On the whole, I'd much rather have a government that I disagreed with than an electorate that disagreed with me. And right now I have both. At least when a government gets things wrong I can moan about it or swear at the television; the chances are that I will find someone sympathetic to discuss it with. But the mistakes or delusions of fellow voters are sacrosanct and one is not allowed to query them, let alone over rule them.
Nothing, conversely, feels better than when one is part of a national consensus that sweeps a new government into power. That last happened in 1997 and it was very exciting. The resulting Labour administration did pretty well, tackling child poverty, investing in health and education, and so forth, but expectations were not met from the off: Labour's landslide was so great that Blair cooled on a commitment to offer a referendum on AV.
With the Tories enfeebled and dejected and other reforms taking place, such a referendum might have been accepted - although there would still have been strong resistance from Labour. And what if AV been in place for the last three elections? Well, AV doesn't prevent landslides, in fact it can exaggerate them, so Blair would certainly have been returned convincingly in 2001 and the 2005 election would have resulted in a slightly greater Labour majority than actually occurred.
What would have changed, then? Well, the Conservatives, who nearly fragmented anyway under Iain Duncan Smith, would have faced a catastrophic collapse in numbers of MPs. Certainly they could have slipped into third place behind the Liberal Democrats. Yes, the Lib Dems, remember them? The old ones I mean, the good ones who opposed the war in Iraq, and Trident, refused to countenance tuition fees for students and were honest about wanting to raise taxes on higher earners to pay for things like schools. Whatever happened to them I wonder?
Here's what would have happened in 2010 under AV. I think the Tories would have been in a weaker position than this after 10 years of AV, but even here the chances of a Lib-Lab coalition are much stronger and any Lib-Con pairing would have been much more balanced. A 'big three' cabinet post would have had to go to them (Cable as Chancellor anyone?) And I doubt very much that the Lib-Dems would have felt compelled to ditch core policies like, say, opposition to tuition fees. And what else might Clegg (or Huhne?) have demanded from Cameron as the price for cooperation? Maybe even a referendum on a switch to STV?
Friday, 6 May 2011
A Bad Night
Well, that was a shitty night of politics.
In the English local elections, the duplicitous Lib-Dems had the stuffing kicked out of them for being in the national government, whilst the Tory vote didn't really suffer at all. Labour made up some ground, but from such a low base that it hardly matters.
Worse still, having previously exterminated the Conservatives, Scottish voters turned on the Liberals as well. But, this being Scotland, they didn't have to put up with supporting an uncertain Labour party - there's the Scottish Nationalist Party to vote for instead! The SNP did so well that, all of a sudden, independence from the UK is back on the agenda, three years after the economic crisis seemed to have kicked it into the long grass for a generation.
I'm not sure whether Scotland would be better off as a separate country and I don't really care. I know that it would be disastrous for - well, what would you even call what was left? England, Wales and Northern Ireland? It's hardly 'Great Britain' (a term specifically coined after the union of England with Scotland) and it's certainly not a United Kingdom, there being only one crown left to share between the residual components.
Never mind sorting out the divorce settlement would tie up the governance of Britain for several years. What share of the national debt would the Scots take on? Should they retain part ownership of our nuclear weapons? Are they really going to compete separately in the Eurovision Song Contest?
And the cherry on top of this cake of electoral crap is the sure fire failure of the nation to embrace a change to its voting system. First Past the Post is here to stay for a generation at least. Is AV a rubbish way to elect a government? Yes it is. Is it better than FPTP? Yes it is! Do we get any closer to the Holy Grail of fair elections that is the Single Transferable Vote (STV) by sticking with FPTP? No we do not.
So a Bad Night for Britain. Most worryingly, the Tories have come out of this quite well which, when you consider the way they are merrily eviscerating public services, is an absolute disgrace.
And it's four years to the next Westminster election. If the Lib-Dems continue to be made an example of by voters whilst the Tories are allowed to get off scot free, then there's a good chance of a Conservative majority in 2015. Labour certainly have neither said nor done anything to suggest they're ready and I doubt they'll manage it before the election after next at the earliest.
And the Lib-Dems? Full disclosure: I was a member from around 2000 until, well, until Nick Clegg got elected leader actually. I think that had they propped up Labour a year ago they would be in a worse position now. The Tories (and especially the Tory press) would have spent the last year in an apoplexy of rage and vitriol. Perhaps it would have been better to let the Tories try to govern as a minority, but that too would have let the Lib-Dems vulnerable to criticism for refusing to the opportunity to be a grown-up party of government, willing to compromise or take hard decisions.
