This week, the Telegraph has published an article debating the merits of compulsory voting. Partly inspired by the approaching first anniversary of the launch of the Campaign for Compulsory Voting, the Telegraph’s research shows that “at least half of UK adults support compulsory voting a range of public votes and elections”.

The argument is that in the face of an ever-decreasing rate of turnout at general elections – in 2024 the turnout rate was the second lowest on record at 59.5% – fining those who don’t participate is a neat solution to a complex problem.

However, before frogmarching British citizens to the ballot box, should we not be asking the more prescient question of why people are disengaged in the first place?

Low voter turnout isn’t the fault of British citizens. It’s the end result of insisting on using a voting system which isn’t responsive, representative, or often worth engaging with from the voter’s perspective.

The real issue: a system that doesn’t work for us

We know that Westminster’s voting system leaves millions of us left out of the decision-making process because our votes don’t count. If you live in one of the few remaining safe seats, the result of whatever election is being held is usually a foregone conclusion. If it’s a marginal seat, then we are forced to vote tactically rather than with our hearts in order ‘to keep the other guys out’.

In the 2024 election, we found that 57.8% of all votes cast did not have any impact on the political make-up of parliament.

If voters feel like their vote doesn’t make any difference, then not taking time out of their busy lives to engage could sadly be seen as a rational response. It doesn’t necessarily mean they don’t care; they’re just being pragmatic.

Compulsory voting would be treating a symptom and not a cause of this disengagement. It would force people to participate in a system that many feel they are shut out of anyway. Rather than shifting the blame on to the public for not voting, politicians need to look at whether those votes actually matter.

A deeper solution to a serious problem

Instead of compelling us to participate in an election, politicians should focus on earning our participation.

The Telegraph article frequently references compulsory voting in Australia. What they don’t mention is that neither the Australian Senate nor House of Representatives uses First Past the Post. The Senate uses the proportional Single Transferable Vote and the House of Representatives the Alternative Vote.

With a proportional system, the vast majority of voters would have an impact on the make-up of parliament. As a result, we could have a Parliament better representing the diversity of British political opinion.

Research has shown that in countries using more proportional voting systems there is higher turnout as, amongst other reasons, voters feel their vote actually carries weight.

If you want Brits to turn up to the ballot box, they need a reason to believe their voice matters.

The risk of getting compulsory voting wrong (and right)

If compulsory voting is introduced in the UK without any major reforms, there would be a high risk of voters resenting being forced to participate in a system that doesn’t reflect what they think. Given that trust in politics is already at a record low, why push that any further?

In Australia, the government has a deal with voters – voting is compulsory, but the government goes out of its way to make it easy to vote and for every vote to have an impact.

Australian voters can go to early voting centres before polling day; cast postal votes; mobile polling stations go to care homes and remote areas; blind people can vote by phone; and voters can go to any polling station in their state or to interstate voting centres if they are out of their home state. If they are abroad, they can vote by post or at Australian embassies in person.

These are all interesting ideas without compulsory voting, but to bring in compulsory voting without them would disproportionately penalise those already under pressure. For our frontline workers – carers, emergency service workers, military personnel, doctors and nurses – shift patterns already create challenges in voting with our limited polling hours.

Focusing on fixing things, not forcing them

Rather than blaming people for not voting, politicians need to give them something worth voting in. This is possible through seriously looking at reforms to our democratic system, including a change to the voting system.

Compulsory voting may be a quick fix to boost turnout, but it doesn’t get to the heart of the issue and create meaningful participation in our elections; it just forces it.

For a stronger democracy, we must fix the system; the participation will follow.

Add your name to our call to make voting always worthwhile

Sign now: We need proportional representation

Currently, the UK is reassessing our restrictive voter ID laws. The Representation of the People Bill, if passed, would see an expansion of the types of accepted voter ID – making voting more accessible.

Whilst one side of the ‘special relationship’ looks to make their voter ID requirements more accessible, the other could be restricting them.

The Safeguarding American Voter Eligibility Act – the ‘SAVE America’ Act – is awaiting a date in the Senate and reassesses the US’s relationship with voter ID.

