The One That Doesn't Hate It. . .

It's a rum old thing, this hung parliament malarkey, and amongst my circle its causing quite a stir.

First there are my Lib Dem friends who obviously believe in their ideals more than they want to be in power. A few of them are very angry that Clegg and co have decided that having a chance to pull the levers and press the buttons is worth a bit of compromise and have resigned their membership. Interestingly, those I have spoken to would have done the same had the 'rainbow alliance' taken shape as well.

A few of my Labour supporting friends are purple with rage. I'm having trouble finding out what it is precisely that has angered them so. They're certainly angry because they lost (and yes, I know nobody won, but that doesn't mean Labour didn't lose), but that anger seems to be divided between Brown, the electorate and the Tories and Lib Dems (the best suggestion I've heard for a collective name is Dem Tories).

Brown because of his performance both as Prime Minister and during the campaign. There seems to be a feeling that he let the side down, but, crucially, that he should still somehow be Prime Minister. Weird.

They're angry at the electorate for voting for the other parties, and this is one of the more telling effects of New Labour's 13 years. There is this disbelief that people would dare to oppose the bright new dawn which has spectacularly failed to break for the last decade. Note, that isn't that people would disagree with it, but that they would have the temerity to actually go out and vote against it. How dare they? Stifling dissent and discourse may work within the party, but you can't control the public, try as you might.

The Lib Dems are now seemingly the class traitors. Setting up camp with the Tories? I can almost hear the phrase 'after everything we did for them' leaving their lips. The high pitched whine of 'it's not fair' will not be far behind. Labour still had stuff to do, visions to wossname and social 'justice' to . . . whatever it is you do with social 'justice', reject it if the election is anything to go by. It's almost as if the Lib Dems have been viewed as the Labour second XI and their cosying up to the Tories is obviously a monumental betrayal.

Most opprobrium has been kept for the Tories. Thatcher. Poll Tax. Fox Hunting. Poshness. Private Schools. The Miners. All that guff. It doesn't matter, in politics it is ancient history, it's akin to refusing to go to Rouen because of the Norman conquest, it's an irrelevance now. What Labour supporters fail to understand is that non-members or supporters don't share their blind, violent hatred of the Tories. From where the average joe is sitting, the Tories are marginally better than Labour because they've not spent the last 13 years fucking about with stuff. If you say 'Conservatives' to Average Joe, he isn't going to spit on the ground, or cross himself, or stand in a circle of salt. His bottom lip isn't going to start trembling and he's not going to wet himself in panic and run off to mummy. Unfortunately for Labour, their whole campaign was based on telling people that the Tories are really nasty. Well, we know that, but you failed to persuade us that you are less nasty. The fact of the matter is that Labour lost the support of the public. It was not taken by the Conservatives, or Rupert Murdoch or climate change deniers or anything else. You simply trod on our toes too many times.

So how do I feel about this coalition?

Well, it's a stitch-up, but that's the reality of the system we have. I don't like it, I'd like it to change, but we are where we are.

What have we lost? Very little as far as I can make out. Mandleson no longer has any power. That is a very good thing. One of the most shambolic and unhinged leaders in this country's history is himself history, another tick in the good column. The most illiberal, paranoid, controlling and devious government we've had has been sent packing. Another good tick.

I'm struggling to think of things to put in the bad column under the heading 'things lost'.

What have we gained?

Not a great deal. I'm hopeful that perhaps the Lib Dems will act as a brake on the Tories more outlandish policies, and vice-versa. A stable government is fine, a strong government is always bad news for people that aren't that government's mates. So a tick in the good column, we've a stable yet weakened government. That'll do for now.

It would also appear that we've gained a Great Repeal Act. ID cards and the odious database that went with it and HIPS seem to be the first things to go. Hopefully the power of the pseudo-plods and inspectors will be next, along with the retention of the DNA of the innocent. Another plus in the good column.

I'll be more than happy to see these nasty, grubby measures gone, but don't expect me to be high fiving Dem Tories, this is not a high virtue, this is doing stuff that I would expect any party (except the BNP and Labour) to remove from the statute as a matter of urgency. The fact they seem to want to do this is pleasing, but I'm not about to give a good deal of credit for something that you should be doing as a matter of course. It would be like giving an OBE to someone because they gave their kids some dinner.

So, early indications are that I can live with this government, I don't hate it. Yet. There's plenty of time and policies to come that can change that though.

The One That Says They Still Don't Get It. . .

If you listen to the mainstream media and the politicians you'd get the impression that the electorate had made a bit of a boo-boo with the way they voted on Thursday and have now presented the politicians with something of a problem. The underlying theme of this whole deal brokering guff is that the politicians have to undo the mess we've made.

This is, of course, bollocks. The mantra of 'strong and stable government' is being trotted out with depressingly predictable regularity. What seems clear to me is that the electorate know that they don't want Labour, the Conservatives or the Lib Dems in power. That, along with a desire to see Brown out, if not Cameron in, are the only messages which are beyond doubt from this election.

So what's going to happen? They're going to do their best to get themselves what they want, power, regardless of the wishes of the electorate. If they can't get it at the ballot box, they'll get it behind closed doors in some meeting room at the Cabinet Office. So much for this new transparent politics they've all been banging on about.

