Illustration: Ralph Steadman
Show Hide image

What the hell happens next? Your post-election questions answered

As we head into election day, the polls are still neck-and-neck – meaning that neither Labour nor the Tory party is likely to be able to form a majority government. So, what happens now?

It looks like none of the parties will win outright. This is uncharted territory!

Not true. The outcome is no excuse for politicians and civil servants to claim that the UK is “unaccustomed” to hung parliaments. Of the 20 Westminster governments formed in the 20th century, five were coalitions and five were minority governments. And, of course, the parties muddled through a hung parliament in 2010.

If no one achieves a majority, who wins?

The party whose leader can command the “confidence” of the House of Commons – which basically means securing enough support from the smaller parties to form a viable government. It’s a common misconception that the leader of the party with the most seats automatically becomes prime minister.

But won’t David Cameron get first dibs at making a deal, as the incumbent?

There is no such convention. The Prime Minister will remain in Downing Street until it becomes clear who can lead the next administration, but making deals and speaking to the smaller parties will be a free-for-all. And neither is it the case that the party to win the most seats has the first shot at forming a government, or that the smaller parties are obliged to speak to that party before any others.

So if Labour or the Tories think they can form a workable government, what will it look like?

We could see another formal coalition, like the one we have now – though there is less appetite for that this time, and the Lib Dems are unlikely to win enough seats to rule alongside either the Tories or Labour with a majority. A confidence-and-supply arrangement (where a smaller party backs government bills on a case-by-case basis) is another possible form of partnership. A minority government ruling alone is looking increasingly likely, though it is generally seen as undesirable. We could even see a minority coalition, as New Zealand did between 1999 and 2008. All of these are dependent on the electoral arithmetic and each of the parties’ “red lines” for negotiating a deal.

Who’s running the country during these deals?

The “caretaker convention” allows government ministers to remain in place, though little official business can be done. Cameron would stay in office, signing off initiatives and stopping ongoing agreements from lapsing, but there would be no new policies, contracts or public announcements. The civil service would remain in the more exotically named “purdah”, operating under specific professional restrictions on conducting government business.

How will the new government test itself to see if it works?

It is for the parties themselves to determine who among them is best placed to govern. Once they settle on which party is most likely to be able to govern, its leader goes to the Queen to be appointed prime minister. But the first real test is the Queen’s Speech. This is when the new government puts its legislative programme to a vote in the Commons. It is currently scheduled for 27 May.

What if they haven’t decided by then?

If there is still deadlock by 27 May then the Queen will want to stay out of it, and the Leader of the House of Lords (Baroness Stowell) will make the speech instead. One of the parties will have to dare to give things a go. If its Queen’s Speech fell, it would almost certainly face an immediate no-confidence vote.

And if it lost the no-confidence vote?

Then the leader would be compelled to resign as prime minister and advise the Queen to invite the opposition to attempt to form a government. If an alternative administration isn't formed within 14 days, there would have to be a second general election.

How likely is a second election?

If the electoral arithmetic is irredeemably hung, we could end up with a second election this year. But it is unlikely, thanks to the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011. Support from at least two-thirds of the House of Commons would be needed for a motion calling for an early election. Or a majority would be required to pass a vote of no-confidence. It would be very difficult for a minority government to engineer either scenario, or to repeal the Act.

Does the Queen step in at any point to help to decide who governs?

No, not at all. The Queen’s private secretary will be in contact with Downing Street and will keep her updated, but she will be in Windsor and unreachable by politicians.

 

Anoosh Chakelian is senior writer at the New Statesman.

This article first appeared in the 06 May 2015 issue of the New Statesman, The Power Struggle

Felipe Araujo
Show Hide image

Manchester's Muslim community under siege: "We are part of the fabric of this nation"

As the investigation into last week's bombing continues, familiar media narratives about Islam conflict with the city's support for its Muslim population.

“You guys only come when something like this happens,” said one of the worshippers at Manchester's Victoria Park Mosque, visibly annoyed at the unusual commotion. Four days after the attack that killed 22 people, this congregation, along with many others around the city, is under a microscope.

During Friday prayers, some of the world’s media came looking for answers. On the eve of Ramadan, the dark shadow of terrorism looms large over most mosques in Manchester and beyond.

“People who do this kind of thing are no Muslims,” one man tells me.

It’s a routine that has become all too familiar to mosque goers in the immediate aftermath of a major terror attack. In spite of reassurances from authorities and the government, Muslims in this city of 600,000 feel under siege. 

“The media likes to portray us as an add-on, an addition to society,” Imam Irfan Christi tells me. “I would like to remind people that in World War I and World War II Muslims fought for this nation. We are part of the fabric of this great nation that we are.”

On Wednesday, soon after it was revealed the perpetrator of last Monday’s attack, Salman Ramadan Abedi, worshipped at the Manchester Islamic Centre in the affluent area of Didsbury, the centre was under police guard, with very few people allowed in. Outside, with the media was impatiently waiting, a young man was giving interviews to whoever was interested.

“Tell me, what is the difference between a British plane dropping bombs on a school in Syria and a young man going into a concert and blowing himself up,” he asked rhetorically. “Do you support terrorists, then?” one female reporter retorted. 

When mosque officials finally came out, they read from a written statement. No questions were allowed. 

“Some media reports have reported that the bomber worked at the Manchester Islamic Centre. This is not true,” said the director of the centre’s trustees, Mohammad el-Khayat. “We express concern that a very small section of the media are manufacturing stories.”

Annoyed by the lack of information and under pressure from pushy editors, eager for a sexy headline, the desperation on the reporters’ faces was visible. They wanted something, from anyone, who had  even if a flimsy connection to the local Muslim community or the mosque. 

Two of them turned to me. With curly hair and black skin, in their heads I was the perfect fit for what a Muslim was supposed to look like.

"Excuse me, mate, are you from the mosque, can I ask you a couple of questions,” they asked. “What about?,” I said. "Well, you are a Muslim, right?" I laughed. The reporter walked away.

At the Victoria Park Mosque on Friday, Imam Christi dedicated a large portion of his sermon condemning last Monday’s tragedy. But he was also forced to once again defend his religion and its followers, saying Islam is about peace and that nowhere in the Koran it says Muslims should pursue jihad.

“The Koran has come to cure people. It has come to guide people. It has come to give harmony in society,” he said. “And yet that same Koran is being described as blood thirsty? Yet that same Koran is being abused to justify terror and violence. Who de we take our Islam from?”

In spite of opening its doors to the world’s media, mosques in Britain’s major cities know they can do very little to change a narrative they believe discriminates against Muslims. They seem to feel that the very presence of reporters in these places every time a terror attack happens reveals an agenda.

Despite this, on the streets of Manchester it has proved difficult to find anyone who had a bad thing to say about Islam and the city’s Muslim community. Messages of unity were visible all over town. One taxi driver, a white working-class British man, warned me to not believe anything I read in the media.

“Half of my friends are British Muslims,” he said even before asked. “ These people that say Islam is about terrorism have no idea what they are talking about.”

Felipe Araujo is a freelance journalist based in London. He writes about race, culture and sports. He covered the Rio Olympics and Paralympics on the ground for the New Statesman. He tweets @felipethejourno.

0800 7318496