OPINION: British political leaders are struggling to come to terms with the prospect of a House of Commons in which no party commands a majority
THE LIBERAL Democrats have long wanted to be the kingmakers in British politics but now that they may well hold that position after the May 6th election, they are unsure what to do next.
Before running ahead with too many predictions, however, it is important to note that the Conservatives have strengthened their position in the last few days, particularly since last Thursday’s second television debate in Bristol.
Following the first debate, the Conservatives were mired at between 31 and 33 percentage points in a succession of polls. But seven polls taken over the weekend put them consistently between 34 and 36 points – not enough for Cameron, but a move in the right direction.
The vagaries of the first-past-the-post system used in the UK means that Labour could come third in vote share – and most opinion polls now put the party in that slot, yet still have the most seats in the Commons afterwards.
Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg said yesterday that such an outcome would be “a complete nonsense” and the British public would not put up with the idea of Gordon Brown “squatting in No 10” in such circumstances.
Up to now, he said, the party which gets the most seats and the most votes – be it Labour or the Conservatives, but without an absolute majority, “has got the right to seek to form the government”. But no single party might have both.
The prospect of Brown “squatting” is, and here one must tread cautiously, quite possible, as shown by an analysis of the latest YouGov poll which put the Conservatives on 35 points, the Liberal Democrats on 28 and Labour on 27.
If replicated on May 6th, this would leave Brown with 288 seats, well short of the 326 needed for a majority, but ahead of Conservative leader David Cameron with 255 and Clegg with 79 – up on his outgoing number of 62, but hardly an avalanche.
In 1974, Edward Heath won fractionally more of the vote than Labour’s Harold Wilson but four fewer seats. However, he gave up an attempt to form an administration within four days.
Undoubtedly, Brown, whose hunger for office surpasses anything shown by Heath, will do everything in his power to remain on and, of course, Labour could change the dynamic and get rid of him, regardless of their protestations now.
But the Liberal Democrats are divided on the Conservatives, as illustrated by former party leader Paddy Ashdown, who said: “Nick Clegg cannot work with David Cameron. We could not go into a coalition with the Tories, it wouldn’t work.” Brown, needing to shore up his position, offered a form of electoral reform to the Liberal Democrats weeks ago but his new-found conversion is treated with derision by Clegg who has little time for the Labour leader anyway.
The difficulty for Clegg is that Labour’s offer, however anaemic, is more than what is on the table from the Conservative leader who clings to his preference for the first-past-the-post system.
Cameron says it is best because it produces majority governments and offers voters the most definitive means to throw one party out entirely in favour of another – though clearly there is a good chance that it could fail both tests in 2010.
Clegg must be careful since he will get only one chance of serious change and he only has to look across the Irish Sea – if he has ever done so – to see that the future for small parties in coalitions is hardly guaranteed.
Given his serious dislike of Brown, he would not be inclined to do business with him in any event and by doing so would run the risk of facing the wrath of voters in the way experienced by Dick Spring after he saved Fianna Fáil’s Albert Reynolds in 1992.
If the result leaves Clegg with the decisive hand, he could opt for coalition with either the Conservatives or Labour, or opt to back one of them from the outside in return for guarantees on policy changes.
Both courses are fraught with danger. A coalition pact with either would have to be supported by his newly elected MPs and by the party’s federal conference by means that have not yet been entirely worked through.
Support for a minority government leaves the Liberals exposed because voters, no matter how much they desire change, may rapidly cool on the idea if such an administration causes tremors over interest rates and sterling.
However, suppose for a moment that Clegg agreed to support a minority Cameron government in return for a promise, among other things, of a referendum to end the first-past-the-post system.
Firstly, Cameron does not want to honour it. Secondly, he would have an incentive to play for time over the referendum’s preparation and to go to the country if and when he thought he could get a majority, leaving the Liberals foundering.
The only conceivable way around it would be to set down a fixed-term for the life of a parliament, but it is difficult to see how this could be done after an election when all involved had not promised to do so beforehand.
Brown has already said he would do it, if re-elected and Cameron has limited himself to saying that he would “seriously consider” it, but he has always added the caveat “when there is a majority government”.
However, if Cameron does not get a majority on May 6th he badly needs to get power. The Conservative Party is, as has been said, “an autocracy tempered by assassination” and Cameron’s own survival will be in doubt if he does not. The seeds of difficulties are already present. Much of the reforms imposed by Cameron on the party have been superficial and its old instincts remain strong, if relatively quiescent for now.
In addition, there is bitterness at the way he, George Osborne, and a handful of paid advisers have controlled affairs with little more than a token nod to backbenchers.
However, one thing is clear: the UK may or may not end up with a hung parliament this time round but it is inevitable that the existing voting rules will leave it in such a predicament at some time in the future.
In 1983 the Liberal/SDP Alliance won 26 per cent of the vote but took just 23 seats. In 2005 the Liberal Democrats won three points less of voting share yet won 63 seats, while one in seven MPs in the last parliament represented parties other than Conservative or Labour. The change is partly explained by the way in which the Liberal Democrat vote became concentrated in regional heartlands in the southwest of England, the Scottish Highlands and elsewhere.
Just as importantly, the number of real battleground seats – excluding those held by other parties – where Labour and the Conservatives seriously contend for the top spot has reduced by a third since the 1950s.
“The fewer seats that readily change hands as a result of a small swing of the national pendulum, the less likely it is that first-past-the-post will deliver a majority to whoever comes first,” says Prof John Curtice of Strathclyde University.
In addition, constituencies are still based on the outdated 2001 census, although they were redrawn after 2005. British politicians are playing on a pitch which has changed under their feet.
Mark Hennessy is London Editor