0

Obviously, this is unlikely in practical political reality, but in terms of the rules and norms for UK Parlament, can the following scenario occur and if so, what happens?

  • Labour has 324 seats (short of majority)
  • Conservatives have 324 seats (short of majority)
  • Party X has 2 seats - enough that it can propel either L or C to majority in a coalition.
  • Party X signs an agreement with Labour to be in coalition with them (thus giving L the majority of 324+2=326)
  • Party X signs an agreement with Conservatives at the same time; to be in coalition with them (thus giving C the majority of 324+2=326)

Is that even possible?

If so, who would get the majority? L+X or C+X?

Rick Smith
  • 35,501
  • 5
  • 100
  • 160
user4012
  • 92,336
  • 19
  • 225
  • 386
  • 4
    But it's mathematically possible to form only 1 majority. There's 650 seats in total, divide that by 2 and you'll get 325. 325 + 1 = 326 which is a majority, you can't get another 326. – Panda Jun 09 '17 at 14:32
  • @Panda - let's say they both have 324; and a 3rd party has 2. They both get a possible majority, 324+2=326 for Cs; and 324+2=326 for Ls. – user4012 Jun 09 '17 at 14:37
  • I think the more interesting question is here if there would be only two parties and both have exactly half the number of seats. Does the Queen then throw a coin? – NoDataDumpNoContribution Feb 15 '22 at 15:15

2 Answers2

3

No, because a coalition agreement must be exclusive. If small party X pledges to being in a coalition with, say, Labour, there is no way that Labour would allow them to team up with anyone else.

How would Labour enforce this? Because being in a coalition is mutually beneficial. In exchange for party X giving Labour their votes, Labour promise to implement some of party X's policies (and maybe refrain from implementing some of Labour's policies that party X don't like).

If party X break this agreement, Labour would lose their votes - but party X would lose all their influence, along with any chance of their policies being turned into law.

Whether or not party X go so far as to team up with another party, Labour would remain in government until either they lost a confidence vote, or a general election was called (either by a 2/3 majority of the Commons, or 5 years after the last election).

Note that the current government stays in place until either the PM feels that she has enough votes to stay in government (whether as a coalition, or as a minority government with some kind informal agreement with other parties), or it become obvious that another party or coalition has the votes.

For example, in 2010 Gordon Brown stayed as PM for 5 days after the election, until it became clear that the Conservatives and LibDems had the numbers for a coalition. The LibDems did also have talks with Labour about forming a coalition, but the numbers didn't add up.

