‘Labour’s ‘non-battleground’ seats list underlines the need for electoral reform’

Should it be normal for a national party in a democracy to deprioritise a third of the country? Normal for a party that wants to form the next government to declare huge swathes of the nation as insignificant?

Of course not. Yet, as the publication of Labour’s 211 ‘non-battleground’ seats last week shows, this is fully accepted in the UK. Most of the commentary around the publication of these seats has revolved around whether this signals a possible spring election. There has even been incredulity that Labour believes it can contest this many seats (439 to be precise), when their record is 418 in 1997. But as to whether it is healthy that a third of electors can – even should – be ignored, there remains little debate.

Labour’s deprioritised seats list betrays a truth about first past the post

It was, however, hotly contested when Compass raised the issue. Our campaign in 2021-22 ‘Only Stand To Win’ was a call from Labour members who wanted to acknowledge reality. It is not only unjust for a third of the country to be discounted, we argued, but standing in every seat, even those Labour knows it cannot win, actually hinders the party’s road to power. This is because splitting the anti-Conservative vote prevents another progressive party from taking the seat from the Tories and creates what we call ‘progressive tragedies’.

There were 62 such seats at the last general election. The Only Stand To Win motion at Labour conference also called on the national party to let Constituency Labour Parties minimise local wastage by redirecting resources from unwinnable seats towards targets, which might boost their chances of a majority in Westminster. 

Only Stand To Win was rebuffed: we were told our motion could not be debated at last year’s party conference. The irony is that opponents of our campaign argued that voters should be given the choice to elect a Labour candidate in every seat. We agree. But the publication of these ‘non-priority’ and ‘non-battleground’ seats betrays a truth of first past the post (FPTP) that, for some in Labour, still dare not speak its name: it denies us precisely this right to choose. It circumscribes our choice and forces our competition.

The list also confirms what we all know: Labour cannot win everywhere

FPTP is a system of electing representatives that, for most of us, precludes representation. A lucky few seats – the marginals – will become places where voters will be pursued down the street by canvassers, prospective candidates and breathless journalists, desperate to hear their takes on the political priorities of the day. Meanwhile, voters in ‘non-battleground’ seats are left to languish in obscurity. For them, not even the taking part counts.

So, in those seats, electors who want to see a progressive government will then vote tactically – most likely for the Liberal Democrats, the best-placed left-of-centre party in at least 80 seats around the UK. So it is, so has it ever been. Most damaging of all is the effect on voter turnout. Most voters – whether consciously or not – can see that voting doesn’t change much. So they stay home; they’re non-priorities in non-battleground seats, after all. They’re not where the action is.

And this charade does a disservice to prospective candidates in these seats, too. This list includes second, even third-tier constituencies, that are seeking Labour stalwarts to stand and deliver. It is interesting that Labour’s language has shifted over the summer from their earlier ‘non-priority’ to ‘non-battleground’ seats, softening their language. The latter list includes more seats – 211 to the previous 94 – that are not priorities, but there is a lot of overlap. In both cases, the criteria for seat selection is also opaque, driven from the centre and tightly controlled.

Regardless of the process, the existence of these lists simply confirms what everyone can see – that Labour cannot win everywhere, and so candidates in these areas must enter into the race with their eyes wide open, content to be stand-ins, to tick a box, also-rans. Voters will be asked to dutifully show up, go through the motions, cast their ballot and accept that they might as well have dropped it straight into the bin.

On electoral reform, the leadership still lags behind the membership

Compass’ campaign – Win As One – asks people instead to recognise the electoral reality in which we operate, to acknowledge this cognitive dissonance. We need a progressive majority government, but we also need to end the farce of a voting system that means a party of government can overlook a third of voters. 

This year has seen some hard-won progress. Labour’s National Policy Forum document, published in the summer, introduces its section on democracy with the recognition that, “under the Conservatives, trust in politics and our democratic institutions is at an all-time low”. It then crosses a historic bridge – the first time Labour’s official policy documentation has explicitly criticised first past the post – acknowledging that “flaws in the current voting system are contributing to the distrust and alienation we see in politics”. 

But the party has not yet reached the bottom line. For Labour members – 83% of whom support a shift to proportional representation – the leadership is lagging behind, not yet able to summon the courage to step towards the simple solution that’s already waiting for them.

Changing the voting system is far from a niche issue for voters

To those electors, Compass offers a different option: game the system to beat the system. For many of our supporters, living in seats on this list like Lewes, Cheltenham, Winchester and Guildford, the voting system has made their Labour vote meaningless. In these seats, the arrival of the ‘non-battleground’ list has been cheering, giving them a free pass to vote tactically. 

In addition, the new list also includes existing Lib Dem seats like Oxford West and Abingdon, St Albans Eastern and Bath where, if Labour holds back, the Lib Dems could reciprocate, by laying low in nearby areas in which Labour might be squeezed like Swindon South and Banbury. This happens at every election, yet no party is bold enough to name it, nor to address the injustice of a system that encourages such tit-for-tat bargaining, above the heads of voters. 

All of this might also sound cold and instrumental. But this is the rough reality of FPTP, which pits natural allies against one another, dividing activists and voters and making a mockery of democracy.  

If Labour only wins on a change manifesto, then there’s one change that underwrites all the others. And changing the voting system is increasingly becoming a fundamental, not a niche, issue for voters. Labour Together, who are close to the leadership, produced their own polling showing that 63% of the public support a shift to PR. Our own recent polling shows that over two-thirds of voters (68%) and three-quarters of pro-reform Labour voters believe political reform should be a first-term issue for a new government.

Labour members have opened the door to PR, and the public are ushering it through in ever larger numbers. All the Labour leadership needs to do is walk through it, to a system that will enable the transformation that this country desperately needs. Our question is now not if, but when.