The UK is about to embark on its first July general election since 1945. After an initial burst of activity, this timing will give both government and parliament some breathing space before ‘politics as usual’ resumes in the autumn. Various experts have previously indicated the benefits of a more formal post-election transition period. Meg Russell summarises these, suggesting that the unusual circumstances in 2024 might encourage reflection on longer-term changes to the system.
Rishi Sunak’s election timing surprised many. Tomorrow’s vote represents the first UK general election held in July since 1945. Prior to the last election, held in December 2019, all of the previous 10 contests had taken place in April, May or June.
An earlier post on this blog in praise of fixed-term parliaments discussed the downsides of the uncertainty over this year’s timing. This follow-up post instead considers some of the potential upsides of the timetable, in terms of likely events in the weeks and months ahead. After polling day, parliament is due to reconvene on 9 July, with a King’s speech setting out the government’s intended legislative programme following on 17 July. The start date for parliament’s summer recess seems likely to be delayed slightly from the previously planned 23 July. But there will be little appetite – among MPs, their staff, civil servants or journalists – for parliamentary activity in August. This makes an enforced break of several weeks very likely, allowing election participants to recover, but also to plan ahead.
In other countries a transition period often occurs routinely after an election, explicitly to allow for such work. The best known case is probably the US, where a full two months elapse between each federal election (in November) and new session of Congress (in January). Various people have previously proposed that at least some break of a similar kind should apply in the UK. This post suggests that there would be clear advantages of such an arrangement: in the case of a standard handover between single-party governments; even more so when a coalition government is created; and always, in any circumstances, for the establishment of the new parliament itself. The post therefore concludes that the enforced 2024 post-election period might prove to be a useful natural experiment, triggering reflection and possible review of the use of more routine post-election transition periods in the UK.
Advantages for single-party government
The commonest outcome of UK general elections is the formation of a single-party government. Even without post-election haggling between parties, clear potential advantages exist of a gap between the election and the resumption of ‘politics as usual’. Hence Jill Rutter, writing for the UK in a Changing Europe, recently suggested that Sunak’s timing was ‘good news for better government’.
In this scenario, the advantages most obviously apply when – as may be about to occur – there is a handover of power from one governing party to another. Opposition parties have very limited policy making capacity compared to governments, and a tiny staff in comparison to the civil service. They will have put together their manifesto and other policy proposals with some input from external groups and experts, but with limited capacity to develop those policies in detail, to consult, and certainly to draft legislation. Though access talks between the opposition and the civil service do take place, civil servants are forbidden from giving advice and so are limited in what they can say. They too will have had limited time to prepare for the new government’s arrival, and (as happened this year) access talks may even have been cut short by the timing of the election.
A transition period can provide an opportunity for ministers to get to know their departments, their officials and their briefs. It allows at least some time for consultation on their policy plans, and for white papers and legislation to be drafted. It also allows scope for induction and training of new ministers – particularly important for those who have never held ministerial office before.
When the same party stays in government after an election, the needs are necessarily less urgent. But post-election reshuffles often occur, with new ministers having to get to know their departments in a similar way.
In a 2009 report on transitions for the Institute for Government Peter Riddell and Catherine Haddon suggested that the Cabinet should be appointed the week after the election (rather than immediately, as happens now), and that the King’s speech should be held 3-4 weeks afterwards. Although this differs from what will happen in 2024, other benefits that they identified, in terms of ministers getting to know their departments and developing policy detail, will apply.
Advantages for coalition government
The benefits – indeed necessity – of a transition period when a new coalition government is formed are substantially greater. While UK elections fairly rarely produce coalition or minority governments, this may be changing: just two of the last four general elections have resulted in single-party majority government.
