I derive some amusement from all the scurrying around going on – but mostly from the real losers; the Labour party and their desperate media lap-dogs. We are well aware of the unwritten constitution that gives the sitting Prime Minister the opportunity to form a government, but the mathematics simply does not support this option – even with the support of the LibDems and the various nationalist parties he cannot guarantee the support of the house with a majority of seats. And, frankly, allowing the oily salmon a say in what happens south of the border, adding insult to the injury of the West Lothian problem, would be an affront too far. Maintaining the current situation of the SNP not voting on English matters would make the arrangement pretty pointless.
Still, doesn’t stop the Guardian group giving it a go.
Nobody won. That is the basic definition of a hung parliament. The newly elected members might not see it that way. The leaders of the three main parties might couch the results of last week’s election in historical and statistical terms that make them feel better. But the fact remains: nobody won.
This much is true. However, some lost more than others. Labour lost more than most and if the system was evenly balanced, they would have been swept from power as John Major was in 1997.
The Conservatives have the most plausible claim to some kind of victory. They took the highest national share of the vote and gained 97 seats. But Mr Cameron was battling to restore majority Conservative rule. He campaigned vigorously against a hung parliament, all but demanding unchecked power. He was rebuffed: 10.7 million people voted for Tory government; more than 15 million people did not.
See what they did there? The same as this arsehole. Okay, taking their specious argument as valid, we can conclude that an even larger majority voted to remove Labour from power, just as they did in 2005. That argument can be sliced both ways. What these people are assuming is that LibDem = Labour Lite. It does not. There are significant policy differences, most notably on the matter of civil liberties where the LibDems are in accord with the Conservatives. However, the “progressive left” odious shits to a man and woman are so blinded by their hatred of the eeeeevil Tories that they will scrape any slime encrusted barrel in their search for a way of blocking a coalition of Conservative and LibDems – even a minority rainbow coalition of losers.
Who, then, should govern? The circumstances are unique, not in terms of the electoral outcome – Parliament has been hung before – but in terms of the cultural background. Britain has just held the most presidential campaign in its history and emerged with the result that most demands recognition of Parliament’s primacy in our constitution. The televised leaders’ debates put almost exclusive emphasis on the question of who should be prime minister. If the election is construed as a referendum on that point, David Cameron won.
The Tories also have the strongest parliamentary mandate of any single party. For that reason, Nick Clegg did the honourable thing by quickly restating his belief that Mr Cameron should have the first opportunity to try to form a government.
I agree with this point. The unwritten constitution is just that; unwritten. It is nothing more than convention. As the Groan’s leader goes on to point out, electoral reform is going to have to be on the table. Will it be a deal breaker? I hope not. Certainly it should be obvious to the Tories that they suffered as a consequence of the current system that favours the many small inner city constituencies, meaning that a LibDem or Conservative PPC will need more votes than the equivalent Labour one to achieve a win. This is clearly wrong and Cameron’s initial suggestion of evening up the constituencies makes sense. On balance, I think I would prefer this to a multi MP constituency arrangement. Like others, I would not want to lose the constituency link.
Anyway, moving onto the economy, the Groan offers us its wisdom*
The power to confer that authority rests with Nick Clegg. He should withhold it. The Tories have no greater claim to economic competence than any other party, nor any greater credibility on the deficit.
Really? So what about the party that handed Gordon Brown a stable economy? An economy subsequently squandered? If anything, it is the Tories alone among the parties that have that competence. Yes, they will make savage cuts. Savage cuts are necessary and desirable – sooner, much sooner – rather than later. If Clegg means what he says about the national interest, then he will work with the Tories to achieve a stable economy and put electoral reform on the back burner.
Their manifesto was full of unfunded pledges; their priorities, as indicated by capricious tax breaks for the rich, suggest a flimsy grasp of what counts as fairness in austerity.
I keep hearing about fairness. Is it fair to tax the less well off proportionally more than the higher earners as Labour has done? Remember the 10% fiasco? IHT – which is an egregious tax raises very little, yet is loaded with spite and envy, causing pain to those unfortunate enough to fall foul of it – and it is not just the “rich” who do fall foul. It exists to make the envious and the spiteful feel better about themselves. It serve no other purpose. The LibDems and the Tories favour raising the tax threshold, thereby improving the lot of the low earner.
The Groan concludes that the LibDems simply cannot reach agreement with the Tories due to the spectre of electoral reform.
Mr Cameron’s entire political career and his bearing during the campaign express an underlying confidence that, by virtue of historical entitlement, the Tories get regular turns at the levers of power. Electoral reform might end that guarantee. By contrast, electoral reform is Labour policy. So is a more judicious and fair deficit reduction strategy much more in tune with Lib Dem ideas.
A deathbed conversion borne of desperation is now policy. Policy only because the writing was writ in gigantic capitals that even the monocular, half-blind PM could perceive it. Else they would be sticking to the old system as they did each time it delivered them a healthy majority in the house. So, sure, it’s a policy. It is also a sign that these people are deep in desperation to cling onto power by whatever means.
There is much ideological overlap between the two parties and no constitutional obstacle to a coalition between them.
Maybe – but do the maths.
The Conservatives would howl that they have been deprived their victor’s spoils.
Because they would have been so deprived.
The problem is Mr Brown.
Yes…
* I appreciate that I am stretching the language beyond breaking point here.
Labour policy is electoral reform? I don’t recall them introducing a bill? How did it get defeated, given their majority in both houses? Or was it judged less important than, say a theatrical ban on fox hunting?
Labour policy is what we’ve actually had these last thirteen years- and anyone saying different is either deluded or lying. And the converse holds true- whatever Labour has not done is not Labour policy- whatever they say.
In reality of course the Guardian will say anything, regardless of whether it makes sense- Polly current view that the impending financial meltdown will destroy the government of the day contrasts amusingly with her pre-election view that the economy is recovering fine.
It’s unbelievable to know that the parliament has been hung and no one won the elections. The people now are confused. Who should govern? This phenomenon may have adverse effects to the economy and to the country in general if this will not be solved.