I’ve been posting diaries on the UK elections for the past 3 weeks or so, and as time has gone on, it has become more and more likely that no single party will win a majority of seats in the House of Commons. That is what is meant by a "hung parliament." These are quite common in other nations that use more equitable voting systems, but they arise rarely in the UK. Consequently, there isn’t a lot of precedent to follow, and since Britain doesn’t have a written constitution, a hung parliament creates a messy situation. And at the core of that mess is Her Majesty Elizabeth II. What follows is my semi-informed explanation (no one has an informed one) of what happens if nobody has a majority after all the votes are counted.
First off, the monarch in the UK is head of state, and in theory, she appoints and dismisses the prime minister, approves legislation or not, and commands the armed forces. In practice, she poses for bank notes and stamps, reads to the Commonwealth on Christmas afternoon, and otherwise plays with her Corgis at Windsor and Balmoral while wondering why her children are such f*ck-ups. If you have spotted me as favoring the abolishing of the monarchy, well done. It’s not just that the Windsors are a rather awful middle-class German family (descended from that Wee German Lairdy George I), but because the institution is simply ridiculous. Three cheers for the Federal Republic of Britain!
But I digress. Usually when the votes are counted and one party has a majority of seats, the leader of that party is summoned to Buckingham Palace to kiss hands. Now, the party leader doesn’t actually kiss the Queen’s hands, but the Brits have their own vocabulary in politics (and much else). This simply means that the person in question is asked to form a government (that is, populate the top tier of the executive bureaucracy with other Members of Parliament), and since that individual commands a majority in the House of Commons, it’s a formality.
Presuming a hung parliament, the issue for HM is whom does she call? Does she pick the party that won the most seats? Or does she call on the party that got the most popular votes? Remember, some models are showing that Labour could finish third in the popular vote but have the most seats. Let’s look at the precedent.
Leaving aside those occasions when a government lost its majority through defections and by-election loses (which happened to Labour in 1977-79 and the Tories before the 1997 election), we come to 1974. In February of that year, Labour got 250,000 fewer votes than the Tories but with 301 MPs they had four seats more than the Conservatives. The incumbent Conservative Prime Minister Ted Heath tried to put together a government by talking to the Liberals (who had only 14 seats) and various Northern Irish Unionist parties. He failed and resigned the Monday after the election (the Brits traditionally vote on Thursdays) making way for Harold Wilson’s Labour Party to form a minority government. In October 1974, Mr. Wilson called an election (the PM can call an election whenever s/he wants, with one or two exceptions) and won a majority of 3 seats.
In the UK, there is a part of the governmental bureaucracy called the Cabinet Office. Composed of civil servants, it exists (according to Wikipedia) to: "support the Prime Minister - to define and deliver government objectives. Support the Cabinet - to co-ordinate the coherence, quality and delivery of operations and policy. Strengthen the Civil Service - to ensure it is organised effectively and has the capability to deliver the government’s objectives."
As part of that brief, the Cabinet Office published a convention on the formation of governments back in February that makes public the tacit understandings among politicians and civil servants as to what happens. The entire point is to insulate the Queen from having to make a decision that injects her into electoral politics (which might result in more republicans like me). As in 1974, the incumbent PM gets first crack at it, followed by the leader of the opposition (David Cameron in this case) if he fails.
Realizing that this time around, things might be a bit tricky, the Cabinet Office and others in the permanent government of Britain (that is the administrators of policy) have put back the opening of the new Parliament by a week, to allow extra time for negotiations. Eventually, Nick Clegg of the Liberal Democrats will signal to the Cabinet Secretary (boss of the Cabinet Office), or someone of equal stature, whom his party will back and whether it will be a formal coalition or simply tacit support of a minority government. Only at that point will HM the Queen call anyone to Buckingham Palace.
Think you understand all this so far? Good, because now I’m going to make it more complicated. Mr. Clegg can’t just decide this matter on his own. Naturally, he has to consult with his advisors and other leading LibDem politicians. And he has to ask the members of his party for their support (Article 6.11 and Article 8.6 of the Liberal Democrats’ Constitution – yes, I have always been interested in this kind of thing, and yes, I DID SO have a girlfriend before I turned 30!)
In all likelihood, Mr. Clegg will make a deal with either Mr. Brown or Mr. Cameron and then ask his party to ratify that. I doubt it will be hotly contested as it will be the biggest chunk of power the party has had in ages. However, he will have to have every dues paying member of the LibDems vote -- which should keep things interesting a few extra days while the postal ballots come in.
Now, I have to dash as the second debate among Messrs. Brown, Cameron and Clegg is about to start. You can catch it on Skynews.com, BBC World and any Sky News TV station. It starts at 8.00 pm British Summer Time (which is 7.00 pm GMT, 3.00 pm Eastern, 2.00 pm Central, 1.00 pm Mountain and 12.00 for those in the Pacific time zone.)