Outdated Westminster rules undermine democracy by excluding smaller parties, suggests expert

The 2024 General Election was one of the most dramatic in British history, as voters turned away from the two traditional giants—Labour and the Conservatives—in record numbers. Thirteen different parties and six independents won seats in the House of Commons, making this the most fragmented Parliament ever.

This trend has continued in the recent Caerphilly byelection, where the Labour and Conservative votes collapsed—but while the ballot box is reflecting a new era of multi-party politics, inside Westminster it is still business as usual for the main parties.

New research published in The Political Quarterly by Dr. Louise Thompson from The University of Manchester shows how outdated rules in the House of Commons shut smaller parties out of key decisions, leaving millions of voters effectively unheard.

“Parliament is still operating as if it were the 1950s, when two big parties dominated,” Thompson explains. “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, committee chairs and opportunities to hold the government to account. Everyone else—from the Greens and Reform UK to Plaid Cymru and the DUP—has no such rights.

That means these MPs often spend hours waiting in the chamber for a chance to speak, sometimes never being called at all. Even when they represent national movements like the Greens, or entire regions like Northern Ireland parties, they remain sidelined.

The problem isn’t just symbolic. Without a seat on select committees, smaller parties cannot properly scrutinize new laws. Without guaranteed debate slots, they cannot speak to issues that matter to them. In Thompson’s words, “All MPs are elected equally, but inside Westminster, some are definitely more equal than others.”

At present, smaller parties rely on handshakes and goodwill to be heard. The Speaker sometimes makes space for their questions, and on rare occasions, bigger parties share their committee or debate time—but these arrangements are inconsistent and can be withdrawn at any moment. This patchwork system also favors parties that have good relationships with the big players, while leaving others with nothing. It is, Thompson argues, no way to run a modern democracy.

Her study recommends that Westminster should modernize its rulebook to reflect today’s multi-party politics. She calls for formal guarantees in the Commons’ Standing Orders, giving smaller parties fair speaking rights, seats on committees and access to debates.

She also suggests borrowing ideas from devolved parliaments, such as minimum thresholds for party rights, and promoting more “guesting” on committees so small party MPs can contribute where they have expertise. These reforms, she stresses, wouldn’t overhaul the system but would make it more transparent, consistent and fair for all MPs—regardless of their party.

“Multi-party politics is here to stay. With more than 100 MPs now sitting outside the traditional two-party structure, the need for reform has never been greater—if Parliament doesn’t modernize, it risks silencing the voices of millions of voters and undermining trust in democracy,” says Thompson.