Public Right to a Vote of No Confidence

Mike Wood Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

I, too, thank the more than 120,000 people across the United Kingdom who signed the petition. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) in acknowledging the many organisations that have engaged constructively on this issue, many of which have already been named. They include Unlock Democracy, whose chief executive Tom Brake is a former Member of this House, the Hansard Society, the Electoral Reform Society, and many others that have worked on an independent basis to review our constitutional arrangements.

Members’ views on this proposal will differ in line with their views on the effectiveness of this Government, but the number of signatures demands that we treat the petition with the utmost seriousness and respect. The petition understandably calls for a further mechanism that would allow the public to remove a Government who no longer command public confidence. My hon. Friend read an excerpt from the petition, in which the petitioners said that they feel they have seen the opposite of what the Government promised before the election. Many people across the country in all our constituencies will recognise that sentiment.

The Government have seemingly lurched from error to error and from crisis to crisis. Decisions that have been made have damaged the economy, undermined business, driven up unemployment, increased debt, and left communities and public services struggling. Above all, they have hit confidence in the Government, because people were promised so much but have seen so little delivered. Whether it is veterans being dragged through the courts or sovereign territory being conceded, the public are not getting what they expected—indeed, they are not getting what the Government said only months ago, in some cases, before the 15 major U-turns. Commitments made before the election have been abandoned: the promise of no tax rises on working people was broken and pensioners were left struggling after cuts to winter fuel payments. My hon. Friend raised many other examples in his opening speech.

The crux of the debate comes down to perhaps the biggest promise that the Prime Minister made before the election: his pledge to deliver the highest standards in public life and “a Government of service”. Instead, the Government have delivered scandal after scandal, many of which were of their own making. Only this weekend, the inquiries Minister had to resign after being investigated by his own Department. It is no surprise to see members of the public signing petitions such as this one to try to regain an element of control from a Government who were elected with an enormous majority but are failing to deliver what they promised.

While the public’s frustration is clear and understandable, we must look carefully at the proposal itself. Any new mechanism must work in all circumstances. The previous Government introduced a recall mechanism for Members of Parliament who were found guilty of certain criminal offences or who seriously breached the standards of this House. That allowed their constituents to decide whether they wanted those Members to continue. I am not necessarily against looking at whether that principle could be expanded to a national level. We want our political systems to be more responsive to the electorate, but we need to look carefully at how that could be done within a parliamentary rather than a presidential system, because that is the existing system in many countries where the public have the ability to trigger elections or recalls at a national level.

It is the electorate who choose us and it is the electorate who remove us, if they wish, at a general election. Under our parliamentary system, a Government hold office because they command the confidence of this House. That is a fundamental principle on which our system and our democracy rely.

As the Cabinet manual explicitly states, a Government’s authority flows from their ability

“to command the confidence of the elected House of Commons”.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk said in his speech, that confidence can be tested at any time through a vote of confidence or a vote of no confidence.

As the Leader of the Opposition has said, that option is available for those Members of Parliament whose constituents feel that we need a general election. I urge all constituents who feel that way to make sure that their representatives in Parliament are aware of the strength of that feeling, because the conventions of parliamentary democracy have served us well.

Introducing a direct recall mechanism for removing a Government or triggering a general election before the parliamentary term is due to expire would raise significant practical and constitutional questions, some of which have already been highlighted, such as whether a successful public vote of no confidence would automatically trigger a general election, or simply require a change of Prime Minister to form a new Government within the existing Parliament, and whether such a change in personnel would suffice.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk noted, it is unclear what threshold should demonstrate genuine national support that would suggest that a Government have irretrievably lost the confidence of the British people, and are not merely going through what might be temporary unpopularity at a time when they need to make difficult but, perhaps, necessary choices. Would it be at the level that has been set for recall petitions for individual MPs, which has tended to be very low? In almost all such cases, once a petition has been triggered, the threshold has been met. That would lead to some instability.

Alternatively, would we be looking at a higher threshold? Would we require 50% of registered voters, or more voters than a Government secured at the previous general election? As has already been mentioned, if the threshold were too low, we risk well-funded groups being able to repeatedly attempt to destabilise any Government of any political party. We would have to seriously consider the risk of that including outside actors with their own motives before making any constitutional changes of this significance.

On a national level, how could we be confident that a signature is verified? Where we have postal votes in a parliamentary or local council election, there is something to compare them against, but unless we are requiring signatures alongside voter registrations, which would go against the direction that I know the Government are setting out in this evening’s legislation, there would be unlikely to be any definitive database against which any signature on a petition could be compared. Furthermore, how could we prevent petitions from being launched back to back, creating permanent instability?

These are just some of the questions that might be asked. They are not minor details, and it is fundamental that we consider them before we look at major constitutional change. We have seen the consequences of poorly considered constitutional reform in the past, such as in the case of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011. It was, genuinely, introduced with the noblest of motives, but we then saw its impact at a time when there was no consensus or majority in Parliament to dissolve Parliament and allow for a fresh election. It seems it was not properly considered.

Although we should be cautious about rewriting the constitution, we cannot ignore the clear message sent by petitions such as this one. As my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk said, it is only weeks ago that more than 3 million people signed a petition calling for a general election. That was just one of a number of petitions expressing similar sentiments. Such a level of public anger should concern every hon. Member. Whether or not they happen to agree, in this case, that this Government are not delivering, it should be a concern across the political spectrum that people feel unheard and ignored.

