Elections (proportional representation): Ten Minute Rule Motion
138Ayes
136Noes
Carried · majority 2 · Government lost376 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 passed a Ten Minute Rule motion calling for parliamentary elections to be conducted using proportional representation (PR) rather than the existing first-past-the-post (FPTP) system. The motion passed by the narrowest of margins, with 138 votes in favour and 136 against. A Ten Minute Rule motion is a procedural device allowing a backbench MP to make a brief case for a proposed bill, with one speech in favour and one in opposition, followed by a vote. It does not itself change the law but signals parliamentary interest in a topic. The result is a symbolic but notable indication of sentiment within the Commons on one of the most contested questions in British constitutional politics. The current FPTP system, in which the candidate with the most votes in each constituency wins regardless of share, tends to produce majority governments from parties that win well under half the national vote. Proponents of PR argue that it would make every vote count more equally and produce legislatures that better reflect the distribution of voter opinion across the country. The motion advances no immediate policy change, but a Commons majority in favour, however slim, adds pressure on the government to consider the question seriously, particularly given that the 2024 general election produced a very large Labour majority on a relatively modest vote share. The vote cut across party lines in complex ways. Liberal Democrats backed the motion unanimously, as did all four Plaid Cymru MPs and all four Green MPs, reflecting those parties' longstanding support for electoral reform. Conservatives voted against unanimously, as did the Democratic Unionist Party and the Ulster Unionist Party. The most revealing division was within Labour: 60 Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs voted in favour, against 47 who opposed, while a very large number, over 290, did not vote at all. Reform UK split two each way. The motion's passage by just two votes, despite more than 300 Labour MPs being absent, illustrates both the depth of cross-party support for PR among smaller parties and the continuing ambivalence within the governing party, whose leadership has not committed to electoral reform.
Voting Aye meant
Support introducing proportional representation (single transferable vote) for parliamentary and local government elections, believing it produces fairer outcomes where seats better reflect votes cast
Voting No meant
Oppose changing the voting system, preferring to retain first-past-the-post for its simplicity and the direct constituency link it provides between voters and their elected 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 whip column shows the published party position — “Free vote” means the whip was formally removed for this division.
Party
Whip
Aye / No / Abs
Aye
No
Abs
Labour Party
Whipped Aye
52
42
267
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
77
39
Liberal Democrats
Whipped Aye
65
0
7
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
8
5
29
Independent
—
4
2
8
Scottish National Party
—
0
0
9
Reform UK
Whipped No
2
2
3
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
4
1
Green Party of England and Wales
Whipped Aye
4
0
0
Plaid Cymru
Whipped Aye
4
0
0
Social Democratic and Labour 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
Your Party
—
0
0
1
Source · Hansard · UK Parliament Votes API · whip status from announced positions; “free vote” indicates the whip was formally removed
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