We Have MPs Where We Want Them

In many ways the UK general election has not gone the way anyone wanted.

Sure, we have a hung Parliament, 149 MPs from the last scandal-ridden pit did not stand, Jacqui Smith lost her seat, and the BNP didn't get any at all.

Yet the politicians and their party machines have not been able to control the result. And, while voter turn-out increased slightly, voters were angry at being turned away as polls closed and already a campaign has begun to "take back Parliament" by reforming an electoral system that nullifies vast numbers of votes.

So one thing seems assured: this Parliament is in for a bumpy ride.

And this is a great outcome. We have MPs exactly where we want them. They are not in control. They have little alternative but to listen and respond to our issues bottom-up.

Independent forums like Power 2010, 38 Degrees, and TheyWorkForYou, are genuine attempts to gather and share everyone's views without regard for 'party lines'. The politicians would do well to engage with them instead of relying on their own party 'research' to validate policies they want to impose from the top down.

But we too need to participate by sharing our concerns: we'll only get the government we deserve.

Image from The Original Hog Roast Company

Tactical Voting: Hung Parliament?

People are asking about how they might vote 'for' a hung Parliament. Well Tactical Voting suggests the constituencies between which voters could swap their votes to help produce that result, and where you might go to discuss and arrange it. The 'Voting Buddies' group on Facebook is one example. Alternatively, you could go to Hang 'em to see if you're able to vote for a candidate they suggest.

Or you could vote for a minority party that has a shot of winning your seat, or whichever of the major parties the polls suggest will take second place.

Toby Young points to scepticism about the impact of tactical voting. But it will be interesting to see whether the Facebook, Twitter and the other social media help voters unleash its potential this time around.

Hung Parliament - More Pressure?

Many people would like to have rolled out the tumbrils for the UK Parliament in the past year, but a 'hung' Parliament is of course something quite different. And 38 Degrees is rightly running a poll to see if people want to hear more about the pro's instead of being heckled by The Sun and other mainstream media about the con's. I've said that I do.

Esentially, a hung parliament exists where no political party has a majority of seats. So either several parties agree a coalition and form a majority government, or a single party must form a minority government and horse-trade with the others on key issues. If neither works on critical issues, like budget approval, there would need to be another election.

The BBC has tried to explain it, but gets mired in speculation about numbers. A short Wikipedia entry has just been created. It links to the BBC explanation and a Q&A by the Institute for Government, an apparently politically neutral think-tank, which is also concerned about the unduly negative portrayal of hung parliaments in the media:

This has been reported quite negatively and has generated predictions that unstable and ineffective government would be the result.

However, as argued in 'Making Minority Government Work' by the Institute for Government and Constitution Unit, this need not be the case. Indeed, minority or coalition government can even have advantages, though ministers, the opposition, the civil service and the media would all have to adapt their behaviour to make it work.

This sounds promising. Basically, all politicians would have to behave much more reasonably and responsibly to try and forge consensus, and the media would have to refrain from senselessly branding the process as unstable and chaotic. After all, the democratic process should be messy rather than engineered from the top down in a nice orderly fashion. A dynamic, open system which encourages broad engagement by all stakeholders cannot realistically appear neat and linear.

I suspect that the biggest driver of the negative airplay - particularly at The Sun - is that Gordon Brown would remain PM, and would be the first to be invited to try and form a government. Given his record for clinging desperately to power to date, one does wonder whether we'd ever be rid of him.

However, while the fear and loathing of Swinegate has exposed Parliament to more public scrutiny and produced a little more accountability, it seems we have a long way to go in educating the politicians that citizens come first. And a hung Parliament seems a great way of keeping the pressure on.

The Elephant In The Room Makes It A Grim But Simple Choice

The electoral "elephant in the room" is exactly how the next UK government will eliminate the country's £90bn structural deficit - the core part of the £167bn in overall public borrowing we can't pay off in the usual ebb and flow of the public finances.

Everyone is rightly speculating about the likely mix of higher taxes, spending cuts and the role economic growth will play if each political party were elected. But the detail will change and is ultimately a distraction for election purposes. The short answer lies in the basic party philosophies.

In essence, Labour believes the public sector is the economy, and the private sector - including individual taxpayers - is there to support the public sector economy for the common good. That's why they keep saying that tax cuts (i.e. lower public income) and reduced public spending would 'take money out of the economy'. Therefore, Labour's primary goal is to suck an extra £90bn out of the private sector into the public sector in the coming years, over and above 'normal' levels of taxation. Job done. Curing public sector waste and inefficiency are secondary, and not even necessarily 'nice to have', particularly for the unions who've contributed substantial sums to the Labour party.

By contrast, the Tories/LibDems believe the economy comprises both the public and private sectors. Which is why they keep saying that avoiding a rise in National Insurance will boost economic growth by leaving money with individual people who'll spend it to greater effect - more quickly and on local goods and services - than wasteful government departments who spend vast sums on overhead but ultimately produce nothing. So, while the Tories/LibDems would also need to hike taxes to some extent, they would primarily focus on reducing public sector waste and inefficiency to minimise the amount of money that has to be diverted from productive private sector activity into the public sector. Where those two parties differ is that the Lib Dems want the public sector to do much more than the Tories do, which is why the Lib Dems are always coming up with random additional taxes to pay for it all.

However, life is what happens while you're making plans. Labour's immediate problem is that the private sector is already stretched thin, conserving cash to repay private debt and rebuild savings in light of concern for the future. That's why they talk about delaying plans for the National Insurance hike (and no doubt other increases) until the economy's had a chance to recover, while the Tories/LibDems talk about reducing public sector waste and inefficiency now, to avoid the need for Labour's planned NI increase and minimise future tax rises.

So it's a straight choice, but a grim one. Higher taxes in the coming years and little change in the public sector under Labour. Public sector reform with a bit more cash in your pocket under the Tories, and somewhere in between under the Lib Dems.

Kool Aid!! More Kool Aid!!!

The UK election battle is raging. From the plains of Helmand Province to the door of Number 10, where Gordo clings to power like a crazed gibbon hugging a tree. He'll have to be carried out of there, gibbering and drooling in a locked cage, if Dave and that other guy are going to get him out at all.

It's hot and dangerous work. New Labour goons roam the surrounding streets in ugly bands, some desperate to get their hands on  private loot  to fill the empty public coffers, others offering themselves for hire like cheap mercenaries. While deep down in the bunker, amidst the clamour and roar of media briefings, timeshare-style cold-calling, billboard banter and sound-bite skirmishes, staffers scream "Kool Aid!! We need more Kool Aid"!!! Dreading that without opiate, they and the masses will stop believing.

It would be time to flee, if the unions hadn't seized control of the roads, railways and the airways. So we're stuck in the battle zone, cowering behind any solid object we can find, rags stuffed in our ears against the hideous din. Only the insane and the very brave will risk the lethal dash to the polling booth.

On May 7, we'll know how those numbers stack up.