Sunday, 9 May 2010

The No Change Coalition

I'm afraid this blog is comprehensively neutered on the issue of who runs the country after that charade on Thursday.

Looking at it as an overview, there's something rather exasperating about three leaders deciding between themselves who will form a government when none of them were considered competent enough by the electorate to do so on their own. We, collectively, decided that none of the three main parties stood out from the mundane and that none deserved a working majority. But it's the effectively 'rejected' three who are now given the sole responsibility for deciding what happens next while we all sit around waiting to see what ghastly bastardisation emerges from a dual agreement ... which not a single voter has mandated.

It's politics meets The Fly.

Others are enthusing wildly about possible options, with Charlotte Gore most prominent in libertarian thinkers as believing some good may come out of it.

For some of us it’s all about that Freedom Bill, or some Great Repeal Act, rolling back 13 years of odious authoritarian legislation. The Conservatives have the biggest mandate, but not a comprehensive one. The Lib Dems can hold the Conservatives to their pre-election noises about civil liberties, ensuring the Digital Economy Bill gets thrown out, ID cards get scrapped etc.

All the usual caveats about neither party being especially libertarian apply, but the two together? That’s a leap into the unknown and one that could, if the Lib Dems play it right, show the British People a very different and radical flavour of Government to the one we thought we’d be stuck with.
Would that I could be as confident, but on issues that matter at Dick's place, I can't see anything but future disappointment.

The Lib Dems are not going to enter into any deal which rejects Lisbon even if Cameron could be bothered to mention it, nor will they consider any movement on the smoking ban seeing as theirs was the only party who favoured the current situation in the first place. It would make them appear arch-hypocritical to talk of amendment, even if there was any faint submerged notion in that direction (as Tory supporters keep telling me there might be) from the organisation formerly known as the Conservative Party.

On other lifestyle choices, as I've mentioned before, they've both made their position abundantly clear in their manifestos - to summarise, both have said that quangoes and fake charities are to be worshipped while your choices are righteously 'nudged' or purposely restricted.

Repeal? I'm not sure either party could find the word in the dictionary. Freedom of the individual? No chance. Excitement from this blog? Precious little.

Roll on the next sparse opportunity that we are afforded to have our say, then, cos there's bugger all chance that a Lib/Con pact will offer anything but more of the same Labour Lite proscriptive, illiberal hectoring for anyone who even dares to enjoy unapproved lifestyle choices.

I'm not even sure that life will be any less shit than it was under Labour.

Still, I suppose that starting from such a pessimistic base, there aren't hopes to be dashed, eh?


Witterings from Witney said...

Bloody well said DP! However, the burning question is will the sheep actually express another alternative decision were they given the choice? A tad unfair I appreciate as they were not presented with the full facts, something engineered by the Lib/Lab/Con with the help of the media.

timbone said...

This present political shambles is giving me a much welcomed respite. No anti smoking, anti drinking, anti fun adverts on telly.

Dick Puddlecote said...

I'd noticed that myself, Tim. With no politicians to address, the *cough* altruistic righteous fall deadly silent.

No point in issuing science by press release when there are no elected dullards officially installed to believe it, is there?

Sam Duncan said...

I've made a few optimistic comments here and there. But I should emphasise that my optimism is about the possibilty there'll be some kind of stable government for a while - since the parties are closer than most mainstream commenters give them credit for - and that it won't be quite as bad as Labour was, or a Lib-Lab-kitchen-sink stitch-up would be (if nothing else, the ID scheme must be doomed). It's even possible that it may give us a few minor liberal goodies (the LDs' £10k tax floor would be nice).

But we're still talking about the most pro-EU party in British national politics and Cameron's Friends of Saul Alinsky. As a libertarian I couldn't vote for either without holding my nose, and I don't really see how they'll be any better together.

We're going to get a Cameronite Tory government that isn't going to be as (much further) watered-down as some might expect by Clegg's presence. Not because he'll have no influence, but because the next Tory government was always going to be a bit LibDem, and the LibDems themselves aren't quite as LibDem as all Labour's talk of Progressive Alliances over the last few years might make you think. That's all.

But it's not exactly an exciting prospect.