The 2024 General Election in the United Kingdom marked a significant turning point in the political landscape, as voters increasingly shifted away from the traditional dominance of the Labour and Conservative parties. In this election, thirteen different parties and six independents secured seats in the House of Commons, resulting in the most fragmented Parliament in British history. This trend has persisted, as demonstrated by the recent Caerphilly byelection, where both major parties experienced a significant decline in support.
Despite this shift towards a multi-party system reflected at the ballot box, the inner workings of Westminster remain largely unchanged. Research conducted by Dr. Louise Thompson of the University of Manchester reveals that outdated parliamentary rules continue to disadvantage smaller parties, effectively silencing millions of voters.
Parliamentary Structures Favor Major Parties
Dr. Thompson’s study, published in The Political Quarterly, highlights how the existing structure of the House of Commons operates as if it were still the 1950s, a time dominated by a two-party system. As she notes, “Smaller parties are treated unfairly in parliament’s rules, even though their MPs represent a growing share of the electorate. That creates a real democratic deficit.”
Currently, only the government, the official opposition, and the third-largest party are guaranteed speaking time, committee chair positions, and opportunities to hold the government accountable. In contrast, smaller parties—such as the Greens, Reform UK, Plaid Cymru, and the DUP—lack such rights. This disparity forces their MPs to wait hours for a chance to speak, with many never receiving the opportunity at all.
The implications extend beyond mere representation. Without a seat on select committees, smaller parties struggle to effectively scrutinize new legislation. The absence of guaranteed debate slots prevents them from addressing issues pertinent to their constituents. Dr. Thompson emphasizes, “All MPs are elected equally, but inside Westminster, some are definitely more equal than others.”
Recommendations for a Modernized Westminster
The current reliance on informal arrangements for smaller parties to voice their concerns is inadequate. While the Speaker may occasionally facilitate their questions or larger parties might share their committee time, these practices are inconsistent and can be revoked at any time. This unpredictable system tends to favor those parties that maintain good relationships with the major players, leaving others without recourse.
Dr. Thompson argues that this is not a sustainable approach for a modern democracy. Her research advocates for a comprehensive update of Westminster’s rulebook to better reflect the realities of contemporary multi-party politics. She proposes formal guarantees in the Commons’ Standing Orders to ensure fair speaking rights, committee representation, and participation in debates for smaller parties.
Additionally, she suggests adopting practices from devolved parliaments, such as establishing minimum thresholds for party rights and enhancing opportunities for smaller party MPs to contribute to committees based on their expertise. These reforms, Dr. Thompson asserts, would not overhaul the system but would instead promote transparency, consistency, and fairness for all MPs, irrespective of party affiliation.
As the political landscape continues to evolve, the call for reforming Westminster’s rules becomes increasingly urgent. The future of democracy in the UK may well depend on ensuring that every voice is heard, not just those of the traditional powerhouses.
