---

Commanding confidence

In the House of Commons, “confidence” is another way of referring to the assumed support of a majority of MPs. Part of the UK’s unwritten constitution is that the government must command the confidence of the House to hold office, as otherwise it cannot rely on winning votes in the House and passing legislation.

This briefing examines the meaning of “confidence” in a parliamentary context and provides examples of how that confidence can be tested, as well as what happens when it is lost.

What is confidence?

It is a cardinal convention of the United Kingdom’s uncodified constitution that a government must command the “confidence” of the House of Commons to assume and remain in office.

This is another way of saying that a government must have the support – tacit or otherwise – of a majority of Members elected to the House of Commons.

As a 2018 Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (PACAC) report observed:

The fact that the government of the day must retain the confidence of the House of Commons is the constitutional principle which determines the relationship between Parliament and Government. The Government’s authority to govern is dependent on maintaining the confidence of the House of Commons. This principle remains fundamental to our system of Parliamentary democracy.

Commanding the confidence of the House of Commons is not the same as having a majority or winning every vote. Minority government is possible, and governments with a clear majority can lose votes on a particular issue and remain in office.

This concept of confidence also applies in other parliaments which follow the Westminster system of government, such as Canada and Australia.

Why is confidence important?

Confidence is important because it allows a government to pursue its chosen policies in the knowledge that it will routinely be able to attract a majority of votes in the House of Commons. This applies not only to votes on government bills but also on “supply”: the authorisation of public spending to fund those policies.

Confidence is also the basis upon which a Prime Minister is appointed or resigns. An MP holds that position because of their ability to command the confidence of the House of Commons, which in turn commands the confidence of the electorate (because it is elected by them).

If a party has won a clear majority at a general election, then it is usually clear who commands confidence – the government will be led by the leader of the largest parliamentary party. However, this is not always the case (as in January 1924, see below). The political context, as well as the raw party arithmetic, is therefore important.

If no party has an overall majority, then it is up to political parties to agree on the person best placed to command confidence. If a government loses its majority (either at a general election or during a Parliament) it might either form a coalition or a negotiate a “confidence and supply” agreement with other parties to maintain confidence.

Upon resignation, an outgoing Prime Minister may informally advise the King as to who could command confidence in their place, but this advice is not considered binding on the Monarch.

In the devolved Scottish and Welsh Parliaments, legislation requires that the First Ministers of Scotland and Wales must be nominated by a majority of MSPs and MSs, respectively, before they are appointed – a statutory expression of confidence. There is no vote on the First Minister and deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland, although they are nominated and appointed following inter-party agreement, which indicates the confidence of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

How is confidence tested?

The Cabinet Manual states that confidence can be tested by motions in the Commons:

The ability of a government to command the confidence of the elected House of Commons is central to its authority to govern. It is tested by votes on motions of confidence, or no confidence.

Governments do not always have to prove that they continue to command confidence, but confidence can be tested at key points in the parliamentary cycle or in response to political developments. “Confidence votes” can take three broad forms.

Motions of confidence

Motions of confidence usually say “that this House has no confidence in His Majesty’s Government” if tabled by the opposition, or “that this House has confidence in His Majesty’s Government” if tabled by the government, and they represent a direct test of confidence. If the House votes against a government’s confidence motion, or for an opposition confidence motion, this has the same effect.

According to Erskine May, by “established convention” the government always accedes to the demand from the Leader of the Opposition to allot a day for the discussion of a motion which, in the government’s view, would have the effect of testing the confidence of the House. This convention is “founded on the recognised position of the Opposition as a potential government, which guarantees the legitimacy of such an interruption of the normal course of business”.

Such motions are generally not amendable “to allow an unimpeded and clear decision to be taken for and against the motion”, although there are precedents of no-confidence motions being defeated by government amendment.

Government-designated matters of confidence

The government can also publicly declare that a vote on a matter before the House should be regarded as a matter of confidence. This may be any proposal which allows the House to reach a clear decision, such as the second reading of a specified bill, a substantive motion expressing a view on the government’s policies or a motion for the adjournment of the House.

In July 1993, the then Prime Minister John Major told his party that a vote on the Social Chapter of the Maastricht Treaty would be designated a matter of confidence. This was a political attempt to make Conservative Eurosceptics support government policy.

On 19 October 2022 there was considerable confusion regarding the status of a debate and vote on fracking. Initially it was understood that Conservative MPs had been told it was “not a motion on fracking” but “a confidence motion in the Government”. However, later in proceedings the then Minister for Climate (Graham Stuart) said: “Quite clearly, this is not a confidence vote.”

Vote on matter fundamental to government’s position

Certain matters are so fundamental to the government’s position that if the House voted against them, it would constitute a fatal objection to the government’s continuation in office. If the government cannot win a vote on such a core part of its agenda, then it suggests the Commons does not have confidence in the government as a whole.

These matters include the vote on the address in reply to the King’s Speech, which has traditionally been regarded as a confidence matter. Once a government (usually following a general election) has secured Commons support for its legislative programme it is considered to command confidence unless it loses a confidence vote. A defeat on the annual finance bill or on a supply and appropriation bill (which give parliamentary approval for government taxation and spending) would also likely be considered a confidence matter.

What happens if a government loses confidence?

