Practical Thoughts

I should have known. The words of a politician are never to be taken at face value, as exemplified in the latest talk on "strong government". It has transpired - not too surprsingly - that the right do not trust the existing tools of democracy and want more security for their government by changing the statute book. There's even objection within their own ranks.on this, so it must be a serious issue! The question is, will the government whip strengthen itself to impose unanimity on the recalcitrant, and thus remove the obstacle? I fear there's little doubt on that issue. What has the electorate done? Politics is now about about a type of politician that looks good and talks glibly - to get the public's attraction and the vote. Further, it has been reported that Cameron's advisors told him "not to sound too Tory". Meanwhile, the erstwhile prime minister - with grey-hair and sagging eyes after devoted worry about serving to the best of his ability -...

Watching the Beeb's 'Question Time' last night brought it home to me how many voters think they have been sold down river into this coalition. 'We didn't vote for this!', they cried. But they did (vote for that) because that's how the voting came out. Because of history, and the fact that the Liberals have never been good bed-fellows with the Tories, the current situation does not look appetising, but we all just have to swallow our indignation and let us see what transpires. Yes, I think there is a case for saying that the Liberals have been used and that their participation in the end will count for nothing except serving the Tory cause. But ... some coalition had to come out of the electors' muddle, and this is it. We've got it. Malcolm Heseltine, however, made it painfully clear that in 12 months time the (his) new government would not be popular because of the 'difficult' decisions it is about to make. If such 'difficult' dec...

The big question mark about the UK's new government is - surely - whether Cameron (and Clegg) can really reverse the trend in the Tories that was re-invented by Thatcher over 20 years ago - i.e. that (according to her) 'there is no such thing as society'. Her attitude was so reviled by those who live in the real world that it could only mean that when Labour could get enough momentum, they would get back in and check the stagnation that the Thatcher years left behind. Is Cameron's real intention to undo the Thatcher theme in his party? If so, then why did he not stand as a Liberal? The Tories have never before been progressive on social issues - they've introduced nothing (in all their years) of real help to the working population, and now they are going to do otherwise? Seeing is believing in this case! I can't help feeling that there will be tears in four or five years time. Or less. What is really needed - surely - is a middle-ground progressive party or...

So ... a Cam-Clegg coalition. I have to admit I am resigned to this being probably the only practical solution to the organisation of a government, other than going back to the country again without guarantee of a satisfactory result. It became clear - as the days since the election wore on - that a Lab-Lib coalition would not work, particularly in that those two parties by themselves could not gain a majority in the Commons. But, despite my reservations, the start of the Con-Lib pact has been good. It remains to be seen how it all works out in practise given that hardly any of the cabinet will have had previous government experience, and that the Tory cost-cutting plans were against the Liberal ethic. And there's the matter of them agreeing to remove income tax up to £10k. How that's going to be paid for in a time of cuts remains to be seen! Let's give it six months at least before we find fault with policy. This one has to be given a chance.