![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
A scenario...
Tuesday, April 27th, 2010 05:25 pmThere seems to be a consensus amongst the political commentatorship that the UK population at large has yet to grasp the full and enormous horror that is the UK deficit, and that few if any, have appreciated the pain that will follow the General Election either as tax hikes, service cuts, or most likely, a combination of the two.
Each of the three main parties has admitted to the problem and for the need for action, it is really only the detail that differs. In actual fact, the deficit is so huge, that there is little room for manoeuvre on the part of whosoever forms the next government. Really any differences are only going to be in gradations of shading, one from the other.
The problem is, I think, that other than for those unlucky ones who have lost their jobs (and there are fewer of them so far, than predicted), most people have not noticed any substantive changes to their income and/or lifestyles. On the face of it, some people have even benefited through lower inflation and interest rates. Frankly, Golden Gordon’s delaying tactics have, for now at least, taken the sting out of the problem and it is only AFTER the election that the real horror will manifest. At the moment, all the talk about it being the worst recession since the 1930s seems so much flim-flam; the downturn of the late 80s seems much worse.
But worse it will get, once the election is out of the way and the austerity measures mean higher taxes, reduced services and public sector redundancies.
This brings me rather long-windedly to the point that has been nagging away at the back of my head. Why would any rational political party want to form government at the end of this General Election? There always exists the possibility of a government making a complete and utter hash of things and losing the next election – see Heath’s Conservative government of 1970-74, for example, or Jim Callaghan’s Labour government from 1977 to 1979. The difference this time, it seems to me, is that the governance of the country is a poisoned chalice writ large. If a party, manages to obtain a small working majority, they will have the votes they need to push the measures through, if they have the nerve, but a small majority would likely vanish a couple of years into the Parliament and at the stage governments are traditionally at their least popular, the government of the day might face a forced election. If they have implemented austerity measures they will most likely be horribly unpopular. If they haven’t, the country will most likely be an economic basket case. Either way, that party is likely to be unelectable and possibly for a generation.
A small majority for one party is likely then, to kill that party in the long term.
In a hung parliament, a minority government might not have the strength to make the necessary changes and would probably be gone quite quickly case, too. Either way, the economy runs toward the car crash scenario. The UK loses its AAA credit rating and suddenly credit is rare and horribly expensive. At least the ruling minority government can point out that they were hampered in their efforts (with a greater or lesser degree of conviction, depending on how events pan out). That leaves us with the reality that a formal coalition, despite the whining of all three parties, may be the best way forward. A government formed of two parties under a formal agreement, would represent enough of the electorate to provide them with the mandate they require to institute remedial measures on the economy. There would have to be some trimming of the more excessive aspects each other’s manifesto points, but something workable could be negotiated and proper co-operation may not destroy a single party’s future chances, because they would be shown to be pragmatic enough to co-operate for the good of the country, rather than party political gain.
It might be uncomfortable and occasionally awkward, but despite their grumblings to the contrary, a coalition could work well. And if, as looks likely, a hung parliament is what we get, a coalition would be what the electorate want.
It might also get some serious electoral reform going, too. I would rather that 2010 be remembered in the same sentence as the Representation of the People Act 1832 (also known as The Reform Act) than with the widespread unrest and revolutions of 1848.
Each of the three main parties has admitted to the problem and for the need for action, it is really only the detail that differs. In actual fact, the deficit is so huge, that there is little room for manoeuvre on the part of whosoever forms the next government. Really any differences are only going to be in gradations of shading, one from the other.
The problem is, I think, that other than for those unlucky ones who have lost their jobs (and there are fewer of them so far, than predicted), most people have not noticed any substantive changes to their income and/or lifestyles. On the face of it, some people have even benefited through lower inflation and interest rates. Frankly, Golden Gordon’s delaying tactics have, for now at least, taken the sting out of the problem and it is only AFTER the election that the real horror will manifest. At the moment, all the talk about it being the worst recession since the 1930s seems so much flim-flam; the downturn of the late 80s seems much worse.
But worse it will get, once the election is out of the way and the austerity measures mean higher taxes, reduced services and public sector redundancies.
This brings me rather long-windedly to the point that has been nagging away at the back of my head. Why would any rational political party want to form government at the end of this General Election? There always exists the possibility of a government making a complete and utter hash of things and losing the next election – see Heath’s Conservative government of 1970-74, for example, or Jim Callaghan’s Labour government from 1977 to 1979. The difference this time, it seems to me, is that the governance of the country is a poisoned chalice writ large. If a party, manages to obtain a small working majority, they will have the votes they need to push the measures through, if they have the nerve, but a small majority would likely vanish a couple of years into the Parliament and at the stage governments are traditionally at their least popular, the government of the day might face a forced election. If they have implemented austerity measures they will most likely be horribly unpopular. If they haven’t, the country will most likely be an economic basket case. Either way, that party is likely to be unelectable and possibly for a generation.
A small majority for one party is likely then, to kill that party in the long term.
In a hung parliament, a minority government might not have the strength to make the necessary changes and would probably be gone quite quickly case, too. Either way, the economy runs toward the car crash scenario. The UK loses its AAA credit rating and suddenly credit is rare and horribly expensive. At least the ruling minority government can point out that they were hampered in their efforts (with a greater or lesser degree of conviction, depending on how events pan out). That leaves us with the reality that a formal coalition, despite the whining of all three parties, may be the best way forward. A government formed of two parties under a formal agreement, would represent enough of the electorate to provide them with the mandate they require to institute remedial measures on the economy. There would have to be some trimming of the more excessive aspects each other’s manifesto points, but something workable could be negotiated and proper co-operation may not destroy a single party’s future chances, because they would be shown to be pragmatic enough to co-operate for the good of the country, rather than party political gain.
It might be uncomfortable and occasionally awkward, but despite their grumblings to the contrary, a coalition could work well. And if, as looks likely, a hung parliament is what we get, a coalition would be what the electorate want.
It might also get some serious electoral reform going, too. I would rather that 2010 be remembered in the same sentence as the Representation of the People Act 1832 (also known as The Reform Act) than with the widespread unrest and revolutions of 1848.