Andy Burnham’s Bid to Overhaul Britain’s Voting System: Why Proportional Representation Could Finally Arrive
Andy Burnham’s conversion to proportional representation (PR) marks one of the more significant shifts in recent Labour politics—and it may actually deliver the biggest constitutional change the UK has seen in decades. In a recent Independent column, commentator John Rentoul argues that this time the stars are aligning in a way they never quite did under Tony Blair. Burnham, once a firm opponent of electoral reform, now wants a clear manifesto commitment to PR that can be implemented without another referendum.
From sceptic to advocate
Back in 2010, Burnham led cabinet resistance to Gordon Brown’s offer of voting-system change as the price of a Lib Dem coalition. He has since reversed course completely. The overwhelming majority of Labour members already support PR, and Burnham’s position is straightforward: put it in the next manifesto and, if Labour forms a government, simply legislate. He can sidestep the 2011 Alternative Vote referendum result by pointing out that AV was never a proportional system. That leaves the door open for genuine proportionality—something the Liberal Democrats, Greens, SNP, Plaid Cymru and even Reform UK have all backed in recent years.
Rentoul’s assessment is blunt: unless the Conservatives win an outright majority at the next election, PR is more likely than not. A hung parliament would virtually guarantee it. Even a slim Labour or Reform majority would face intense pressure to deliver, because the Blair-era tactic of promising a referendum and then kicking the issue into the long grass looks far harder to repeat.
The progressive-majority illusion
Supporters often frame PR as a way to lock in a permanent “progressive majority” that shuts the right out of power. Rentoul dismantles that argument cleanly. The fact that Labour, Liberal Democrats and Greens together outpolled the Conservatives and Reform at the last election does not mean those blocs are fixed. The 2010 result remains a reminder that electoral coalitions can shift. Treating PR as a permanent left-wing insurance policy is, in his words, “a sandcastle in the air.”
That does not mean the case for change disappears. First-past-the-post produced the striking outcome of Labour winning roughly two-thirds of Commons seats on about one-third of the vote. Defending that level of disproportionality has become increasingly difficult in a multi-party era.
Choosing the system is the real test
The bigger obstacle is not whether to move to PR, but which version. The Liberal Democrats have long preferred the Irish single transferable vote in multi-member constituencies. Labour’s formal policy, agreed at conference in 2022 and largely ignored under Keir Starmer, is simply to hold an open process to decide the precise system. Reform’s 2024 manifesto promised PR without specifying a model.
Rentoul notes the recent Welsh Senedd switch to a closed-list multi-member system as a cautionary tale. Unlike the Irish model, voters cannot rank candidates within a party; they simply mark a party list. He suspects Labour is drifting toward something closer to the Scottish additional-member system (constituency seats plus regional top-ups), but warns against retaining the second vote that the SNP has used to boost Green allies. Any new system that can be gamed will quickly lose public confidence.
If parliament imposes change without a referendum—as Burnham prefers—the design details become critical. The 2011 AV referendum failed by a two-to-one margin partly because the public was indifferent and the system felt half-baked. A rushed or poorly explained PR model risks the same fate.
What happens next
Burnham’s approach removes the classic escape route of “we need a referendum first.” By treating PR as ordinary manifesto business, he raises the stakes. Other parties already support the principle. Negotiations after the next election will therefore focus less on whether to change the system and more on the precise rules.
The debate has so far been surprisingly muted for such a fundamental shift. All electoral systems involve trade-offs: pure proportionality can empower small parties and produce unstable coalitions; single-member constituencies preserve local accountability but distort national results. Minimising the drawbacks requires clear-headed choices rather than slogans.
Whether Burnham ultimately delivers remains uncertain. A decisive single-party majority could still tempt any leader to keep the system that just rewarded them. But the combination of cross-party support, Burnham’s personal commitment, and the growing multi-party reality of British politics makes this the most credible prospect of proportional representation the country has seen in a generation. The real work—deciding exactly what that system looks like—has barely begun.
