Since the building of the Palace of Westminster in the middle of the nineteenth century, not much has changed. This has therefore burned out electrical, heating, ventilation, and drainage systems; wasting-away roofs, rotting pipes, and plumbing issues are permanently muddying the interiors. It is impossible not to draw a parallel between that and the political situation within those stone walls. Westminster politics, which are dressed in a 19th-century system, are not working; the system is underwater and is denting the faith people have in democracy.
The source of most of the problems with politics today, as with the rotting castle, is the Westminster System, the foundation of UK politics. The Brexit crisis has made visible the microarchitecture of the Westminster System, such as a high-power executive, flexible constitution, a weak second chamber, and a two-party system. This system is supported by majoritarian and disproportional elections. As a result, the system’s praised façade of strong, stable government has irrevocably collapsed.
Understanding the Westminster model and its origins
The Westminster system, often known as the Westminster model, is a form of parliamentary governance that was initially created in England and includes a number of protocols for running a legislature. The presence of parliamentary opposition parties, the executive arm, largely made up of legislators who are held accountable to the legislature, and a ceremonial head of state who is independent of the head of government are all significant elements of the system. It puts emphasis on the fact that the main governing body of an area is not an individual, but the parliament. This stems from the lengthy history of England and (later, Britain) of limiting the absolute power of the monarch in favor of group decision-making.
The Westminster system is used (or has been used) in most former British Empire colonies that gained self-government (except the US and Cyprus), in their national and subnational legislatures. This began with the Province of Canada in 1848 and went ahead to the six Australian colonies in 1855 and 1890. The former British Hong Kong and New Zealand were provided with the system of governance. By proclaiming its independence under the British Mandate of Palestine, Israel adopted a type of government that Westminster had a major influence in shaping. Nonetheless, other ex-colonies have since transitioned their governmental structure to a hybrid government structure (such as South Africa) or a presidential system (such as Nigeria).
The myth of the Westminster model
The myth of the Westminster model is the idea that the traditional, romanticized variant of the Westminster system of government is no longer able to characterize the real-world political and administrative process in the United Kingdom. Its model of Westminster has been criticized as a convenient myth or legitimizing narrative that masks more profound shifts and conflicts in the way governance is conducted, as opposed to a more fixed or more uniform paradigm.
The Westminster model has traditionally attributed a heavy weight to the indivisible relationship between political elites (ministers) and administrative elites (civil servants), given that ministers were given full powers and are held accountable. This relationship was also considered to be mutually beneficial and mutually dependent. This is, however, argued by a change in the relationship of principal-agent, where ministers have more influence and authority and the older room of cooperation and consultation has been compromised.
Although the modern UK government is complex and has changed over time, including the devolved powers and network-based forms, the Westminster model remains a dominant narrative or a legitimizing myth that political actors continue to use despite not being an accurate account of the current situation.
Bicameralism and its departure from Westminster unicameralism
A two-chamber legislature is a type of government that comprises two different avenues, chambers, or houses. Unicameralism, where all the members debate and vote as a single unit, is not the same as bicameralism. About 40% of national legislatures worldwide are bicameral as of 2022, whilst 60% are unicameral at the national level and significantly more at the subnational level. The British Parliament is frequently referred to as the “Mother of Parliaments” due to the fact that it has served as the template for the majority of other parliamentary systems and that numerous other parliaments have been established by its Acts.
The Commons initially convened apart from the aristocracy and clergy in 1341, establishing what was essentially an Upper Chamber and a Lower Chamber, with the knights and burgesses occupying the latter. This was the beginning of British bicameralism. Starting in 1544, this Upper Chamber was referred to as the House of Lords, and the Lower Chamber was referred to as the House of Commons. Together, these two chambers were called the Houses of Parliament.
A bicameral legislature was likewise preferred by the US Founding Fathers. The goal was to make the Senate more intelligent and wealthy. Despite this, Benjamin Rush observed that “this type of dominion is almost always connected with opulence.” The Senate, which is chosen by state lawmakers rather than by a large number of voters, was established to serve as a stabilizing influence. In contrast to what James Madison perceived as the “fickleness and passion” that may permeate the House, senators would be more informed and thoughtful, a kind of republican nobility.
