do anything to enhance...
Order. Before I move on to the next speaker, can I just say something about housekeeping? If a right hon. or hon. Member intends to mention another Member of this House-specifically, the leader of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition-they should inform that Member. I am sure it was done inadvertently, but I say that just in case other Members wish to make mention of it.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) for securing this important debate. Our politics is not fit for purpose and is not working for people up and down the country. It is becoming increasingly adversarial and divisive. The first-past-the-post system actively encourages parties not to work together, which allows the Government to avoid accountability and ignore the voices of the people who put them into Parliament. I have heard from so many of my constituents in Wokingham who are sick of feeling ignored by politics in Westminster and feel that the system-and, therefore, the Government-does not work for them. People in Wokingham and across the country want to know that they will be represented in Parliament by somebody they have an affinity with, and they want their vote to have counted. As a very young teenager, still at school and unable to vote, I witnessed the general election of February 1974. I wanted the Liberals to win. They increased their vote to 18%, and their seats in the House of Commons increased from eight to 14. If the result had been proportional, they should have had 110 Members, and it would have been a properly balanced Parliament, which I am sure would have dealt with the issues of the day better than the Wilson and Callaghan Governments. I saw that as a massive injustice, and it helped to drive my interest in politics. My Lib Dem colleagues and I have long called for...
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairship, Mr Turner. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) for securing this debate. The House of Commons Library has called the 2024 general election the least proportional election in British history. Labour won 411 seats out of 650-almost two thirds of the Commons-on a third of the vote. The problem is not that a party can win power; the problem is that first past the post inflates that power beyond what the public voted for. A system that turns one third of the votes into two thirds of the power and a massive majority is not representing the public’s choice; it is warping it. As we have all seen, it allows wildly unpopular policies to be forced through with little pushback. I may not agree with Reform, but they came third on vote share with around 14% and won just five seats. The Greens won roughly 7% and returned only four seats. The truth is that my own party, the Liberal Democrats, took 72 seats on around 12% of the vote. The system rewarded us where our support was concentrated. That means that under first past the post, where you live decides whether or not your vote counts. We have all been told that this gives us a strong and stable Government. Clearly, that is not true. A system that hands enormous power to one party on a minority of the vote does not produce consistency; it produces lurches. One Government builds solutions; the next tears them down and creates their own. I represent the Scottish...
Does the hon. Member that if we are to move to an alternative system in Westminster, parties should agree not to game the system, as the Scottish Greens do when they fail to stand in constituencies such as Strathkelvin and Bearsden or Falkirk West and focus their campaigning on the regional seats, which leads to the iniquitous outcome of the 2026 Scottish parliamentary elections that I think she is suggesting?
What we need to aim for is a system where our constituents feel properly represented and that their vote counts. The parties that want Scotland to remain in the United Kingdom won a majority of the votes at 56.7%, but a minority of the seats. As a litmus test, that result shows little change from the result of the 2014 independence referendum, which rejected independence by 55% to 44%. The votes cast in the 2026 Scottish election are not a mandate for a second independence referendum, despite what the First Minister might have us believe. That clearly demonstrates why it is so important that our democracy reflects voter intention. Instead, the case for independence has been thrust back to the centre of Scottish politics, taking attention away from the real issues such as our broken schools and hospitals. In 2022, Labour’s own conference voted for a proportional system. Its own national policy forum has recognised that the flaws in the current voting system contribute to the distrust and alienation that we see in politics, and it is widely acknowledged that we need to restore trust in politics. I ask the Government, at the very least, to agree to examine the system seriously, including how we elect Members and how a fairer system could be introduced. People should be able to use their vote to vote for something, not against something. Evey vote should carry the same weight, wherever it is cast and whoever it is cast for, and the only way we can achieve that is proportional...
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) for securing this debate, for her passionate opening remarks and for her courage and nobility in potentially being willing to sacrifice the North Korean-esque majorities that our party achieved in the recent local elections. I fear that, given the heat, there would be frayed tempers if I made my speech about the relative merits or otherwise of alternatives to first past the post. Instead, I shall make the case for how change could make a major contribution to fixing our politics, because so much of what is holding our country back is one party or another-it does not really matter which one-having undiluted power, and not having other parties in government to be the voice of conscience, alternative ideas and challenge. That is one of the reasons why we have yet to make progress on social care, despite innumerable reviews and commissions on how we should resolve that very challenging issue. As other hon. Members have said, first past the post has not succeeded in delivering political stability over the last decade, because we have had seven Prime Ministers in 10 years. We also see the phenomenon manifesting in other ways: stop-start decisions on transport or various Governments enthusiastically advocating for different devolution models, rather than as many of us as possible uniting on one. When researching for this debate, I wondered what fuels our...