Steve Melnikoff
  • 12,135
  • 2
  • 44
  • 62
  • A loss on a supply bill would probably count as well, although the language of the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act makes this less clear. – origimbo Jun 09 '17 at 14:42
  • @origimbo: indeed. It seems likely that if a government lost a supply vote, the opposition might immediately call for a confidence vote. Before the FTPA, the former tended to be regarded as a matter of confidence; but the FTPA is clear that a confidence vote must have specific wording, which excludes treating anything else as a matter of confidence automatically. – Steve Melnikoff Jun 09 '17 at 14:45
  • "no way that Labour would allow them to team up" - that's precisely my question. What would allow Labour to "not allow" that? What would prevent party X from doing this against Labour's wishes? – user4012 Jun 09 '17 at 15:03
  • Just to be clear, the question is about current situation, BEFORE the government is formed – user4012 Jun 09 '17 at 15:05
  • @user4012: updated to try and address that. To some extent, it's a matter of honour before any deal is done - but with real consequences if party X breaks the deal later. – Steve Melnikoff Jun 09 '17 at 15:08
  • @user4012 You should note that there is currently a government formed in the UK, with Theresa May as Prime Minister, so if Party X supported it, it would continue. – origimbo Jun 09 '17 at 15:10
  • @SteveMelnikoff - I'm not sure if your answer addresses what I'm trying to get at. I'm NOT asking about party X getting a majority with L and LATER, after getting majority, deciding to desert the coalition. I'm asking before either one is announced as a majority, the day after elections and no majority and this nobody is in government yet. – user4012 Jun 09 '17 at 15:11
  • @origimbo - ah, OK, that might be the piece I'm missing. My impresison was, nobody is in government until someone forms a new majority (well, May is but only till that point) – user4012 Jun 09 '17 at 15:12
  • @user4012 A majority isn't necessary, only "confidence of the House of Commons", which is obviously lacking if someone else has an acknowledged majority, otherwise the incumbent gets a chance to prove or disprove it. – origimbo Jun 09 '17 at 15:23
  • Edited again. :-) – Steve Melnikoff Jun 09 '17 at 15:24
  • @SteveMelnikoff - so, if I understand the answer correctly, if LibDems had enough #s to make coalition work with both L and C, the Ls would have stayed in power by virtue of being incumbents? – user4012 Jun 09 '17 at 15:26
  • LibDems weren't incumbent in 2010; prior to that, Labour were in power on their own. But that's an interesting question; maybe ask that separately! – Steve Melnikoff Jun 09 '17 at 15:28
  • There's little precedent in the UK. My guess would be that it's the PM who is regarded as incumbent, and by association, her party. Hence any junior coalition partner would have no special privileges. – Steve Melnikoff Jun 09 '17 at 15:31
  • @origimbo does that mean that if the PM party wins or forms a coalition with enough votes then there is no need for the Parliament to even vote the issue? In Spain, after a new Parliament is elected the new President must be voted in, even if s/he is the same one who held the post previously and the party has a majority of seats. – SJuan76 Jun 09 '17 at 16:14
  • @SJuan76 That gets into issues complicated enough to form their own question rather than being addressed in a comment. In one sense the role of Prime Minister "doesn't exist", so there's nothing for the Commons to vote on. However a new Parliament will vote on the Queen's speech, which might count as a motion of confidence (depending on the FTPA). And an existing parliament could table a motion of no confidence in a new Prime Minister who lacked its support. – origimbo Jun 09 '17 at 16:55
  • 2
    @SJuan76 as origimbo says, the test is always the vote on the Queen's Speech. Previously, losing that would topple the government. Now, it would probably trigger a confidence vote. There is no vote before all this on the choice of Prime Minister - unlike many in many other parliamentary systems. – Steve Melnikoff Jun 09 '17 at 17:42
  • @SteveMelnikoff - my laziness got the best of me. "L"s in my comment is Labour, not LibDems. Sorry for confusion. – user4012 Jun 09 '17 at 19:00
  • @SteveMelnikoff - not quite the same question as sjuan raised, but related: https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/19754/can-uk-parlament-reject-an-unpopular-prime-minister – user4012 Jun 09 '17 at 19:04
  • @user4012 ah! In that case, yes, as happened in 2010. Labour stayed in power to try and form a coalition - but they failed, and Brown resigned 5 days after the election, advising the Queen to appoint Cameron in his place. – Steve Melnikoff Jun 09 '17 at 19:06
3

The crucial votes in Westminster systems amount to confidence and supply. Basically the right to control ministries and form government and the right to pass expenditure.

Two forces in parliament cannot simultaneously command confidence and supply. In the case that one force loses confidence and supply in a serious and ongoing way they have a responsibility to the crown or state authority to request an election or suggest another government be formed.

While it is possible that a minor party could force HM to switch prime ministers on a daily basis, it is far more likely that one of these prime ministers would request an election on the basis of parliament being unable to maintain stable government or supply.

On day to day bills that's just minority government as usual. Sometimes government bills are passed intact. Sometimes amended with hostility and passed. Sometimes votes down.

Samuel Russell
  • 4,369
  • 17
  • 36
  • Am I correct in summarizing this as "yes, you'd be able to have this happen, except in reality it would lead to early election just to get rid of instability"? – user4012 Jun 09 '17 at 17:41
  • Correct. Technically possible but socially impossible. – Samuel Russell Jun 09 '17 at 17:47
  • 1
    Nitpick: supply is about the raising of money - I.e. By modifying taxes in the annual budget - not expenditure. – Steve Melnikoff Jun 09 '17 at 17:47
  • It would be pretty formal because the government ministry would fall every two days and the queen would have to be advised of a new prime minister every two days. – Samuel Russell Jun 10 '17 at 04:20