The President has argued the Bill is a way to safeguard American elections, while opponents are fighting it to… safeguard American elections. The Bill certainly raises questions about access to voting rights, the centralisation of power and has a strong hint of being a solution in search of a problem.

Sound familiar?

How American voter ID works

Under American federalism, each state is allowed to administer their own elections. So, there is a patchwork system of requirements across the country.

As there is no universal rule, a Texan voter could produce their driving license, in Ohio you could forget your ID so sign an affidavit, and in California or New York no ID is required. What may be surprising to some is that because of these mixed rules, contrary to public perception, the UK has stricter voter ID rules than any US state.

One of the founding principles of the United States is its federal administration of power, which allows states to make their own decisions. So, whilst this patchwork system may not make sense to UK voters, the SAVE Act has faced criticism for flying in the face of a founding principle of the United States.

What the Bill would change

The Safeguarding American Voter Eligibility Act would require American voters in every state to prove their US citizenship when they register to vote and present photo ID when heading to the ballot box for federal elections.

Yet as in the UK, the evidence of US voter fraud is vanishingly small. The President argues the Act will prevent non-citizens participating in elections. Something that is already illegal.

The US-based Brennan Centre for Justice has found negligible rates of fraud across America and claims that elections have been subject to mass fraud have been consistently debunked.

Additionally, in the US there is no free universal ID and a high rate of people who do not have access to citizenship documentation, like a passport or birth certificate. The Brennan Centre estimates 9% of eligible voters, 21.3 million Americans, do not have ready access to this documentation. Of those 21.3 million, they disproportionately come from low-income backgrounds, are more likely to be black or Hispanic, and elderly.

In the wake of the violent presence of Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agents on American streets, it is not hard to guess which groups of eligible voters may be put off voting because of these requirements.

The tone of this debate may sound familiar to those who remember the Elections Act 2022 in the UK. A policy that could restrict voting disproportionately for large numbers of people already having a tough time in response to a problem that is minimal at best.

What stage is the legislation at?

So far, the SAVE Act has passed through the House of Representatives, currently controlled by the Republican party, and is headed towards the Senate.

It hasn’t reached the Senate yet, but it is narrowly controlled by the Republicans. Though, with a healthy opposition. The Act is unlikely to go further due to filibustering and procedural barriers.

Conclusion

Ultimately, the SAVE Act is unlikely to become law, but the debate will endure.

The contrast couldn’t be more striking. Just as the UK is expanding our voter ID requirements to make sure no eligible voter misses out, Washington is considering tightening their rules at a federal level.

The lesson is the same for both sides of the ‘special relationship’; securing elections should not and does not have to cost making voting accessible.

Support the Electoral Reform Society

If you join the Society as a member, your contributions will support our work in parliament, as well as in the press and online – making the case, and backing it up – for how we can fix Westminster’s broken system.

Join the Electoral Reform Society today

At the Electoral Reform Society, we believe democracy is never a finished project.

Something so hard won requires constant attention, updating and improvement if it is to remain healthy. That is particularly true at a time when public trust in politics is being eroded, political scandals continue to dominate headlines, and concerns about foreign interference in British democracy are growing.

Against this backdrop, we welcome the Representation of the People Bill, which saw it’s second reading debate this week. The Bill contains several important steps forward: extending the vote to all 16 and 17-year-olds, widening the range of accepted voter ID, and strengthening the powers of the Electoral Commission. These are reforms that we have long championed.

What MPs were saying in the debate

The Second Reading debate this week reflected the seriousness of the moment. MPs across the House recognised the stakes for the health of our democracy. While many welcomed the Bill’s direction, there was also broad acknowledgement that it does not yet match the scale of the challenge. It represents genuine progress, but stops short of the deeper, systemic reforms that our democracy ultimately requires.

Lobbying is a word that can be used to describe all manner of sins in Westminster. It has hit the headlines again courtesy of Peter Mandelson and his relationship to convicted paedophile Epstein. But what is lobbying, and how do we clean it up?

What is lobbying?

