Minority at Westminster not ideal but workable

Britain's reputation for political stability might not survive the year. Of all the likely outcomes of the general election next month, none seems to add up to a robust government. Neither the Conservatives nor the Labour party can govern alone, at least judging by the polls. And the third force in parliament will probably be a party opposed to the existence of the UK as we know it.

The Scottish Nationalists might behave provocatively, tugging a weak Labour government to the left and exasperating English taxpayers. That way lies disarray and, in time, another referendum on Scottish independence. The uncertainty is troubling for business, and one reason why the pound has fallen against the dollar of late.

There is cause for concern, but not panic. Britain has not suddenly lost its ancestral gift for improvisation. It has a way of finding a way through political and constitutional problems. An indecisive result at the last election in 2010 threw up an improbable coalition that lasted five years, and another in May could yet produce something workable. It should not be assumed that minority government would be nasty, brutish and short. It has worked in Canada and Scandinavia. Britain experienced it in the 1970s and, briefly, in the 1990s too. The system depends on opposition parties resisting the temptation to bring down the government.

Look closely and they have an incentive to show such forbearance. If the SNP win virtually every seat in Scotland, as polls suggest, they can only stand to lose if there is another election soon after. They will not want to take risks before the Scottish elections in 2016. Money matters, too. Labour and the Liberal Democrats would struggle to raise funds to fight a second election.

The haggling culture of coalition would still exist in a minority government, but it would move from Whitehall to parliament itself. Ministers would craft legislation in consultation with opposition politicians to be confident of their support. The prime minister of the day might proceed on a bill-by-bill basis or seek a "confidence and supply" agreement, in which a decisive number of opposition MPs support the government in confidence motions and finance legislation. The latter would bring some measure of predictability. It would also cut down on non-essential legislation. Britain is not a country crying out for new laws. Its central priorities are to improve productivity and cut the budget deficit.

A minority government would be bound by the Fixed Term Parliaments Act. This law prevents an election for five years unless a supermajority in the House of Commons votes for one, or the government loses a confidence motion and no other administration is formed within 14 days. This provides some insurance against the uncertainty of another election, though it also raises the prospect of governments taking it in turns to form and fall in the Italian style.

If there is another election, that need not spell chaos. It is likely that at least one of the two main parties will have a new leader by then. We can only hope that it is someone more able to win a majority than David Cameron, the Tory prime minister, or Labour's Ed Miliband. Predictions are in vogue of indecisive elections as far as the eye can see, with no leader ever again emulating Tony Blair, Margaret Thatcher and John Major in securing 40 per cent of the popular vote. This is premature.

Minority government is not ideal. It might bring the chaos that is predicted by commentators, and feared by the markets. But many feared the same of coalition in 2010. Do not underestimate the British knack for muddling through.

© The Financial Times Limited 2015. All rights reserved.
FT and Financial Times are trademarks of the Financial Times Ltd.
Not to be redistributed, copied or modified in any way.
Euro2day.gr is solely responsible for providing this translation and the Financial Times Limited does not accept any liability for the accuracy or quality of the translation