The recent 2024 General Election in the United Kingdom has marked a significant shift in the political landscape, with a record number of smaller parties gaining representation. Thirteen different parties and six independents won seats in the House of Commons, resulting in the most fragmented Parliament in history. This departure from the traditional dominance of the Labour and Conservative parties reflects a broader trend of increasing voter discontent with the two major political forces.
The recent byelection in Caerphilly further illustrates this trend, as both Labour and Conservative votes have significantly declined. Despite this shift in voter sentiment, the operational practices within Westminster remain largely unchanged, raising concerns about the representation of smaller parties.
Research Highlights Democratic Deficit
New research conducted by Dr. Louise Thompson from The University of Manchester reveals that the outdated rules of the House of Commons effectively marginalize smaller parties, leaving millions of voters without a voice. In her study published in The Political Quarterly, Dr. Thompson asserts, “Parliament is still operating as if it were the 1950s, when two big parties dominated. 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 enjoy guaranteed speaking time and access to committee chairs. In contrast, smaller parties such as the Greens, Reform UK, Plaid Cymru, and the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) lack such rights. As a result, these MPs often find themselves waiting for hours to be called upon to speak, with some never receiving the opportunity at all.
The sidelining of smaller parties is not merely a symbolic issue. Without representation on select committees, these parties are unable to adequately scrutinize new legislation. The absence of guaranteed debate slots means they cannot address issues of significance to their constituencies. Dr. Thompson emphasizes the inequality inherent in the system: “All MPs are elected equally, but inside Westminster, some are definitely more equal than others.”
Calls for Modernization of Parliamentary Rules
The current reliance on informal arrangements for smaller parties to voice their concerns is inadequate. While the Speaker occasionally allows for their questions and, on rare occasions, larger parties may share their committee time, these practices are inconsistent and can be revoked at any time. This situation benefits parties that cultivate strong relationships with major players while leaving others without representation.
Dr. Thompson argues that this approach is not suitable for a modern democracy. She advocates for a comprehensive modernization of Westminster’s rules to better reflect today’s multi-party environment. Her recommendations include formalizing guarantees in the Commons’ Standing Orders to ensure fair speaking rights, committee positions, and access to debates for smaller parties.
Additionally, she suggests that Westminster adopt practices from devolved parliaments, such as establishing minimum thresholds for party rights and promoting greater participation of smaller party MPs on committees in areas where they possess expertise. These reforms, according to Dr. Thompson, would not overhaul the political system but instead create a more transparent, consistent, and fair environment for all MPs, regardless of their party affiliation.
The conversation surrounding the modernization of parliamentary rules is critical as the political landscape evolves. Ensuring that all voices are heard in Westminster is essential for the health of democracy in the UK.
