American here, trying to understand implications of the British general election. None of the three major parties got a majority (in the House of Commons), so there is talk of the first-place Conservatives forming a coalition with the third-place Liberal-Democrats. (It looks like about seven other parties also won a few seats, or a seat.) Based on what little I know of policy differences among the parties, this sounds unlikely, or at least difficult. The other alternative I’ve heard mentioned is the Conservatives “governing as a minority party.”
How exactly does that work? How can there be a “government” formed without the participation of sufficient MPs (of various parties, if necessary) to constitute a majority? How is a Prime Minister selected in such circumstances?
The February 1974 election resulted in a hung parliament in which the incumbent Conservative Party was the second-highest seat winner, after Labour. Ted Heath was the incumbent prime minister and entitled to have first crack at forming a government. He attempted to form a coalition with the Liberal Party. When this failed, Heath resigned and the Queen asked Harold Wilson, leader of the Labour Party, to form a government. Wilson duly did, even though Labour did not have an overall majority nor did they form any coalition with any other party. They operated as a minority government, wheeling and dealing on every vote.
In October 1974 there was another general election in which Wilson managed to get an overall majority of just 3 seats.
The PM is selected by the Queen, and (broadly speaking) she will choose someone who will not lose votes of confidence in the lower house. So if the leader of a minority party can say that enough MPs have undertaken to support him or her in votes of confidence, even without being part of a majority coalition, then HM should appoint that leader as PM. So, if Nick Clegg and the Lib-Dems said that they would support the Tory leader or the Labour leader as PM, perhaps in exchange for the government supporting a few of their ideas for legislation, that could be a viable arrangement.
She doesn’t select anything. The politicans figure it out between themselves and then tell her who to “invite” to form a government. At no point does she make a decision; it’s a ceremonial role.
It’s not preposterous. It’s exactly what happens. However, her choice is very narrowly circumscribed, because her choice must control majority in the House of Commons. So, 99% of the time she has Hobson’s choice. In 2005 she had to choose Tony Blair, because he was the leader of the Labour Party, and Labour had a majority in the House of Commons.
But, in legal theory, she could choose anyone – even someone not a member of the Parliament. (The last non-member was, I think, Alec Douglas-Home, and he got elected very quickly to a safe Tory seat). She could even choose me. However of course, as soon as everyone stopped laughing, the party leaders would move as soon as possible in the House of Commons a motion, “That this House has no confidence in the government of the Right Honourable Giles.”
In these circumstances, the government can be formed without the governing party haveing a majority - the phrase that is usually used is that the Prime Minister “Must command a majority in the Commons”, rather than the Prime Minister’s party must have a majority in the Commons.
In other words, the PM and his party are in the minority, but if the PM can work out deals with the other parties, the party forms a government. Those sorts of deals can amount to a formal coalition, but that tends to be rare in the U.K. More likely, the party that forms the government will seek to get enough assurances from opposition parties to get its budget and legislative agenda through - but that normally means giving something to the opposition in return, such as spending policies or particular legislative initiatives.
However, it depends a lot on the politics of the day. Here in Canada, we’ve had minority governments since 2004: PM Martin and the Liberals, 2004-2006, and PM Harper and the Conservatives, 2006-2008, 2008 to present. One of the factors that plays into the politics of minority governments is that they only stay in power so long as the Opposition thinks they can’t win the election. But if the Opposition thinks they might win, they’re more likely to vote down the government to force an election.
For various complicated factors, the Canadian political scene is stalemated, and has been for the past 6 years. Neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives have been able to move decisively in the polls - they’re both hovering in a range between the high-20s, mid-30s. In that case, neither party wants to force an election, because they don’t see any benefit to them.
One way I heard this put, which I report for the tongue-in-cheek humor in it, is that the Queen is always entitled to select her P.M. from a list of men who can command the support of a majority of the House of Commons – and normally that list has only one name on it.
