>In his Richard Dimbleby lecture of 1976, Lord Hailsham, a former Conservative lord chancellor, famously described the British constitution as an “[elective dictatorship](https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldhansrd/text/110622-0002.htm)”. A government that controls the House of Commons does indeed possess despotic powers. In the UK, the liberties of the people depend not on checks and balances embedded in a formal constitution, but on a sense of the limits embedded in the minds not just of political actors but of the public.
>Such restraints are fragile. What would happen if a party headed by a charismatic demagogue, at best indifferent to such constraints and at worst hostile to them, were to win power? Such people have gained power elsewhere. Indeed, we are seeing that now in the US, the most important democracy of all.
>The pamphlet also argues that what is happening in the US could happen even more easily in the UK. The US has a written federal constitution, an independent legislature, a famously independent judiciary and a detailed bill of rights. Even so, [the survival of US democracy is in question](https://www.ft.com/content/c4c1dc52-4e85-4eba-9ba3-e704a0827558?syn-25a6b1a6=1). The UK’s could easily prove even more fragile.
>Third, once in power, with a devoted set of supporters both inside and outside parliament and total contempt for the “liberal establishment”, prime minister Farage could (and surely would) mount a fierce assault on many of the core institutions of British government, law and education, as well as human rights, in a British version of Project 2025.
>Yes, the country needs a great deal of reform. But the record of populists across the world is not one of productive change but of arbitrary rule. Why should anybody think Farage would be different? His biggest contribution to British public life has been Brexit, which three-fifths of the people now regret. That hardly suggests his strong suit will be successful reform.
>So, what is to be done to prevent such a government from gaining power?
>Possibilities include success by this government in delivering the widely shared prosperity people want. I fear it is too late for that. Other possibilities include taking dark money out of politics, counteracting misinformation and disinformation and addressing foreign interference. Alas, these things are hard to do and might not make a big difference.
>Another set of possibilities involves entrenching institutional independence in the civil service, judicial system, police, armed forces, Bank of England, House of Lords, universities, the media and so forth. The report offers some interesting ideas in these areas. But, given the UK’s “dictatorial” constitution these could also fail.
>The final set of possibilities focuses on the principal vulnerability of people who are trying to create an autocracy but have not yet succeeded: elections. [What just happened to Viktor](https://www.ft.com/content/a9b635f0-6fff-41e5-8e27-245de4500863?syn-25a6b1a6=1) [Orbán](https://www.ft.com/content/a9b635f0-6fff-41e5-8e27-245de4500863?syn-25a6b1a6=1) shows how important they are. Entrenched independence for the UK’s boundary and electoral commissions is vital. More important still is electoral reform. A situation in which a party can win overwhelming power with 30 per cent of the vote is grotesque. [As Vernon Bogdanor has argued persuasively](https://www.ft.com/content/38d83f46-984b-4884-863f-1affb78ac9ae), “first past the post” is a source of destabilisation in today’s multi-party politics. A system of transferable votes, in which second and further preferences also count, is an essential safeguard.
>James Madison rightly feared the tyranny of the majority. Entrenched rights were the answer. In the UK today, the great danger is rather tyranny of the minority, in which a small plurality secures overwhelming power. First-past-the-post has become suicidal. The time to reform the old system is now.
SS: Wolf argues that Britain’s first-past-the-post electoral system has become dangerously unfit for purpose in an era of multi-party politics.
Under the current system, a party can win overwhelming parliamentary power with as little as a third of the vote, as Labor demonstrated in 2024, taking 411 of 650 seats with just 33.7 percent of the vote. Wolf draws on a pamphlet by the 99% Organization to warn that the UK’s unwritten constitution makes it even more vulnerable to democratic backsliding than the US, given the absence of formal checks and balances.
To guard against this, Wolf recommends several measures, the most important of which is electoral reform, specifically, a system of transferable votes in which second and further preferences count. As he puts it, citing constitutional scholar Vernon Bogdanor, first-past-the-post “is a source of destabilisation in today’s multi-party politics.”
The central conclusion: “First-past-the-post has become suicidal. The time to reform the old system is now.”
4 Comments
>In his Richard Dimbleby lecture of 1976, Lord Hailsham, a former Conservative lord chancellor, famously described the British constitution as an “[elective dictatorship](https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldhansrd/text/110622-0002.htm)”. A government that controls the House of Commons does indeed possess despotic powers. In the UK, the liberties of the people depend not on checks and balances embedded in a formal constitution, but on a sense of the limits embedded in the minds not just of political actors but of the public.
>Such restraints are fragile. What would happen if a party headed by a charismatic demagogue, at best indifferent to such constraints and at worst hostile to them, were to win power? Such people have gained power elsewhere. Indeed, we are seeing that now in the US, the most important democracy of all.