Thank you for the entertaining contribution, Mr Morrison.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Turner. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) on securing this vital debate. Like many colleagues, we have both been vocal, proud advocates for political reform. This debate builds on the important work of my hon. Friend in the previous session, when she won a vote on the Second Reading of her Bill to bring PR to elections for national and local government in England. That was a clear sign that the demand for reform exists across the House and continues to grow. In her excellent opening remarks, my hon. Friend mentioned the newly re-elected right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) whom I have told I would mention. He is not alone in his support for proportional representation. The right hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), the deputy leader of the Labour party, has said that she has always supported electoral reform. From a different side of the political spectrum, the Conservative London Assembly member Emma Best has said her party should start thinking seriously about proportional representation. She speaks compellingly, making a strong Conservative argument for PR. When voices across the political spectrum are saying the same, the Government should listen. I am proud to sit as vice-chair for the all-party parliamentary group for fair elections, which is the largest APPG and shows clear cross-party support for replacing first past the post with a proportional system....
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way, especially as she is my friend on the armed forces parliamentary scheme. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I am sorry I was not here at the beginning of the debate; I was at a really important statement on Nottingham maternity services in the main Chamber. Does the hon. Lady not agree that, even if some commission came forward and said that STV was absolutely the way to go and that we should adopt it in future, this country should adopt it only if the electorate validates that through a general election where a majority of the parties making that promise win a majority in Parliament, or through a referendum?
I am not personally a fan of a referendum. They can be quite divisive and they return one of two answers, so I would not support one. The Liberal Democrats have had a fairer voting system in our manifesto since the foundation of our party. I believe that the current Government, whose party the hon. Member is a member of, have put forward some other suggestions that were not in their manifesto in 2024, so it is possible for situations to change. It is possible for the world to move on, and for people of good will to work together for the betterment of our country. Single transferrable votes for the House and for local councillors in England would mean that communities would not be written off because they were a safe seat, and nobody would feel that their vote was wasted. We could also introduce more nuance into a debate than can be delivered via the medium of bar chart. Consider the previous general election: the Labour party won about two thirds of the seats in the House on roughly one third of the vote. A system that can hand near-total control of the Commons to a party that two in three voters did not vote for cannot honestly claim to speak for the country. The Liberal Democrats have argued for fair votes for decades, because a democracy in which every vote counts is a better democracy. I do not want to spend my time today just listing what is broken, because the more important point is that we have in front of us a genuine opportunity to put it right. The appetite for...
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I genuinely thank the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) for securing this debate on our voting system. She and I do not always agree. In fact, it might be more accurate to say that we more often than not disagree vocally, although in good spirit, I hope. Although I do not share her views on electoral reform, I recognise and respect the sincerity with which she holds them. Her persistence in bringing the issue before the House reflects her commitment to the causes that she champions. She beat me in another forum on Times Radio’s “It’s a Constituency Knockout” for the good people of Richmond Park. And I lost a battle on her private Member’s Bill, but we will see about round three. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is my only ally in this debate, barring what the Minister might say. I am happy to have him as an ally, because he is one of the most respectful Members of this House. He is a braver man than me, as he is surrounded by my old Bill Committee adversaries. We can all agree on one thing, though: electoral systems shape our politics. It is important that the method we use for catapulting representatives into high office is robust and secure, easily understood by voters, and provides strong local accountability. I believe, as my party has always believed, that the first-past-the-post system achieves that better than any other. I do not often pay compliments to my Liberal Democrat colleagues,...
Given the hon. Gentleman’s faith in the first-past-the-post system, does he have any theories as to why turnout in our elections tends to be significantly lower than in comparable western European countries?
I believe I have already addressed that point: it is because of us, as politicians. I absolutely agree with many of the comments that Members across the House have made today about trust in politicians and the level of discourse, but we need to improve our game. I do not believe that there is a direct correlation between the voting system and turnouts at general elections; I genuinely think that it is normally about whether a voter feels good or not. If the hon. Gentleman’s only issue is voter turnouts and he wants to have a conversation about compulsory voting, then I am up for that debate, but I do not believe that we should move to another system without looking at whether voting should be compulsory or by choice. It is worth recalling, as I lightly touched on, that the British public have previously been asked whether they wish to move away from the existing voting system for Westminster elections. That was in 2011, and it was a condition of the Liberal Democrats being in government from 2010 to 2015. A clear majority voted to retain first past the post rather than adopt an alternative system. In fact, only 2% of local counting areas wanted rid of first past the post.
