Although the next election may be only six months away and the opinion polls suggest a Conservative triumph, commentators should be cautious. Obviously a clear Labour majority is highly unlikely. It is also improbable that Labour will survive as the largest party. There are some who suggest that the Conservatives could possibly mirror Labour’s 1997 landslide. Nonetheless, a hung parliament still ranks high on the list of possibilities.
The pro-Labour bias in the electoral system, which has developed since the 1990s, remains, despite the redistribution of seats, but we actually do not know whether this bias will grow or decrease in 2010.
Colin Rallings and Michael Thrasher’s Media Guide to the New Parliamentary Constituencies shows that, if the major party vote is divided 40% Conservative to 30% Labour, the Conservatives would fall six seats short of a majority; 40% to 30% is only a few points away from what the current polls are showing. A hung parliament remains as much a probability as a possibility.
A hung parliament has become much more likely because of the great widening of the no-man’s land between the big parties. In 1959, there were only seven MPs unattached to Conservative or Labour. Today, there are 96, a number large enough to have denied most postwar governments a working majority.
Since 1900, Britain has had 34 years of coalition or minority government. The coalitions occurred either in wartime or as a result of the 1931 crash. But there were 18 years of hung parliaments in peacetime – and it is notable that none of them produced a coalition government. From 1906 to 1914, Labour and the Irish Nationalists supported the Liberal government because they wanted legislation which the Liberals had promised. In 1924 and 1929-31, the Liberals kept Labour in power partly for their policies and partly because they were not ready to face another election.
In 1974, the opposition allowed Harold Wilson to govern for six months without facing a vote of confidence because, if forced to go to the country, Labour would certainly win, which they did in October of that year at a time of Wilson’s own choosing.
However, it is interesting to note that since 1998 Scotland and Wales have each had hung parliaments, which offer examples both of coalitions and of minority governments – but, significantly, none of the various arrangements has forced a premature dissolution. Canada has a notable history of long-lasting minority governments.
But what about the circumstances at Westminster in a hung parliament in 2010? If Labour numbers fell clearly short of a majority (or even if the Conservatives came out ahead), the government would have either to resign or to cling on to face a vote of confidence (as the Conservatives did over Christmas 1923). In such a vote a deal with the Liberal Democrats for support or even abstention is unlikely, since it would split the Liberal Democrats. Defeat on a vote of confidence would lead to the Queen sending for David Cameron as the leader of the largest opposition party. He would almost certainly proceed as Wilson did in 1974, confident that, if he was defeated in the Commons, the British people would vote to give the new government ‘a fair go’.
But many people would not accept this scenario. When there is a hung parliament, many actors come into play. Parties have their own divisions, closely monitored by the intrusive media. Rumours of plots and splits would abound. The government does not have to resign because it loses its majority in parliament. But it can only survive by buying off opposition, either by a share of office (which would cause deep dissension in both parties) or by policy promises (which would be very difficult to fulfill, granted the present upper chamber). Yet, although the political and constitutional logic may seem clear, in a fluid situation it may be best to expect the unexpected.