Why the Lib Dems should avoid "confidence and supply"

Such a deal would satisfy neither supporters nor opponents of the coalition.

The idea of a "confidence and supply" agreement between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats, first mooted after the 2010 election, has re-entered political discussion after the almighty bust-up over House of Lords reform. The expectation on both sides is that the coalition will end in 2014, a year out from the next election, or possibly even earlier. Conservative MP Graham Brady,  the chairman of the 1922 committee, told Radio 4's Westminster Hour last night:

I think it would be logical and sensible for both parties to be able to present their separate vision to the public in time for the public to form a clear view before the election.

Of course, it is always possible that that moment of separation could come sooner. It's very difficult to predict when that might be.

The Lib Dems would then agree to support a minority Tory government in votes of no confidence ("confidence") and on any Budget (or "supply") measure.

It's arguable that the Lib Dems should have adopted such an arrangement from the start, rather than entered coalition with the Conservatives. Whilst Nick Clegg's party would still have had to support George Osborne's "emergency Budget" and the Spending Review, it could have avoided breaking its totemic pledge to cap tuition fees and could have voted against the government's NHS reforms.

But a confidence and supply deal with the Tories would now be the worst of all possible worlds for the Lib Dems. It would do nothing to placate those voters who despise them for propping up a Conservative government (indeed, this charge would have even more resonance), whilst antagonising those who believe they were right to enter coalition "in the national interest". Clegg's party would still have to vote for a Conservative Budget, brimming with welfare cuts, with even less guarantee of concessions elsewhere. A pact with the Tories would, to borrow a phrase, be a "miserable little compromise".

There are good arguments for the Lib Dems remaining in the coalition until 2015 and for them withdrawing completely before the next election. But there are none for entering the purgatory of confidence and supply.

Update: Academic Tim Bale, the author of the excellent The Conservative Party from Thatcher to Cameron, has alerted me to his research on the subject, which confirms that "confidence and supply" is frequently a curse for small parties.

The coalition is now likely to end before 2014. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

As a Conservative MP, I want Parliament to get a proper debate on Brexit

The government should consider a Green Paper before Article 50. 

I am very pleased that the government has listened to the weight of opinion across the House of Commons – and the country – by agreeing to put its plan for Brexit before Parliament and the country for scrutiny before Article 50 is triggered. Such responsiveness will stand the government in good stead. A confrontation with Parliament, especially given the paeans to parliamentary sovereignty we heard from Leave campaigners during the referendum, would have done neither the Brexit process nor British democracy any good.

I support the government’s amendment to Labour’s motion, which commits the House to respecting the will of the British people expressed in the referendum campaign. I accept that result, and now I and other Conservatives who campaigned to Remain are focused on getting the best deal for Britain; a deal which respects the result of the referendum, while keeping Britain close to Europe and within the single market.

The government needs to bring a substantive plan before Parliament, which allows for a proper public and parliamentary debate. For this to happen, the plan provided must be detailed enough for MPs to have a view on its contents, and it must arrive in the House far enough in advance of Article 50 for us to have a proper debate. As five pro-European groups said yesterday, a Green Paper two months before Article 50 is invoked would be a sensible way of doing it. Or, in the words of David Davis just a few days before he was appointed to the Cabinet, a “pre-negotiation white paper” could be used to similar effect.

Clearly there are divisions, both between parties and between Leavers and Remainers, on what the Brexit deal should look like. But I, like other members of the Open Britain campaign and other pro-European Conservatives, have a number of priorities which I believe the government must prioritise in its negotiations.

On the economy, it is vital that the government strives to keep our country fully participating in the single market. Millions of jobs depend on the unfettered trade, free of both tariff and non-tariff barriers, we enjoy with the world’s biggest market. This is absolutely compatible with the result, as senior Leave campaigners such as Daniel Hannan assured voters before the referendum that Brexit would not threaten Britain’s place in the single market. The government must also undertake serious analysis on the consequences of leaving the customs union, and the worrying possibility that the UK could fall out of our participation in the EU’s Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) with non-EU countries like South Korea.

If agreeing a new trading relationship with Europe in just two years appears unachievable, the government must look closely into the possibility of agreeing a transitional arrangement first. Michel Barnier, the European Commission’s chief negotiator, has said this would be possible and the Prime Minister was positive about this idea at the recent CBI Conference. A suitable transitional arrangement would prevent the biggest threat to British business – that of a "cliff edge" that would slap costly tariffs and customs checks on British exports the day after we leave.

Our future close relationship with the EU of course goes beyond economics. We need unprecedentedly close co-operation between the UK and the EU on security and intelligence sharing; openness to talented people from Europe and the world; and continued cooperation on issues like the environment. This must all go hand-in-hand with delivering reforms to immigration that will make the system fairer, many of which can be seen in European countries as diverse as the Netherlands and Switzerland.

This is what I and others will be arguing for in the House of Commons, from now until the day Britain leaves the European Union. A Brexit deal that delivers the result of the referendum while keeping our country prosperous, secure, open and tolerant. I congratulate the government on their decision to involve the House in their plan for Brexit - and look forward to seeing the details. 

Neil Carmichael is the Conservative MP for Stroud and supporter of the Open Britain campaign.