Out with the old

As I write, voting has yet to take place but by the time this magazine arrives in your in-tray the election will be over, although if you read early enough, the votes are probably still being counted. If the polls are correct, no party will have a majority. What then?

Irrespective of votes cast and seats won, Gordon Brown remains prime minister until he tenders his resignation to the Queen. If another party wins a majority, he will do so this morning. If there is no majority, the constitution gives him the right, as the incumbent, to try to form a government, and he remains prime minister while negotiations continue.

But having a right, and choosing to exercise a right, are two very different things. If the Conservatives get more votes then Mr Brown trying to stay on as prime minister would be wildly unpopular, even if he thinks he can do a deal with the Liberal Democrats. Not just because Mr Brown is unpopular but because the British dislike a bad loser.

We saw this in 1997. The Liberal Democrats won the Winchester constituency by two votes. Because some ballots were not properly stamped the Tory candidate successfully challenged the result in court. Fair enough, you might think but the voters thought otherwise. When the election was re-run, the Tory vote slumped 10,000, and the Lib Dem vote rose by 10,000.

In with the new

Unless Mr Brown wins more seats and more votes than the Conservatives, he cannot - de facto - try to form a government. To do so would be electoral suicide. Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg understands this, which is why he said that Mr Brown remaining as PM having lost the election would be ‘preposterous’. If Mr Brown loses, he will go immediately, just like every other PM thrown out by the voters.

So, assuming that the polls are anywhere near correct, the next Prime Minister will be David Cameron. The only question will be whether he heads a majority Conservative administration, a minority Conservative administration or a coalition administration. Clearly Mr Cameron’s preference is for a majority Conservative administration, but let us put that possibility to one side and ask what a hung parliament would mean for the housing sector.

Getting things done

At the recent Housing Studies Association conference, Abigail Davies, head of policy at the Chartered Institute of Housing, said that a hung parliament could be disastrous. But the audience disagreed, and to be fair to Ms Davies, she changed her position in the light of arguments made. Most telling were the comments of Professor Duncan Maclennan. Professor Maclennan is as Scottish as they come, and of course Scotland has experience of both coalition and minority governments. Professor Maclennan was special advisor to Donald Dewar, when Mr Dewar was Scotland’s first minister, in a Labour/Liberal Democrat joint administration.

Professor Maclennan made two points. First, he noted that anyone who looked at the evidence would see that this was a period in which Holyrood got things done, in housing and in many other matters. You may or may not like what they did, but they were able to govern, in a stable manner.

Second, Professor Maclennan, to nods from other Scots in the room, argued that coalition had improved policy making. He said that the big divide was not between the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats as such, but between those in each party who aimed to make the coalition work, and those in each party who preferred a more tribal approach.

The argument was not that the two parties are really one and the same, but that being forced to work with a coalition partner, who has to take joint responsibility for decisions, was useful in forcing politicians in both parties to face up to some of the things that their tribe was bad at facing up to. In a sense parties do this all the time internally. Tony Blair forced Labour to give up many things that Labour liked, but which he perceived were unpopular or ineffective, or both. Coalitions accelerate this process.

Opportunity

For housing professionals that openness, and that willingness to listen to a partner, opens up all sorts of possibilities to argue for views that you know are right, but which might not otherwise get a look in. It means reading manifestos, speeches, and even - dare I say it? - think tank papers to look for openings (and things to oppose). A coalition government finds it harder to twist its MPs’ arms hard, to issue three-line whips and ram things through parliament. A majority government can force almost anything through, but a coalition government has to persuade its own cabinet first, and then members of two parties. That puts more emphasis on persuasion, which means that those from outside with a persuasive case have a good chance of being listened to.

The same is true for minority governments. Again, whatever you may think of the Scottish National Party, there is no doubt that it is governing Scotland at the moment. It is nowhere near having a majority, but it is able, broadly speaking, to get its agenda through the Scottish Parliament. But once more, it must make a case, and that again empowers those with good ideas.

The next government, whatever its colour or colours, will be cash-strapped. Change is coming, whether we like it or not. The housing sector’s choice is whether to lead change or to have it led by politicians. Which sacred cows do we think should be sacrificed, and which spared? The decent homes standard? Tenancies for life? Rents that do not rise with income? Community building? Regeneration? Code six building?

There are no easy answers, but if the profession does not propose some answers, then - given the deficit - politicians will be forced to make their own cuts. And whether it is Mr Healey, Mr Shapps or Ms Teather in charge, that could be much, much worse for all concerned.

Tim Leunig is an academic in the department of economic history at the London School of Economics

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment