The commentators unanimously predict a hung parliament after Thursday’s
general election. What happens next? Whatever the political uncertainties, the constitutional rules are clear. They are laid out in the
Cabinet Manual, published by the Cabinet Office in 2010, and designed to ensure both that the Queen’s government is carried on and that the Queen herself is not involved in the process.
The new parliament meets on May 18. Its first substantive business on May 27 is the Queen’s Speech, in effect a vote of confidence in the government’s programme. The key issue, then, is not which is the largest party — but which party commands the support of the Commons.
David Cameron, even if he does not win a majority, might nevertheless want to meet parliament as the Conservatives did in 1924. The Cabinet Manual, however, points out that a government is “expected to resign if it becomes clear that it is unlikely to be able to command that confidence and there is a clear alternative”. That clear alternative would presumably be a Labour minority government.
Even so, Mr Cameron might seek to prove to the country that Labour can only govern with the aid of the Scottish National party. Lord Salisbury did the same in 1892 to show that the Liberals could only govern with the aid of the Irish nationalists. The danger with such a tactic is that, by treating MPs from the “Celtic fringe” as lepers, it could encourage the very separatist tendencies that
Unionists deplore.
Labour would presumably put down an amendment pointing out that “Your Majesty’s present advisers have not the confidence of this House”, the wording of its successful amendment in 1924.
Were the government to be defeated on such an amendment, it would have to resign and Mr Miliband would be asked to form a government. It would be up to him whether to negotiate with another party or parties for a coalition or agreement before meeting parliament.
The Queen would play no part in such negotiations. In 2010, she stayed in Windsor while coalition discussions continued and so could not be accused of interference. It is for the political leaders, not the Queen, to resolve the matter. The Queen then endorses the decisions they have reached.
There need not, with a change of government, be a second Queen’s Speech. In 1924, the new government’s programme was discussed in an adjournment debate without a vote. Today, a vote would probably have to be taken, and the new government might publish a command paper outlining its policies.
A minority government after the election might wish, as Harold Wilson did in 1974, to go to the country rapidly to seek a majority. But the Fixed Term Parliaments Act of 2011 prevents an early dissolution unless either two-thirds of MPs vote for it, or it proves impossible, following a successful no-confidence vote, to form a new government within 14 days.
Were a Miliband government to be defeated in a no-confidence vote, it would be unlikely that a new government could be formed, since the Conservatives would already have resigned or been defeated in the Queen’s Speech. So a dissolution would follow.
There is, however, a crucial difference between the situation today and that in 1974. Then it was believed that a hung parliament was an aberration and that there would be a rapid return to majority government. Labour did indeed scrape home in the second election of 1974 with an overall majority of three.
Today, however, there is no reason to believe that a second election would yield a notably different outcome. Perhaps the multi-party system — five parties in England, six in Scotland and Wales — is not an aberration but a permanent feature of the landscape, reflecting a fundamental change in our political culture.
If that is so, our institutions, including the first past the post electoral system, will have to accommodate themselves to that transformation and the Cabinet Manual will have to be rewritten.