Lobbying is a practice that is as commonplace in Westminster as the mice who run along the corridors of Parliament.

Lobbyists attempt to influence government officials. But, lobbying is not inherently a bad thing, the ERS lobbies. We email MPs, researchers and Peers across the political spectrum. We organise meetings with parliamentarians and their staff to inform them of our latest research. It’s important that the government get the opinions of people outside Westminster.

Most of these meetings come via the relationships you naturally build by working in Westminster. To follow up an informal introduction in the pub to an MP’s staffer with an email requesting a meeting is as natural as breathing.

The key distinction between the lobbying we do and what has been exposed this week is that the lobbying I refer to does not operate using an elite network of people within government or influential institutions like banks. It’s more like a quick coffee dodging leaks in Portcullis House in full view of journalists and staffers who stroll through.

A look into Mandelson’s methods

Lobbying and transparency in Westminster have made the news because of the release of the ‘Epstein files’ by the American Department of Justice.

The files appear to show Peter Mandelson encouraging Epstein to ask the head of JP Morgan to ‘shout at’ the Chancellor to try and change the government’s course on a tax on banker’s bonuses in 2009.

What is laid bare by the documents is that in Westminster, lobbying is often conducted through personal relationships with no formal channels. The Westminster system relies on the trust and discretion of friends and acquaintances, not fair play and oversight.

So what are the Westminster lobbying rules?

Efforts have been made to regulate this system, but the current piecemeal rules do not get to the heart of the issue on the parliamentary estate. The Register of Consultant Lobbyists was created in 2014 but only covers consultancies; firms who lobby on behalf of clients who pay them. They must sign the register and disclose the clients who have employed them.

However, they only have to register their meetings when they lobby government Ministers or Permanent Secretaries. Nor do they have to say what they spoke about, the meetings or their outcomes.

This leaves the majority of lobbying undeclared.

The register does not cover public affairs professionals hired in house to lobby only for that company, trade bodies, unions, or charities. Not to mention any lobbying at all of backbench MPs, staff or Peers. Some peers are themselves lobbyists – at least 50 members of the House of Lords worked for lobbying firms in 2025.

The lobbying register in Westminster focuses on the companies doing the lobbying and refuses to confront the realities of how networking and lobbying works in SW1.

What is the solution?

In terms of understanding the complex interpersonal nature of lobbying and regulating it, Westminster is being outstripped by Holyrood. The Scottish lobbying register, started in 2018, focuses not on consultancies but the activity of lobbying itself.

In Scotland, you must register as a lobbyist if you are a consultancy, you work in-house for a company lobbying directly on their behalf, or ‘lobby regularly’ which captures unions and charities. They must disclose who was lobbied, when it took place, who did the lobbying and the subject matter that was discussed.

What is counted as lobbying in Holyrood is more expansive than in Westminster. It includes the lobbying of not only Scottish Ministers but all MSPs, their staff and senior civil servants. So, the register doesn’t just focus on top-level Ministers, but where real influencing happens. In the background.

The Scottish solution is proportionate and aims not to discourage lobbying but bring it into the light. By no means is the Scottish register perfect, there are still loopholes, but they have created a public, searchable record of influence, not just a list of names.

We need a real lobbying register for Westminster

With trust in politics at an all-time low and our rankings in corruption registers slipping, this is not a trajectory we can afford to continue. Our politics is being left at the mercy of powerful individuals, which is fuelling public cynicism and disengagement. Without a lobbying register that meets the scale of the practice, the back corridors of Westminster will remain in the shadows.

The upcoming Representation of the People Bill is an opportunity to rectify this situation and bring us in line with the best practice. When it comes to politics, sunlight is the best disinfectant.

Support the Electoral Reform Society

International bankers don’t ring ministers on our behalf. Every contribution, however small, supports our work in parliament, in the press and online – making the case, and backing it up – for how we can fix Westminster’s broken system. Support the Electoral Reform Society from as little as £2 a month – it only takes a minute. Thank you.

