Imagine this on May 8th: the Tories have ended up with 270 seats in the House of Commons, the exact same number as Labour. The Lib Dems have 30, the SNP 40. The rest of the House is comprised of tiny parties with a handful of seats, the DUP being the largest with 9.
If you’ve already done the maths in your head, you realise that no government could be formed out of two parties alone, and even multiple party government would be a stretch. You may be thinking that Labour could form a minority government with the Lib Dems and SNP supplying support; but even putting aside any logistical difficulties in getting that set up, what gives Ed Miliband the right under this scenario to be prime minister over Cameron? After all, they have the same number of seats, and if that’s the case the Tories almost certainly have a more votes, not to mention the fact that Cameron is sitting prime minister.
Cameron could get the Lib Dems to work with him, making life even more complicated. If he can get the Lib Dems into a coalition in this set of circumstances and work something out with the DUP, he would have a perfectly rightful claim to be able to set up a government over Miliband. So who gets to be prime minister then? Who decides?
Technically, the Queen – but she’s also not allowed to actually decide, a paradox that’s never been actually tested up until now. Both Labour and the Tories would have a perfect right to claim they can put together a minority government of reasonable stability under the circumstances (Labour wouldn’t necessarily need the Lib Dems to make a claim equal to the Tories in this case).
One supposes another election in quick succession would be the answer, but under the Fixed Term Parliament Act this is not so simple. Basically, we could be in for two weeks of chaos while the Tories and Labour have one all mighty bunfight about who gets to run the country for the next five years (theoretically anyhow, although one struggles to see how any minority government that is still a minority with another party can last the full term, fixed terms or no fixed terms) before everyone could throw in the towel and have another general election.
I’m genuinely scared about this scenario coming to fruition. With anti-politics so rife at present, I worry about whether the country can stand it. Another election might drain even more political goodwill from the system, reducing it to the dregs. As a postscript I might also add that, given they are the only party that can afford another general election, the Tories would probably win the damn thing second time round.
Interesting scenario. I’m a little surprised that most of the political parties don’t have a contingency fund to deal with this (albeit unlikely) possibility. Also, what’s to say that people would vote differently if albeit second election had too be held? Theoretically, could we be holding elections indefinitely? Is a Labour-Conservative coalition theoretically possible?
http://Www.EmoVoid.com
Although it may not be ‘right’, if Lab can in some way make a 3 party coalition, it’s better than no government? I am sceptical though, if not slightly against SNP finding their way in to power of some form. Plus I have little confidence in EM though. Any way you cut it doesn’t really work. IMO.
Even if with fewer seats than Labour, as the incumbent, Cameron will get first bite of the cherry. Don’t forget Lloyd George becoming PM in a coalition with the Tories, despite his party being the lesser of the two, too. Alan Lascelles has been the recognised guide to these scenarios jn the past.
Clearly if Miliband can pass a vote of confidence with support of the SNP and the Lib Dems then he has the constitutional right to form the government. If the Lib Dems and DUP support Cameron this will still be one short of Labour/SNP and the votes of the smaller parties become crucial. I suppose its’ theoretically possible Cameron and Milband could be exactly tied. In that case I suppose incumbency will tip it in Cameron’s favour at least until the first by election.
As an aside there is a reasonable possibility that Cameron will serve 10 years or more as Prime minster despite never winning a general election. While this is quite legitimate constitutionally it can only add to the pervasive’ anti-politics mood of the country.
Agree with you about it being a scary prospect, but I take comfort from one thing – there’s no precedent for a second election in a year giving a significantly different result. Both times it’s been tried the movement was marginal.
Surely under this scenario Cameron remains PM until the Queen’s Speech on the 27th, and the vote on that decides if he stays or goes? If he goes, Miliband gets a crack and will in turn face a confidence vote. If he loses that, probably Lab and Tories would agree to dissolve Parliament by 2/3 majority in the autumn, after a Tory leadership contest (with a second confidence vote, Tories abstaining, to stop the two-week ticking clock under the FTPA). Hard to explain to the public, but clear-cut in constitutional terms.
In practice, for two successive governments to lose confidence votes, at least one party would have to vote against on both occasions, or there’d have to be enormous partisan indiscipline with MPs voting against their own side. Can’t see either scenario being likely – anyone who behaved in that way would surely face considerable electoral wrath.
You ask what would give EM any more ‘right’ than DC to be PM if their parties had the same number of seats. But that’s a nonsensical question -and a dangerous one to boot. Parliament is not a first-past-the-post, winner-takes-all contest. You need a majority, not just more MPs than the next biggest party. DC as the incumbent PM has the right to meet the new Parliament and see if he can muster a majority in a vote of confidence. If he can do this, then he can carry on being PM. If he can’t, then EM has the right to have a go. If he succeeds then he has the right to be PM. All regardless of which is the largest party. I am alarmed at this widespread misconception because it could lead to a government which commands the support of Parliament being nevertheless regarded as illegitimate.