³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Westminster's developing quite a fixation with the possibility of a hung Parliament - and the implications of having to construct some kind of governing arrangement between two or more parties. It's fuelled by a straight projection of some (not all) opinion polls onto the 2005 election results which, the number-crunchers (taking no account of local circumstances and campaigning) tell us, would mean no single party would have a majority.

Of course, it may well not happen. With at least a couple of months, a full election campaign, three party leaders' debates and "events, dear boy, events" between now and polling day, almost anything could happen. And I do find myself wishing that the polls told us more about what must surely be the considerable proportion of "don't knows" out there...

But since we have not had a hung Parliament in this country since February 1974, the prospect exerts a certain fascination on parliamentary nerds like me. So in the event of no one party winning a majority, what would happen? Would Gordon Brown continue as PM? Could the Queen invite David Cameron to have a go at constructing a majority? Could a controversial decision put the monarchy where it dreads to be, at the epicentre of political controversy? At what point or points would a coalition or minority government be tested in the House of Commons?

Helpfully,.....

The at the end of February, with Lord Butler and Lord Turnbull, who've both served in the top civil service job, as Secretary to the Cabinet. They gave MPs a kind of users' guide to the rules - there does not yet seem to be a transcript up on their website, but here are a couple of extracts:

Question: There is the circumstance under which the incumbent prime minister stays on, as it were, as chief adviser to the Sovereign, over and above his political imperative to form a government; but at what point does the leader of the next largest party get invited to be involved in the process or get invited to the palace?

Lord Turnbull: Only when the prime minister has concluded that he cannot form a government himself. I think we can take this one stage further: I do not think that in his role as adviser to the Sovereign he can simply go to the palace and say: "I cannot make it work; you will have to try someone else." I think it is incumbent upon the prime minister to present to the Sovereign an alternative arrangement which he believes is going to work and that has been agreed; in other words, it would be a dereliction of duty for the outgoing prime minister to leave a limbo in which the Queen has got to try and make a decision. The last thing you want is the Queen to be presented with trying something out which may not command political support. It has happened in her dominions and it has been controversial, but it would be most regrettable if it happened here.

Question: Does that mean that the leader of the next largest party following the result of the election, as it were, simply has to wait in the wings, or does the leader of the next largest party have any role in that particular process in your view?

Lord Turnbull: He may be arguing that he can form an administration, but I think it is clear that the incumbent prime minister in a sense has first refusal in this process. He can see whether he can find an arrangement that would produce support for himself and his party. This is what happened in 1974: even though Edward Heath was not the leader of the largest party he was the incumbent. Until that process had run its course, only then was the opportunity offered to the leader of the next party.

And here's another interesting bit....

Question: Is the letter to The Times in 1950 under a pseudonym Senex, which we now know is Alan Lascelles, a constitutional document that now guides us?
Lord Turnbull: In a strange way, it is, yes; people have accepted the logic of the arguments that he put forward.
Lord Butler: I think that things have moved on in this respect, as Lord Turnbull said. There is a factor which protects the Queen from having to get into that position of refusing the incumbent prime minister a further election; and that is there is evidence that the British people so dislike being taken to the polls that if they were forced to have another general election they would heavily punish the person they saw as responsible for it. I think it very unlikely in those circumstances that the prime minister would say, "May we have another general election, Ma'am?" and hope to do well in it. I do not think it is likely that in practice the Queen would these days be put in a position of having to refuse a general election.

Question: There may be other circumstances, to put a final scenario, that the incumbent prime minister does not look like he or she is going to be able to form a government, but it is not necessarily the case perhaps in the Sovereign's and others' opinions that the party of that incumbent prime minister might be able to form an administration. At that point the Sovereign might conceivably say, "Yes, perhaps someone could have a go from your party at forming an administration but it is not you, prime minister."
Lord Butler: Again, I do not think that the Sovereign ought to be put in that position, or would be put in that position. It would be the duty of the politicians to work it out, and of the incumbent prime minister to go to the Sovereign and say: "I do not think I can form a viable government in partnership with other parties, but it has been made clear to me that if there was another leader of my party it would be possible." I think in those circumstances the right course would be for the prime minister to stay on while the procedures for producing another leader went through, and until he could go to the Queen and say: "There is another leader. The other parties have indicated that they will support the party in those circumstances, and I advise you to send for that person." That might take three weeks or so. That is when you would get into the position of possibly quite a long delay.

Lord Turnbull: This would be hugely controversial. Supposing Labour had two more seats than the Conservatives, and the Liberals said: "We will form a government with you but not with your leader; you find another leader." What the Conservatives would be saying is: "Are you serious that this country should be led by someone who did not stand in the election as a potential prime minister, who was not tested in any of the debates, as opposed to someone who has gone through that process and is only two seats short and possibly has a lot more votes?" That particular example you have given of whether a leadership switch can be made is, I think, a very difficult one.

Question: Where would the Palace get its advice in this situation, from you or from whom?
Lord Turnbull: Our successor, I think is the answer. The palace can get advice from wherever it likes, but it should definitely include advice from the Cabinet Secretary.
Lord Butler: I think it is known that the palace does have other constitutional advice. As Lord Turnbull says, it can take advice from anybody."

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?