Join the Electoral Reform Society

Poll after poll and headline after headline in the U.K may leave you with the impression of a country more divided than ever. This is never more obvious than in the seemingly daily polling notifications. In the latest round conducted by YouGov there are now five parties over ten percent and four hitting over 15%.

If politics feels more divided than ever, then our voting system deserves a share of the blame. All a party needs to do in an election run under First Past the Post is double down on their tribe because, in most seats, that’s all that’s required of them to win.

Politics is no longer about building bridges – if it ever really has bee – it is about holding down your patch. This means parties talking to themselves, getting tied up in internal wars, governments elected on a minority of votes, and a country pulled apart by itself.

The Politics of the Few

Though it may be obvious to some, under First Past the Post a lot of seats are considered ‘safe’, the outcome of their vote has already been decided before a vote has even been cast. If you’re realising you’ve never had people knock on the door and ask for your voting intention, or a single leaflet through the door the chances are you are in a safe seat. Parties and candidates don’t need to campaign there because they already know who is going to win.

On the other hand, if you live in a ‘marginal’ seat – the few that change hands from time to time at elections – the game for parties is simple: find your core voters and get them to vote for you on the day. The incentive to speak to Labour voters if you’re a Conservative or vice versa and persuade them to join your side is very minimal. There is just no need for you to reach across the divide and speak to people who might disagree with you, so why bother?

So, we live with the consequences. Politics narrows. Parties stop trying to represent the country and start trying to hold their base.

When Winning Means Excluding

First Past the Post teaches parties that broad appeal is a risk, not a strength. Parties that stretch themselves too thinly can risk losing everywhere. Talking to the whole country might lose you your base. Reaching out to others might look like “betrayal.”

So instead of understanding, we get confrontation. Parties retreat into echo chambers because that’s what the system pays them to do.  After all, as we saw in 2024 why bother with the effort of reaching out when you can win a majority on just 30% of the vote?

Increasingly, though, the old institution of First Past the Post is crumbling. As the polling shows, the old establishment of voting Labour or Conservative because your family or your area votes for that party is no longer the norm. There are many reasons why that is the case which belong in another blog. However, the principle stands that voters are rejecting a two-party choice and First Past the Post can’t keep up.

Rewarding reaching across the aisle

By using proportional representation, the incentives for parties to win votes change. To form a government, they have to at least acknowledge the fact that diverse political opinions exist in the country they are attempting to govern and find shared ground across the whole population. This isn’t a weakness; it’s actually just how you win.

Countries which use a PR system benefit from political campaigns running for everyone’s vote. Not just a certain tribe’s.

This could mean a country no longer run by the policies of just One Nation Conservatives, just Blue Labour, just the Tribune Group or just the Brexiteers, rather by majority support across the population. Not just a lucky cluster of constituencies.

Isn’t this what democracy should look like? A politics for the whole country, not just one corner of it?

Time to End the Tribal Game

First Past the Post has left our politics and country in a state of a one team-takes-all mentality, where the losers make up most of the country. In 2024, 57.8% voted for someone who didn’t get elected.

Community is pitted against community, leaving millions unheard. If we want a politics that reflects what is truly great about this country – a thoughtful and diverse nation – we need to change.

Proportional representation would give us a politics that rewards cooperation over conflict and infighting. Our country deserves better than tribal warfare, it deserves representation.

Add your name to our call to change the way we elect our MPs

Add your name today

I have just returned from a very sunny weekend in Bournemouth at the annual Liberal Democrat conference.

As is usually the case at the Liberal Democrats annual meeting, the mood was jubilant. With 72 MPs, and a Labour party in the throes of an internal leadership election and falling poll ratings, the Liberal Democrats took full advantage of a weekend of news coverage.

What struck me most about the party’s direction is its serious new policy offerings in the economic and energy department. In a voting system which rewards a two-party system, they are trying to position themselves as the second horse in a ‘two-horse race’ between themselves and Reform UK at the next General Election.

Regardless of this, the party remain strong in their commitments to a proportional voting system and reforms to make voting fairer.

