After the election, the free-for-all

Post-election British politics could be a little like tag wrestling. There are conventions and expectations about how the contest should be fought. But it is essentially a free-for-all with no order or pre-set timetable.

One party could still win an overall majority on 7th May, and we could settle back into the familiar assumptions of majoritarian politics. But polls point to another hung parliament, in what may be a transitional rather than decisive election as the UK political system, and maybe the UK itself, fragments.

The best guide is the “Cabinet Manual,” first produced just before the 2010 election, and revised in 2011. This is not really a constitutional rule book, more a statement of current practice which can change in response to events. Four basic principles are widely agreed. First, there has to be a government at all times. Second, the Queen should not be involved in the party battle in any way. Third, the politicians and the parties decide who governs, not the Queen or the civil service. And, fourth, the civil service remains impartial, being available to support the negotiations, but no more. These principles supply a framework for the free-for-all. Crucially, it is expected that the incumbent Prime Minister should remain in office as long as there is uncertainty about who could form a government. Hence, Gordon Brown was, despite the tabloid jibes, no squatter over the key weekend in May 2010, but was doing his constitutional duty, which coincided with Labour’s political ambitions until at least the last few hours of his premiership.

But remaining in office during uncertainty is not the same as having the first go at forming a new government. In 2010 David Cameron, the Leader of the Opposition, took the initiative on the day after polling with his approach to the Lib Dems. And, of course, within a day, talks started between Labour and the Lib Dems. It could be even more complicated this May, especially if the Lib Dems do not win enough MPs to provide an overall majority in coalition with either of the two big parties. The SNP could obviously come into play, almost certainly not as a coalition partner, but having the crucial votes to permit another party to survive in government. The key objective is to be able to command the confidence of the Commons, initially in the Queen’s Speech debate three to four weeks after polling day and then in carrying forward key measures such as the Budget. This is not just a matter of adding up various parties to get to a figure of 323 MPs, the crossover number if Sinn Féin sticks to its policy of not sitting in the Commons.

This is a dynamic, not a static, process. There will have been winners and losers from the election and all parties will be looking ahead. For instance, no party, except perhaps the Conservatives, will have the money for an early second general election. Moreover, Scottish MPs, and particularly the Scottish National Party, will be focusing on the May 2016 elections for the Scottish parliament. Neither the SNP nor Scottish Labour will want to do anything that undermines their chances in that election, and, for the SNP, it would be fatal to be seen to be keeping the Tories in power. The SNP will also want to strengthen the existing draft bill transferring significant further powers to Edinburgh. This all suggests there won’t be a second UK election this year, not least given the new under-appreciated hurdles against an early poll created by the Fixed-term Parliaments Act.Then there is the determination of many Tory MPs to ensure holding a referendum on European Union membership is a condition for their party’s participation in government.

Disentangling this mixture depends on several factors. If the Lib Dems retain over 30 to 35 MPs (against 57 now), then they may still be possible coalition partners, even if only in a minority coalition, a combination of two parties that still does not have an overall majority—as has happened in Denmark and New Zealand. For Labour, the key is Scotland, both in how many seats are lost to the SNP and if a minority Labour government depends on the acquiescence of the SNP to survive (see Jim Gallagher, p60). That would trigger a furious English Conservative response.

None of this means that the party with the most MPs has to form the next government. That is probable but there are precedents for the party with the second largest number of seats taking office—Labour in 1923.

This manoeuvring will almost certainly take longer than the five days of May 2010, not least because the parties will want to nail down more details, and because there will be more internal party consultation than before. In Germany, negotiations often take weeks, with no apparent damage to good government. But media and political patience is likely to be shorter here.

Moreover, the tag wrestling may not end when a government is formed. Any resulting administration could be weak and unstable, faced with internal revolts and dependent on unreliable Commons support. We may even miss the current coalition.