It is a long-standing convention that the Prime Minister is expected either to resign or request a dissolution (leading to a general election) if it is clear they have lost the confidence of the House of Commons.

On the last four occasions governments have lost confidence motions, this twice led to the resignation of the government (in 1895 and in January 1924) and twice to requests for a dissolution, meaning the end of a Parliament and the calling of a general election (in October 1924 and March 1979).

Some have argued that it is the “duty” of an incumbent Prime Minister to remain in office until it is clear who can command confidence in his or her place, but this has been questioned by the House of Lords Constitution Committee.

Caretaker convention

A loss of confidence also engages what is known as the caretaker convention.

From the moment Parliament is dissolved until polling day, non-statutory restrictions are in place that require a government to limit itself to “essential business”. Ministers remain in office but should not announce new policy, make new appointments, sign new contracts or take decisions of long-term consequence unless not doing so would be detrimental to the public interest.

The Cabinet Manual states that if:

there is no overall majority, for as long as there is significant doubt over the government’s ability to command the confidence of the House of Commons, many of the restrictions [during the pre-election period] would continue to apply.

The same restrictions apply to a government following a parliamentary vote of no confidence. Restrictions cease following either the appointment or the election of an alternative government which does command confidence.

Historic case studies

1923-24

A general election took place on 6 December 1923 at which the Conservative Party emerged as the single largest party but lost its majority. In line with late-19th-century precedents, it was accepted that the then Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin had the right to test confidence in the House of Commons. The Liberal Party, meanwhile, indicated that it would have no objection to Labour assuming office for the first time.

Following a debate on the humble address on 21 January 1924, the House agreed to an amendment in the name of Labour MP JR Clynes that “it is our duty respectfully to submit to your Majesty that Your Majesty’s present advisers have not the confidence of this House”. The Conservative government resigned and Labour leader Ramsay MacDonald kissed hands as Prime Minister the following day.

Addressing the House of Commons on 12 February, MacDonald said his minority government would:

go out if it be defeated upon substantial issues, issues of principle, issues that really matter. It will go out if the responsible leaders of either party or any party move a direct vote of no confidence, and carry that vote, But […] If the House in matters non-essential, matters of mere opinion, matters that do not strike at the root of the proposals that we make, and do not destroy fundamentally the general intentions of the Government in introducing legislation […] then a division on such amendments and questions as those will not be regarded as a vote of no confidence.

The first Labour government lasted just nine months. On 8 October 1924 the House voted to appoint a select committee to investigate the Campbell Case. MacDonald had designated this a matter of confidence so requested a dissolution the following day.

1929-31

The Labour Party returned to government following the May 1929 general election. This time, it won the most seats but again lacked an overall majority. The Liberals agreed to support Labour in key divisions. On 10 July the minority government won a vote on the King’s Speech, which indicated it commanded the confidence of the House of Commons.

Following a political and financial crisis, the second Labour government decided to resign in August 1931. However, and in response to an appeal from King George V, Ramsay MacDonald remained Prime Minister at the head of a new national government which also included Conservatives and Liberals. When the House of Commons returned on 8 September 1931, MacDonald said a motion on the financial situation would determine “at the end of the day, whether the Government have or have not the confidence of the House of Commons”. This motion was carried by a majority, thus indicating that the new national government had confidence.

1977-79

In early 1977 the Labour government that had taken office in October 1974 lost its slim majority in the House of Commons. Faced with an opposition confidence motion, Prime Minister James Callaghan agreed a Joint Statement on a Lib-Lab Pact with the Liberal leader David Steel. This set out the basis upon which the Liberals “would work with the Government in the pursuit of economic recovery”, although it stressed that the existence of a joint consultative committee did “not commit the Government to accepting the views of the Liberal Party, or the Liberal Party to supporting the Government on any issue”. Liberal MPs voted with Labour on the opposition confidence motion, which was defeated.

The Lib-Lab Pact ended in September 1978, at which point it was expected that Callaghan would request a dissolution. Instead, his government remained as a minority until 28 March 1979, when again it faced a Conservative no-confidence motion. The Leader of the Conservatives, Margaret Thatcher, moved that “this House has no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government”, a motion she said arose from the government’s “inept handling of the result of the referendums on the Scotland and Wales Acts”.

The government lost the division by one vote, after which Prime Minister Callaghan said:

Mr. Speaker, now that the House of Commons has declared itself, we shall take our case to the country. Tomorrow I shall propose to Her Majesty that Parliament be dissolved as soon as essential business can be cleared up, and I shall then announce as soon as may be […] the date of Dissolution, the date of the election and the date of meeting of the new Parliament.

This was the most recent occasion on which a government was defeated on a confidence motion.

2017-19

A general election was held on 8 June 2017. The incumbent Conservative government remained the single largest party but lost its overall majority.

To maintain confidence, a Confidence and Supply Agreement between the Conservative and Unionist Party and the Democratic Unionist Party was agreed, under which the DUP committed to:

support the government on all motions of confidence; and on the Queen’s Speech; the Budget; finance bills; money bills, supply and appropriation legislation and Estimates.

The agreement came under pressure in 2019 when the DUP did not support the Conservative government in certain Budget votes.

At the next general election on 12 December 2019, the Conservative Party won an overall majority, which meant Boris Johnson clearly commanded the confidence of the House of Commons.