Conferences are always a good opportunity for our teams on the ground to build better relationships with MPs and their staff teams and I enjoyed many conversations with the party’s MPs from regions across the country, including the devolved nations. These were largely about where we can help MPs make the case for democratic reforms in the House of Commons and Lords in the upcoming legislation that could bring ERS campaigns into law. My conversations also extended to the general mood of the parliamentary party, who the rising stars are and what direction the party could take before the next General Election.

The voting system

Amongst the many fringes on offer this weekend, the Liberal Democrats for Electoral Reform (LDER) hosted two of their own. In keeping with the party’s serious tone over the conference, conversation at fringes relevant to voting reform focused not on which voting system is better but rather, how do we get there?

The first was a panel discussion called ‘What’s next in the fight for fair votes?’ featuring Olly Glover MP, Lisa Smart MP, Lord Mark Pack, chair of LDER Sarah Lewis and Joe Sousek, from the Secretariat for the APPG for Fair Elections.

Conversation centred around the progress of the APPG – now the largest in parliament – and their recent publication of a ‘terms of reference’ for a National Commission on Electoral Reform. There were many questions about the uptick in Labour MPs support for a change in the voting system but disappointment on why they weren’t putting their heads above the parapet to say so just yet from party members. Olly Glover said: “[On Labour MPs] many of them did speak up [during the 10-minute rule bill] but we need to give them more air cover and find more of them”.

On the prospect of a National Commission, Lord Pack said: “the state of our politics is so completely different so whether that means there is an opening is through the Elections Bill or further down the track is an open question, but it does feel like a much more realistic question”.

Opportunities with votes at 16

Later that same day LDER hosted their second panel, in collaboration with Unlock Democracy they discussed the opportunities for young people ahead of the expansion of the franchise to include 16 and 17 year olds.

With the introduction of votes at 16 recently announced by the government, a long held policy for the Lib Dems, there is a new raft of voters the party must now make a concerted effort to offer policy appealing to this new demographic. With the party’s commitment to positive messaging and headline grabbing stunts, only time will tell whether their plans come off.

A strong voice for democracy

With the party’s full support for proportional representation at local and national level – proven by their amendment to the English Devolution Bill – votes at 16, and more options for voter ID, they remain a strong voice for democracy in the House of Commons.

With 72 new MPs and a strong commitment to voter equality, we are committed to working with them to ensure our policies are front and centre in the upcoming debate on the Elections Bill.

Support our work at party conferences

ERS Members support our work in parliament, in the press and online – making the case, and backing it up – for how we can fix Westminster’s broken system.

Join the Electoral Reform Society today

Last night at 10.20PM, the committee of the whole House of Lords on the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill was finally adjourned. There were five days of committee, close to 150 amendments put forward, and there has been close to forty hours of debate so far. We watched it all, so you don’t have to.

All of this for a Bill only five sections long that fits onto two pages.

To give it its full title, the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill 2024, will finally remove the remaining 87, all-male, members of the House of Lords who have a right to sit in the House of Lords and govern the UK purely because of a hereditary birthright. A.K.A. they are there just because of who their parents and grandparents were. The Hereditary Peers, the ultimate nepo-baby.

A Labour manifesto commitment, this Bill has been a long time coming after Tony Blair half completed the job in 1999. He removed over 600 Hereditary Peers but settled with the compromise of keeping 92 spots open for them.

Despite the 26-year notice period that the Hereditary Peers have had, there has been an awful lot of effort put in to make sure this debate takes up as much time as possible. The Committee stage of the Hereditary Peers Bill has been a crash course in why it has taken so long to reform the House of Lords, even minutely, in the last quarter-century.

150 amendments to a two-page bill

In the close to 150 amendments put forward by Lords from all parties, the majority were ‘probing’ amendments about what other reforms the government intends to bring. There was a sudden, huge uptake in the cause for an elected second chamber. You can imagine our surprise when stalwart defenders of the current system were suddenly laying amendments on issues such as regional representation in the second chamber and even what voting system we should use in an elected house!

Despite the wording of the Bill, there were few amendments laid that disagreed in principle with the removal of the hereditary peers. They ranged widely from what voting system we could use in an elected chamber to attempts to make sure that daughters of those in the aristocracy are entitled to receive the title of Lady or Baroness upon their Father’s death.