In the recent Tasmanian (state) election was called by Labor Premier David Bartlett on 20th March. Pre-election both Bartlett and Liberal leader Will Hodgman gave undertakings that they would not enter into coalition deals with the Greens. In Tasmania the relationship between the Greens and Labor is a whole lot less cozy than in the rest of Australia.
Bartlett had also pledged that the party that won the most seats or the most votes if equal would have the right to form a government
The result was very tight and the Liberals (Conservative) and Labor each won 10 seats with the Green winning 5. Liberals had the highest vote.
Greens leader Nick McKim stepped up as kingmaker offering deals with both majors
Bartlett and Hodgman agreed that, based on the pre-election undertakings that Hodgman had the right to form a ministry.
Accordingly Labor resigned from office and advised the Governor of Tasmania, Peter Underwood that Hodgman should be commissioned as Premier.
Underwood, after discussions with both parties recommissioned Bartlett on the grounds that 1) Bartlett did not have the right to promise power to Hodgman, and 2) that Hodgman was not in a position to form stable government.
So Underwood, who is QEII’s representative and appointee, did not act on the advise of the Premier. Would be interesting if QEII took the same view herself in the current situation.
I think the main part of the OP has been answered, the PM does not need an absolute majority in the Commons as long as they are not defeated in vote of confidence (normally on the budget). So it does not need a any formal agreement for the Conservatives to form a government, it just needs the Lib Dems to agree to abstain in votes of confidence. As Northern Piper say this can be because they don’t want another election rather than any positive feeling for their rivals!
On the other hand, a formal or semi-formal coalition between the Conservatives and Lib Dems is not impossible - there is a fair overlap in some of their policies and attitudes if you get away from trying to place them on some left/right spectrum or seeing them as liberals/conservatives in the American sense. In terms of dealing with the budget deficit they both want to reduce direct taxes (Conservatives by reducing National Insurance the Lib Dems by raising the income tax threshold) and all the parties would have to make major cuts in spending - whatever they say, the differences are on the margins.
Generally they are both less authoritarian and centralist than the current Labour Party. The major differences are on Europe, the nuclear deterrent, and - the big one - Proportional Representation. Europe and the Euro ( ! ) are not really a live issue - no one in their right mind wants to join the Euro at the moment and there are no major EU constitutional issues coming up at the moment. Replacing Trident can be parked - the Lib Dems are not actually calling for unilateral disarmament, just for a cut price system. Either way the major expenditure is not for years. PR is more difficult but not impossible.
The first try is to offer a committee of inquiry to make recommendation - effectively kicking it into the long grass. I can’t see the Lib Dems buying this one it is just too nebulous. It will be hard for them but the Conservatives do have a big incentive to give ground here. If they fail to make a deal and the Lib Dems cosy up to to Labour they will end up with PR (or at least a referendum) anyway. If they agreed to some sort of constitutional review/inquiry/convention followed by a referendum as the price of support they have a chance to control the agenda and steer the question to be put.
The Lib Dems also have an incentive to reach a deal. Whatever Labour supporters may say, not everyone who voted Lib Dem feels an affinity with Labour. Many people voted Lib Dem in a bid to get rid of Gordon Brown and Labour, a Lib/Lab coalition immediately drives these people back to the Tories with an added measure of contempt. (The Lib Dems have a problem in that in the north they present themselves as “not the Tories” while in the south they go for “not Labour” and pick and choose the policies they emphasise to suit.) At an election after a Lib/Lab coalition breaks down - as it would at some point - the “anyone but Labour” voters would have no choice but to move away from them.
The various commentators seem to assume that there is a natural “progressive” majority in the UK because if you add Labour and Lib Dem votes together you get to more than 50% but a PR system is a whole new ball game. I don’t think anyone can predict how it would eventually settle down.
She could, but she doesn’t; his “preposterous” wasn’t that she couldn’t, it was that she doesn’t and wouldn’t. She “invites” whoever she’s told* to “invite” to form a government.
*Read - advised, but advice that she will always take.
