What can we expect to see in the 2024 Parliament? [long read]

Labour’s landslide electoral win may not have been unexpected, but few expected to see quite so many historic firsts arise from it. For the first time in over fifty years, a governing party with a majority in the elected House has been replaced by another party with a majority. The scale of Starmer’s victory means that we have a record 335 brand-new MPs entering Parliament: 52% of the whole House. With more new MPs than returnees on the green benches, it feels likely that this huge turnover will lead to changes in the culture and working practices of the Commons.

In this blog post, we take a look at some of the big post-election changes to the composition of the Commons and reflect on the reforms we may see as a result.

The most diverse House of Commons on record

When the King opened Parliament on 17 July, the public were more likely than ever before to have seen themselves reflected in the faces of the MPs gathered to hear the monarch. There are now 263 female MPs (41%), a noteworthy jump from the 226 at the end of the last Parliament, although it still falls short of a 50:50 gender balance. There are also 90 MPs from an ethnic minority, amounting to 13.8% of the Commons (just short of equalling the 14% of the UK population). This is another significant increase: from 66 in the 2019 Parliament (10%) and, if we look further back, from zero in the 1983-87 Parliament. The Sutton Trust has found that “the educational background of the 2024 Commons is more socio-economically diverse than any parliament recorded since 1979”, with more MPs having attended comprehensive schools. Even so, there is perhaps more progress to be made: Social Mobility Commissioner, and former Leader of the House of Lords, Baroness Stowell of Beeston, noted the gap between the proportion of MPs who went to university, compared to that of the general public: 90% compared to 19%, an increase from 88% in the previous Parliament, and warned that this “represents most significant educational difference with electorate – not school type, or type of uni”.

A shifting party balance

The new Parliament has the largest group of government backbenchers since the early 2000s and they will all be keen to make their mark. Select committees have been strengthened considerably since the Blair years, but there may not be sufficient places for all the Labour MPs who want them; although a return to competition for select committee places will certainly be welcome after committee vacancies became problematic in the late stages of the 2019 Parliament. Perhaps we will see All-Party Parliamentary Groups take an even larger role as Labour’s new MPs look to more informal routes to effect change and to push forward the issues close to their hearts. With just 121 MPs, the Conservative Party will have the opposite problem as it takes up its place on the Official Opposition benches. The party’s new leader will not have a huge pool of MPs from which to form an opposition frontbench and will have to also find MPs to sit on select committees as well as legislative committees. Former party leader William Hague has already questioned whether the party will be able to maintain a viable opposition with so few MPs. 

These aren’t the only parties to see huge change. The Liberal Democrats will move back to the third-party benches, a place they haven’t been in since 2015, where we will no doubt see them being more strategic in their parliamentary work thanks to the third-party rights they will inherit including two guaranteed questions to the Prime Minister each week, a right of reply to all government statements, and a substantial set of select committee places. Party leader Ed Davey will need to think carefully about how to manage the largest Liberal Democrat parliamentary party ever. Many new Liberal Democrat MPs will find themselves covering an opposition portfolio. Cohesion and unity will be very important now, particularly if Davey wants to give the impression of doing a better job of opposition than the Conservatives. The SNP will need to adjust to the loss of this coveted position in the chamber and will face a dilemma around what sort of parliamentary party they now wish to be. The huge loss of MPs and votes means that the ‘Short Money’ public funding that the party receives will also take a big hit from around £1.2 million each year to less than £500,000. This may mean job losses within the SNP’s parliamentary office and as a result, the small band of surviving SNP MPs will have to concentrate on a smaller set of strategic issues close to their hearts.

