It seems that come what may we will have a hung parliament on Friday.
The constitutional position in the event of a hung parliament seems clear. The prime minister can remain in office if there is no clear election result until it is obvious that he cannot command a majority in the Commons, when he must resign. The parliament website puts it like this when discussing this issue:
The Prime Minister only has to resign if it is clear that they cannot command a majority of the House of Commons on votes of confidence or supply. This would be the case if the incumbent government fails to make a deal with one or more of the other parties, or if they lose a confidence motion in the House of Commons. The first parliamentary test would be the vote on any amendment to the Queen's Speech.
Reports have it that Cameron intends to hang on in office even if the odds are stacked against him as at present they are. This is today's summary of election forecasts as produced by the FT, who appear to have used one of the more pro-Tory methodologies:
What is clear is that at present it is very unlikely that on the logic presented by the parliament web site David Cameron could form a government. There appear to be three possible reasons why he might be assuming he can do so in that case.
The first might be a believe that if the Conservatives have most seats then Labour must let them form a government because they will have won even though there is not a shred of constitutional or parliamentary logic to that claim.
Alternatively he wants to force a Labour / SNP combined vote against him so the Conservatives can appeal to an English nationalist vote in future.
Or, thirdly, he think Labour might let them do so because it will not seek the support of the SNP come what may.
I can see no other reasons why if anything like the above outcome occurs David Cameron will seek to stay in office when it is clear that the Scottish Nationalists, Greens, SDLP and Plaid Cymru all oppose any government he might form.
This does, though suggest several further trains of thought.
The first is that if David Cameron seeks to stay in office in that situation he clearly will have no regard for parliamentary democracy and the conventions by which it works in this country.
Secondly, if he hangs on for the second reason he would underline his contempt for both the choice of the Scottish electorate and the Union.
But what of the third option? Is it possible that Labour might really refuse to oppose him? Does he really think that? Has he really got information that suggests that this might be the case?
I can't see the electorate forgiving Cameron and the Tories hanging on if it was obvious he had no chance of forming a successful government. But what if Labour let him form a minority administration because they would not work with the SNP? What then?
Let me put this in context: remember there is nothing Labour can do to stop Scotland having another referendum if it really wants one and the SNP sweep the board in 2016 in elections in Scotland on that basis. So, to put it bluntly, refusing to work with the SNP now is a totally futile gesture on their part.
In that case refusing to work with the SNP to oppose a continued Coalition government would mean that Labour would suggest that a futile gesture was more important than saving the NHS, ending the bedroom, saving social security, rebuilding the economy, providing housing and so much more. I can see no one forgiving them for that.
So the Conservatives face meltdown if they try to hang on and Labour faces it if they let them do so. But in all this Labour holds the trump card because it could form a government with a good chance of passing a Queen's speech, which no one else good. If it fails to take the chance, or even fails to force that chance onto the agenda, it will cease to be a political force worth considering, just as the LibDems and Conservatives know that they too might face oblivion if they cannot form a government together.
To say the stakes are high for everyone but the Scottish Nationalists massively understates the realities of next weekend.
I am almost looking forward to it.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Seems to me this is a 1969 Willy Brandt moment, when Brandt seized the chance to become Federal Chancellor after his SPD Party improved its standing in a Federal election of that year. Brandt organised a vote on the issue of him becoming Chancellor, which he won, with the support of the smaller FDP Party.
I must say I am a little worried by Milliband’s declaration that he will not collaborate with the SNP. I just assume he is saying it but not really meaning it, because if he lets Cameron remain in power for another term he will never be forgiven.
Agreed
Miliband has no choice at the moment to state he will not work with the SNP – if he even hints at any kind of agreement, he hinders all Scottish Labour MP’s chances on polling day, effectively giving the green light to Scottish Labour voters to vote SNP. And I’d say the Scottish Labour party needs all the help it can get right now!
After May 7th, he’s free to decide to form a coalition or C&S agreement with SNP, as it works in his favour then, but before his hands are pretty much tied.
Well, that’s how I see it anyhow.
And maybe you are right
I doubt that Miliband’s line is doing Labour any good in Scotland. I suspect it is aimed at securing wavering voters in England, who might otherwise be swayed by the Tories’ slurs about Labour being in the SNP’s pocket. Perhaps the thinking is that, if he said something sensible – on the lines that, in the event of a hung parliament, Labour won’t be held to ransom by any other party, but will talk to other parties, in order to implement as many of the policies it’s run on as possible – then the Tory press would seize on it as ‘Red Ed admits he’ll do deal with SNP’ or whatever. Which they would; but is it really necessary to assume the public would fall for that?
In any case, providing there is an overall majority after the election for Lab+SNP+PC+SDLP+Grn, then all Miliband has to do, should Cameron attempt to cling on to power, is to say that he will put down a motion of no confidence at the first opportunity. No negotiation with the SNP is required at that stage. Negotiation is then required to get a programme through the Commons as a minority Government. Though that can mean bringing proposals forward and seeing whether they are voted down or amended, rather than doing back-room deals; minority Government might well be more transparent than coalition Government.
Where it would get really messy is if the anti-Conservative parties don’t have an overall majority between them.