Devolved governments in the UK
The legal transfer of authority from a sovereign state’s central government to a subnational level, like a regional or local level, is known as devolution. It’s a type of decentralization in administration. Devolved areas are given more authority since they can enact laws that are pertinent to their region. The devolved powers of the subnational authority may be temporary and reversible, eventually remaining with the central government. This is how devolution differs from federalism.
The role of the Supreme Court and constitutional checks
The Westminster interpretation of the UK constitution is articulated clearly in the Supreme Court’s ruling. Five interconnected constitutional propositions can be used to classify that articulation. Each of the five gives Parliament’s function as a check on the government’s power priority when interpreting the pertinent fundamental principles. The first was that, as the “boundaries of the power are determined by the fundamental principles of our constitutional law,” the exercise of the prerogative power to prorogue was, in theory, justiciable.
This strategy was supported by the finding that the use of the power would be shielded from political and legal scrutiny if it were not subject to judicial review. The second was that parliamentary sovereignty encompasses more than merely the principal legislation status norm. The ability of Parliament to enact laws is likewise safeguarded by parliamentary sovereignty. Because the prorogue power must be used in a manner that respects Parliament’s constitutional prerogative to enact laws, the principle is pertinent to this authority. Recognizing that the Government’s answerability to Parliament is a separate legal concept that offers an additional legal norm that can be used to the prorogue power was the third step.
The two-party system vs. multiparty realities
Although the Conservative and Labour parties dominate the UK political system, which is frequently characterized as a two-party system, multiparty dynamics are actually becoming more and more evident. This leads to conflict between the increasingly complicated multiparty realities that are emerging in British politics and the conventional two-party nomenclature.
Features of the Two-Party System in the UK
- The UK has had a two-party system where the two dominant parties alternate their turn, with the majority party in the legislature often coming up to assume government.
- There is a high party discipline in this system, which makes the members vote in a bloc, which has made the government stable and fairly held accountable.
- The legislature is elected, as well as the government, and the prime minister is elected by the leader of the majority party.
- It reduces actual legislative opposition power during a parliamentary term and establishes a strong, democratic, and stable governing structure.
Multiparty realities emerging
- The Liberal Democrats, Scottish National Party (SNP), Green Party, and regional parties have become very influential and have secured a significant number of seats despite the fact that the Conservative and Labour parties continue to dominate.
- Single-party majority notwithstanding, such diversity generates the prospect of coalition government and hung parliaments.
- Only a small minority of people support a strictly two-party Parliament, reflecting the general acceptance of multiparty representation in public opinion.
Challenges to the single-party majority government norm
Challenges to the norm of single-party majority government in the UK are increasing, due to significant political and social shifts as of 2025. Key challenges include:
Erosion of major party dominance
- Repositioning and the dissatisfaction of citizens may be illustrated by the fact that Reform UK won the 2025 local elections in certain localities, receiving more seats than the Conservatives and the Labour Party.
Fading trust and confidence of the people
- The number of individuals who believe that the system requires very little or no reform remains very low, and people do not trust political and governmental institutions any more than ever.
- The loss of faith in party politics in general, exhibited by voters, is seen in the very low score of confidence in the capability of the government to prioritize the interests of the country over those of the party.
- This undermining of confidence poses a threat to the stability and legitimacy of the single-party governments.
Economic and social pressures
- Long-term economic issues such as inflation, cost-of-living crises, and strains on state services (such as the NHS) result in unstable voter behavior that endangers traditional parties.
- One such example of a policy action that has led voters to turn against the ruling parties, especially Labour, is the elimination of winter fuel payments.
- Welfare reform and immigration continue to be divisive topics that encourage support for parties other than the conventional two.
Electoral and political fragmentation
- The splintering of votes in the local and regional elections affects the ability of the major parties to retain power.
- The more straightforward left-right divide that supported one-party rule is being challenged by the widening political spectrum.
