The Independent, on 28 May, reported:
The Tory backbench rumour mill suggests that Sir Gus O’Donnell, the Cabinet Secretary, is dusting down the rules about how a “confidence and supply” arrangement would work.
If this were done, it would mean the cabinet would become a minority government, but the LibDems would agree not to vote in favor of a no-confidence motion. They would also commit to supporting (or at least not defeating the government over) the budget. In exchange, they would continue to be consulted on policy, but would forfeit their voice around the cabinet table.
Confidence and supply agreements, which have become the norm over the past decade in New Zealand as well as being common in other multiparty parliamentary systems, give the support party more flexibility while also preserving stability.
I have wondered since the election over a year ago why this was not the arrangement negotiated between the parties. Of course, the LibDems wanted ministerial positions and the greater policy influence that comes with them. But it was also apparent at the time that Conservative leader and PM David Cameron preferred a formal coalition over a minority government. Perhaps he still does, but as the next election draws nearer, both parties will have electoral interests in differentiating themselves. A confidence and supply agreement would make that easier.
If this change were made to the current UK governing arrangement, it would not change a provision of the original coalition agreement by which the parties agreed to legislate fixed election dates.
Ending the Coalition would not mean an immediate general election. A Bill is going through Parliament that should ensure it takes place in May 2015, which suits both parties.
I had the impression that the coalition agreement was an attempt to undercut the criticism that a hung parliament would cause instability and fractious government. Not sure how well that worked!
Seed planted by Vasi — 01 June 2011 @ 00:18
They voted to keep SMDs and this is what they get. It could have all been solved with MMP!
Seed planted by DeSean Jackson — 01 June 2011 @ 02:44
Thanks for this, Matthew. I had not seen it. I agree with your question about why this was not done in the first place, and I know that Gus O’Donnell was sent to New Zealand (presumably at great taxpayer expense) before the election to look into how supply and confidence agreements have worked there. I did research on this last year and interviewed a Scottish Government senior civil servant who said that his London counterparts wanted a formal coalition government, and nothing short of that. It sounded like the issue was ‘stability’ and reassuring the markets of this stability at a time when our finances (under Labour) were dire. I also wonder if the senior Liberal Democrats wanted posts in Cabinet so badly that they were willing to bring about turmoil in the party (whose supporters are definitely to the left of the MPs, and especially the leadership). Now things look bad for the Lib Dems, and I would not be surprised if some MPs are considering jumping ship unless more ‘distance’ is placed between them and the Conservatives. There was a report today saying that the Lib Dems are likely to do very badly under the new constituency boundaries to be set up for the 600-member House of Commons to be elected in 2015. They are polling very badly in opinion surveys and did badly in the May elections (particularly here in Scotland), and do not appear to have gained much from the coalition in terms of policy (there were some gains, but not very ‘exciting’ ones). It’s not a good time to be a Lib Dem.
Seed planted by Thomas Lundberg — 06 June 2011 @ 11:49