A bold move or dereliction of duty?

The Prime Minister’s choice yesterday stunned many, but it was perhaps a step taken too quickly, writes our analysts.

IN the history of British politics, one of the most consistent and recurring themes has been the Tory party’s insistence that they are the most stable and ordered governing force in parliament. While this has taken on a new dimension in our multiparty era, this is still a core part of the Tory message and approach. It is rare for the Tories to try to sink coalitions, and even in more recent times this has been the case. They fought attempts to ply the ‘Clegg’ government apart in the last term and, until yesterday, the only governing arrangement of their own that the Tories could be said to have transparently dismantled in the past few years would be the the second Tory-LPUK coalition. So when the Prime Minister announced that the government was over yesterday, it surely shocked many observers as it broke with the mantra of “stable government” and broke with the sort of accommodationism and compromise that Tories have long tried to employ to retain power.

The announcement was clear; the Prime Minister would not be able to convince his MPs to back their coalition partner in the Commons and he would be leading his party to the opposition benches as a consequence. There is no question that the Libertarian leader's own offensive remarks about domestic abuse triggered this course of action, but in truth this event was simply one among a long string of unhappy moments for this coalition. Be it sanctioning the Philippines, the conduct of LPUK ministers, or marriage itself, the two parties of the coalition seemed to rock from vocal disagreement to vocal disagreement every other week. While the government breaking apart was probably inevitable at some point this term due to this infighting, the declaration that the Tories would head into opposition was not. In an earlier era, this would have been a moment where a Prime Minister might have called for an early election. In our more recent one, it would not be unreasonable to expect a party in the position of the Tories to seek out a minority government or even find alternative coalition partners.

Remaining in a position of influence normally would have been of greater importance than ever before for the Tories given that the next government will have immense influence on the post-Brexit relationship with the European Union; shaping that relationship has been a longstanding and carefully-calibrated Tory project since the days of u/InfernoPlato. After the 31st of December, the current transition period ends. While neither the EU nor the UK have publicly set a firm date that an EU-UK deal needs to be ratified by, many observers would tend to say that mid-November is the deadline to reach a more comprehensive agreement in order to allow time for the relevant national and regional parliaments of the EU’s member states to ratify an agreement. For reference on timing, a Queen’s speech is expected to be read in just over a week, leaving very little time to agree to a deal. This transition period could be extended, but that is not something the Tories would have normally wanted. One of the motivating factors many Tories had when choosing the LPUK over the LibDems at the start of this term was a desire to 'get Brexit done' after all.

It isn’t as if there is much cross-party and intergovernmental consensus on what such a deal ought to entail because successive Tory-led governments have not given updates on the UK’s negotiating objectives or outlined meaningful progress—the last time this happened was nearly a year ago. Tories have been careful to release scarcely little information or even state simple aims about their approach. The devolved administrations were meant to be finally brought into the process with the announcement of a special joint ministerial committee session on EU relations, but with the collapse of the government this is now all in doubt as well. There is apparently a mostly-finished deal out there, but even if it is real then it is one which reflects the policy preferences of the Tories and may not necessarily align with the aspirations of an incoming administration.

With little time to negotiate anything new and update key stakeholders, there are only three likely outcomes on Europe worthy of any consideration at this point. There could simply be an end to the transition period with no deal. There could be an end to the transition period under the terms of a (almost exclusively Tory-negotiated) deal which is voted through parliament with relatively little done in the way of consultation, modification, or discussion. Or there could be an extension to the transition period itself under the authority granted by the Withdrawal Agreement Act.

The Tories, in their statement, seem to want the incoming government to pass a deal largely negotiated by them to resolve any issues surrounding a lack of time, but without their voices at the Cabinet table it is unlikely that this view will win out. Given the political isolation of the LPUK, if the Tories yield their place then the next most likely outcome is that some sort of Labour-led coalition comes to power. This is a group which, historically, would take a different view on Europe in government when compared to the Tories without some counterbalance from more Eurosceptic forces. The Classical Liberals served this function for the Sunrise government, but there is no such party with parliamentary representation at the moment. Without the Tories being in a position of influence, either within a sole minority government, in a ‘Clegg’ arrangement, or perhaps within a new ‘grand coalition’, it will be difficult to persuade more Europhilic parties in Cabinet that a looser trading relationship with the EU is one which is ideal. In such a situation, the decision to seek an extension is much more likely to win the day. If that comes to pass, it will be an outcome that the Tories will have consciously granted to their rivals.

Many yesterday proclaimed the decision to resign as being a bold and decisive act, and in some sense it was. It is hard to recall a similar decision in any recent moment in time; certainly the Tories stood by their party's position with firmness. Yet with the passage of time it might be the case that people look back at this choice as the moment that the self-proclaimed ‘natural party of government’ evaded responsibility and did not even attempt to secure the interests of its supporters from Westminster by working with others when the choice was available.