There is a strange bit of spin being put out by the Tories that a hung parliament with a large number of Lib Dem MPs returned would mean Gordon Brown remaining as Prime Minister. Well, they would say that, wouldn’t they? This assumes that somehow the Liberal Democrats who clenched their teeth throughout 13 years of Labour violation of civil liberties, corruption, and senseless war, are suddenly going to fly to Brown’s rescue. That’s playing fast and loose with the facts.
For a good precedent, look no further than the last hung parliament in 1974, when Ted Heath’s Tories won over 200,000 votes more than Labour under Harold Wilson, but Labour won 4 seats more than the Tories. It’s sometimes pointed out that (with almost Brownite self-delusion) Heath refused to immediately resign, and didn’t move out of Downing Street on the day after the election, 1 March 1974.
But in fact the Prime Minister still resigned on 4 March – three days later. The rationale after the election was “We don’t yet know who’s won this election, but we know who’s lost it.” Even if Labour were still the largest party, if Gordon Brown were to squander a majority of over 60, then it may take a few days for the post-election dust to settle, but he would still have lost the confidence which he previously had some tenuous claim to, and he would have no choice but to resign.
If you want to go back further, you could cite the two previous hung parliaments of 1923 and 1929. In both cases, an incumbent Conservative government had lost its majority, but remained the largest party, and clung on for a month until its King’s Speech was defeated on the first reading. Labour, as the second largest party, then took office as a minority government. Both of these cases underlined the total futility of such attempts to hold on to power by your fingernails. And Brown is very familiar with both precedents – he wrote a PhD thesis and biography of 1920s Labour MP James Maxton. The idea that he might try to cling on without the support of his own party by citing a 1920s Conservative precedent which ended in failure seems laughable.
As for the scare stories on the effect of uncertainty on financial markets, this is largely irrelevant given the timetable as it stands. The full results won’t be known until Friday afternoon, and the markets will be closed over the weekend. By the time they re-open on Monday 10 May, four days after the election, the new environment should be plain for all to see.
If anything, this spells out the urgent need for fixed term parliaments with fixed transition periods, and the folly of expecting new ministers to all be at their desks when they’re still exhausted from the campaign trail – but for the immediate purpose of bringing down the Brown government, the weekend is more than enough time.
So don’t let this lie go unchallenged on the doorstep. Liberals haven’t endured the taunts of the other parties for so long, simply to prop up either Labour or the Tories at the first opportunity.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Lib Dems successful in tricky by-election defence
Pope Leo speaks for all liberals when he condemns racism, supports migration, and supports Ukraine
Growing Asylum backlog undermines Government's case
Brechtian television: Leo McKern in Galileo (1964)
Conference booked
Suzanne Fletcher
Geoff Reid
Christopher Haigh
Gordon Lishman
Simon McGrath
20 Comments
I don’t think he has to resign. Our constitution is just made up as people go along, after all. In the event of a rather messy result, with both Tories and Labour some distance from a majority, I think he has every right to get the first try to govern.
What is more likely to do for him, though, is that if there is any sense in Cowley Street, they will say they will not countenance any form of coalition or confidence and supply agreement if Gordon Brown is the Prime Minister. And why would they: I agree with your logic, he would have just been heavily rejected at the ballot box. Mandates are as much personal as they are party.
And then he may have to resign anyway.
Same outcome, different route.
Sorry, but I think the constitutional position is clear enough.
Brown will remain prime minister until he resigns (or is dismissed by the Queen – but obviously that would happen only in exceptional circumstances).
Clearly if there’s a hung parliament there will be negotiations between the parties to try to arrive at some arrangement whereby a viable government can be formed. If Brown can’t make an arrangement that will enable him to survive a vote of no confidence, then he will have to resign, but not until then.
It is imperative that we act in a way that will preserve effective government in the event of a hung parliament, and that we convince the British public that we will do so.
The way we can do that is to reiterate the position as AASt describes it, and indeed to firm up on it. If there is a hung parliament, then while negotiations proceed, we will support the continuation of Brown’s government, on a purely interim basis, and subject to an interim timescale. This will ensure an orderly transition from the old government to a new government, without the risk of an interregnum which might upset the financial markets.
