The UK House of Commons passes the Loyal Address following the King's Speech without a successful no-confidence amendment, on or before 2026-06-03.

All four frameworks independently converge on passage, yielding a strong multi-lens consensus that constitutes a high-confidence signal. The institutionalist frame provides the most direct explanatory mechanism: transaction costs of existential defection are constitutionally prohibitive, and the common-pool resource logic — each rebel destroys the shared majority asset from which they derive political power — creates a near-universal compliance equilibrium. The Austrian coordination-barrier insight reinforces this from a knowledge-dispersion angle: rebels cannot simultaneously defect without triggering whip surveillance before reaching the threshold, and the same epistemic fragmentation that hurts the government in bond markets protects it in parliamentary arithmetic. The Marxist frame confirms that cross-class parliamentary alliance (Labour rebels voting alongside Tories) faces asymmetric ideological costs under the responsible-government pidgin, and that ministerial resignations are best read as the sacrifice-flip circuit authenticating the reset rather than destabilizing the coalition. The Keynesian frame, most hedged at 0.71, still converges on passage via the political paradox of thrift — individual MPs rationally distance from Starmer but rational individual distancing does not aggregate to government defeat when the collective consequence (snap election loss) is catastrophic for all defectors simultaneously. The near-zero historical base rate of majority governments losing Loyal Address votes anchors the synthesis. Adjusted downward from 0.97 to 0.88 to account for the unusual severity of the ministerial crisis, the gilt-market pressure suppressing King’s Speech credibility, and the Keynesian prediction of visibly damaged passage even absent formal defeat.