There are two new parliamentary groups in the Commons too, with the Greens and Reform UK returning 4 and 5 MPs respectively. Both of these parties will suffer from a lack of institutional knowledge and expertise. Caroline Lucas, the UK’s first ever Green MP, stood down at this election and Lee Anderson is the only Reform MP to have served in the Commons before. The Greens have a very strong parliamentary resource network though and we can expect them to mirror the tenacity of Lucas who outperformed most other backbench MPs, in seeking out as many opportunities as possible to make their voices heard on committees and in the chamber.  With over 14% of the national vote and an ambition to ‘change politics forever’, we can expect Reform to want to act like a much larger party group than they are. This will rely on their MPs holding multiple portfolios and spending a lot of time in the chamber, something that they may not all be comfortable to do. Lee Anderson will play a crucial mentoring role for his colleagues in the early days in his role as Chief Whip. They will no doubt feel immensely frustrated by parliamentary rules which will largely inhibit their contribution to Commons debates and we may see them push for rules changes on the basis of their national vote share.  

A modernised House?

If the 2024 cohort of MPs do wish to change their new workplace, they will have a clear vehicle to do so. On 25 July, the Commons approved the formation of a Modernisation Committee, “tasked with driving up standards and addressing the culture of this House, as well as improving working practices”.  Like the Modernisation Committee introduced by the incoming Labour government in 1997 (and abolished under the Coalition Government in 2010), it will be chaired by the Leader of the Commons, an unusual arrangement for a select committee, but one that recent research (by Tom Fleming and Hannah Kelly) found led to the Modernisation Committee having more success than other parliamentary reform committees in getting its recommendations implemented. As Fleming and Kelly stated: “having the Leader of the House chair the Modernisation Committee made it more able to get support from government, and therefore to secure the necessary parliamentary time and votes for implementing its proposals”. The new Modernisation Committee, like its predecessor, will only include representatives from three of the 12 parties who sit on the green benches of the Commons chamber: something that has already provoked concern from representatives of the smaller parties.  

What might the new Modernisation Committee want to consider? Labour’s manifesto only specifically mentioned one policy area: banning second jobs for MPs (possibly more of a parliamentary standards issue, rather than one of parliamentary reform). Fleming and Kelly found that the 1997-2010 Modernisation Committee focused its time on four issues: “committees (20%), the House’s timetable (18%), the legislative process (17%) and scrutiny of EU-related policy-making (17%)”. There is certainly unfinished business in the first three categories, even if the fourth has become less relevant post-Brexit. The new Modernisation Committee, however, may want to focus on the relationship with citizens, particularly bearing in mind the decline in trust in the institution of Parliament. Whilst the previous Modernisation Committee 2005 report on Connecting Parliament with the Public, was pivotal for the development of public engagement within Parliament, in recent years this has lacked institutional strategy and investment as noted by the Administration Committee in 2023.  

The election changed the Commons, but what will it mean for the House of Lords?

The Labour manifesto stops short of committing the new government to major reform or even abolition of the Lords, instead stating:

“Labour is committed to replacing the House of Lords with an alternative second chamber that is more representative of the regions and nations. Labour will consult on proposals, seeking the input of the British public on how politics can best serve them.”

Some immediate smaller-scale reforms to the upper house are identified: the abolition of almost all of the remaining hereditary peers, a new participation requirement, and reform of the appointments process. To the surprise of seasoned Lords-watchers, such as Prof Meg Russell, the new government has also committed to introducing a mandatory retirement ages, with Peers retiring at the end of the parliament in which they turn 80. While this could substantially reduce the size of the Lords—with almost a quarter of Peers over 80 at present—by not requiring anyone to leave until the end of this Parliament, likely four or five years away, this will not be a quick fix. Indeed, Labour may be more keen on increasing rather than decreasing the size of the Lords, initially at least, as they seek to ensure key reforms pass smoothly and to bring in external expertise into government (such as the new Prisons Minister, James Timpson; new Attorney General, Richard Hermer; and new Science Minister, Patrick Vallance). It is only the abolition of the hereditary peers that made it into the King’s Speech.

Over the next few weeks and months, we will be able to observe firsthand how the influx of new MPs adapt to parliamentary customs and what they think about the institution as we start to hear their maiden speeches.   

*Information correct at time of writing.

Feature image by Deniz Fuchidzhiev via Unsplash