In realpolitik terms, he has until somebody calls for a confidence vote in the House. Clegg probably won’t do that, but Cameron will do it as fast as he can get the ink dry. I can’t see Clegg whipping the vote in favour of Brown (would probably leave it to the individual MPs to decide), and I can’t see the Lib Dem backbenchers ever supporting Brown on their own, after the last year.
“In realpolitik terms, he has until somebody calls for a confidence vote in the House. Clegg probably won’t do that, but Cameron will do it as fast as he can get the ink dry.”
No one will be able to do it until about a fortnight after the election, because Parliament isn’t going to reconvene until 18 May.
OK, this is the constitutional position.
The Queen must ask the person most likely to secure the confidence of a majority of the House of Commons to form a government.
The incumbent Prime Minister does not have to resign unless he is voted out on a motion of no confidence; the PM therefore get first dibs at seeing that he can command such confidence, ahead of having to meet parliament. I repeat, whatever the result, bar either us or the Tories getting an outright majority, he gets to try and form a government first. Which is exactly what happened in 1974 with Heath.
If he can’t, he still can’t resign until it is clear than someone else can command the confidence of the HoC; he is not allowed to leave the Queen adrift and in danger having to get involved in politics. Look at the recent Tasmanian elections to see that little convention at work!
Whilst all the parties are talking to each other, then as now in the period leading up to polling day, the PM will lead a caretaker government subject to the same rules as the current ‘purdah’. There’s no need to vote or for parliament to agree it, or for any party to think whether they want to support it, that’s the law.
This has been anticipated by Gus O’Donnell and he has draft Chapter 6 of his new Cabinet Manual to set out clearly all the conventions of a hung parliament – You can see the draft here:
http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/newsroom/news_stories/100224-election.aspx
You an also read the Justice Select Committee evidence on what happened in ’74 and what is going to happen this time here (it’s very interesting):
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmjust/396/39602.htm
And for a very good summary on what the implications for government and constitutional reform in the event of a hung parliament (plus some excellent myth busting) you could do worse than look at the Hansard Society publications ‘Who Govern?’ here:
http://www.hansardsociety.org.uk/blogs/publications/archive/2010/03/10/who-governs-forming-a-coalition-or-a-minority-government-in-the-event-of-a-hung-parliament.aspx
Seth, you are wrong in your reasons for Heath’s resignation. He did not resign because he felt that he had ‘lost’ the election, he resigned because he failed to get agreement from the Liberals to support a Tory Govt (he only offered a Speakers Conference on electoral reform). Indeed, Thorpe was all for taking a ministerial appointment but the rest of the PP wouldn’t let him. He then went to the Queen, resigned and and advised her to ask Wilson to form a government.
“OK, this is the constitutional position.
The Queen must …
Hmm. I think you’ll find that the word “must” is not to be used to princes.
Heath invited Thorpe to Downing St for two fire-side chats. However, the sums didnt add up – all the Tories, plus all the Liberals, were still short of a majority, from memory about three. That was one stumbling block. The other was that over the Sunday lunch with the Parliamentary Party at Lord Byers pad, it was clear that the MPs couldnt support someone who had gone to the country to seek a mandate “who governs, us or the unions” and lost that argument. Voters said “well not you mate, and, for that matter, not the unions either.”
In the first 90 minute chat, it was supposed to be all about “demands” and how it would work out with various offers, in fact, PR and voting reform was dealt with in the first 20 minutes, the rest of the time, Heath wanted Thorpe to know under strict Privy Council terms that the country was broke, and that if they did a deal, the Con-Lib Govt. would have to go cap in hand to the IMF for a bail-out. As it happened, Wilson took over and it was two years before Healey took that famous plane trip to the IMF for a loan (which Heath had forseen as inevitable). So, financial meltdowns under the Tories happen as much as they do under Labour.
Sadly, David Steel, who had rushed to London after hearing on the World at One that “Chief Whip David Steel is rushing to London” (he wasn’t doing any such thing, he was peeling potatoes in his kitchen with Judy preparing for lunch, but said “if Im supposed to be rushing to London, I might as well do so”) had hoped to be in on the talks, as it would be useful, he thought, if Thorpe had a witness to any offers. Alas, they pulled up at the back door of Downing St in Thorpe’s black Humber, and the security bods saw Steel at the wheel, and thought he was “just Thorpe’s driver” and so didn’t invite him in…he sat in the car for the 90 minutes waiting in the rain.
