Three party system in UK?

So if Britain had adopted PR in 1914 then what would it's politics be like now?

What version was discussed back then, that would obviously determine it's effect on the party makeup?

There would certainly have been no need for the SDP.
 
The following account is taken from The Electoral System in Britain Since 1918 by D.E. Butler, Oxford University Press, 1963.

The Speaker's Conference on Electoral Reform which reported in January 1917 unanimously advocated proportional representation (PR) in the form of the single transferable vote in constituencies returning from three to seven members. But in June 1917 the House of Commons voted by a majority of eight (149 votes to 141) that the Boundary Commissioners should work on the assumption that PR would not be enacted. The division of the parties was as follows:

Conservative: 38 for PR, 85 against.
Liberal: 77 for, 54 against.
Labour: 12 for, 10 against.
Irish Nationalists: 14 for, none against.

In August 1917, on the committee stage of the Representation of the People Bill, PR was defeated by a majority of 32 votes, and the alternative vote (AV) was substituted by a majority of one (127 votes to 126). The parties divided as follows:

Conservative: 2 for AV, 113 against.
Liberal: 98 for, 13 against.
Labour: 17 for, none against.
Irish Nationalists: 10 for, none against.

When the Bill was debated in the House of Lords, the alternative vote was struck out and PR substituted in its place. "The House of Commons rejected the Lords' amendments by 223 votes to 113 and then by 178 votes to 170 reinstated the alternative vote. The House of Lords insisted on their amendments, although they retreated from complete to partial P.R. The House of Commons again rejected P.R. (this time by 238-141) and once more by a majority of one vote (195-194) insisted upon the alternative vote. Finally in the last hours of the session, a compromise was arranged. The alternative vote was abandoned and the Boundary Commissioners were instructed to prepare a limited scheme of P.R. to apply to 100 seats."

"When the Boundary Commission produced the scheme, it was rejected by the House of Commons. Hardly any members in the areas affected by it supported it."

Although the Commons voted three times for the alternative vote by very narrow majorities, they voted against PR three times, twice by large majorities. The average of the votes was: For PR/alternative vote 149, against 183.

In February 1931 during the Labour government of Ramsay MacDonald which was dependent on Liberal support, the Electoral Reform Bill which provided for the use of the alternative vote, received a second reading in the House of Commons by a majority of 295 votes to 230 on a strict party division.

In June 1931, the House of Lords gave the Bill a second reading by
50 votes ro 14. In the committee stage an amendment was passed by 80 votes to 29 to limit the application of the alternative vote to constituencies in boroughs which had a population of more than 200,000. One hundred and seventy-four constituencies fell into this category. The amended Bill received its third reading on 21 July and was returned to the Commons.

The government decided not to consider the Lords' amendments until the autumn. However the government fell in August, and a National Government took its place. No more was heard about the Bill in public.

The adoption of the single transferable vote or the alternative vote in 1918 would undoubtedly have benefitted the Liberal Party, and harmed the Conservative Party. Its effect on the electoral fortunes of the Labour Party would have been mixed.
 
I have a slightly different angle on this debate, it's pure opinion so please bear with me.

To get representation that is in proportion to your vote in the UK system a party needs x% of the vote (about 30%?) - below this you have disproportionately low representation (liberal democrats), above this you have a disproportionately high representation (the government).

Now looking at the electorate; a large proportion of people vote because of their socio-economic position in society (or class!), not because of the issues on the table. So generally the upper class and upper middle class could be said to vote conservative; working classes labour; mid-middle class liberal democrat. I'd see these segments of society as the parties 'core vote'.

As a proportion of the population over the past 30 years, the conservative core vote is around 30%, labour 30% and the lib dems 20%. This adds to 80% - I'd add 10% who don't vote (long term unemployed), and 10% as lower middle class - Thatcher's generation of Barrett house living, ford driving, Daily Mail reading middle Englanders who are the swing voters.

This attempt at a segmentation is obviously hugely over simplistic, but bear with me.

Over the past 30 years, Thatcher and Blair have been elected by changing the nature of their party to appeal to the 10% lower middle class swing voters. They have thus pushed their vote up to the magical 40% to get elected into government. The Lib dems however have never done this kind of 'marketing' tactic, so have always been stuck at around 20%.

So in conclusion, my suggestion is that we have a 2 party system because our society is segmented that way. Other countries have narrower parties and parties based on regional or religious beliefs that make greater segmentations of society. Whilst different electoral systems would make the UK representation more proportional, the social segmentation means that Labour or the Conservatives would still be the alternating governments.

They would still attract the lower middle class to get their vote from 30% to 40%, and then have to enter into some sort of coalition arrangements to get above 50% of the seats. In this scenario, I think the more interesting scenario is that Labour and the Conservatives would not be happy with the Lib Dems holding the balance of power in every government, and it could be likely that we could get 3 or 4 small parties who would become the coalition partners???
 
Top