Whose majority?


Earlier this week the government was defeated in the Lords on the Crime and Courts Bill.

Before the summer, it had to pull its Lords Reform proposals, when it became clear they would not get through the Commons. Next week, MPs will be debating what, if anything, to do about regulating the press. In the new year, there'll be a bill on gay marriage. And eventually, there may be a Commons vote on cutting the number of MPs from 650 to 600 and redrawing constituency boundaries in the process.

How are all these things related?

The answer is that this week's Lords defeat was the result of an ad-hoc coalition on a particular issue. Labour peers, crossbenchers and Liberal and Conservative rebels combined and found they constituted a majority in the Upper House. The end of Lords reform was the product of Labour siding with a huge backbench Tory rebellion. And if the other matters get through Parliament, it will be because other coalitions have formed behind them; not because a majority government has willed it.

My point is that the days of an imperial majority getting its way in Parliament are, at least for the time being, over.

Take gay marriage - there may be strong opposition (mostly) on the Conservative benches, but there is a clear majority in the Commons (a chunk of Conservative MPs, plus most Labour and Lib Dems) which can be expected to vote a bill through. There may be a similar alignment in favour of press regulation (although the cast of characters may be a bit different, particularly on the Conservative side).

But on parliamentary boundaries, the Conservatives may be able to offer Northern Ireland's DUP, the SNP and the Welsh nationalists sufficient inducements, in the form of extra devolution, to get the proposals through, in the teeth of Labour and Lib Dem opposition. They're certainly making strenuous attempts to pull a majority together.

So the question to ask about any contentious vote in the Commons is not just "will the coalition hold together?" but "which coalition will turn up?" On the central questions of economic policy the Lib-Con coalition has so far managed to command a Commons majority. But on some issues of social policy and matters like press regulation, particularly those which are outside the Coalition Agreement, that majority may not be there, and Lib Dems or, perhaps Tory backbenchers, may go walkabout.

Unofficial whips like Jesse Norman, who engineered the defeat of Lords reform in the Commons, or Mark Reckless, on the EU Budget, have demonstrated that independent-minded MPs can get their way if they have the tactical nous and determination to construct a Commons majority.

Which is why David Cameron may not be able to prevent statutory regulation of the press. It is quite possible to imagine a bill going through on the votes of Labour and Lib Dems and some Tory MPs, and bypassing the Department of Culture Media and Sport.

Government's grip on Parliament has not been this weak for generations.

Mark D'Arcy Article written by Mark D'Arcy Mark D'Arcy Parliamentary correspondent

Week ahead

A certain amount of fag-end legislating, next week, as MPs and peers finish off several bills.

Read full article

More on This Story

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external Internet sites


This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
  • rate this

    Comment number 3.

    If David Cameron put as much time into getting the economy going as he does defending his posh friends maybe he would not be seeing so much decent in the ranks.
    David Cameron and his side kick George Osbourne could never in their wildest dreams hope to connect with the real people of this country and for this reason they are coming across as the weakest PM and Chancellor in recent history.

  • rate this

    Comment number 2.

    Unfortunately, judging by some of the declared, completely non-consensus-based intentions of the tories, one would hardly think it.

  • rate this

    Comment number 1.

    This is the best aspect of multi-party government. No party has a strangle-hold - decisions must be reached through consensus either of co-partners or of an ad hock coalition of one of the government parties and opposition. Some would argue that this is a truer democracy than a straight 2 party system because it allows a variety of voices to be heard. The Tories must learn they have no mandate.



Copyright © 2015 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.