Inkless Wells

Paul Wells on all the latest out of Ottawa—along with the occasional post about jazz. Follow Paul on Twitter: @InklessPW
He also offers his thoughtful perspective of Stephen Harper’s last 10 years in his recent eBook, The Harper Decade.

Categories: Capital Read, Inkless Wells

UK election: The cool Thursday-night hang

by Paul Wells on Friday, May 7, 2010 12:05am - 38 Comments

The whole point of a Parliament is that outcomes depend on numbers and circumstance, and are settled by the MPs themselves, according to their lights and their politics. So the highly entertaining crowd of Hill rats who gathered at the UK High Commission on Elgin Street on Thursday were mistaken, if understandable, in their desire to use the UK election results as a chance to refight our 2008 coalition crisis. The two situations aren’t the same. The long night’s events in the UK offer few lessons worth applying to the last time things got weird in Ottawa. But maybe a few that can help everyone plan for the next.

Differences: Recall that the 2008 coalition crisis wasn’t an election-night crisis because on election night, even Stéphane Dion realized his numbers were indefensible. As a bonus, he’d spent the last two weeks of the campaign explaining to everyone that he would never cook a deal with that wild-eyed socialist Jack Layton. Also note that in Canada in 2008, the incumbent government didn’t lose its plurality. Stephen Harper increased his lead, in other words, whereas Gordon Brown blew his. Never even mind the whole separatist Bloc Québécois thing, a confounding variable if ever there was one: just on the numbers, the UK situation now isn’t the Canadian situation then. I find myself having to explain, again and again, just what a turkey the Dion-Layton coalition was, because the people who went a little crazy and wanted that thing to fly really don’t like to think about how weak their hand was.

But the other difference lies, not just in the numbers, but in the protagonists’ reactions. Nobody at any point in this weird campaign ruled out cooperating with other parties, on a formal or informal basis. That’s because everybody in the world is a better strategist than Stéphane Dion, and also because it is radically irresponsible for any parliamentarian to foreclose options that may turn out to be legitimate and even necessary. (The UK leader who spent the most time speculating about alternative outcomes was Nick Clegg — which is understandable, but I wonder whether it had something to do with his late-inning fade: it is unattractive to hear a guy muse endlessly about how he’ll play a hand the voter hasn’t yet dealt him.)

I suspect by Friday afternoon the numbers will be clearer and options that seemed possible at dawn on election day will be foreclosed. But in the wide-open circumstances that hold as I write this, Brown has the right that any incumbent PM has to test the Commons. He has at best a very tenuous shot at winning an early confidence test, and that’s even if Nick Clegg will give him the time of day. Clegg’s claim to choose the next government is seriously weakened by his mediocre seat count. Cameron has done well by many measures — he beat off a serious mid-campaign challenge from Clegg, he remains personally popular at at time when that’s going to be crucial — but he must be disappointed with his seat total.

My hunch is that Clegg hasn’t the clout to do Brown any good even if he wanted to and that David Cameron is the next Prime Minister, a job which had better season him quickly because he still seems to need it. But the very clear lesson to any Canadian politician watching this should be: do not foreclose any option because you can never know what cards you’ll have and which you’ll need when the votes are in.

Tags: David Cameron, Gordon Brown, Nick Clegg, UK election

More by Paul Wells

Tim

Doesn't the Scottish Nationalist Party play a similar role to the Bloc(in theory if Sinn Fein ever took their seats they would too). Interestingly enough also like the Bloc the SNP publically proclaims themselves to be social democrats but privately has a significant wing of right leaning members our own Sen. Doug Finley used to be one. In fact most interesting is that many believe SNP leaders Alex Salmond personal economic views are the right of many SNP supporters just like our own Lucien Bouchard was to the right of many in the PQ. A case could be made that the SNP has sapped much of what used to be the Conservative vote in Scotland a lot the like the Bloc killed the old Mulroney coalition in Quebec. Nonetheless I don't think the numbers will exist for a Labour-Liberal Democrat-Scottish Nationalist coaliton although it will be mighty close.