As for what happens next, well, they are in very serious trouble. Oblivion beckons. It may be that they can more openly oppose their coalition partners from now on, but the damage to their reputation has been done and it is probably irreparable. They will try and tough it out, as all politicians do, but perhaps the failure of the AV referendum is a good excuse for them to publicly change tack. If Clegg were to resign as leader, he would take a great deal of the poison with him, especially if Cable or Huhne (and who else is there?) were to take over. The new leader would have the chance to reset the relationship with the Tories and with voters, but he would almost certainly not want to walk out on the coalition. Only the Tories benefit now if Cameron calls an election - the other parties have no money to mount national campaigns and Cameron would find it easy to sell the country the line that it needs strong, single party government.
They have to try and regain some credibility and opposing the Tories from within the government is the only option. I don't think Clegg can do that and he should go. The sooner, the better.
In the English local elections, the duplicitous Lib-Dems had the stuffing kicked out of them for being in the national government, whilst the Tory vote didn't really suffer at all. Labour made up some ground, but from such a low base that it hardly matters.
Worse still, having previously exterminated the Conservatives, Scottish voters turned on the Liberals as well. But, this being Scotland, they didn't have to put up with supporting an uncertain Labour party - there's the Scottish Nationalist Party to vote for instead! The SNP did so well that, all of a sudden, independence from the UK is back on the agenda, three years after the economic crisis seemed to have kicked it into the long grass for a generation.
I'm not sure whether Scotland would be better off as a separate country and I don't really care. I know that it would be disastrous for - well, what would you even call what was left? England, Wales and Northern Ireland? It's hardly 'Great Britain' (a term specifically coined after the union of England with Scotland) and it's certainly not a United Kingdom, there being only one crown left to share between the residual components.
Never mind sorting out the divorce settlement would tie up the governance of Britain for several years. What share of the national debt would the Scots take on? Should they retain part ownership of our nuclear weapons? Are they really going to compete separately in the Eurovision Song Contest?
And the cherry on top of this cake of electoral crap is the sure fire failure of the nation to embrace a change to its voting system. First Past the Post is here to stay for a generation at least. Is AV a rubbish way to elect a government? Yes it is. Is it better than FPTP? Yes it is! Do we get any closer to the Holy Grail of fair elections that is the Single Transferable Vote (STV) by sticking with FPTP? No we do not.
So a Bad Night for Britain. Most worryingly, the Tories have come out of this quite well which, when you consider the way they are merrily eviscerating public services, is an absolute disgrace.
And it's four years to the next Westminster election. If the Lib-Dems continue to be made an example of by voters whilst the Tories are allowed to get off scot free, then there's a good chance of a Conservative majority in 2015. Labour certainly have neither said nor done anything to suggest they're ready and I doubt they'll manage it before the election after next at the earliest.
And the Lib-Dems? Full disclosure: I was a member from around 2000 until, well, until Nick Clegg got elected leader actually. I think that had they propped up Labour a year ago they would be in a worse position now. The Tories (and especially the Tory press) would have spent the last year in an apoplexy of rage and vitriol. Perhaps it would have been better to let the Tories try to govern as a minority, but that too would have let the Lib-Dems vulnerable to criticism for refusing to the opportunity to be a grown-up party of government, willing to compromise or take hard decisions.
As for what happens next, well, they are in very serious trouble. Oblivion beckons. It may be that they can more openly oppose their coalition partners from now on, but the damage to their reputation has been done and it is probably irreparable. They will try and tough it out, as all politicians do, but perhaps the failure of the AV referendum is a good excuse for them to publicly change tack. If Clegg were to resign as leader, he would take a great deal of the poison with him, especially if Cable or Huhne (and who else is there?) were to take over. The new leader would have the chance to reset the relationship with the Tories and with voters, but he would almost certainly not want to walk out on the coalition. Only the Tories benefit now if Cameron calls an election - the other parties have no money to mount national campaigns and Cameron would find it easy to sell the country the line that it needs strong, single party government.
They have to try and regain some credibility and opposing the Tories from within the government is the only option. I don't think Clegg can do that and he should go. The sooner, the better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)