IF the British State is a poison we are to be forced to drink, its broken electoral system is a chalice in which it is served. Regardless of what we may ask for, how we plead for something better, when that cup is placed before us each election day, its swirling contents remain familiar, unwanted and unavoidable.

First Past The Post (FPTP), the electoral system by which we elect representatives to Westminster, is obviously not the sole cause of the political chaos and disenfranchisement we have endured under back-to-back Conservative governments for over a decade – but it does shape and reinforce the politics of Britain in a significant way, elevating the interests of the middle class and the wealthy above all others. New research carried out by the Electoral Reform Society (ERS) has added to the body of work and reasoning that paints it so.

FPTP is one reason, the research claims, that spiralling rent increases have been broadly ignored by the big political beasts of Westminster. Despite UK rent hikes accelerating faster than they have since records began, Labour and the Conservatives have been oddly unmoved by the crisis facing renters. That shouldn’t be a surprise for the Conservatives, the party of landed gentry. But what of Labour, whose founding principles included a commitment to fair rents?

READ MORE: Greens slam 'disgrace' of nuclear weapons on Hiroshima anniversary

Rather than stand with the working class struggling through the cost of living crisis, Labour have not only abandoned commitments to rent controls but have gone so far as to suggest that reforming the rental market would increase homelessness.

And yes, we could point to the fact that a significant portion of Westminster MPs – across all parties – are themselves landlords who have a vested interest in opposing rent reform. But beyond the vile conflict of interest playing out in the corridors of power, there is another simpler reason for ignoring the needs of renters: it’s a numbers game.

Out of 30 of the safest seats in the UK, just 13 constituencies have more renters than homeowners. In seats where the incumbent politician holds a small majority, property owners beat out renters by 325,000 votes.

Middle-class interests trump the working class – and for as long as we have an electoral system with a “winner takes all” philosophy, the interests of minority groups and those with less political capital will always be dismissed in favour of the bigger vote.

In this way, First Past The Post is a perfect manifestation of Britain’s obsession with upholding the class system; where it is seen as proper and good that the proverbial crap should roll downhill only.

It’s why both Labour and the Conservatives have landed on the same side in the ongoing culture war; appealing to socially conservative voters over the principles of fairness and egalitarianism.

READ MORE: This is Rigged claim responsibility for men's road race disruption

And even that fails to capture the absolute hopelessness of the Westminster system. With its mantra of “there can only be one”, we are left in a liminal political space of choosing between candidates with good policies, and candidates who actually have a chance of winning.

This suits Labour and the Conservatives well, both knowing that the existing system leaves little space for the electorate to support other parties, lest they likely throw away their vote. This is especially the case for anyone on the political left.

While the right generally has a single party to coalesce around, the centre and the left have many. This leads to situations like the 2015 General Election, where David Cameron returned a whopping majority for the Tories despite securing just 36.8% of the vote.

Another way to look at this would be to say that more than 63% of the nation voted against mainstream right-wing politics … and were saddled with exactly that anyway.

When Ukip began to make little waves on the British political scene, it was the Conservative Party’s dominance as a singular vehicle for the right that was under threat.

This was what led the Tories to slide even further to the right – not from concern that Ukip could seriously win enough seats to find themselves in power, but rather because they threatened to split the bloc right-wing vote that the Conservatives have used for decades and decades to foist regressive, anti-working class policies on a nation that broadly votes against them.

READ MORE: Mairi McAllan marries childhood sweetheart in South Lanarkshire

Unfortunately, the only realistic vehicle for electoral reform at the moment remains the Labour Party. The contemporary Conservative Party obviously have no interest in changing a system that benefits them so. Neither the SNP nor the Greens have the numbers to push reform through Westminster.

And Labour can change it! Their own membership supports a move to a system based on proportional representation, as do the trade unions. But Keir Starmer has already brushed off electoral reform and stated it won’t be a priority.

I suspect his softly, softly status-quo approach plays a role in this decision. But I would be willing to bet that the bigger influencer of his decision lies in the fact that his entire electoral strategy seems to be waiting for the electorate to just “give the other guy a go”, over offering any meaningful change. An electoral system that returned politicians and parties because of their policies would be a threat to the likes of Starmer.

I don’t think it irrelevant to note that, when Scotland was offered proportional representation in how it elected politicians to Holyrood, the Westminster parties were pretty swiftly shown the door.

Because when you give folk something to actually vote for, and a system that respects that vote … they vote for it.