Our electoral system could enable an extreme right-wing government

Mary Dejevsky’s recent piece about Alternative für Deutschland’s electoral success (“The far-right’s ‘historic’ win is a body blow for the reunified Germany”, Monday 2 September) makes an important point – that its proportional system and broad range of political parties “gives people a better chance for their concerns to reach those in power than in, for instance, the UK where resentments may be largely hidden before being whipped up into disorder on the streets”.

It is also true that the German system prevents a party like the AfD from gaining power on only 33 per cent of the vote, which it achieved in the state of Thuringia.

This is not the case in the UK, where the Labour Party got a large majority, winning 63 per cent of seats on just 33.8 per cent of the vote. This was because the right was divided far more than the left and subsequently affected our first-past-the-post (FPTP) electoral system.  

Since 1945, not one party of government has won more than 50 per cent of the voting electorate. 

After the next five years of a Labour government, it is quite possible that the right will have unified on an even more right-wing platform. This could lead to an extreme party gaining a majority in the House of Commons on a similar, or even lesser, percentage of the vote achieved by Labour at the general election.

Let’s not forget, the combined vote for the Conservatives and Reform this time was 38 per cent.

First-past-the-post is no longer fit for purpose. It is essential that our electoral system is changed to make it more democratic. The alternative vote would allow electors to put candidates in order of preference and retain single-member constituencies. Even better would be a second ballot system where there is a run-off between the top two candidates in any constituency where no one achieved 50 per cent of the vote. 

This system, when used in the recent French election, led to an increased turnout in their second ballot that prevented the far-right National Rally party from gaining power, reducing it from first to third place.

In the national interest, Labour needs to act now to reform our electoral system or risk enabling an extreme right-wing government.

Chris Matthews

London

In recent letters to The Independent, I’ve noticed calls for per-mile pricing for motoring to be introduced (“Fuel duty is a road to nowhere – it’s time for a pay-as-you-drive tax”, Thursday 29 August). Presumably, such a scheme would include an offset for rural areas?

Public transport in urban areas depends on large public subsidies to sustain uneconomic services. I live 25 miles from the nearest railway station and bus services are unreliable, so I cannot take advantage of these taxpayer-funding injections.

Add to that the poor network of EV charging outside cities, and you have built-in inequalities in provision. These would need to be allowed for, if we are all to become our own Uber driver, as some readers have suggested. But how?

Mark Ogilvie

Horncastle

Wealthy people are planning to leave the country at the prospect of increased capital gains and inheritance taxes? (“Top earners and entrepreneurs ‘choosing to leave UK’ over feared capital gains tax raid”, Monday 2 September) Good riddance, I say!

If, instead of being attracted to this country for its educational, cultural attributes and relatively stable civil society, they prefer some backwater whose primary asset is low-tax status, then good luck to them.

Since the vast majority have more money than they could possibly spend in multiple lifetimes, they will have ample opportunity to count it – as there is likely to be precious little else to do.

But how safe are these tax havens from political turmoil, criminal entities and the attention of avaricious authoritarian countries? My advice: stay put, pay your way, enjoy your wealth and sleep easier at night.

David Smith

Taunton

In answer to Collin Rossini’s letter (“Our prime minister is merely a meddler”, Monday 2 September), I would say that the government is responding to the poor and needy by restricting the fuel allowance to those on pension credit.

Most pensioners are not among the “poor and needy”, having already received an 8.5 per cent increase in the state pension – far more than many workers and, yes, more than train drivers who waited several years for their wage rise.

I receive the state pension, and an occupational one, so I don’t need the winter payment. I’m happy for the savings to go on improving public services, so badly neglected by the last government.

Jonathan Newcombe

Huddersfield

Dear old Robert Jenrick has returned to his opinion about the European Court of Human Rights (“Tory leadership hopeful doubles down on plan to leave ECHR, Tuesday 3 September).

It is precisely because of the right-wing policies of the last Conservative government that we have been disrespected on the world stage for so long. Our new prime minister and foreign secretary have been working flat out for the last two months to try and restore some credibility to a country whose last administration couldn’t be trusted with a treaty, let alone a trade agreement.

If the Newark MP were to become leader, he and his supporters would represent a further lurch to the right for the Conservative Party.

Geoffrey Brooking

Hampshire

Our prime minister says he is considering an intervention on prices charged for concert tickets (“Sir Keir Starmer vows to tackle issue of ticket pricing following Oasis furore”, Monday 2 September).

Laudable, I’m sure – and although many people are disappointed about missing a concert, it is, frankly, a first-world problem.

If intervention is permitted, could the government maybe force energy companies – who make eye-watering profits on essential services – to offer pensioners a discount?

If that happened, I might even believe that we’ve just elected a Labour government.

Bob Richards

Address supplied