Strange Bedfellows

I was going to try and cut down my political blogging to make way form more SF/Comic/general nerdyness but the coalition government looks like it’s going to be churning out some interesting stuff for the next few years and so I will probably continue to comment on politics issues despite others doing it far better than myself. Don’t panic, there will also be more geeky goodness to come.

So, some interesting observations on our new government. First and foremost, as a sandal wearing muesli munching lefty it’s been quite funny to see the abject fury of many Tories that they don’t have a government all to themselves. For some reason they seem to believe that because they voted Conservative they are owed a conservative government, despite more people voting for someone else. Still, the party whose ideals clearly didn’t suit over 60% of the population are more or less in charge and surely that’s better than nothing for all the Tories out there? No? Well tough.

I’ve been drawing a parallel with 1997 regarding the Tories. In 1997 when New Labour was looking ever more distant to its socialist origins I often asked “old School” labour supporters how they could follow a party who had ditched much of what they stood for. “Ah” said the old labour supporter, adjusting his flat cap and sipping a half of mild (That bit probably isn’t true) “They’re just doing that to get in, you know, get it past the middle classes, once they’re elected Blair and his lot will be out and the old labourites will take over again” I wondered about the fairness of this, but since what you see on the manifesto is rarely what you get I let it lie. Of course, it came as no surprise to me that the party who won as New Labour indeed ruled as New labour, but the old trots must have been shocked when no one wanted to support a leadership coup on the guy who had won such a landslide. There is a difference in the Tory party, but it has similar echoes. Obviously for starters they didn’t have a landslide, or indeed a majority, although it seems many people think they still are owed their time in charge regardless of the election results, the opinions of Tory voters clearly, in their minds, outweighing everyone else. Second is the shock that the party hasn’t dumped all that compassionate stuff they mentioned while trying to be elected. What’s even more fun is that the wingnut hard right thatcherite contingent believe that Cameron lost the election (Open for discussion) and that if the party had been in full on Thatcherism mode then it would have been in the bag, where the percentage of votes and indeed seats really doesn’t reflect this. Do they believe that the many Labour and Lib-Dem voters didn’t vote Conservative because it wasn’t right wing enough? Or do they think that they could have won more votes off of UKIP and the BNP? Or perhaps are they more deluded than the old trots in ’97, not just believing that the party will do an about face but that people decided to vote the polar opposite to their way of thinking simply because it wasn’t available.

The Coalition itself is interesting as well. Both parties have risk and reward in equal measure. The Lib-Dems get a better chance than they would have in opposition to enact their policies, they can claim experience in government to quash the old argument hat they are “inexperienced” and finally, they can show a coalition works, important if you’re trying to sell PR to a public whoa re told by our dear press that coalitions are two steps away from anarchy. They risk loosing votes to Labour (Depending on how it reforms post defeat) through being seen to side with “The Enemy” I’ll be particularly interested to see how much ground Labour and the SNP take in the Scottish parliament elections. Second, this will be a bad few years with heavy cuts and a very good chance of increasing unemployment. This double whammy may kill the Lib-Dems next election, or should they have things turned round in 5 years (Assuming it lasts) will they gain ground. Meanwhile the Tories get to be in the driving seat of Government, Dave gets to be PM and they are definitely the controlling stakeholder. They also get to pass some of the blame for the coming painful years on to the Lib-Dems, effectively meaning only one big party can capitalise from these intervening years. It’s also been very useful for Cameron, he can blame the ditching of many of the more wingnut Tory policies on the necessity to get the lib-dems on board, where, from what the scuttlebutt has been saying, the negotiators were asking for the lib-dems to demand concessions. They risk a party split over this, with the “Wets” and Lib Dems on one side, and the Thatcherites on the other. This could be a very damaging split.

Cameron has played this incredibly well though, kudos to the man (Still don’t like him but I’m man enough to say when someone’s impressed me) the increased 55% for a no-confidence vote should keep the coalition stable, and in fact I’d suggest to Labour MPs to make sure it stays, you can rest easy in opposition while the coalition doles out cut after cut, and foster even more division and resentment in the Tory party. Second, the fixed term, with any luck they’ll get a couple of years of recovery, important to salve the wounds of the oncoming cuts, but they need time to blot the memory of the hard years, plus it makes both parties look like they want fixed terms.

Overall, interesting times for those of us who consider politics like sport.