Jameso

In a lot of ways I think that's true in terms of the sorts of roles they play, but the SNP have so few seats (in a much larger parliament) that they don't really have the same clout; at the same time, the Tories have been so weak for so long in Scotland that if anything, we should be talking about them trying to sap SNP numbers. In total, too, Scotland makes up less than 10% of all UK seats compared to Quebec's 25% ish.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Habitant Habitant

Yes, in many ways, it can be compared to the Bloc Québecois (perhaps with less impact).

But I'm no expert. However, Senator Doug Finley, husband of Diane Finley and, Big Daddy of the Conservative Party of Canada knows all about that separatist party, dedicated to independence for Scotland and the destruction of the United Kingdom as we know it… He was a long time soldier!

For more information on his experiences in trying to break up the UK:

FINLEY, The Hon. Doug
Telephone: 613-992-0172 or 1-800-267-7362
Fax: 613-992-0169
Email: finled@sen.parl.gc.ca

Jim

So are you staying up late Paul?
hosertohoosier

"I think the major difference between Canada and the UK is that both of the main parties in the UK are formidable opponents…"

I'm not sure if that is how I would characterize British or Canadian politics. I think both systems are characterized by reasonably long periods of rule by one party or the other. Labour was pretty formidable from 1997-2010, but was seen as something of a joke through the 80s. Moreover it was plagued by infighting between socialist hardliners and moderates.

Similarly, only 6 years ago, our Liberals were an unbeatable juggernaut. Paul Martin was about to sweep into office with the largest majority ever, after over a decade of Liberal rule. Go back to the 80s and it was the Liberals that were a joke once again. Saddled with constant infighting and a lousy leader, they resoundingly lost two elections. Go back further, and it is our Tories that are the sad sack losers.

I think there is a quasi-cyclical nature to politics in both countries. Winning parties have a lot of advantages. They can pick election dates, and pass policies which enable them to take credit. Moreover they have the power of the pulpit – they can influence what the story of the day is. Governments can use their advantage one of three ways. A. they can govern carefully, and keep winning. B. they can push for less popular policies that they desire ideologically, with some modest cost to electability. C. they can extract privileges and abuse the system, with a large reduction in electibility.

Most of the time governments tend towards strategy A, with perhaps a dash of B. However, if a party believes it will never be defeated (eg. the Liberals in 2003), options B and even C become more appealing. Also, the more entrenched a party is, the more interests need to be paid off. So governments become more and more arrogant, MP's become more and more greedy, ministers care less and less about party unity and governments get worse and worse till the public gets fed up. Governments stop caring about winning power, and start dividing up the pie.

Toony

Hence the old quote, that Governments and Diapers should both be changed regularly, and for the same reason.
Orson Bean

Great post, hth. Most people have such incredibly short memories when it comes to politics. I could have wallpapered my house 5-6 years ago with all the articles that were written back then about how the Liberals were going to rule Canada into perpetuity etc.

Conversely, although I think the LPC has some serious issues and problems at the moment, that's the thing — those problems exist at the moment. The LPC still has a resilient brand, and I could see them coming back and forming a government IF they got their political smarts back and faced some of those key problems they have at the moment (a distinct lack of footprint west of Ontario being one of them).

Wascally Wabbit

Remember – there was a major trust factor involved in this election – not of Gordon Brown per se. – but following the huge Expense scandal that undermined all parties – but especially Labour (I seem to recall hearing last night that some 80 sitting members – tainted by moats and duck houses – had decided not to run this time). BBC NN used a wonderful image of huge dominoes with the faces of these members superimposed to communicate the potential impact.
Remember also that Cameron will be hard pressed to come up with any serious cabinet members with experience – since it was 13 years ago – under John Major – when Conservatives last had experience of government.
Nick Clegg is talking about giving the party with the largest number of seats i.e. David Cameron's Conservatives – first chance to try to form a government. However, it is hard to see that happening with Liberal Democrats unless Cameron makes major concessions on his plans for the economy.
Interesting days – and I hope Michael Ignatieff is watching and learning…
Anon 001