There is no denying that many amendments were genuine, and part of the job of the Lords in holding the government to account on their proposed policy. The Leader of the House herself remarked on how much easier the extensive debate on various other Lords reforms would make the next stages. However, it is hard to believe some are anything but delaying tactics, and their behaviour points to the wider reasons as to why it is crucial we reform the second chamber.

Lords appear to be trying to delay their own reform

A significant portion of the unelected Lords appear to have spent five days doing their best to stall, delay, and disrupt the government’s agenda which – despite their low vote share – they have a clear mandate from the public to carry out.

On this, we agree with Keir Starmer, the current make-up of the House of Lords is indefensible. It is a gated community for unelected politicians who are not properly representative of the regions of the country, nor its people.

As the second-largest legislative chamber in the world, second only to China’s National People’s Congress in Beijing (or Peking according to one Lord, who could do with a new atlas), the Lords is unable to carry out their role of scrutiny of their government with proper legitimacy.

The people of this country should be the ones who decide who writes the laws of the country that govern us. Not the hereditary principle and not the Prime Minister.

This Bill faces many more hurdles yet, as it will now pass to report stage in the Lords where some of the already withdrawn amendments are expected to be raised a second time. Then back to the Commons for the uniquely British rigmarole of ‘ping-pong’ between the two Chambers, as they try to settle on a final text.

Most importantly as this Bill goes forward, we will continue to call on the Government to bring this Bill to a close swiftly and get on with the vital job of further reforming the Lords.

Don’t let the Lords stop reform of the Lords

Join the growing movement of voices calling for not letting the Lords stop reform of the Lords you can add your name below.

Add your name: Don’t let the Lords stop reform of the Lords

Before Labour won the 2024 general election, the Labour leader in the House of Lords hinted that if Labour were to take power, we could finally see an end to the 92 hereditary peers in the House of Lords – a process that’s now underway. She was quoted saying that their position was ‘hard to justify’.

She is quite correct, of course. The purpose of the House of Lords is, rightly, to provide expert scrutiny and advice – how is someone qualified to do that based only on who their parents are?

Hereditary peers are just one element of our bloated and unelected second chamber. A chamber that now has almost 800 members – many by virtue of their deep pockets and generosity to political parties – that continues to be a drag on UK democracy.

What is a hereditary peer?

Hereditary peers are members of the Lords who have their job for life due to their aristocratic family.

They form part of the ancient tradition of peerage in the United Kingdom and are the holders of titles such as Dukes, Earls, Viscounts and Barons. Hereditary peers are those whose right to sit in the Lords is through birth – passed down from their fathers (or, much less frequently, their mothers).

The primary role of the House of Lords is one of scrutiny. The Lords themselves argue that they offer their expertise to go over legislation written by the House of Commons with a fine-toothed comb for the benefit of the British public.  However, can that really be true when over 10% of that chamber earned their job just because of who their parents were, rather than any ability for the task at hand?

Has this system ever been reformed?

Prior to the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill, the biggest reform to hereditary peers came just before the millennium, when Tony Blair introduced The House of Lords Act of 1999, which removed all but 92 hereditaries, then numbering 750, breaking a 700-year-old right for all peers to sit on and vote from the red benches.

The remaining 92 were elected by all the previous hereditary peers in the House grouped by party affiliation – 42 Conservatives, 28 Crossbenchers, three Lib Dems, two Labour and 17 others. These numbers are set – when one Conservative resigns or dies, a new Conservative is elected by the Conservative hereditary peers still in the chamber.

This system is more akin to a private members club than a national legislature.

Would finally removing the hereditary peers fix the House of Lords?

Whilst these hints from Baroness Smith are promising, they don’t go far enough.

If it is difficult to justify the job for life for aristocrats, then how do we justify jobs for life for the friends and donors of the Prime Minister? At the start of this year, we reported that Liz Truss appointed one peer into the Lords for every 1.5 days she served as Prime Minister. What qualifications do they have other than being the Prime Minister of the day’s friend or supporters?