I'm uneasy with the whole thing. Firstly a question to which the answer would seem to be obvious. Why do we need a strong government? Belgium did without for about two years. Strong government sounds like a laudable thing, it's taken in the media as a given that strong government is what is needed. But what does that mean? From where I'm sitting that means either Cameron or Brown, with a little help from their friends, being able to railroad through legislation, regardless of if we want it or not. Strong equals unaccountable in my book.

I think Clegg would do well to stick to his guns on PR, a referendum at least, from whoever he decides to jump into bed with. The Tories have been making noises about the fact that their policy on PR is well known and that people still voted for them, so we obviously don't want it.

I don't know if PR is what the electorate want, I think any referendum would be close as the public in general would be apathetic at best to turning out, whilst Tory supporters would turn out in huge numbers to vote against. But that isn't the point, the point is that we deserve to be asked. The General Election is never about a single issue and to pretend otherwise when it suits you is dishonest.

I've written in the past about the danger to Clegg and the Lib Dems in entering into an understanding/pact/coalition with any party. They'll be the ones who will be damaged when it inevitably all goes wrong. Could it be that Clegg is exploring the possibility of entering into a deal with the others on each side so that he can then turn round in a few days and say 'sorry folks, we tried, but these guys aren't interested in listening to us'? Or is it a case, that I was warned of by a former Lib Dem member a year or so ago, that the Lib Dems would agree to pretty much anything if they got the chance to press the buttons for a few days?

I give qualified support to PR, I think it is certainly more equitable than first past the post, although I do think the link between a constituency and MP that FPTP allows is very important.

Does the end of PR justify the means? I'm not sure, but when you see how OH outlines it, I find it difficult to argue against it, even if it wouldn't taste very nice at the time.

One thing is for sure, having meetings behind closed doors, to build a government based on horse trading where we have no voice is no democracy at all.

The group who demonstrated in support of PR outside the Lib Dem meeting on Saturday have a petition running. Should you find yourself in agreement with your aims, you can sign up to it here.

The One That Is Asking 'For Whom?'. . .

I've been thinking back to my school days again. When I was doing my GCSE's one of the options I took was meeja studies. I believe the other options in that particular area of the list was dance, agriculture and something equally mindless. One of the modules on the course was a very simplistic overview of how advertising works, and it is something that has stuck with me over the last twenty odd years.

Adverts tend to fall into a number of categories, and one of the most popular is the use of fear. Your chopping board contains more bacteria than your toilet seat. You won't die in an NHS hospital if you buy private medical insurance from us. Your brickwork won't fall apart if you treat it with our chemical. That sort of thing.

What we are seeing now is the most ferocious advertising campaign we'll see for five years. It's all being paid for through your taxes (see the huge tax benefits the big parties can derive from your donations) and licence fee. You are paying for this campaign on your own senses. Neat trick, huh?

So looking back to the lessons I had about advertising, what conclusion can I draw from this?

David Cameron has warned of the dangers of a hung parliament and said only a "decisive" Conservative government would "get the job done".

Hmmm. You see when PharmaCo advertise Klapaway as the only treatment you can buy that won't have the ladies running for the hills next time you get a dose, are they doing it because they really, really care about your venereal health or are they doing it because they really, really want you to buy their product?

The answer is obvious.

So when Cameron says:

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.

Are we supposed to believe that he really cares for us or do we suppose that he's trying to make us scared of a hung parliament?

Why should we be scared of a hung parliament? Where is the difference in a hung parliament where politicians would be fighting for their own interests and making short-term decisions for their own future and the majority parliaments where for, as long as I've been alive, politicians have been fighting for their own interests and making short-term decisions for their own future?

It doesn't seem any more scary to me than what we've experienced thus far. Let's face it, the decisions that have been made when there has been no haggling have hardly been excellent, have they? Labour have had a huge majority for the last 13 years, the economic decisions have been poor. At best. Yes, David, I can see you putting your hand up, but your record isn't exactly glowing, is it? ERM ring any bells? Oh? That was the fault of the EU was it? Would this be the same EU you've refused to let us have any say over?

No, when Dave says a hung parliament is dangerous, he means it's dangerous for him. A hung parliament means he's toast if he can't command a minority government or put together a coalition. Given how hard Gordon was tonguing Ned Clark's (or whatever his name is) arsehole on Thursday, I don't fancy Dave's chances of managing the latter.

What is even more dangerous for the Tories is if the Limp Dims have got such a significant bounce from the debate, and continue over the next two, that their share of the vote goes up so much that you can't put a fag paper between the three. They'll be demanding PR then and could hold the balance of power so firmly that any partnering party would have to give in. You wouldn't like that, would you? I've no love for the Limp Dims, but I'm all for PR, mainly because it is more representative than this 'representative democracy'.

No Dave, it ain't dangerous for us, and all the time you bleat on about it, the more you reveal how scared you are, and with good reason, any Tory who can't despatch this hated government and despised PM isn't worth a wet paper bag.

Your turn to be afraid, it doesn't work on me any more.

Post Script

Oh yes, I've just seen ITV's rehash of The Prisoner, and it's rubbish.