A cold autumn. Having reached No 10 in the spring, the prime minister calls another election. It happened to Harold Wilson in 1974. Could it happen again?

With the opinion polls closer than for two decades and the Liberal Democrats weaker than in their post-merger ‘Salad’ days it is easy to picture an election next May that not only produces no majority but also makes it difficult to deliver even a coalition government.

So could 2015 be another double election year?

Imagine the election results are a tie between Tory and Labour, both getting around 280 to 290 seats. This is most likely if both main parties get relatively low vote shares, with the Conservatives having a small lead in the popular vote. To govern, both parties would need allies.

But the Liberal Democrats would be humiliated, with fewer than 40 members of parliament. More successful might be a surging United Kingdom Independence party, alongside a swollen Scottish National party delegation. The Northern Ireland parties could offer to be kingmakers at a price, while even the Green party could make a crucial difference in a wafer-thin confidence vote.

Faced with such a parliament, another election might prove more attractive than forming a coalition of splinters.

True, unless the Liberal Democrats fall below about 35 seats, a coalition with a small majority should be possible. But it may not be easy to seal a deal.

First, who would the Liberal Democrats prefer? For some senior figures in the party, the coalition has functioned for five years, and carrying on its work is attractive. Yet if a Labour-Liberal Democrat government is possible, many grassroots members would prefer a progressive alliance. Those tensions will quickly come to the surface.

At the last election Labour was the rejected government and allying with it meant supporting the more unpopular of the two big parties. Next time might be less straightforward. If the Tories lead in votes, but Labour lead in seats, who is the election-winner?

Even if a deal with Labour was possible, should it even be on offer? Many Labour MPs favour minority government over alliance with the Liberal Democrats. If coalition only offered Ed Miliband a narrow majority, it would not give his government even the uneasy stability David Cameron has enjoyed.

A Labour-Liberal Democrat alliance dependent on both the socialist Campaign group and the Orange Bookers to win key votes would be fractious, to say the least.

If coalition would be an unhappy, unstable marriage, then going it alone would have strong attractions. Labour could set out its agenda and dare opponents to vote it down. There is even a strong recent precedent for how such a political agenda can be a success. Alex Salmond and the SNP governed Scotland between 2007 and 2011, in large part by ensuring that for at least one other political party at a time the political cost of bringing the SNP government down was high, while the reward for doing a deal to keep it in was significant.

For Labour, then, daring opponents to vote down an agenda that had significant popular support would be a real possibility, as would ensuring there was a sufficient incentive for others to support the government in order to avert elections.

The same would be true of the Tories, backbenchers fearfully looking over their shoulder at a smattering of Ukip MPs. They might not allow Cameron and Nick Clegg another rose garden, preferring instead to dare the Liberal Democrats to vote down tax cuts, a European referendum, welfare reform and other thwarted desires of the Tory backbenches.

Given such internal tensions, an unstable coalition might be a bad option for everyone.

If there is a hung parliament it is therefore possible that no coalition is formed at all and a minority government takes office, perhaps with promises of ‘confidence and supply’ backing from minor parties.

This government would face its first tests quickly, on the Queen’s speech, emergency budget, or autumn statement. A defeat at any of these and a no confidence vote would follow. Thanks to the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, if no alternative government could be formed in 14 days, new elections would be held.

There is another scenario, perhaps just as likely. A minority government, or a coalition with a slim majority, might choose to engineer an election, hoping to prove that it has achieved enough to deserve a bigger mandate, just as Wilson did.

In the past, a prime minister would simply ask for a dissolution, but fixed-term parliaments make this a more complex political calculation. Both main parties would need to approve an election, or the opposition must find it impossible to form a government, and an election comes by default.

So a Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition might be defeated by the Tories, the SNP and rebels, but a new Tory leader finds she cannot get a majority. New elections would then follow.

In such a chaotic political situation, appearing to be an effective, broad party of government could be the key to success.

It comes down to this: in the 1920s, 1950s and 1970s, hung parliaments and small majorities often meant frequent elections, until one party showed it was equal to the task of government and dominated for a generation.

If the election turns out to be a nailbiter, whether in a minority or coalition, the most important thing a Labour government can do is get early wins on the board to show it deserves a mandate to govern.

The first 100 days of the next parliament might well decide the next 10 years.

———————————

Hopi Sen is a contributing editor to Progress

———————————

Photo: BBC