Conservative options for a Hung Parliament

Ken Clarke took centre-stage last week to warn of a hung Parliament's effect on the economy.  Nick Clegg gained no new momentum from Thursday's debate, and his party seems to have peaked.  Labour is running its worst election campaign since 1983, and is riven over how to deal with the Liberal Democrats. The Conservatives are creeping up in the polls.

According to YouGov, support for a hung Parliament is falling. Voters may at last be getting a key Cameron message: that a hung Parliament risks instability at best and Brown returned to Downing Street at worst. It's possible that the Labour vote could fall low enough to ensure that Conservative gains in red/blue marginals offset Liberal holds in blue/yellow ones - delivering the Commons a Cameron majority.

After five see-saw years which have seen Labour ahead by as much as eleven per cent, and the Conservatives in front by more than 25, anything could happen in the last ten days of this election.  I believe that a blue majority is possible. None the less, the polls continue to suggest a hung Parliament, and David Cameron is having to answer questions about his response in such an event.

My assessment is that he has three main options in such circumstances, assuming that we get more votes than Labour  - a reasonable assumption.  Let me set out how he might present each one.

1)  "The people have spoken.  No Party has a majority in Parliament.  At this moment, Gordon Brown is trying to persuade Nick Clegg to confirm him as Prime Minister.  The stark fact is that Brown has no mandate for change.  He is discredited and his Party is humiliated.  He is the first Prime Minister in modern times to lead his Party into third place in an election.

My Party won more votes than any other.  Only a new Government can deliver the change which Britain's voted for.  If Nick props up Brown, he will be turning his back on democracy and spitting in the face of voters.  He will also be putting people's prosperity, mortgages, savings and jobs in peril.  An emergency budget to salvage our economy is now a matter of urgency.

That's why I urge Nick to join me in putting the national interest before either of our party's.  And it's in the national interest that I now say this: this election has proved beyond doubt that the country is crying out for change - political change as well as economic change  - and for a new politics to replace old politics.

I've always said that I'm a liberal Conservative.  It's in that spirit that I'm prepared to put aside the prejudices of the past.  This election has left our electoral system as derided as our political system.  The moment has come to bow to the will of the people.  I believe that the moment has come to hold a referendum on proportional representation - and to support it.

This historic offer paves the way for the realignment of British politics of which progressives have so long dreamed.  And be in no doubt: the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats are progressives.  We both champion civil liberties.  We're both passionate about the environment.  We both support international development.  We're both committed to radical schools reform.

True, there are areas of divergence.  But as a liberal Conservative, I believe that given goodwill all round, we can come together in the national interest, for a new politics, for change.  That's why I want to see Nick as Deputy Prime Minister, Vince Cable as Chancellor and Richard Younger-Ross in charge of Work and Pensions - I'm sorry that Richard lost his seat, but Lord Younger-Ross has a nice ring to it - in our new Change Coalition.  Nick, my door is open."

2) The second option runs as the first one does until the words "...national interest before either of our Party's" with only one change - deleting the "new" before "Government", and inserting "Conservative".  It then continues -

"This Parliament has no mandate for a referendum on proportional representation.  Over three quarters of its members were elected on manifestos containing no commitment to PR.  To dally with such a referendum, given the present political uncertainties, would be to destablise the economy further - and I will not, repeat not, take such a risk.

However, I'm willing to discuss all other matters, with no exceptions, with Nick absolutely without prejudice. And I'm more than willing to reach an accommodation with the Liberal Democrats in the national interest. I'm open to any ideas and suggestions he puts forward.  I'm willing to make sacrifices and compromises if necessary.  I've always said that I'm a liberal Conservative, and I'm offering him the chance to join me in a change coalition.  I am of course willing to govern alone if necessary but, Nick, my door is open."

3) The third option runs as the second one does until the words "national interest before either of our Party's".  It then continues -

"I remain unswervingly opposed to proportional representation.  However, I believe that the moment has come to hold a referendum, and let the people decide.

I'm of course willing to discuss all other matters, with no exceptions, with Nick absolutely without prejudice. And I'm more than willing to reach an accommodation with the Liberal Democrats in the national interest. I'm open to any ideas and suggestions he puts forward.  I'm willing to make sacrifices and compromises if necessary - as I've just proved with my words on a PR referendum.  I've always said that I'm a liberal Conservative, and I'm offering him the chance to join me in a change coalition.  I am of course willing to govern alone if necessary but, Nick, my door is open."

All other options seem to me to be variants on one of these above.  For example, for Cameron to pay no compliments to the Liberals at all would be a version of option two.  For Labour to ditch Brown would require Cameron to adapt his evisceration of Labour, but the options would remain roughly as they are. There will be a myriad of variants on each.  My sense is that the only option acceptable to the Parliamentary and voluntary Party is the second - the first is clearly out of the question (and written tongue-in-cheek, but it is an option, at least on paper).  The Tory strategists who told Tim that a referendum on PR will be "unavoidable" should bear this in mind.

Paul Goodman