When the time came to blow Heath the raspberry, Thorpe sent Judy Young (no relation), in her one-litre Mini Mayfair, to Downing St to hand in a letter saying “no dice”.
P.Y.
Something else, which has just come back to me after I filed the above, the stuff about the dire straits of the economy were never leaked, or revealed to anyone, by Thorpe. He had been told by Heath to keep it under his Homburg, which he did. Not even over the lunch with the MPs, who pressed him hard with Pardoe “C’mon then, what did he really say” ever finding out what Heath said.
Heath wondered if cross-party agreement could be reached to go to the IMF, and Thorpe said “of course, we are all in this together” – but Heath was pessimistic, and reckoned Labour wouldn’t play ball and would exploit it for all it was worth. Only until a couple of months ago has it come out what the full content of those talks were really all about, as the Cabinet Secretary had taken a minute of the meeting, which was included “by mistake” in the release of some papers under the 30 year rule. Brown probably regarded all this as fascinating and the fact that the Tories were in dead financial trouble, it probably appealed to him to have the Minutes released “in error”.
It was a fascinating time to be working as the Party Press Secretary. Over an omelette and chips with Archy Kirkwood, there was much to natter about that weekend.
I think both the Labour and Conservative parties will be looking for a new leader come May 7th.
Seth is right in his analysis when he says that Gordon Brown will stuggle to hold onto the leadership of a third placed Labour party. Labour is not short of ambitious men and women who rightly or wrongly believe that they would make a more effective leader than Brown. They were out to get him when Labour were 6 points behind in the polls – can you imagine what they will do if they come in third?
Likewise, the Tories are not adverse to “bumping off” a failed leader (or even one that won them three elections). With the 2010 election being long seen as the Conservatives best chance in 18 years, I would not be at all surprised if the long knifes were out for David Cameron should he fail to secure a majority.
Interesting times…
Sorry to interrupt your cosy chat, but could we get back to the first paragraph of the blog. :
“There is a strange bit of spin being put out by the Tories that a hung parliament with a large number of Lib Dem MPs returned would mean Gordon Brown remaining as Prime Minister. Well, they would say that, wouldn’t they? This assumes that somehow the Liberal Democrats who clenched their teeth throughout 13 years of Labour violation of civil liberties, corruption, and senseless war, are suddenly going to fly to Brown’s rescue. That’s playing fast and loose with the facts.”
The implication of all of the above seems to be that your party is prepared to wait until the outcome of the election instead of making a stand, now, and saying that they would not countenance a working relationship with labour. Forget Brown, he’s just a symptom of the (your words) violation of civil liberties, corruption, and senseless war,
None of the above seems to invalidate the “strange conservative spin”. If the Lib Dems think they can play real politik rather than principle, they’ve just lost my vote
PB: Well, nice of you to drop in, put the kettle on for a mug of Horlicks, as that’s settled that one. Except there is no reason to actually come and out and say “we dont like Brown so wont be doing much talking when he rings up” given we are doing ok right now, but, you’re thinking what we’ve all been thinking.
Now, where do I post the membership-form and subscription form for Lib Dem News?
Clegg has done a fantastic job for the Liberal Democrats in this election, because he is sane, presentable and puts his case well. Pity I could never vote for a party which would give an amnesty to illegal immigrants and sacrifice what is left of our sovereignty to Euroland, in particular by sugning us up for the Euro.
As it happens, the Tories weren’t the largest party in 1929, Labour was. In any case, looking for political precedent from elections held in the 1920s is a pretty hopeless bet. Events, media-driven, move much faster now.
I think its very smart of the Tories to suggest that an alliance would be done between Gordon Brown and Nick Clegg. A huge majority of the population will not consider another GB government so its really an open goal.
Incidentally as a person who is more likely to vote Tory, but who has been swayed by the idea of a strong LibDem party and the annihilation of the utterly corrupt Labour party I would welcome a statement from Nick Clegg saying that he would not countenance any coalition with Labour.