In 2010 a full coalition agreement was negotiated, and in 2017 a ‘confidence and supply’ arrangement. Both negotiations were relatively swift – the 2010 deal between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats famously took just ‘five days in May’. As explored by the House of Lords Constitution Committee, many considered this timetable to be rushed. It was certainly relatively short compared to other countries where coalitions are more common; and research suggests that longer negotiation periods may facilitate coalition government that proves more stable. A built-in transition period could have clear advantages in allowing breathing space for such negotiations to take place when needed.
In line with this, former Liberal Democrat ministers Nick Harvey and Paul Tyler recently recommended (including in their book) a set period of 4-6 weeks after an election for parliament to meet and confirm the government – suggesting that this could minimise uncertainties and potentially help settle financial markets in the event that no party has an overall majority. Like Riddell and Haddon, they proposed holding a King’s speech at the end of such a period, adding that parliament should meet to vote the new government formally into office beforehand.
Advantages for parliament
Whatever the form of government after an election, there will always be new MPs to settle in. The parliament of 2024 may well have hundreds of new members. At the 2019 general election 140 new MPs were elected for the first time, and in 2015 the figure was 177. Even in 2001, when there was barely any party turnover between parliaments, there were 92 new MPs.
Significant recent attention has focussed on the importance of induction for new MPs. Shortly before Sunak called the election, former Prime Minister Theresa May suggested in a speech to the Hansard Society that better MP induction was vital to the health of UK democracy. She cited a 2007 report (PDF) from the House of Commons Modernisation Committee which suggested a longer gap between the election and initial meeting of the Commons to allow such induction to take place. Better induction was likewise emphasised very recently by the House of Commons Standards Committee. The options and challenges were discussed last month at a Constitution Unit webinar, by a panel including the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.
The provision of MP induction has greatly improved since 2010. But a persistent problem has been new members’ lack of time to engage with such activity. Upon election MPs must sort out personal arrangements such as housing in London, as well as setting up their offices and hiring staff. They are also usually thrown straight into parliamentary activities, as well as constituency work. Notably, the transition period in the US, is used partially to provide intensive training for new members of Congress.
Even when government formation is itself straightforward because there has been little change, a post-election transition period would therefore be hugely valuable for new MPs to get set up and briefed on their crucial roles. Where there has been a high turnover of MPs at the election – as seems likely in 2024 – this need is even greater.
Conclusion: a question worthy of review?
The unusual general election timing in 2024 creates a kind of natural experiment allowing some of the benefits of a post-election transition period to be tested. It falls short of the models previously proposed, since a government will almost certainly be formed straight away, and a legislative programme presented before parliament breaks up for the summer. But it will be autumn before politics fully begins in earnest again – in terms of most bills being introduced, and parliamentary questioning of ministers really getting going (as well as before other parliamentary milestones, such as election of select committees, and balloting for private members’ bills, are reached). This will provide at least some additional breathing space for new MPs to establish themselves, and for new ministers to settle in, if contrasted with the more common model of a May or June election.
While a less than perfect test, this might usefully generate some reflection, and possibly even formal review by a body such as the House of Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee. If ministers and MPs benefit from the enforced break, and such benefits are recognised by others, this might ask whether they could be built more routinely into the UK’s post-election politics. In any such review, there would be many questions to consider. How long should transition periods ideally be? How could they best fit with key processes, such as appointment of ministers, swearing in of new MPs and staging of a King’s speech? How could the different scenarios for changes of government best be accommodated? When might such a transition most comfortably take place (a July election and August transition has both advantages and disadvantages)? And how does that relate to the separate question of fixed-term parliaments?
In a few months’ time, once the dust has settled, both policymakers and constitutional experts might usefully return to such questions.
This is the latest in a series of posts that discuss the 2024 general election and the past 14 years of Conservative government. Sign up via the box in the left-hand sidebar to receive email notifications when a new post goes live.
About the author
Meg Russell FBA is Professor of British and Comparative Politics at UCL and Director of the Constitution Unit.
Featured image: “King’s Speech” (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0) by UK Parliament.