Our electoral system has always been something of a sick joke. First past the post rarely, if ever, produces anything apart from government by the largest minority – sometimes not even that. And that’s the way the Labservatives like it.
They’re quite happy to have a two-horse system whereby we switch and swap every decade or so. They’re quite happy to have absolute power, with its concomitant corruption. They don’t want anyone else jumping on the seesaw and disturbing their little game. Meanwhile, like piggy in the middle, we listen to their empty promises, their weasel words and we suffer their excesses.
The great stumbling block to the leaders’ debates in the past has always been whether or not the “third” party leader should be included. The fallout from Thursday shows just why the Labservatives have always run scared of giving the “third man” an equal footing.
I’m not here to bang a drum for Nick Clegg – he can do that for himself and I already know which way I’m voting – but you have to admit that the boy done good. And maybe the time is right for the LibDems. We’ll know on May 7.
No. My point is rather more than just party point scoring.
The Boy David has been making a great deal of noise about the evils of a hung parliament. He is quoted on Aunty-Beeb as saying “A hung parliament would be a bunch of politicians haggling, not deciding. They would be fighting for their own interests, not fighting for your interests. They would not be making long-term decisions for the country’s future, they would be making short-term decisions for their own future.”
No change there, then!
He goes on “The way we are going to get things done is to have a decisive Conservative government.”
I hear a faint echo of “She Who Must Not Be Named” here. A strong, decisive, Tory government? Didn’t we have one of them once? Didn’t it give us the Poll Tax? Wasn’t there mass civil disobedience and riots in the streets?
The real reason that the Labservatives don’t want a hung parliament is because they would have to sit down and talk to people – to persuade by reasoned and properly researched discussion, rather than to govern by soundbite.
The argument often runs that you can’t have stable and/or good government from a coalition. Other European countries manage it – why can’t we?
No one party holds a monopoly on wisdom – however much they’d like you to believe that they do.
On May 6 let’s make these buggers sit up and take notice.
Let’s make them talk about real issues and reach decisions based on proper argument rather than just tribal affiliation.
Let’s send a real shockwave through British politics and vote for a hung parliament!