So now the the horse trading is going on following the election on Thursday – and don’t ever ask me to predict anything, eh? I am fairly relaxed about the outcome. After all, all three party leaders were delivered a smack on the nose and no one has come out a clear winner.
Some themes seem to be coming out of this. In the Guardian, we hear the whine of the left who claim that a majority of the electorate voted for a progressive coalition of the left.
No. They. Did. Not.
If you follow this absurd reasoning, a majority voted to see an end to the Labour government – and in 2005, a majority voted likewise. The maths is clear – there was a significant swing to the conservatives, they won the majority of seats and therefore, they have the greatest legitimacy to form a government, no matter what the constitutional precedent. Every hour that Gordon Brown remains in Downing Street, will see his unpopularity increase as it did With Ted Heath in 1974. As John Major pointed out yesterday, it makes him increasingly undignified.
What this result has highlighted is that despite a significant swing, the Conservatives failed to win an overall majority. A similar swing to Labour would result in a landslide. The system is clearly flawed and Cameron has suffered by it as much as the other players. Certainly any FPTP system needs a levelling up of the constituencies – needing more votes than another party to achieve an equivalent outcome because of the size of the constituencies is absurd and can be seen to be absurd. That said, whatever system comes out of this, I would not like to lose the constituency link.
The self styled progressives, blind to the mathematics – and reality – continue apace in their shrill reiteration that Britain is a progressive country. Scotland and Wales, maybe. England is decidedly conservative. Perhaps it is time for English independence? Given the complaints I heard in the immediate aftermath; that a Conservative government would be an English government imposing its will on Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales would be laughable if the people saying it were not serious. Clearly they have forgotten the Scottish Raj imposing its will on England for the past thirteen years while their own constituencies were unaffected by their policies due to home rule.
Then there are the progressives themselves – a term that is becoming increasingly bandied about. When someone declares themselves a progressive, my hackles rise. What they mean in reality is that everyone else must be forced to bend to their vision of society, to conform to the socialist utopia they espouse, to be a good little prole. Progressives have no place for independently minded individuals. Progressives are the enemy of individualism, and are, therefore, the very essence of misanthropy. They choose to forget that society is composed of individuals. Progressives are to be despised utterly and completely. Perhaps, most of all is their mangling of the language. Progressives do not want progress, but regression to the dark days of the cold war eastern bloc style of living – the tractor stats will always be going up, despite the enslavement of the population and the collapse of the economy. There is nothing progressive about a progressive, just as there is nothing liberal about a liberal.
Having digressed, while I type, the Tories are bargaining with the LibDems. Is this a good thing or a bad one? On balance, I think it will be a good thing if they can pull it off. A coalition whether formal or a loose agreement will temper policy. It was a massive majority in the house that enabled Labour to carry out its withering attack on personal liberty. Lobbying MPs had no effect whatsoever, because even if one’s MP defied the whip and rebelled, that parliamentary majority remained undented. It was that majority that gave us ID cards, Contact Point, the NHS spine, the criminal records bureau, the absurd law on violent pornography, the civil contingencies act, and perhaps most importantly of all, the misuse of enabling legislation bypassing the scrutiny of the house. A coalition will temper the worst excesses. At least, I hope it will.
The most important task facing the new government is the economy. Yet, despite knowing how bad things are, we still have pundits being interviewed on the BBC complaining about Tory cuts. It doesn’t matter who is in power, cuts are going to have to happen. The country is broke. Very broke. When one is broke, the formula is simple. Too simple for politicians and pundits, it seems. You cut your outgoings, increase your income or both. It will be possible to make drastic cuts in public expenditure without touching one teacher, nurse, doctor or police officer – immediately dismantle the database state, disband all but essential government departments, cease funding to charities and disband quangos.
The question is; do they have the courage to do it?
It’s an odd situation. The Lib Dems must understand that propping up the failed Labour government will make them look bad, while a failure to at least co-operate with the Conservatives will lead to another election, probably before the end of the year, and the Lib-Dems will get the blame for everything failing and be out contention for another generation.
I think they have to work with Cameron for the sake of the economy and relax a bit on electoral reform for now. I hope they avoid taking any seats in the Cabinet without a clear direction as to what vote reform might take, but are seen to work close with the Tories and are party to any recovery (but can distance themselves from any fall-out from any failure too!) When the time comes they can turn to whatever Labour have become in opposition and threaten to pull down Cameron if there is no meaningful electoral reform proposals.
Regarding ‘progressives’, I might have to quote you chez moi. As recompense I will leave this, written in 1932, and as true now as it was then:
“The socialist movement takes great pains to circulate frequently new labels for its ideally constructed state. Each worn-out label is replaced by another which raises hopes of an ultimate solution of the insoluble basic problem of Socialism – until it becomes obvious that nothing has been changed but the name.”
from the preface to the second German edition of Ludwig von Mises’ demolition job ‘Socialism’.
.-= My last blog ..The IMF Riot =-.