Tuesday 4 May 2010

Can the Tories go it alone?

If the election results in a hung parliament, is it plausible that the Conservatives could go it alone and form a minority government?

Two recent articles by Paul Waugh and George Eaton argue that the Tories could try this and that it could conceivably work. Waugh's argument goes like this. The 'conventions' about hung parliaments are respected. Brown tries to form a government, but the Lib Dems make it clear they will not support Labour with Brown as PM. So Brown resigns.

Her Majesty, following the conventions, next asks Cameron to form a government. He duly forms a minority government. He then carefully crafts his legislative programme so that it is full of stuff the Lib Dems like. How could they vote it down? And/or he does a load of stuff that doesn't even require legislation.

Perhaps I'm missing something. I'm a philosopher really, not an expert on the UK constitution. But what is to stop Labour and the Lib Dems agreeing the basis for a coalition while Cameron gets going and then joining together to support a motion of no confidence in Cameron? Cameron loses and Her Majesty then calls on Clegg or a new Labour leader - I would think Clegg - to form a coalition government. (Cameron might want an election if ejected in this way, but if there is a clear parliamentary majority ready to support a coalition government, he won't get it.)

Waugh is obviously aware of this possibility. Presumably he thinks the Lib Dems will be mesmerised by the individual pieces of legislation Cameron is offering. But the big prize for the Lib Dems is electoral reform. So long as Cameron fails to offer them that, the basis is there for a deal with Labour and the no confidence motion is a nice little parliamentary device which they can use to kick Cameron out of office at any moment.

Still, it is important that the Lib Dems and Labour's pluralists both have the courage to go for this outcome. In this respect, the 'Purple demonstration' planned for London this coming Saturday looks like a vitally important event. Let's get out there and make a big, pro-democracy noise.

Assuming they fail to get a majority of seats, the Tories must not be allowed to indulge the grotesque fantasy that they have somehow won the election - a fantasy they are already trying to float - and that they can block the demand for real reform of the political system.

Stuart White is a tutor in Politics at Jesus College, Oxford and writes at Next Left in a personal capacity. He is not a spokesperson for the Fabian Society.

10 comments:

Chris said...

That's assuming that Lib Dems think the best way of getting electoral reform is getting into a coalition in the next parliament. By way of contrast consider, from this blog post, the following:

But if Lib Dem voters also want to dramatise the injustice of the electoral system, as well as boost the moral standing of the party, they may be best off voting Lib Dem even in seats the Tories stand to win.

An unkind person might think that it's typical Lib Demmery, to prefer increasing the moral standing of your party to having a chance of actually getting stuff done. But there are, I suppose, good reasons as well. Anything that stinks of shennanigans might be rejected in a referendum on a new voting system, especially if it involves keeping a third-placed Labour near, if not in, power.

That said, if the Tories manage to get an actual majority, go about their own electoral 'reform' and keep themselves in power for a while without going anywhere near PR, I suspect Nick Clegg will go down as the worst player of a good electoral hand in history.

Chris Brooke said...

I think I'm right in saying that before Harold Wilson accepted the offer from the Queen to form a minority government in 1974, after Ted Heath resigned, he asked for and obtained an assurance that he would be granted a dissolution of parliament if he asked for one. If that's right, then Cameron would be nuts not to make the same request, it would be awkward for the Palace not to grant it (having granted it to Wilson in basically identical circs), and that would cut off your argument around and about your fourth paragraph.

13eastie said...

Indeed, CB.

And an endless cycle of general election campaigns would be just what the Labour Party's treasurer would be seeking right now...

Stuart White said...

Chris:...and given the possibility of a Lib-Lab coalition minus Brown, the Queen's advisers would surely tell Her Majesty that she need not agree to any such request on Cameron's part...which would revive my argument about or around the fourth paragraph....

Chris Brooke said...

Well, yes, except that back in 1974, the Queen's advisers could have told HM that perhaps there could have been a Thorpe/Maudling coalition (or whathaveyou), and they didn't, and that's the relevant precedent.

Cameron, if he's sensible, won't try to form a government (whether coalition or minority) without extracting that commitment from the Queen.

And if the commitment isn't made, then we're stuck at the end of your second paragraph: Brown resigns as Prime Minister, and probably as leader of the Labour Party, too, and there's no Prime Minister or PM-designate at all -- which is the outcome all of this constitutional stuff is supposed to avoid.

And which is why the Queen will give Cameron the assurance he asks for, in line with the 1974 precedent.

Stuart White said...

Chris: I disagree - though with a due sense of uncertainty about the whole matter....

The 1974 precedent isn't conclusive here because the prospect of a Lib Dem - Labour coalition minus Brown is much, much more realistic than the 1974 equivalent you point to - a Thorpe/Maudling coalition. In 1974 the prospect of the Tories doing a deal with the Libs was always low because of differences between the parties. Now the main barrier to a Lib Dem -Labour colaition is the purely personal one of Brown. If that is removed from the picture, there is every possibility of a workable Lib Dem - Labour coalition.

Much better for the Queen to let Brown have his go, then Cameron and then...why, that nice Mr. Clegg, who might just be able to form a coalition with Labour support. For the Queen to let Cameron slam the door on that possibility would be appalling - and I trust her advisers will see that so that she does not give into Cameron's bluster.

Chris Brooke said...

We'll be finding out soon enough...

Sunder Katwala said...

I suspect rather too much discussion of hung Parliaments assumes the scenario is always one where the LibDems can put either party over the majority line.

In terms of Commons arithmetic, this relies on the gap in seats between the two major parties being a good deal smaller than the LibDem number of seats, as well as the two party total being over half of all seats. That is a plausible but not necessarily existing scenario.

Of course, in Feb 1974 the much smaller Liberal Party could give an overall majority to neither major party.

Sunder Katwala said...

I suspect rather too much discussion of hung Parliaments assumes the scenario is always one where the LibDems can put either party over the majority line.

In terms of Commons arithmetic, this relies on the gap in seats between the two major parties being a good deal smaller than the LibDem number of seats, as well as the two party total being over half of all seats. That is a plausible but not necessarily existing scenario.

Of course, in Feb 1974 the much smaller Liberal Party could give an overall majority to neither major party.

Stuart White said...

Sunder: I agree - I am assuming that the Lib Dems make the critical difference and of course there are scenarios - which may be about to happen - in which this isn't the case. Alas.