A Numbers Game: Parliament and Minority Government

Publications / Briefings

A Numbers Game: Parliament and Minority Government

9 Jun 2017

Plotting a roadmap through the constitutional issues, and setting the situation in its historical context, this June 2017 briefing paper highlights and explains key parliamentary dates, events and procedures that shape the process of forming and sustaining a minority government, focusing on the 2017 case.

The fundamental principle at the heart of our parliamentary democracy is that the government must command the confidence of the House of Commons. In the event of a hung Parliament, where no party secures an outright majority, the arithmetic presents politicians with a conundrum: who commands MPs' confidence, and should therefore govern?

The answer to this question is determined through a complex nexus of constitutional conventions, laws and precedents, party political calculations and gauging of the public mood. Guidance and rules exist to help resolve who should govern, including in the form of the Cabinet Manual and the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act.

This June 2017 briefing paper addresses how a government is formed and then sustained in office when the House of Commons is hung, focusing on the 2017 situation. It also looks at how a minority government might operate in Parliament, focusing on the impact it may have on parliamentary process and procedure.

Introduction: Minority government in context

Historical comparisons and precedents

Part 1: Forming a government

What does 'command confidence' mean?
The incumbent Prime Minister: stay or go?
When will Parliament meet?
The State Opening of Parliament: will the Queen attend?
The Queen's Speech debate: confidence of the House?
Will there be a second general election?
What difference does the Fixed Term Parliaments Act make?
Seats vs votes: what counts?
An alternative party leader / Prime Minister?
How long can be taken to form a government?

Part 2: Parliamentary procedure: help or hindrance?

Does it matter if votes are lost?
What about the House of Lords?
Will minority government mean less legislation?
Will the Speaker's casting vote influence decisions?
Managing time: potential problems ahead
The establishment and composition of select committees
The fiscal maze
Delegated legislation: an increase in deferrals and withdrawals?
Accountability and transparency

Latest / Highlights

News / Parliament gagged by super-injunction? A conversation with Joshua Rozenberg - Parliament Matters podcast, Episode 101

Legal expert Joshua Rozenberg joins us this week to unpack the legal and constitutional ramifications of one of the most troubling intersections of government secrecy, national security, and parliamentary accountability in recent memory. Thousands of Afghans who had worked with British forces were placed at risk of Taliban revenge attacks after a catastrophic government data leak in 2022 exposed their details. In response, ministers secured a “super-injunction” – so secret that even its existence could not be reported – effectively silencing public debate and preventing parliamentary scrutiny for almost two years. The breach, only revealed this week, led to a covert resettlement scheme which has already cost taxpayers millions of pounds. Please help us by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.

News / One year on: How is Parliament performing? - Parliament Matters podcast, Episode 100

In our 100th episode, we take stock of Parliament one year after the 2024 general election. With a fractured opposition, a dominant Labour government, and a House of Commons still governed by rules designed for a two-party system, how well is this new Parliament really functioning? Please help us by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.

News / Labour's welfare meltdown - Parliament Matters podcast, Episode 99

It’s been a bruising week for the Government, as a Labour backbench revolt forced ministers to gut their own welfare reforms live in the House of Commons. We explore why Sir Keir Starmer appears to have such a poor grip on parliamentary management. Plus, House of Lords reform expert Professor Meg Russell explains why the hereditary peers bill may be a once-in-a-generation chance to tackle deeper issues — like curbing prime ministerial patronage and reducing the bloated size of the upper chamber. And in Dorking, faith and politics collide over assisted dying. Please help us by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.

Submissions / Parliamentary scrutiny of treaties - Our evidence to the House of Lords International Agreements Committee

Our evidence on treaty scrutiny has been published by the House of Lords International Agreements Committee. Our submission outlines the problems with the existing framework for treaty scrutiny and why legislative and cultural change are needed to improve Parliament's scrutiny role. Our evidence joins calls for a parliamentary consent vote for the most significant agreements, a stronger role for Parliament in shaping negotiating mandates and monitoring progress, and a sifting committee tasked with determining which agreements warrant the greatest scrutiny.

Blog / What role does Parliament play in the Spending Review?

The UK Spending Review outlines how Government funds will be allocated over several years. Unlike the Budget, which raises revenue, the Review decides how it is spent. But how is it approved? What role does Parliament play if it doesn’t vote on the Review itself? This blog explores how the Spending Review works, how it differs from the Budget, and how Parliament holds the Government to account through the Estimates process.