>Before the 2024 presidential election, The Heritage Foundation’s “[Project 2025](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/how-much-of-project-2025-has-trump-enacted)”, then [de](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/05/donald-trump-project-2025)[ceitfully disowned by Donald Trump](https://www.ft.com/content/08fd4b82-144d-485d-8374-663741bf871e?syn-25a6b1a6=1), laid out a road map for his presidential term. His administration has followed it. What are the results? A recent pamphlet, “[Defensive Constitutional Reform: Preventing the UK from going the way of the US](https://99-percent.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/DCR-Full-Report-v5.pdf)”, from the 99% Organisation states, rightly, that these include the erosion of checks and balances, weaponising the law against personal enemies, attacks on independent legal institutions, media and universities, and the conversion of [ICE](https://www.ft.com/stream/e2b8b537-9274-4d1b-9e37-085473ec2742) into an agency operating above the law. Also apparent is Trump’s exploitation of office for [personal gain](https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/trump-corruption-uae-bribes/).
>The pamphlet also argues that what is happening in the US could happen even more easily in the UK. The US has a written federal constitution, an independent legislature, a famously independent judiciary and a detailed bill of rights. Even so, [the survival of US democracy is in question](https://www.ft.com/content/c4c1dc52-4e85-4eba-9ba3-e704a0827558?syn-25a6b1a6=1). The UK’s could easily prove even more fragile.
>First, under the UK’s first-past-the-post electoral system a party with just a third of the vote can win a huge majority. In 2024, [Labour won 411 out of 650 seats with just 33.7 per cent of the vote](https://electoral-reform.org.uk/how-many-votes-did-labour-get-in-2024/).
>Second, Reform UK is a one-man band, perhaps even more so than Trump’s Republicans. As [Fraser Nelson](https://frasernelson.substack.com/p/the-scandal-proof-nigel-farage), former editor of The Spectator, noted in a recent commentary, Nigel Farage is already showing questionable behaviour, including an undeclared personal gift of £5mn [before the 2024 election.](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/apr/29/revealed-nigel-farage-was-given-undisclosed-5m-by-crypto-billionaire-in-2024)
>Third, once in power, with a devoted set of supporters both inside and outside parliament and total contempt for the “liberal establishment”, prime minister Farage could (and surely would) mount a fierce assault on many of the core institutions of British government, law and education, as well as human rights, in a British version of Project 2025.
>Yes, the country needs a great deal of reform. But the record of populists across the world is not one of productive change but of arbitrary rule. Why should anybody think Farage would be different? His biggest contribution to British public life has been Brexit, which three-fifths of the people now regret. That hardly suggests his strong suit will be successful reform.
>So, what is to be done to prevent such a government from gaining power?
>Possibilities include success by this government in delivering the widely shared prosperity people want. I fear it is too late for that. Other possibilities include taking dark money out of politics, counteracting misinformation and disinformation and addressing foreign interference. Alas, these things are hard to do and might not make a big difference.
>Another set of possibilities involves entrenching institutional independence in the civil service, judicial system, police, armed forces, Bank of England, House of Lords, universities, the media and so forth. The report offers some interesting ideas in these areas. But, given the UK’s “dictatorial” constitution these could also fail.
>The final set of possibilities focuses on the principal vulnerability of people who are trying to create an autocracy but have not yet succeeded: elections. [What just happened to Viktor](https://www.ft.com/content/a9b635f0-6fff-41e5-8e27-245de4500863?syn-25a6b1a6=1) [Orbán](https://www.ft.com/content/a9b635f0-6fff-41e5-8e27-245de4500863?syn-25a6b1a6=1) shows how important they are. Entrenched independence for the UK’s boundary and electoral commissions is vital. More important still is electoral reform. A situation in which a party can win overwhelming power with 30 per cent of the vote is grotesque. [As Vernon Bogdanor has argued persuasively](https://www.ft.com/content/38d83f46-984b-4884-863f-1affb78ac9ae), “first past the post” is a source of destabilisation in today’s multi-party politics. A system of transferable votes, in which second and further preferences also count, is an essential safeguard.
>James Madison rightly feared the tyranny of the majority. Entrenched rights were the answer. In the UK today, the great danger is rather tyranny of the minority, in which a small plurality secures overwhelming power. First-past-the-post has become suicidal. The time to reform the old system is now.
https://preview.redd.it/vuk2a5bkmg0h1.png?width=928&format=png&auto=webp&s=0f3a1e92c761e42a41375ef1697eaae51ea66f41
https://preview.redd.it/ktgdat1nmg0h1.png?width=854&format=png&auto=webp&s=f1a9c92b321da93eb43288f5c39fa64ac0281e20
SS: Wolf argues that Britain’s first-past-the-post electoral system has become dangerously unfit for purpose in an era of multi-party politics.
Under the current system, a party can win overwhelming parliamentary power with as little as a third of the vote, as Labor demonstrated in 2024, taking 411 of 650 seats with just 33.7 percent of the vote. Wolf draws on a pamphlet by the 99% Organization to warn that the UK’s unwritten constitution makes it even more vulnerable to democratic backsliding than the US, given the absence of formal checks and balances.
To guard against this, Wolf recommends several measures, the most important of which is electoral reform, specifically, a system of transferable votes in which second and further preferences count. As he puts it, citing constitutional scholar Vernon Bogdanor, first-past-the-post “is a source of destabilisation in today’s multi-party politics.”
The central conclusion: “First-past-the-post has become suicidal. The time to reform the old system is now.”