Opposition's political manoeuvring falls flat as Yukub becomes Prime Minister

Newly elected leader of the Conservative Party, Yukub, will shortly head to Downing Street to accept an invitation from Her Majesty the Queen to form a government. After the Libertarian Party UK passed a vote of no confidence in the previous Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition, Yukub looks set to head a Conservative minority government. With the Conservatives set to hold 10 Downing Street, many are now asking: why was the 24th Government toppled in the first place?

The most obvious answer, of course, is that Labour wanted to form a government themselves. The usual outcome of a Vote of No Confidence in a government is the Official Opposition being invited to form a government; before the introduction of mixed-member proportional representation, this was certainly the case. However, Labour's proposed governing coalition with the Democratic Reformist Front and the People's Movement fell apart in spectacular fashion, clearing the way for a Conservative minority.

Labour can't be happy with this turn of events. Relations between them and the Liberal Democrats, already stretched thin after Liberal Democratic backbenchers in the Sunrise Coalition pushed their party to the right, have reached a near-historic low. The Labour Party played an important role in removing them from what was from the Liberal Democrats' point of view a relatively successful government, and there will be no love lost between them. Additionally, Labour's inability to hold together a governing coalition for long enough to even cross the threshold of No 10 will be a Conservative attack line in the weeks and months to come – although the extent to which Labour are culpable has been and will continue to be fiercely debated within the Westminster political sphere. While Labour will continue to fiercely oppose the government, their newly-found position at the top of the polls looks shaky as voters may punish them for failing to form a government after toppling the government.

Meanwhile, the Libertarian Party hasn't emerged from this unscathed, either. Many in Westminster circles lauded Friedmanite19, the Libertarian leader, for his political scheming, which saw the party that rejected his in favour of the Liberal Democrats toppled from power. When the Times broke the news that a coalition agreement had been reached between the Libertarian Party and the Liberal Democrats, many thought that Friedmanite had pulled off a masterstroke. Not only had he managed to bring down a government, he also looked set to relegate Labour to unofficial opposition.

However, reality might be less kind to Friedmanite than the fantasies of the Libertarians. The Liberal Democrats rejected the Official Opposition coalition deal, albeit narrowly, in a sign that some in the party are not willing to work with a party that toppled their government. While the Conservatives may be willing to forgive the Libertarians for collapsing their government, especially as it means that they can now govern alone, it certainly will not have helped Friedmanite's standing in their eyes.

The Democratic Reformist Front and the People's Movement will also not escape from the repercussions of the Vote of No Confidence. Despite the ideological differences that both parties have, Labour is currently the only path they have into government. While many People's Movement voters may not have cast their ballots for the party with the expectation that they will enter government any time soon, some will understandably be concerned about whether or not a party that already has a reputation for being difficult to work with can effect change in Parliament. The collapse of the coalition agreement has damaged the image and the credibility of both parties, and voters will likely punish them for it.

The answer to the question "why did we topple the government?" remains unclear. Labour hoped to form a government, the Libertarians hoped to enter Official Opposition. But with both parties losing allies on all sides, the consensus may develop that doing so was a very unwise move.

Lily Hail is the editor-in-chief of the Independent.