Elections (proportional representation): Ten Minute Rule Motion
138Ayes
136Noes
Carried · majority 2376 did not vote
650 Members · Aye 138 · No 136 · DNV 376 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
On 3 December 2024, the House of Commons voted by 138 ayes to 136 noes to grant leave for a Liberal Democrat bill to be introduced that would replace the first-past-the-post voting system with proportional representation for UK parliamentary elections and English local government elections. The margin was just two votes. The bill's sponsor is Sarah Olney MP, and the specific system proposed is the single transferable vote, under which voters rank candidates in order of preference. The vote did not approve proportional representation as policy. A Ten Minute Rule Motion grants leave to introduce a bill for a First Reading; it tests opinion in the House but does not advance legislation in any substantive way, and such bills very rarely become law. The practical significance lies in the signal it sends: a majority of MPs who voted were willing to allow the argument to be made formally, at a moment when the 2024 general election produced Labour's two-thirds seat majority on roughly one-third of votes cast, the most disproportionate result in British electoral history by that measure. The Liberal Democrats voted unanimously in favour, joined by all four Green MPs, all four Plaid Cymru MPs, and 59 Labour MPs. Every Conservative who voted opposed the motion, as did 50 Labour MPs and the Democratic Unionist Party. The government took no official position, and the large number of Labour MPs with no vote recorded, 294, reflects the scale of absence rather than a party whip. Three Reform UK MPs voted in favour and one against. The result highlights a cross-cutting divide on electoral reform that runs through Labour rather than simply between government and opposition.
Voting Aye meant
Support introducing proportional representation, arguing that first-past-the-post produces wildly disproportionate results and leaves most voters unrepresented by their preferred candidate
Voting No meant
Oppose replacing first-past-the-post, arguing it provides clarity, simplicity, and a clear one-to-one link between each constituency and its single MP
Each row is one party. The stacked bar gives the within-party split of Aye / No / Absent; the columns on the right give the raw counts. The party-line column is inferred from how cohesively each party voted, not a published whip: a clear one-way majority of a party’s voters reads as a line, a close division reads as “Split”.
Party
Party line
Aye / No / Abs
Aye
No
Abs
Labour Party
Split
52
42
267
Conservative and Unionist Party
Voted No
0
77
39
Liberal Democrats
Voted Aye
64
0
7
Labour and Co-operative Party
Split
8
5
29
Independent
—
5
2
7
Scottish National Party
—
0
0
9
Reform UK
Split
2
2
3
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
Voted No
0
4
1
Green Party of England and Wales
Voted Aye
4
0
0
Plaid Cymru
Voted Aye
4
0
0
Social Democratic and Labour Party
—
0
0
2
Your Party
—
0
0
2
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
—
0
0
1
Restore Britain
—
0
1
0
Speaker
—
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
—
1
0
0
Ulster Unionist Party
—
0
1
0
Source · Hansard · UK Parliament Votes API · party line inferred from voting cohesion, not a published whip; “Split” = a close within-party division
First-past-the-post is fundamentally broken; Labour won 63% of seats on 34% of votes, leaving 60% of voters unrepresented; proportional representation via STV would restore democratic legitimacy, preserve local constituency links, and rebuild public trust in politics.Liberal Democrats · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,679 words) →
FPTP provides clarity, simplicity, and strong local accountability; voters know exactly who their single MP is and can hold them to account; proportional systems lead to undemocratic post-election coalition negotiations and chaos; the public rejected PR in 2011.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (851 words) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0