First let me make it clear that I am not a Lib Dem – I will be voting Green. Re the posts requesting that the Lib Dems make it clear now that they will not go into any coalition with Labour – get real! If they do this, then what are their options, assuming a hung parliament in which Lab or Con cannot get a majority together with any of the smaller parties, e.g. Nationalists, Norhtern Ireland MPs, or the Greens possible one MP? Although there could be a minority Lab or Con government, the national (or press) debate at the moment is so unsophisticated that for the Lib Dems to say they would not go into coalition with Lab would be seen as saying that a hung parliament means a Con-Lib Dem coalition. If you were Lib Dem leader, would you say that now? We are unused to hung parliaments and three-party politics, so fail to realise how it must work; you wait and see what the maths comes out like, and then see if you can do a deal on issues that really matter to you. Clegg has to side with the largest party – assuming it is obvious that one party has more support then the other, as Lab could get fewer votes than Con but more seats. Perhaps in a proportional system – please can we have one at last! – some parties may be able to make provisional deals ahead of the election and be up-front about that. Apparently Darren Johnson said that if there were Green MPs this time they would not do a deal with the Tories (may have got the exact wording wrong here), but they only really have three target seats and would be very lucky to end up with more than one MP, so they do not have to consider this quite as carefully as the LIb Dems.
It is a shame Nick isn’t sticking to his four policies in a hung parliament and has now started to add other conditions and discuss different hyperthetical situations. Dangerous sounds of chickens being counted before the eggs have hatched.
What if on May 7th the choice is either let Cameron form a minority Government or do deal with Labour ?
The Lib Dems wouldn’t let another party tell us who should be leader, so neither should we tell them.
It would be fairly obvious to everyone that Gordon Brown would have to go soon. He might stay on as PM until Labour has had a leadership election – would that be too bad ?
Labour could still get a deal with the Nationalist and other minor parties, as could Cameron – lok at the SNP-Tory alliance in Hollyrood. It would suit them both, a Tory Government being a spur to independence or removing scottish MPs from most house of commons votes.
“What is more likely to do for him, though, is that if there is any sense in Cowley Street, they will say they will not countenance any form of coalition or confidence and supply agreement if Gordon Brown is the Prime Minister.”
Actually they should say that NOW. At the moment the message on coalitions is very confused. It’s obviously all fun to outmaneuver the Tories by talking about coalition but many of the Labour voters we’ve acquired (and indeed, a fair number of firm LibDem supporters such as myself) are overwhelmingly opposed to the mere hint of a coalition with the Tories. Whilst I agree with the democratic mandate point Clegg had been making it just seems intrinsically more plausible that we could make meaningful policy with the progressive elements in Labour than with the anti-authoritarians/centralists in the conservatives. The line should not be ‘I won’t prop up Labour’ (which may happen if the Tories get the plurality but refuse to budge on key manifesto policies) but ‘I won’t prop up Gordon Brown’.
Hopefully it won’t be an issue because he’ll do the decent thing and voluntarily stand down. With any luck the election will get rid of Balls. A Labour party led by one or other of the Millibands is probably something we could work with.
“In realpolitik terms, he has until somebody calls for a confidence vote in the House. Clegg probably won’t do that, but Cameron will do it as fast as he can get the ink dry.” – I think one way to interpret Seth’s question is ‘should we vote ‘yes’ on a no confidence motion. The answer is yes we should. Or if a general election is the automatic consequence of such a vote, we ought to make it clear enough that we will so as to make him take the decision to stand down himself.
Either way, there should be no Gordon Brown MP by the end of may. Wouldn’t be at all opposed to Lord Brown or Kirkaldy however (unlike Lord Blair); he’s not a bad man, he just shouldn’t be Prime Minister.
Richard Marriott:
“Pity I could never vote for a party which would give an amnesty to illegal immigrants and sacrifice what is left of our sovereignty to Euroland,”
But you are quite happy to vote for a party that that takes its orders from Washington, even to the extent of sacrificing British lives in an illegal war fought to further enrich and aggrandise the US military-industrial-petrochemical complex?
Duncan wrote:
“he’s not a bad man, ”
Really? He supported Cheney’s illegal war in Iraq.
BTW, how many of these posters saying they like X about us but are not going to vote for us because of Y are trolls put up by Conservative Central Office to destabilise us on the hung Parliament issue?