Adam Penny
Nov 4 · 1 min read

Gabriel Mills point is technically correct. On the other hand, confidence and supply gives all of the initiative to the minority government party: there’s no route to get your own policies on the table.

Additionally, confidence and supply agreements tend to be expected to fail by markets. When it became clear it was a hung parliament in 2010 the FTSE fell and the pound weakened, which recovered dramatically a few days later on announcement of the coalition. Minority governments don’t normally last long either, but had Cameron called another GE from lack of support six-months along the line, given how discredited Labour were after Iraq and many corruption scandals over the years, it would have probably been settled with a Conservative majority.

Things like the pupil premium, the Green Investment Bank (since sold off by the Conservative Majority government that followed), lifting more lower earners out of income tax, increasing tax on higher earners, separating out retail banking from casino banking, and other things, could not have happened if it was simply confidence and supply.

Only slight correction to the piece is that it’s not Lib Dem policy to scrap the unilaterally scrap the nuclear deterrent. There are many in the party that would like this, but more that think it’s a bad idea, especially in the current climate where nuclear arms are becoming ever more commonplace.

    Adam Penny

    Written by