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the alternative vote is a preferential voting system, not a proportional system?
Absolutely, and we can talk about that, but that was the system that the Liberal Democrats proposed in that referendum, and they lost the argument when they were in government. When they were last in government, they put a question on reforming the voting system to the country and it was resoundingly rejected. I agree with the hon. Lady; I am not in favour of referendums a lot of the time. But I believe that we have put the issue of reforming our voting system to bed for the foreseeable future-that is, unless a Government come in with a manifesto commitment to change the voting system, in which case we can have that discussion, even though my party would still oppose it. It is worth saying that 2% of local counting areas voted against the last referendum. I struggle to see why we would reopen a question on which the public have already expressed a clear preference. That, in my view, is the crux of the matter. This debate is not fundamentally about voter understanding or participation; it is about dissatisfaction with how support for certain parties translates into seats under the current system. Many Members make the case that we should switch to a proportional representation system in order to follow the example of other major democratic nations. I do not accept that. This country has consistently delivered stable Governments-which is slightly ironic, given the last week or so. I also remind Members of the comments made in previous contributions: we vote for Members of...
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I thank the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) for calling the debate, and all hon. Members who have contributed to it. The Government recognise the strength of feeling expressed today regarding our voting system, which after all sits at the heart of our democracy. We welcome open and constructive debate on the voting systems we use and their effectiveness, whether by long-standing Members or more recently elected Members. As set out in our manifesto and our strategy for modern and secure elections, the Government believe that strengthening our democracy, upholding the integrity of elections and encouraging voter participation are key priorities and fundamental responsibilities for Government. Our Representation of the People Bill, which is currently before Parliament, contains a range of measures that will deliver on those commitments. As the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) mentioned, that includes protecting elections against foreign interference. It also means moving towards more automated voter registration, strengthening the resilience of our electoral processes and opening up democratic participation for the next generation by removing barriers to increased participation. Those are substantial electoral reforms, and the Bill represents the boldest and most ambitious change to our democracy for decades. It will help to keep our elections secure, build public trust and encourage more people...
In this place, we have recently changed the voting system for metropolitan mayors. Can the Minister comment on whether the voting system for the London Mayor will be changed before the 2028 London mayoral election?
I will write to the hon. Member on that point, but I would say that the supplementary voting system ensures that mayors have a broader base of support from the people they represent. SV was the system used when the roles of mayors and PCCs were first established, and it was changed to first past the post following the Elections Act 2022. The Government have been consistently clear about our intention to revert the system back to SV. I refer the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) to the fact that we have already passed the necessary legislation to change it back in some cases. The change for other mayoral systems and police and crime commissioners will occur in due course, once the relevant measures in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 are commenced. The forthcoming mayoral election in Greater Manchester will therefore take place under SV, which we have always been clear is the most appropriate system for electing mayors. However, the electoral system we use is just one part of ensuring trust in our democracy. We are also strengthening the postal and proxy voting system to make it more resilient and responsive. We are introducing tougher political finance rules that will give electors more confidence in how political parties are funded and protect UK politics from foreign interference. And we recently launched a democratic engagement fund to provide £2.5 million to increase democratic participation. Turning to the points raised by other hon....
Thank you for your chairing the debate, Mr Turner. It is interesting that the majority of voices in the room have argued against first past the post, when all of us are here because we were elected under that system. That shows how even those of us who have-dare I say-benefited from the system recognise its flaws and are here to make the case for change. That is because we operate in the system that first past the post has built, and we all recognise that it forces us to behave in ways we do not feel comfortable with and creates obstacles to achieving the change we want. I want to pick up on the remarks of the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes). First, I thank him for reminding me that I demonstrably have a better constituency than he does. He made a point about turnout. He was trying to make the case-I am not sure how well it landed-that it is all our fault that turnout is not better because we need to be better politicians. I put it to him that we behave in the way we do because our voting system forces us to do. I want to particularly mention the hon. Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank), who made the case really powerfully in his speech. I thank all other hon. Members who contributed, but particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Cheadle (Mr Morrison), for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage), for Wokingham (Clive Jones), for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) and for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, my hon. Friend the Member for...
Sitting suspended.