Unusual Channels: What Labour's big majority means for the PM, whips and MPs
Whips' area (Illustration by Tracy Worrall)
4 min read
In the first of her new regular column on Parliament’s inner workings, Hannah White assesses what Labour’s big new majority entails for the PM, the whips – and the new MPs themselves
Despite claims made to the contrary during the election campaign, there is no such thing as a supermajority in the UK’s parliamentary system.
Not, at least, at the moment. Memories are short; not so long ago, supermajorities were actually a feature of the UK constitution: the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 allowed an election to be called before five years had elapsed if two-thirds of MPs voted for it. That was how Theresa May secured her ill-fated 2017 poll, but also one factor that delayed Boris Johnson calling the 2019 election. Parliament’s resistance to voting for an early election ultimately led to the repeal of the entire Fixed-term Parliaments Act and the end of the Commons’ brief experiment with legislative supermajorities.
Aspiring front benchers will be aware that they won’t rise to prominence simply by toeing the party line
But while there is now no procedural or legislative meaning to the term ‘supermajority’ in the UK’s parliamentary system, the Labour’s 174-seat majority – the largest in 27 years – does have implications for the way in which the Commons will operate.
Some are practical. Not only will it now be harder to find a space in which the entire Parliamentary Labour Party can meet, Labour’s back benchers will no longer all be able to fit on the government benches.
Although the bombing of the chamber during the Second World War created an opportunity to redesign the space with a place for every member, Winston Churchill argued that this would decrease its intimacy and atmosphere as a debating space. The previous chamber was therefore rebuilt with space to seat just 427 MPs; Labour back benchers wanting a ringside seat for big-ticket events like PMQs and budgets will have to make sure they turn up to prayers at the start of the parliamentary day.
At the same time, Labour’s large majority will have consequences for the roles available to back benchers. With a larger proportion of its members on the back benches, the party will – under the Speaker’s formula – secure a greater proportion of select committee chairs and members, leaving fewer vacancies for opposition members.
This shift has been cited as a cause for concern about the adequacy of scrutiny, but it is worth remembering that select and legislative committees always have a built-in government majority.
Even so, MPs who stand for election to committees come the autumn should remember that the positive reputation of select committees and their most striking contributions are usually built on the cross-party work that they are designed to promote – offering challenge or finding political consensus which has eluded others. And ambitious aspiring front benchers elected to committees will be aware that they won’t rise to prominence or establish their credentials simply by toeing the party line.
As for the significance of the size of Labour’s majority in the Commons, a government with any sort of majority in our executive-dominated system can almost always get its way. It makes little difference if the majority is as big as the one Starmer now commands, or the 80-seat majority that Boris Johnson secured in 2019. That’s as long as its own back benches don’t decide to rebel, but any rebellion would need to be sizeable now to threaten Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s agenda. Nonetheless, academic research shows that back benchers have, at least up until now, been becoming more rebellious over time.
There are also many aspects of the way the Commons operates which are not affected by the size of a government’s majority. The quantity of back bench and opposition days, the number and time available for private members’ bills and parliamentary questions, and the processes for handling petitions all operate in the same way regardless of party numbers.
For the official opposition, finding sufficient MPs to engage in all these scrutiny processes will be more of a challenge with a parliamentary party of only 121. Parliamentary rules ensure these opportunities are provided, but it is up to the opposition to decide how to use these precious moments.
Hannah White is director of the Institute for Government
PoliticsHome Newsletters
Get the inside track on what MPs and Peers are talking about. Sign up to The House's morning email for the latest insight and reaction from Parliamentarians, policy-makers and organisations.