Even Lord True, the Conservative leader of the House of Lords, agrees that an elected second chamber would be an improvement. An elected Lords is the most efficient way to ensure scrutiny of the Commons’ legislation is conducted democratically.

With public confidence in the Lords so low, something must be done to create a chamber fit for the task of scrutiny, and the 21^st century.

Thankfully there has already been a lot of work conducted – in our recent report Unfinished Business we looked at the many areas of agreement on Lords reform. The report illustrates that reforming the second chamber is not as difficult as some like to make out.

Ultimately, the next government must grasp the problem of the House of Lords by the horns. Wholesale reform of the House of Lords is much-needed in favour of a chamber that fairly and democratically represents everyone from all across the UK – and the hereditaries must be the first to go.

It’s time to finish the job on Lords reform

Add your name: Demand a fairly elected second chamber

Last night, the first debate of the Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill happened in the House of Commons. The Bill, if passed, will remove the remaining 92 Peers who sit in our House of Lords purely on the basis of their birthright.

It would be a landmark occasion, and the biggest change to the make-up of British political representation since the project to reform the Lords first began in 1999 under Tony Blair’s government.

With trust in politics so low, and getting ever lower, we hope that the Bill passes without difficulty as it would represent a big step forward in bringing our politics into the 21^st century.

Why are the hereditary peers so bad?

Political power is not something that should be inherited. You wouldn’t accept a hereditary lawyer or dentist, so why a hereditary legislator?

Being drawn from a small group of aristocratic families, and whittled down by archaic inheritance rules, the hereditary peers are nothing like the people who have to follow the laws they vote on.

The current Hereditary Peers are all male, and all white. Due to male primogeniture, we essentially have reserved seats for men in our parliament.

Within the pool of aristocrats who have said they would be willing to stand in a by-election to become a hereditary peer in the Lords, there are only two women. However, a point that was frequently made in the debate yesterday is that when an all-male group of Hereditary Peers are presented with electing either a woman or a man, they’re likely to pick the man. Overall, the House of Lords has only reached a 29% representation of women. Far lower than the Australian and Mexican second chambers, which are directly elected, and have achieved parity.

Additionally, whilst being incredibly skewed towards men, the House of Lords, and particularly its Hereditary Peers, are also highly skewed towards London and the Southeast. Whilst not all of them declare their residence amongst those who do in the Hereditary bloc, 35% live in London and the Southeast. There are none who are registered as living in the Northeast, Wales, or the West Midlands.

We need a broad set of experiences in parliament, to ensure our laws are the best they can be

The right place to start to get House of Lords numbers down

The House of Lords, with almost 800 members, is currently the second largest secondary chamber in the world. The first is China’s National People’s Congress – an appropriate bedfellow for ‘the Mother of all parliaments’?

By removing 92 Peers in one fell swoop, the House will be reduced by almost 10%. Bringing it further in line with comparable European chambers; the French Senate hosts 348 members, for example. It is much more common in modern democracies for the second and first chambers to be roughly the same size.

MPs want House of Lords reform to go further

The debate lasted around six hours, and we at the ERS watched it all so you don’t have to. There were valuable contributions from all sides of the House. Encouragingly, many MPs were advocating for much further reform, as was promised in the Labour manifesto.

Steff Aquarone MP [North Norfolk, Liberal Democrat] made the point that the organisation of government must evolve to work within the 21^st century:

“The House of Lords is only one part of our broken system, which needs to see urgent, radical reform. The structure and organisation of government itself must evolve to be fit for the modern age”

Shaun Davies [Telford, Labour] argued that the UK was a world leader in many areas but this part of our democracy required urgent attention:

“There are many areas in which the UK is a world leader or aspires to be one – our education system, civil liberties, creative and business sectors and many more – but the House should agree to modernise and transform this area. It is right that the House of Lords be reformed.”

Gavin Williamson MP [Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge, Conservative] argued for further reforms of the upper chamber:

“The government have a mandate to deliver change, but I encourage them to take more significant steps, whether on the removal of bishops, the retirement age or other reforms that will make the other place a better place.”