I urge those who signed this petition, and others seeking an early election, to make sure that their representatives are aware of their view and to encourage those representatives, if appropriate, to pursue that constitutional route because Governments that lose the confidence of the House have, historically, either resigned or sought a general election. I do not think that Governments can continue for too long when a majority of their Members have constituents who have lost confidence in the Government.

After the promises made at the last election it is no wonder that so many of our electors feel let down. That is why this petition matters; it sends a clear signal from the public to Parliament. The message is simple: people want accountability, honesty and the ability to take back control, even where the Government have a very large majority, as this Government do. Above all, the public want competence and a Government who deliver. This Government are fast running out of road and the sooner that the country is given the chance to choose a new direction, the better. Ahead of the next general election we will certainly look at what mechanisms might be appropriate and effective to allow voters to retain control in between general elections. We would be reluctant to rush into committing to specific mechanisms until we have had a chance to properly consider what the consequences, intended and unintended, of such mechanisms would be.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Turley]

I recognise the hon. Member’s distinction, and I think he is absolutely right. I very much enjoy the role of our fourth estate, but there are many who constantly seek upheaval and drama in politics, which, for those of us focused on delivering for the British people, can sometimes become a bit of a distraction.

As hon. Members here know well, holding the Government to account does not simply stop between general elections; that has never been the case. Parliament remains sovereign and there are opportunities for Ministers across the Government, including the Prime Minister, to account for their actions and explain what they are doing to deliver on the promise of change that the public voted for in 2024. At the last general election, the Labour party promised to take action following years of Tory chop and change. I am sure we all remember the collapse of Boris Johnson’s Government, with 43 members of that Administration resigning in one day.

Our long-standing constitutional arrangements facilitate stability, while balancing the need to test the confidence in the Government of the day in the elected House of Commons. Altering those arrangements could risk creating a constant revolving door and an inability to achieve anything, and would incur significant costs to the public purse, given the expenses associated with administering general elections. Overall, such changes would serve only to undermine public trust in politics, create more instability and cause paralysis in Government.

I remind hon. Members that our constituents already have a clear route to influence the decisions made at the highest levels of Government. All of us here know that our constituents are able to—and do—make representations to us as their local constituency MPs, and we in turn champion their views in this place and make representations to Ministers in Government. In the event that voters signal a desire for an election, the public’s voice will be channelled effectively through their local MPs across the House.

In 2024, the public voted for change; the public voted for more than 400 brilliant Labour MPs in this House. After 14 years of chaos and uncertainty, of Boris Johnson and Liz Truss, they voted for stability. Introducing a right for the public to have a vote of no confidence could undermine our parliamentary democracy—the duty, responsibility and indeed primacy of this place—and could weaken the Government of the day’s ability to deliver on their mandate.

As hon. Members have referred to, those who signed this petition have said they feel that the promises we made to them at the last general election have not yet been delivered. We all recognise that change takes time but, with every month and every pay packet that passes, I know that people will feel that change more and more.

I am extremely proud of the positive changes that the Labour Government have brought about since the last general election. Given the reference that has been made to manifesto pledges, I will give Opposition Members some good news to share with their constituents about the many manifesto pledges that we have already delivered.

For example, there is our landmark Employment Rights Act 2025, which brings better maternity and paternity rights, an end to fire and rehire, and an end to exploitative zero-hours contracts—a manifesto promise delivered; an increase in the national minimum wage, rising to £12.71 next month, a sign that wages are up more under this Government so far than under 10 years of the party opposite—a manifesto pledge delivered; the Border Security Command to crack down on criminal gangs—a manifesto promise delivered; the ending of the exemption of private school fees from VAT to enable the investments that we are seeing every day in breakfast clubs, so that every child can start school ready to learn—a manifesto pledge delivered; and the strategic defence review and our plans to spend 2.5% of gross national income on defence to keep our country safe—a manifesto pledge delivered.

[Mike Wood]

To be clear, can the Minister confirm that the Government will not be spending 2.5% on defence this year?

[Anna Turley]

Sorry—that is a manifesto pledge that we are implementing. I thank the hon. Gentleman for the clarity.

There is also the National Wealth Fund, to support investment in our national infrastructure across the country—delivered; Great British Energy, to support the delivery of clean power by 2030 and the creation of well-paid jobs in the industries of the future—delivered; and Great British Railways, bringing our railways back into public ownership, rebuilding trust in this vital public service—delivered. And we have delivered more than 5 million additional NHS appointments, to bring down the record-high waiting lists we inherited from the previous Government.

That is a whole raft of our manifesto pledges that we are delivering. Alongside those pledges, we are seeing 500,000 children lifted out of poverty, breakfast clubs across the country, wider access to free school meals for families on universal credit, uniform costs capped, prescriptions frozen, rail fares frozen and energy bills coming down. Those are signs that we are delivering on our manifesto. There is so much more we can do, and so much more that we will deliver, before the general election.

In summary, we fear that the introduction of a vote of no confidence by the public would undermine the stability and effectiveness of the Government of the day in delivering manifesto commitments, such as those I have just set out. It would also undermine the primacy of this place, the cradle of democracy, by confusing the clear lines of accountability that general elections provide. The public’s right to remove and replace the Government of the day is already a key part of our democratic system, and is undertaken freely and fairly after a Parliament is dissolved for a general election—that is the historic and sovereign democratic system of the British people. For this reason and the other reasons I have set out, the Government cannot support the petition.

This Labour Government are focused on delivering the change the country voted for at the last general election. We will continue to listen to the public’s views and deliver, as I demonstrated, on the promises we made to them in our manifesto, to end the 14 years of chaos and decline and build a better Britain.