John Oxley is a consultant, writer, and broadcaster. His SubStack is Joxley Writes.
On a personal level, the looming local elections are somewhat of a novelty. For the first time in my voting life, I am somewhere where the result is not a foregone conclusion.
Less happily, this is not because of a resurgence of the right, but the schisms on the left.
In my corner of East London, Labour’s decline has opened the door to the Greens and a local independents party. The latter is largely formed from the discontents of local Labour, is endorsed by Jeremy Corbyn, and promises a mix of left-populism and critiques of Labour’s foreign policy.
None of these is a particularly appealing prospect. It remains my intention to vote Conservative. Even if the party is set to languish here, I’ve always felt it is important to show we are at least here and fighting the fight. That decision is easy, however, when you know that one party is going to romp home. When there is a real choice, even if it is between the least-worst options, it weighs a little more heavily. After all, I have to live with the aftermath.
The problem is, of course, exacerbated by the nature of first-past-the-post. There is no way to indicate my support for the Conservatives whilst also making a choice that influences the result. At a council level, this can lead to particularly distorted outcomes. It is not just individual wards that end up with a winner-takes-all dominance, but entire councils.
My borough has not only been Labour-controlled for its entire existence, but has rarely had a substantial opposition. In the 1968 outlier results, a Residents Association took a third of the seats. In every other election, the combined opposition has failed to win more than 10. Often, Labour has held all the seats. Now they are set to lose, but even that is no guarantee of a functioning opposition.
The three-way split in the left vote will mean tight contests. But it also makes it possible – even plausible – that a new party will repeat Labour’s dominance by coming off best in tight contests. Getting perhaps a third of the vote could hand you not just control of the council, but every seat on it.
Even without a perfect sweep, a party with that sort of support could end up with just a handful of opposing councillors. Our borough is hardly unique here. Several city-centre councils have been Labour-only for years, while the Conservatives, and now Reform, have held similar positions in rural areas.
Proper democratic government presupposes the existence of an opposition. Where challenger parties are locked out, there is an obvious hazard. Scrutiny of the council is difficult if you only have a handful of opponents. It is impossible if you don’t have any.
This has become even more true as local press has declined. Where there are challenges, they stem from internal party politics, and are often settled by backroom deals rather than open debate. This is not merely theoretical. Research has shown that one-party councils are less careful in their spending.
As a resident, it also feels disenfranchising. Few people get excited about local elections, but they feel particularly futile when your vote is purely symbolic. In a general election, at least, you know that even if your seat is lost, you are part of a movement putting up numbers elsewhere. Voting feels pointless when one party is set to take every seat. It’s hardly surprising that turnout barely broke twenty per cent in some of our wards last time.
There is a cost for political parties, too. While every electoral coalition will have its weak geographies, being completely shut out of certain areas is damaging to a party’s development.
City centre Conservatives have to deal with voters who are demographically placed to be sceptical of them. Getting a decent foothold on a council might be a remedy for that. Even being part of a substantial opposition could showcase how the party can bring scrutiny and stand up for residents. Being completely squeezed out despite getting a fifth of the vote or more frustrates it. It leaves the party with nowhere to grow.
Changing the way that we elect our councils is the only way to reshape this situation. A more proportionate electoral system would break the one-party states and allow a greater plurality. This is arguably more urgent and more convincing than changes in the Westminster system.
There are reasonable arguments for the need for governments to have a strong majority to enact their agenda, and general elections remain sufficiently competitive that power moves when the country’s mood does. There is no good reason to keep councils where there is barely a semblance of opposition.
A system of transferable votes has already been used for mayoral elections, devolved parliaments and bodies like the Greater London Authority. In each, it has broadly succeeded, fostering more competitive elections whilst also guaranteeing a level of scrutiny. Parties and voters have adapted to it, undermining the argument that complexity is a barrier. The experience has demonstrated that people are perfectly capable of expressing nuanced preferences when given the chance.
Arguments about electoral change get wrapped up too easily in discussions of electoral advantage. That is perhaps unavoidable in politics. There is also, however, space to talk about governance and democracy. One-party councils, or those without a meaningfully sized opposition, are not good for either.
Councils that lack scrutiny are likely to perform worse, while voters become increasingly disengaged from the whole thing. The fragmentation of politics is going to exacerbate this trend, with the chances of winning everything on well under than half of the vote increasing.
Sitting with my ballot, it is frustrating to think it will not play any role in a tightly contested election. As a resident, I find it more worrying that, in an instant, we could flip from one barely scrutinised council to another, with only the colours on a map changing.
I don’t mind those I disagree with holding power, but them holding it with little opposition, and without my views reflected anywhere, is dispiriting. Yet the structure of local government means that here and elsewhere, perhaps two-thirds of the electorate could find themselves shut out. We already know the options to change this, and the benefits. The question is whether Westminster will find the political will.