The LibDems are to the left of Labour. Brown has already promised electoral reform. Unless Cameron offers the same thing, and why would he since that would see his party in perpetual oblivion, it is hard to see Cameron becoming PM in the near future.
Sea Otter

Cameron should be secretly hoping that the LibDems try to cut a deal with Labour. The Tories spent the campaign telling the voters that a vote for the LibDems was a vote for keeping Gordon Brown at 10 Downing, and now Brown is trying to prove them right. The is precisely why, I suspect, Clegg will abandon Brown, and simply support Cameron on an issue by issue basis. Even that won't last long – I fully expect the UK to be back at the polls within a year, perhaps as little as six months.

John D

They better get their "nobody wants an election" talking points ready to drill into everyone's heads…

http://intensedebate.com/people/OntarioTown OntarioTown

Three parties dominate politics in the House of Commons. They all operate throughout Great Britain (only the Conservative Party stands candidates in Northern Ireland). Most of the British Members of the European Parliament, the Scottish Parliament, and the National Assembly for Wales represent one of these parties:

Labour Party, centrist to Democratic Socialist (traditionally social democratic; is now a broadly centrist party)

Co-operative Party (all 29 Co-operative Party MPs are also Labour MPs as part of a long-standing electoral agreement)

Conservative Party, centrist to right-wing (traditionally centre-right and pragmatic; has always been a diverse and not always harmonious coalition)

Liberal Democrats, centrist to centre-left (heavily influenced by social liberalism).

http://intensedebate.com/people/OntarioTown OntarioTown

This is interesting:

Michael Douglas Finley (born July 25, 1946) is a Canadian Senator and was formerly campaign manager for the Conservative Party of Canada during the 2006 and 2008 federal elections and the party's director of political operations He is described often as Harper's "number two man" who vets and disciplines candidates and MPs.

He has also been involved with the Scottish National Party and the former Reform and Canadian Alliance parties

Hmmm……..The Scottish National Party (SNP) (Scottish Gaelic: Pàrtaidh Nàiseanta na h-Alba; Scots: Scottis Naitional Pairtie) is a social democratic political party committed to Scottish independence.[2] The SNP's liberal nationalism is left-wing nationalism, not right wing,

http://intensedebate.com/people/TheRealKuri TheRealKuri

Proof that the British still have an inflated sense of self: despite the fact they all have small caucuses, they call it a 'hung Parliament'. Ba-dum-tisch!
sbt

"The natural governing scenario from this election WOULD be Labour with the Lib-Dems, and those two parties just won 15,363,763 votes representing 52% of the vote."

What about a Tory-Labour coalition with 65% of the vote? Or maybe Tory-LibDem with 59% of the vote? Wouldn't those coalitions better reflect the will of the electorate? I've always loved coalition and PR arguments that basically assume it's the Conservatives versus everyone else. As our own polls showed during the coalition crisis, it's just a little bit more complicated than that.
Sea Otter

Whose talking points? :-) Remember that, as is the case here, it would take multiple parties cooperating to defeat Cameron in the House, and that line is a convenient exit ramp for any party concerned about their immediate electoral prospects. Party discipline seems a fair bit looser in the UK than here, making this whole situation a lot more fluid. Complicating matters will be the fact that Labour will almost certainly be into a leadership race soon.

As mentioned, I just think the whole situation looks so unstable that a quick trip back to the polls seems inevitable.

Kelvin

Party discipline is only looser in the sense that they don't push as much crap as confidence measures and they have varying degrees of whipping. When it comes to the core issue of who's gonna form the government, nobody's gonna fool around.
John D

I was just making a joke along the lines of ever since we've had a minority government in Canada the governing party tries to stay in power by declaring that "nobody wants an election" instead of actually trying to keep the confidence of the House.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Memi_S Memi_S

Perhaps the UK voters understand as well as Cannucks that the calibre of politicians up for reelection is nothing to write home about! But at least a first for the Greens. At last a seat in the House.

