It's today. The General Election. It has come, and we still have no clue about what will actually happen. Tomorrow, I can go back to writing about Formula 1 and sandwiches. But for now, having done absolutely no polling and no research into it, here is what I think – based purely on hunches and guesswork – will happen.
There will be a hung parliament. That much is pretty obvious.
The Conservatives will be the largest party, but have no overall majority. As the incumbent Prime Minister, David Cameron will attempt to form a second coalition government with the Liberal Democrats, who will spurn him. (Obviously, that will be a very stupid move – what is the point of being in politics at all, and standing for election, if you turn down the chance to govern when it's offered you? – but that is what I think will happen; the Lib Dem membership will feel that their support suffered too much from the first coalition to risk it a second time.)
Cameron will then try to 'go it alone' heading a minority administration, surviving each Commons vote as it comes, shored up by MPs from minority parties who will go along with certain issues in return for concessions in other areas – but this will soon crumble, and Cameron won't be able to survive a vote of no confidence. Within two months, there will be a second election called – and we will get to do this all over again!
I'm probably way off the mark here. But what can you do, eh?! Whatever happens, I just hope that we have a government by Saturday morning; I want all this out of the way by Saturday so that I am free to focus on the really serious stuff – Norwich City's Play-Off Semi-Final first leg against Ipswich.
On another note, I am not going to do an endorsement of any party on this Blog. That's partly because I only get about six readers anyway, so it wouldn't make any difference, and partly because I don't feel I am in any position to tell anybody else how to vote. However, I will say that however you vote, I implore you to do so for the 'right' reasons.
If you want to vote Labour because you like their policies, or you like their local candidate, that's fine; voting Labour to 'send a message' to Rupert Murdoch, or because Katie Hopkins quipped she would 'leave the country', is stupid. Similarly, if you prefer another party over the Lib Dems, that's your call; if you would've voted Lib Dem but feel 'betrayed' by Nick Clegg, I have already explained how wrong-headed that is.
Please don't choose who to vote for out of spite. Please don't vote for a party or candidate because Russell Brand told you to. You don't have to listen to anybody else; you don't have to be ashamed of how you vote; you don't have to do what your friends, or family, or shouty Facebook acquaintances who share endless pictures of politicians' faces with made-up quotes from/about them superimposed onto the image in bold text, do. You don't have to take any notice of what the press say. You don't even have to take any notice of Bloggers like me (although I strongly suggest that you do).
Vote for whoever you honestly believe to be the best candidate in your area, or the best party nationally. But vote with your head, and in good faith. Good luck.
Showing posts with label hung parliament. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hung parliament. Show all posts
Thursday, 7 May 2015
Friday, 17 April 2015
Premature wrangling
If I were the leader of a political party ("ohh, if only!" I hear you say), the only thing I would 'rule out' at this stage of my campaign is ruling anything out.
I can't, for the life of me, understand our premature obsession with 'deals' and 'red lines' in the run-up to this year's General Election. It's like we all got bitten by the coalition government bug five years ago, and now we want to skip the actual business of campaigning and voting altogether so we can get straight down to the good stuff – the coalition negotiations.
The trouble is, it's very difficult to negotiate 'blind' like this. Which is why I think it so incredibly foolish for party leaders to be ruling out dealing with certain other parties already – and so irresponsible of journalists and others to try and hustle them into doing so.
You (as the leader of a political party) might well say you would never deal with party x in the event of a hung parliament – and you might very well mean it, too – but it's all a little meaningless when you don't know how many seats they're going to have after the vote, or even how many seats you're going to have! If a deal with party x then becomes your best (or only!) option, you're going to regret that you backed yourself into a corner during the campaign in order to win a cheap round of applause during a television appearance.
In 'A Scandal in Bohemia', the inimitable Sherlock Holmes famously says:
I can't, for the life of me, understand our premature obsession with 'deals' and 'red lines' in the run-up to this year's General Election. It's like we all got bitten by the coalition government bug five years ago, and now we want to skip the actual business of campaigning and voting altogether so we can get straight down to the good stuff – the coalition negotiations.
The trouble is, it's very difficult to negotiate 'blind' like this. Which is why I think it so incredibly foolish for party leaders to be ruling out dealing with certain other parties already – and so irresponsible of journalists and others to try and hustle them into doing so.
You (as the leader of a political party) might well say you would never deal with party x in the event of a hung parliament – and you might very well mean it, too – but it's all a little meaningless when you don't know how many seats they're going to have after the vote, or even how many seats you're going to have! If a deal with party x then becomes your best (or only!) option, you're going to regret that you backed yourself into a corner during the campaign in order to win a cheap round of applause during a television appearance.
In 'A Scandal in Bohemia', the inimitable Sherlock Holmes famously says:
It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.Increasingly, it seems that this is exactly what our political leaders are doing – laying the groundwork for coalition talks before they have any facts to deal with. And that, to me, seems rather daft.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)