Britain hasn’t just survived minority governments – it has thrived under them
|
Version 0 of 1. Three broad themes have stood out from the chatter of the election campaign. The most obvious has to do with the role of the SNP. The tacit assumption of much supposedly impartial comment – and the open assumption of the Conservative party, and even to some degree of Labour – is that it would be outrageous for a minority Labour government to depend on SNP votes and to “deal” with or even talk to the SNP bloc in the Commons. The second theme concerns the supposedly vexed question of whether votes or seats should determine which party leader gets the first chance to form a government in a hung parliament. The third is the assumption that minority governments are bound to be weak, unstable and condemned to live hand-to-mouth. Astonishingly, virtually no one has bothered to examine the precedents. It is as if these questions have never been faced before. Yet nothing could be further from the truth. True, hung parliaments and minority governments have been the exception rather than the rule in 20th- and 21st-century Britain, but it is a significant exception. The Asquith governments of 1910-15 were minority governments; so were the Labour governments of 1924 and 1929-31; so were Harold Wilson’s government of February-October 1974, and James Callaghan’s from 1977 to 1979. These governments were not all weak and ineffective, or held to ransom by other parties. The Asquith governments of 1910 to 1915 were among the most decisive and creative in British history. They passed the Parliament Act, which ended the Lords’ absolute veto on legislation and replaced it with a suspensory veto; they carried through David Lloyd George’s National Insurance Act of 1911, the first big step towards the creation of the welfare state; they introduced payment for members of the House of Commons; they passed an Irish Home Rule Act in the teeth of hysterical opposition from the Conservatives; and they led a united nation into war in 1914. The minority Labour government of 1924 achieved a modest success in domestic policy: an act helping local authorities to build more social housing. More spectacularly, it played a crucial part in settling an international crisis over German reparations that had led to French occupation of the Ruhr. The 1929-31 minority Labour government was driven off course by the onset of the Great Depression, but even so it secured a naval disarmament treaty restricting submarine building and halting battleship construction. The Asquith governments of 1910 to 1915 were among the most decisive and creative in British history And though the minority Labour government of February-October 1974 was a disaster, its successor achieved a notable coup in securing a modest change in the terms of British entry to the then European Economic Community, followed by a referendum that yielded a crushing two-to-one majority for continued membership. As for the supposedly vexed question of whether votes or seats should determine which party leader has first try at forming a government, the record is utterly clear: the question is not vexed. The precedents are as obvious as they could possibly be. The sitting prime minister is still prime minister after the election. He may decide to face the new House of Commons and see if he can command a majority, or he may resign straight away. In the 1924 parliament, the Conservatives were the largest party; Stanley Baldwin as prime minister put forward a King’s speech, as he had both a right and a duty to do. In the vote on the address, Labour and Liberal joined forces to defeat him. The king then sent for Ramsay MacDonald, the leader of the second largest party, who duly formed a minority government which lasted about eight months. In the hung parliament of 1929, Labour was easily the largest party in the Commons, though slightly behind the Conservatives in votes. This time Baldwin resigned forthwith, and MacDonald became prime minister. In February 1974, the Labour party had four more seats than the Conservatives, but fewer votes; a ham-fisted attempt by Edward Heath, the Conservative leader, to form a coalition with the Liberals got nowhere, and Wilson became prime minister. In October 1974 Labour had a minuscule majority in seats and a higher vote share than the Tories. It lost its majority soon afterwards, but contrived to stay in office until 1979. Provided a prime minister can command a majority in Commons, party vote shares in the election are irrelevant The moral is self-evident. If the Conservatives are the largest party tomorrow morning, Cameron has an undoubted right to stay in office until the state opening of parliament on 27 May and to put forward a Queen’s speech. If Labour, the SNP and assorted lesser parties combine to defeat him, the Queen will be duty bound to send for Miliband, who will presumably be leader of the next largest party. But if Labour is the largest party, the Queen will have to send for Miliband forthwith. In that case, it will be for him and his cabinet colleagues to draw up a Queen’s speech and see what happens. In both cases the SNP, as the probable third party, will hold the balance. If the SNP votes with Labour, as Nicola Sturgeon has declared it will, a Labour government is more probable than not. The notion that it would be illegitimate for a minority Labour government to depend on the SNP to hold office is simply wrong. The minority Asquith governments depended on the Irish Home Rule party to stay in office for four productive years; though outraged Unionists insisted that it was illegitimate, they proceeded on their way, in accordance with the parliamentary arithmetic. Arcane and usually self-interested talk of legitimacy is, in fact, beside the point. The UK is a parliamentary democracy, not a plebiscitary one; the prime minister has to command a majority in the House of Commons. Provided he or she can do so, party vote shares in the preceding election are irrelevant. Since laws have to be passed by parliament, party strength in the House of Commons is what matters; that would still be true, even in a proportional electoral system. Equally, the people of every nation in the kingdom are entitled to decide who should represent them in its parliament. Related: What happens if no one wins the election? If the Scottish people wish to elect SNP members of parliament, that is their right. And once elected, Scottish nationalist MPs are entitled to play as full a part in the work of the House of Commons as all other MPs. To say that, because their ultimate aim is an independent Scotland, their votes should not count in determining which party should form a government is to say that Scotland is not fully part of the UK. It is hard to think of a better way to convince the Scots that they would be better off outside the union. It is worth remembering that hysterical Conservative opposition to home rule for Ireland gave a huge boost to the hardline nationalism of Sinn Féin, paving the way for the secession of the 26 counties of southern Ireland from the United Kingdom. |