Now… If only the scary Mr. Baird stopped the tooth-exposure and vicious barking giving 'Domestic House Violence' a new meaning. Gosh, why is so perennially a-n-g-r-y all the time? Isn't Pablum in an instant formula these days?

If unjustifiably righteous Mr. Nicholson stopped imitating Harper's faux-cool arrogant posturing messing with his shirt cuffs and all….well…actually, all the puppets of the Harper Achtung Gallery look like they've been cloned after Harpie's image!

If the wondrous Rahim, exChair of the Conservative Caucus, left his mentors and started his own Lobbying Party – and take Gordon O'Connor and his defense industry contacts with him…

If……well, let's just hope that good, sane (but, alas, embarrassed in the last 4 years immensely) Cannucks finally abort mid-term the Cons' ill-conceived "majority cravings"….One can pray and hope and wish that the Troglodytes on the Hills simply go back to their caves. Amen.
Anon 001

The Tories can't get to 326 without the Lib-Dems. The Lab-Lib combination will have more seats than the Tories, and would be inherently more stable.

Cameron has asked for an open-partnership with Lib-Dem. Brown could (and would) offer substantially more, including a German-style formal Cabinet role like Merkel now has or the SDPs have had.

Clegg's base will never allow him to prop up the Tories, at least that's my reading of British politics.

Lord Kitchener's Own

The Tories can't get to 326 without the Lib-Dems

Yes, but Labour can't get to 326 WITH the Lib-Dems.

Anything could happen, but Clegg has said publicly that the Tories deserve the first shot at power, and I read "Clegg's base will never allow him to prop up the Tories" kind like I'd read "Layton's base will never allow him to prop up the Tories". It makes sense, but I'm not at all convinced that it's true. Cameron seems to be leaving Cabinet Positions on the table in negotiations, so I'm not sure a Tory-Lib-Dem coalition is entirely impossible.

I just don't see Gordon Brown staying on as PM. If he could get a majority in coalition with Clegg, sure, but he can't. I just can't get my head around how, politically, two parties that just lost 96 seats in the election could work together to form a government against an opposition party that just GAINED 98 seats in the election with a plurality of the votes and the seats. Not without commanding the majority of seats anyway.

It may well be a short-lived government, but I'd put money on it being a Cameron government.
Kelvin

Tories don't NEED to get to 326. All he needs is not for the LibDems to shoot them down on confidence and supply. They have the numbers to fend off everyone else.

That might not be such a bad idea for Clegg. He's gained a LOT more power in Parliament without really doing better at the polls: this election has been "a pox on all your houses." For him to come out strutting like a winner might backfire when time comes for people to ask serious questions on electoral reform.

As for whether the LibDem base would allow a Con-LD pact, I agree that the general jist of what I read sound negative. What I really don't get is WHY. There's still a decent market liberal wing of the LibDems, which was a party borne from the old Liberals and disaffected Labourites who wanted to move centre before the Blair revolution. To position themselves as a better version of Labour would just make everyone wonder what's the point of PR if you're just solidifying into a majority position a bloc whose median policy is considerably left of the median voter. OTOH, a willingness to consider working with the Tories would assuage the fears that PR would sap all the dynamicism out of the political system.
Lunatic

"The Lab-Lib combination . . . would be inherently more stable."

More stable on its own, perhaps, but it would automatically have to be part of an ever less stable broader coalition. The fewest parties necessary to reach 326 without the Tories is four — Lab-Lib-DUP plus choice of SNP, Plaid Cymru, or SDLP. If you can't get the DUP in, you need at least five parties, Lab-Lib-SNP-Plaid Cymru-SDLP.

