David Cameron outside No.10 Downing Street on the day parliament was dissolved for the election. Photograph: Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Labour denounce Cameron's plan to "cling to power" even if he lacks a majority

The opposition seek to stop the PM surviving if it becomes clear he could not command the confidence of the Commons.

In recent days the Conservatives have made it clear that if they are the single largest party after the election, David Cameron will seek to survive as prime minister - even if it is clear that he lacks the Commons support needed to govern. The aim is to delegitimise a Labour minority government at birth by declaring victory and framing Cameron as the only acceptable PM. (Though some Tories hope they could persuade enough Labour MPs to abstain in any vote.)

A Conservative cabinet minister told the Sunday Times: "It’s a race to be the largest party. We will say: 'We’re legitimate, we’re the largest party, we should carry on.' If necessary, dare the others to vote down a Conservative government. We’ll bring forward a vote of confidence on our Queen’s Speech so they do the deed in plain sight, rather than meekly saying, 'I suppose your numbers add up, goodbye'."

In response, Labour have denounced Cameron for planning to "cling to power" even if it becomes clear he will be defeated in the Commons. An aide told the New Statesman: "All the noise coming out of the mouths of David Cameron and Nick Clegg is about how they can cling on to power even if their coalition loses its majority. Clegg has shown his true colours – he personally wants to get back into bed with Cameron even at the price of betraying the Lib Dems’ fundamental principle of protecting our future in Europe. "

The aide added: "David Cameron is showing he is in an incredibly weak position. He won’t talk about the big questions in this election, how to create an economy which works for working families, how to sustain our NHS, how to get a better future for young people. Instead, he is trying to focus all attention in these final days on the process question of what happens after the election rather the decision people have to make in this election.

"Just like he did on the morning of 19 September – where Cameron had the opportunity to speak for the whole country after the Scottish referendum – he is instead showing he is driven by internal weakness and external electoral pressure to act only on behalf of the Tory party."

The political attractions of the Tories' gameplan are obvious but it would ride roughshod over constitutional convention. The relevant passage from the Cabinet Manual (Paragraph 2.12) states:

Paragraph 2.12  Parliaments with no overall majority in the House of Commons

Where an election does not result in an overall majority for a single party, the incumbent government remains in office unless and until the Prime minister tenders his or her resignation and the Government’s resignation to the Sovereign.  An incumbent government is entitled to wait until the new Parliament has met to see if it can command the confidence of the House of Commons, but is expected to resign if it becomes clear that it is unlikely to be able to command that confidence and there is a clear alternative.

The key line is that an incumbent government is "expected to resign if it becomes clear that it is unlikely to be able to command" the confidence of the House. Therefore, if Labour, the SNP (who have pledged to vote down the Conservatives) and other anti-Tory parties have a majority of seats, Cameron should resign rather than invite inevitable defeat in the Commons.

The Cabinet Manual also makes it clear that the person most likely to be able to command the confidence of the House (in this case, Ed Miliband) then becomes prime minister - even if it is not certain they would be able to do so. Paragraph 2.8 states: "Prime Ministers hold office unless and until they resign. If the Prime Minister resigns on behalf of the Government, the Sovereign will invite the person who appears most likely to be able to command the confidence of the House to serve as Prime Minister and to form a government."

By convention, then, Miliband would become PM without the need for any formal deal with the SNP - on whom Labour's majority would likely depend.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

I was wrong about Help to Buy - but I'm still glad it's gone

As a mortgage journalist in 2013, I was deeply sceptical of the guarantee scheme. 

If you just read the headlines about Help to Buy, you could be under the impression that Theresa May has just axed an important scheme for first-time buyers. If you're on the left, you might conclude that she is on a mission to make life worse for ordinary working people. If you just enjoy blue-on-blue action, it's a swipe at the Chancellor she sacked, George Osborne.

Except it's none of those things. Help to Buy mortgage guarantee scheme is a policy that actually worked pretty well - despite the concerns of financial journalists including me - and has served its purpose.

When Osborne first announced Help to Buy in 2013, it was controversial. Mortgage journalists, such as I was at the time, were still mopping up news from the financial crisis. We were still writing up reports about the toxic loan books that had brought the banks crashing down. The idea of the Government promising to bail out mortgage borrowers seemed the height of recklessness.

But the Government always intended Help to Buy mortgage guarantee to act as a stimulus, not a long-term solution. From the beginning, it had an end date - 31 December 2016. The idea was to encourage big banks to start lending again.

So far, the record of Help to Buy has been pretty good. A first-time buyer in 2013 with a 5 per cent deposit had 56 mortgage products to choose from - not much when you consider some of those products would have been ridiculously expensive or would come with many strings attached. By 2016, according to Moneyfacts, first-time buyers had 271 products to choose from, nearly a five-fold increase

Over the same period, financial regulators have introduced much tougher mortgage affordability rules. First-time buyers can be expected to be interrogated about their income, their little luxuries and how they would cope if interest rates rose (contrary to our expectations in 2013, the Bank of England base rate has actually fallen). 

A criticism that still rings true, however, is that the mortgage guarantee scheme only helps boost demand for properties, while doing nothing about the lack of housing supply. Unlike its sister scheme, the Help to Buy equity loan scheme, there is no incentive for property companies to build more homes. According to FullFact, there were just 112,000 homes being built in England and Wales in 2010. By 2015, that had increased, but only to a mere 149,000.

This lack of supply helps to prop up house prices - one of the factors making it so difficult to get on the housing ladder in the first place. In July, the average house price in England was £233,000. This means a first-time buyer with a 5 per cent deposit of £11,650 would still need to be earning nearly £50,000 to meet most mortgage affordability criteria. In other words, the Help to Buy mortgage guarantee is targeted squarely at the middle class.

The Government plans to maintain the Help to Buy equity loan scheme, which is restricted to new builds, and the Help to Buy ISA, which rewards savers at a time of low interest rates. As for Help to Buy mortgage guarantee, the scheme may be dead, but so long as high street banks are offering 95 per cent mortgages, its effects are still with us.