The UK has just about got used to the idea of coalition – but this unpredictable election may make even a formal coalition non-viable. Catherine Haddon hears veterans of minority government argue the case for this much-maligned alternative.
The UK has a limited view of hung parliaments, tending to view minority government through the lens of the 1970s and coalitions through the experience of the last five years. But in fact there are a range of options available for coalitions, minority governments, and hybrids that sit between the two. While the Wilson and Callaghan governments have left us with the impression that minority governments are automatically less secure than coalitions, it’s clear from the history of New Zealand, Holyrood and Westminster that they can be stable if managed well.
In 2010, coalition government took many by surprise. Now, with the experience of coalition behind them, backbenchers and the public alike may view the prospect as less novel. If the election result doesn’t permit any two parties to form a majority coalition, is minority unavoidable? At the Institute for Government on Monday, panellists who’ve worked in minority governments came together to discuss the pros and cons of a form of government the UK has too often associated with unstable rule.
Darren Hughes, Sarah Smith, Akash Paun and Lord (Bernard) Donoughue speaking at the event.
For some of our panellists, minority government is an easier way to navigate a hung parliament, manage the support you need from other parties on a case by case basis and keep control of the executive for your party alone. Lord Donoughue, who in the late 1970s was in the Downing Street Policy Unit under a minority Labour government, criticised coalition as a “muddle of people” with clashing political cultures, and a “muddle of policy” tying the administration to commitments that look outdated three or four years down the line. He prefers minority, under which you “go from week to week, issue to issue, and you negotiate your majority”.
For Darren Hughes, a former finance minister from New Zealand, minority government represents the “reality of voters” who aren’t represented by just two main parties. He argued that the UK has become too fearful of the widening number of political parties, which can foster governments better attuned to the popular verdict.
A positive approach to minority government can be a big help. Sarah Smith, an official working with the 2007-11 Scottish National Party minority government, told the audience that the SNP wanted to show its competence as a government – so deliberately used language and tone to present the administration as stable.
When the facts changed, the SNP changed its definition of stability – framing and then re-framing the terms of their success. From the off, they made it clear that losing a vote wouldn’t bring down the government, unless it was a budget; it would simply represent the Scottish Parliament exercising its will. But when they lost their first budget vote, they didn’t resign, instead bringing the budget back and winning the vote second time round. They had managed to put the Opposition in a position where voting down the budget would have meant turning off the tap of public finances.
All of the panel talked about the value that minority government can bring to legislation: a more strategic approach; better prioritisation; the requirement to build consensus; and the time to go over specific clauses. Both Smith and Donoughue highlighted the importance of thinking through legislation – being more focused on what actually needs legislation, and more pragmatic in not taking on something likely to fail.
The panel also discussed the skills and behaviour required to manage minority well. For Donoughue, it needs skilled wits and experienced politicians. Smith agreed, pointing out the importance of having good officials able to navigate the interplay between the Civil Service and politics. Hughes talked about the importance of management of Parliament – something that demands savvy, tactful whips who understand the process and can build and sustain the relationships required to put what has been agreed into practice.
One issue raised was the need to maintain good relationships with the parties with whom a minority government has made alliances – whether long or short-term, formal or informal. The SNP had a “no surprises” approach, recalled Smith: if there was no specific deal on a particular matter, they would be conscious of the need for future deals and keep other parties informed.
Of course there are also some downsides to minority. As Smith pointed out, officials working with the SNP were always conscious that the government could fall at any time. Donoughue talked about the physical exhaustion of pushing through votes in the late 1970s – a day-by-day, week-by-week task that meant late-night sittings and bringing MPs in from their sickbeds. And Hughes told the audience that in New Zealand, smaller parties who’ve made agreements with a minority government have suffered: none had gone on to improve their share of the vote or number of MPs in the next election.
As Hughes concluded, learning how to navigate hung parliaments is an iterative process. People must grow to understand that a single legislative failure need not herald the government’s downfall. Nor is there one single way of doing things: all kinds of alliances and agreements can be used to pursue a minority government’s legislative programme and guard its survival. The main party leaders may still prefer the security of coalition – but as our panellists made clear, a minority government can bring its own set of advantages.