The main point being made by the opposition benches, is when exactly is the new government going to push forward with the wholesale reform of the House of Lords that was laid out in the Labour manifesto earlier this year?

Whilst this Bill represents a very good step in the right direction there is much more to still be done. Particularly given the amount of public support reorganisation of the House of Lords receives. Only two percent of the public have ‘a lot of confidence’ in the House of Lords. 46% of the public think that the House of Lords should be elected. Only 15% think that the Prime Minister should have the power to ennoble the life peers who vote on our legislation for the rest of their lives without election or accountability.

MPs voted by a large majority to move the Bill to the next stage. If it goes on to be fully enacted, it will be quite the moment for the British constitution. However, we can still go further. We will continue to push for an elected second chamber which represents the British public effectively, efficiently, and with a diversity of regions and nations represented.

This bill needs to pass, but it should just be the start – If you agree, add your name to an end to people inheriting seats in the House of Lords

Add your name to tell them to pass the bill

With our Labour government’s commitment to extending the franchise to 16- and 17-year-olds in their manifesto, many an argument has been levelled against the plan.

Most arguments against measures that would improve our democracy are often focussed on who would benefit – and it’s no different for extending the franchise.

Many accuse the government of promising the right to vote to 16- and 17-year-olds because they presume that they will vote in a certain way. However, the right to vote is not restricted to anyone above the age of 18 upon the basis of how they intend to vote so why shouldn’t the same apply to 16- and 17-year-olds? As our CEO Darren Hughes recently stated on the Today Programme following the 2024 election, the only bias in an electoral system should be towards the voter.

16- and 17-year-olds already have the vote in devolved elections in Scotland and Wales

The core of the need to enfranchise 16- and 17-year-olds is the fact that there is a manifest inequality between the voting rights of the same age group in Scotland, Wales, and England.

Ahead of the 2014 independence referendum the Scottish government in Holyrood decided to extend the vote. Research proved that they engaged in the debate from a wider selection of sources than other age groups and that they took the responsibility seriously and turned out accordingly. Afterwards, party leaders of all colours were convinced by the policy and decided to make it a permanent feature of Scottish elections.

In Wales, the decision to extend the franchise was made in 2020. Younger voters in Wales are allowed to vote in their devolved Senedd elections giving them authority over their own future and the opportunity to learn civic responsibility in the process of becoming fully rounded adults.

Sadly, their friends across the border in England are still not granted the same rights, they aren’t given the same responsibility so English democracy suffers as a result. This should hopefully change before the next General Election with Labour’s manifesto promise to extend the franchise.

A seamless transition from learning to civic participation

Trust in politics and participation in democracy has been steadily decreasing over time, and has hit an extreme low in recent years. This is evidenced in recent research, as well as the low voter turnout at the most recent general election.

By extending the franchise, the government could usher in the beginning of a new age for British democracy. The way people come into contact with politics in their formative years is crucially important for the future of our democracy.

As most 16- and 17-year-olds are still in some form of education, it can be easily joined up with classes on civic responsibility, the way our political system works and the role they must play in it. The most logical thing to do is to install a basic level of understanding of the way our system works whilst we have the chance, when they are at school.

Once you vote, you are more likely to vote again in future

The first time someone votes will play a significant role in their future relationship with elections and democracy. Research proves that if someone votes at the first opportunity, they are more likely to become lifetime voters. So as 18 year olds who don’t vote become 50 year olds who don’t vote, 16 and 17 year olds who do vote will continue to vote as they age.

If a 16-year-old is granted the right to vote when they are likely still living at home and have a permanent address, unlike the 18-24 bracket who are often in short-term tenancies and become lifetime voters this can only be good for democracy.

Nurturing the future health of our democracy

With trust and participation in politics and our democracy falling we should be doing everything we can to halt it. The strength of our democracy relies on mass participation. All arguments about who benefits from young people being enfranchised are redundant as the bias of the voting system should only be towards the voters.

Do you think we need to extend the franchise?

Add your name: Elections shouldn’t exclude 16 and 17 year olds