@Daniel @John, Be careful of double standards. Cameron tells lies, but Milliband has no choice but to say something he doesn’t mean. Honesty is always a choice, even if many politicians don’t think it is the best one.
If both Labour and the Tories hate the SNP so much that they can’t even stand the idea of going into the voting lobbies with them, then the only combination which can provide a majority is a “grand coalition” between Labour and the Tories – perhaps Cameron as PM with Miliband as Chancellor, or something like that. I had ruled this out as a priori ludicrous but am now beginning to wonder… I still think it’s unlikely, but not completely impossible.
A coalition of Labour and Tories will be the ultimate last laugh of neo-liberalism.
I doubt this can happen because such an event will trigger off social unrest, even the most supine and narcoleptic of the populace will realise that a joke is being played out here-from the point of view of the underlying dialectic, though it could precipitate speedier change.
I see a risk of unrest in quite a number of scenarios at present
Is Nate Silver’s 538 organisation pro-Tory? I would have thought it was neutral, if not necessarily correct. It gives a slightly more Tory-favourable result.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/interactives/uk-general-election-predictions/
It is using data from this website
http://electionforecast.co.uk/
On that data, there is statistical possibility (not a probability) of 5 more years of ConDem, but effectively a zero chance of a Labour government without SNP.
Remember, that if Sinn Fein don’t take their seats, the threshold will be slightly lower (323?)
What are the odds that in 2020, England will be outside the EU, and Scotland an independent country? Depressing. Would Cameron offer SNP another referendum in return for abstention on key issues in Westminster? Or simply change the rules to exclude them?
Here’s the actual results, which have the CDU/CSU the largest Partu, but with a loss of a seat, while the SPD has LESS seats, but made gains = a likely mirror of our results in 2015, except that tge Tories will surely lose far more than 1 seat, and I still expect Labour to gain more than the 12 seats overall that the FT predicts.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_German_federal_election,_1969
On what basis do you assert that the FT have used a pro-Tory methodology? There are plenty of polls (and also the spread betting markets, who are usually right) which suggest that the Tories will get more than 279 seats.
My opinion
I am allowed one
It seems reasonable to me that the final seat count will be different than what the FT predicts. A tighter result might strengthen legitimacy for a ConDem coalition, perhaps a minority Govt. Cameron will try to form a ConDem+ coalition, almost a given since Tory tactical voting in Sheffield Hallam will likely save Clegg’s neck.
In the first weeks after the election a ConDem alliance will attempt to outsmart Labour + partners, and vica versa, with Cameron playing for time and opportunity. Nationalism could be a means to divide Labour and SNP with Cameron offering a package of electoral reform to suit Tory [and SNP] ambition, how far are they prepared to game. I suspect scenarios are already prepared and in place to keep a breakneck pace post-election, casting alternatives with chaos and fear.
On the other hand it seems a game of ‘chicken’ shall be played by Labour trying to force the hand of SNP and others not to be seen to enable a Tory led minority coalition, thus *legitimizing* a Grand Coalition led by Labour but without being seen to cave in to the SNP, a forced marriage of sorts. Of course this is speculation and it will likely be chaotic.
Our NHS does depend on a full repeal of the Lansley’s 2012 Health and Social Care Bill, unlikely to rewind in full with Ed Balls as Chancellor. The last coalition was a practice now the gloves come off, its all to play for especially as the neoliberal financialization experiment is running out of democratic options. Welcome Govt by gobalisation, TTIP and all its successors. Lets hope NOT and the FT has played Labour down.
I think ‘chaotic’ is right
Especially if Nick Clegg is as indecisive as he was on the Today programme this morning – although John Humphreys was dire
What this all shows up is that fptp doesn’t work anymore. Firstly, it makes people vote strategically, so it becomes impossible to know what voters want: after all, you voted for the coalition in 2010 according to this logic. And secondly, it leads to absurdity. The SNP are likely to get less votes than the greens and less than half of UKIP and thelibdems, yet are going to hold massive influence. If we had PR it would probably be something like con and lab 200 seats each, ukip on 80-90 seats, lib dems on 60-70, greens on 30+ and the snp on 25. Yes it would mean the days of a party having a majority are gone, but it would also mean all parties would have to make adult compromises to forge coalitions that actually reflected public opinion.
I´m quite sure that PR will be the focus for the no-hope-under-fptp parties. Especially as it would give the right wing parties control:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/politics-blog/11491399/Campaign-Calculus-Under-PR-Ukip-would-have-99-seats-and-the-Greens-could-be-kingmakers.html
I rather like the idea of no party having any chance of control. None of them care much for ¨the people¨, and all of the larger parties (and those who would be large under PR) would sell us down the river of the corporate pseudocracy of TTIP.
My worry is that the politicians will simply horse trade to find viable partners in order to be in power and forget exactly what they are there to do – to run and reform the country after what can only be described as especially bad governance by the ConDemns in the last 5 years.
And, they will still fudge the FPTP issue even if it is another coalition. In many ways I hope that there has to be another election after this one because that might ram the point home about electoral reform. We need a more bi-partisan parliament – not governance based on a royal prerogative to rule alone.
I am not looking forward to it. It’s not going to be a fun night. It’s not the dashing of one’s hopes that is the problem for me, but the realisation of one’s worst fears.