Frank

The term "Democracy" was coined in Greece a long time ago. If I recall my social sciences correctly, it is based on proportional representation. People are entitled to have an election system of your choice but the UK model is not democratic. However, don't give up hope. They did adopt the metric system!
One more observation: the media love the term landslide, right? What actually happens most of the time? If you look at the numbers you will find that one in ten people changed their mind. Big deal!
The influence of that boat rocker is amplified in this cooky FOTP system! Enjoy!

JoeC

Actually, it literally means something like "rule by the mob", was reviled by many Greek thinkers at the time, and only allowed Athenian free men to vote (i.e. no slaves or women), and was a system of direct democracy (i.e. people voted on each issue themselves; they didn't elect representatives). It was not based on proportional representation.

However, I agree that it's ridiculous to have such small shifts in voter choice cause such huge swings in seat totals. Maybe Layton should make his support for any government based on a demand for electoral change.

I think that in Canada we would need to still maintain at least regional representation – we could do PR federally but have party lists for each province or something.

Anyway, I prefer Preferential Ballots because of the effects they have on political behaviour. So long as politicians are competing for just one vote, their partisanship isn't likely to change much (especially between unlikely coalition partners).

Preferential Ballots have been shown to almost eliminate hardline partisanship and ad hominem attacks because politicians aren't just competing for people's first votes, they're competing just as strongly for their second or third. This means that insulting the parties and leaders that other voters like is likely to lead to them not giving you any of their second or third votes, leading to governments and elections that focus a lot more on policy and governing than on scoring cheap political points.

Tim

I am becoming convinced in a roundabout way last night was a lousy night for Stephen Harper unless he can get a majority next time or possibly a stronger minority. If I was liberal leader before the next election I would state that I would not enter a coalition with the Bloc and that the party with the largest number of seats should have the first chance of forming a government ala Clegg however, if the conservatives after a third go around only have another minority and even fewer seats than they do now it will incumbant upon them to neogotiate a something similar to the Cameron-Clegg deal and possibly find a new party leader. I actually think if the next election were to result in another Conservative minority it is better for Harper for it to happen sooner rather than later as it will be harder to justify him staying as minority PM as more years go by.
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/ Mark Collins

I find it illustrative of how much attention the world pays Canada that, in all the countless hours of BBC coverage I watched, not once did one of the scores of talking heads ever mention our recent experience with minority governments. As Norman Spector loves to put it: "The world needs more Canada?".

Mark
Ottawa
orval

Another parallel between Canada and UK is the comparison between England and ROUK and ROC and Quebec.

Conservatives have a clear majority in England, 297 Conservative to 235 opposition (Labour 191 + LibDem 43 + Green 1). Conservative weakness in Scotland especially (only 1 Conservative seat) means Conservatives achieve only a minority government in whole of UK.

Compare to Canada. In ROC, Conservatives in 2008 won a majority 135 to 99 (63 Lib + 36 NDP). The strength of the Bloc Quebecois in only one province prevents the Conservatives from achieving a national majority.

Majority Conservative governments are thwarted by the Quebecois in one case and by the Scots in the other.

http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

Yes, that is true. Regional parties prevent unified governments. Parties need to beat their federal opponents, and they need to beat the regional opponents that arise throughout the country, a series of victories.

Rob

There's really nothing useful for Canada in the British conundrum. Unlike Canada, but like Israel and many European nations, Britain has a lot of "small" parties. Canada has four parties with seats in the Commons; Britain has ten.

