Campaign Week 5: It's Nearly Over (Maybe)

Seven days from now, the result of the election will be known.  Well, at least the technical part of how many seats each party has will be known.  What will be less clear is who will be running the country for the coming years (or months).

In the aftermath of the 2010 election, which produced the first hung parliament in 36 years, nobody knew what to do.  Though it took five days following the election to decide upon a prime minister, what made it easy is that one party, the Liberal Democrats, held the balance of power; they were able to effectively decide whether Gordon Brown or David Cameron would walk into Downing Street.

2010: Liberal Democrats hold balance of power

Compare that with the likely range of possibilities in this election, and things get a little more complicated, as we will have at least four parties with sizable enough representation to make a difference.

2015: Balance shared by SNP, Lib Dems, and possibly others

So if this is the result we can expect, how does that work in terms of the formation of a government?

Conservative Government

Under the British constitutional system, the incumbent prime minister is to continue in his role until it becomes clear to him that he cannot command the confidence of the House of Commons and someone else can.  The first such confidence vote after an election is the Queen's Speech, where Her Majesty will outline the new prime minister's agenda for the first year of the parliament.  If a vote on the Queen's Speech doesn't pass, then that government cannot govern.

Unless Ed Miliband is able to come up with a deal with the SNP and/or Liberal Democrats to form a government (which has been ruled out), David Cameron, as the incumbent prime minster, has the right to make the first attempt at a Queen's Speech.  Obviously, on this basis, he won't be able to get it through on his own.  But who could help him?

I'll start with the Tories' three most likely allies: the Democratic Unionists and the Ulster Unionists in Northern Ireland have tended to lean more towards the Tories in the past, and a Queen's Speech that sets out an EU referendum bill stands a good chance at getting UKIP support.  This helps a bit, but it brings them well short of passing, even in the most optimistic scenario.

This would not be enough to pass a Queen's Speech, even in the most optimistic scenario.

Now what about the Lib Dems?  They've governed with the Tories before, and I'm sure they would do so again (though probably not in full coalition this time).  It's quite likely that, particularly in the Europe file, the Lib Dems and UKIP would have contradictory demands, and so if we want to put the Lib Dems in, we will have to take UKIP out.  This, in addition to adding the Alliance party (the Lib Dems' sister party in Northern Ireland), gives us something that would work in an optimistic scenario, but the mean scenario puts them about six seats short.

Odds are around 1/3 that this combination could pass a Queen's Speech.

I can't see anyone on the opposition benches who'd be likely to support a Tory Queen's Speech in these circumstances, which would mean the chances of David Cameron staying in Downing Streets on these polls is quite small (about one in three).

Labour Government

It's easy to find a combination of parties which would be very likely to pass a Labour Queen's Speech.

Labour, the SNP and Lib Dems would most likely be enough to pass a Queen's Speech.

Now here's the tricky bit.  On last night's Question Time programme, Ed Miliband said that he would not do a deal with the SNP, even if it meant not having a Labour government.  So can he get there without SNP support?

Well, the short answer is no.  The Conservatives and SNP combined will likely constitute a majority, and although those two parties coming together is about as likely as Russell Brand voting, it proves that Labour needs the SNP on side in order to govern.  Removing the SNP and adding any party that has any realistic prospect of supporting a Labour Queen's Speech leaves us well short of getting it passed.

Labour cannot get a Queen's Speech through without the SNP.

So what does this mean?

Lord O'Donnell, who was Cabinet Secretary (the top civil servant) at the last general election, said that the discussions between the parties in 2010 will be a "piece of cake" relative to what his successor, Sir Jeremy Heywood, will have to deal with next week.  Remember, despite a willingness from all parties involved to form a coalition, there was a lot of haggling between Brown, Cameron and Clegg, and it took five days before we knew what our new government would look like.  Now, with coalitions and other deals all but ruled out, it will be difficult to form a government that is stable.

There will not be a coalition government after this election, but rather a minority government, where one of the parties will be fighting on a week-by-week basis to survive.  The success of minority governments come down to how flexible the prime minister and the opposition are.  In Scotland, we saw Alex Salmond's minority government (2007-2011) work very well with his opposition counterparts, allowing him to govern for the entire parliament.  On the other hand, in Canada, Stephen Harper was (and arguably still is) unwilling to work with MPs from other parties, and the only reason his minority governments lasted for as long as they did is because the opposition parties couldn't afford another election campaign.

Assuming no changes in the polls over the next week, I think Labour will have the best chance of getting the first Queen's Speech through, since it's relatively easy to find them enough friends to do it.  Things will get tougher in the second year, though, when the Queen's Speech will make a mention of Trident.  If the SNP uphold their pledge to vote this down, then you can expect another election in the summer of next year.

You thought it was over?  It's only just begun.