I read another newspaper article yesterday that appeared to lack any grasp of parliamentary history. In the Evening Standard, the City Editor Chris Blackhurst wrote that he was not certain a Conservative Government would take decisive action, even with a large majority. He went on: “I’m beginning to think a hung Parliament might be the answer. It’s usually derided as a recipe for weak rule but not if it’s a national government in the manner of the Thirties, which can slash budgets and make tough choices…”.
That would be the national government elected in 1931 with 554 seats (471 of them held by the Conservatives) and an opposition comprising 52 Labour and 4 Independent Liberals? Or the national government re-elected in 1935 with 431 seats (387 of them Conservative)?
Clearly an interesting definition of a hung Parliament.
I thought you might have seen that! I usually rely on ukpollingreport for my daily and reliable polling analysis.
At a push I suppose you could argue that if you can get a national government then it may be more willing to act as, with the main opponents on board, petty party politics won’t restrain them from taking controversial decisions. However it doesn’t work for me. I tend toward an assumption that anything all parties can agree on is so bland as to be meaningless, is to their collective financial advantage or has the effect, intended or otherwise, of denying the public an option to meaningfully vote against something that the political class has unilaterally decided upon.
And they were quite unsuccessful coalitions too. Poor old MacDonald was the figurehead of a Conservative government in all but name and divided Labour bitterly. Westminster does not love coalitions.
Is it any wonder why newspapers are being shunned, with a large number of people now favouring information from reliable authors on reliable web sites?
Have you been offered a regular column with a newspaper?
I would have thought the present circumstances would provide absolutely ideal conditions for the Conservatives to sell what they like doing best – cutting back on Government left, right and centre, sold under the heading of paying off Labour’s vast debt, “There Is No Alternative” etc etc. One can almost hear the lustful sharpening of swords beneath the rustle of papers on the opposition front bench.
Lord Norton: I’m not sure how much the public objects to conflict if genuine and argued. However politics if often about artificial disputes, false outrage deliberate straw man arguments and voting against the other party even when you essentially agree with them.
stephenpaterson: I have no doubt many of the Tory right would agree with you but as often is the case it is not so simple. Take the proposed Tory education changes, the so called ‘Swedish model’. Even if you believe it will cost less and be more efficient in the long term, possible but by no means certain, it will unquestionable be more expensive in the short term as you have to run new schools and old/failing schools side by side both at less than maximum capacity and consequently efficiency. This is especially problematic when already ring-fenced areas all but guarantee other areas must be frozen to balance the books.
Croft: I very much agree. I do tend to worry when people call for consensus without thinking through what they mean by it and what the implications are. Consensus and decisive leadership may sometimes be at odds with one another. When it comes to consensus, or not achieving it, I think parties are damned if they do and damned if they don’t. If they come close together, people complain they are not being offered a clear choice. If they take very different stances, people complain of conflict and a failure to agree. On some issues, the options are mutually exclusive and you cannot compromise.
Adrian Kidney: I share your assessment. There are dangers arising from hung parliamehts and from coalitions (especially post-election coalitions). On hung parliaments, you may have seen the Hansard Society publication, ‘No Overall Control’, published last year.
ladytizzy: Rather than give myself to a particular newspaper, I thought my first loyalty should be to this site and our discriminating and informed readership.
stephenpaterson: As a Conservative, I am naturally sympathetic to the implication that we are heading in the direction of a clear Conservative victory. In any event, I do tend to the view that a party majority is preferable to a hung parliament.