The seven smaller British parties have 27 votes among them. One likely alliance would have the Conservatives working with Ulster's Democratic Unionist Party (Ian Paisly's party), but that would still leave Cameron about 10 seats short of a majority. Likewise, if Labour and the Liberal Democrats combined, Brown and Clegg would be about 10 seats short. So where do you get 10 seats among the Scottish, Welsh and Irish (Sinn Fein) nationalists, and the Green, Alliance and "Social Democratic and Labour" parties. It's a mix and match patchwork of temporary or semi-permanent alliances. Stephen Harper cannot duplicate that, nor Michael Ignatieff (though there's always the possibility of close Liberal-NDP co-operation, which has been done by Prime Minister's Pearson and Trudeau).
Josh

I think the major difference between Canada and the UK is that both of the main parties in the UK are formidable opponents…meanwhile the Liberals on this side of the pond aren't as firece as a bag of kittens. If there were any party actually willing to oppose the government, the Conservatives might have been forced to form a coalition. Luckily for Harper, Iggy's too busy looking down his nose at all of us to actually do something.
http://intensedebate.com/people/SamDavies SamDavies

It never ceases to amaze me how hard anti-Liberals work to negatively personify Iggy.
"Iggy's too busy looking down his nose"
"Somebody should slap off that condescending smile he puts on his face"
Honestly – it doesn't matter what the man does – the prejudices will rule supreme.
What a time we live in when people buy into this petty type of hatred.

Dream on hollinm – Harper will never achieve the majority that he covets. Alas!
http://intensedebate.com/people/SamDavies SamDavies

Clarification – I am not some "Liberal diehard". I'm a political whore who has tinkered with various different John's.
When it comes to Iggy, I stick up for him because he is the underdog. He's been this from day #1, when the acting government launched attack ads against him (outside of the period where an election writ was dropped). The strategy has paid off – in a time period where security in general is at a low point for all Canadians, people are willing to buy into these types of myths.

Honestly, I don't have too many problems with "his gaffes". I think this is the price that has to be paid when you do things more openly – it leaves you susceptible to attack. Harper does not face as many problems because of how he controls and confines everything and anything. We have the new Copyright bill on its way, and rumour has it, it will not differ much from the Prentice C-61 DMCA variation. When asked about it, Moore's response is pretty much STFU and wait and see. Disgusting.
John D

he's a troll, don't waste your breath
hollinm

I don't see many of you Liberal diehards praising him and his accomplishments (or lack thereof). Admit it with his gaffes he is embarassing the party and its supporters.

Canadians are speaking time after time in leadership poll after leadership poll. A leader who is at 14% for the main attributions people expect in their leader is not going to win anything.

Conservatives will accept the fact that they may not win a majority but the good part is there will be another leadership review in the Liberal party and the hunt will be on for the messiah, saviour of all things Liberal.
http://intensedebate.com/people/SamDavies SamDavies

I have observed the limited (or partisan) dimensions of hollinm's opinions.
Nevertheless – I simply wanted to chime in with my thoughts.
I do believe that Iggy does have some problems – I just think that too many preach about this needlessly.
Ultimately – a man is not proven or disproven until he is given the chance.
hollinm

Somebody should slap off that condescending smile he puts on his face when he faces the media after the caucus meetings. Its irritating to put it kindly.
There will be a majority government after the next election. Canadians have watched 3 minority governments wallow in the muck and little positive accomplished. They know and Harper will remind them as long as the Conservatives have a minority government the other three will be plotting to overthrow them.
If not plotting then they will ensure that no meaningful Conservatives legislation will pass the House without it being dissected into a thousand pieces so that it represents progressive policy.
Harper will campaign hard for a majority and let the chips fall where they may. The opposition will demonize him in every way they can. However, I suspect it will fall on deaf ears this time.
hollinm

SamDavies……Thanks for reading my comments. I appreciate it.

A political leader has to be able to show some evidence he has some ability to lead not only his party but the country. I think you would agree that since being appointed leader Iffy has not demonstrated either attribute. He has messed up his relationship with Denny Coderre. He had to embarassingly climb down as he made the great declaration "Mr. Harper your time is up". He screwed up the maternal health resolution where some of his own MPs refused to support his position. Now he is caught waffling on improving the lobbying act. I could go on.
Fortunately for Canada he is not going to be given the chance to be PM. Canadians have made up their minds on that score. The latest Nanos poll further confirms this assertion.