Wednesday 28 April 2010

Will a coalition reach Christmas?

I feel the time is right to humour the statisticians. Every day we are assured that a hung Parliament remains the most likely outcome of the Election. So what will happen? The outcomes are numerous and the permutations, although limited, throw up some interesting options. For instance, should the Conservatives garner 300 seats, they would be 28 seats short of the required target. However, without having to resort to either of their main rivals, they may be able to make up the shortfall with the various nationalists. Of course, fundamentally, they could hardly cosy up to UKIP without losing credibility. However, as soon as the number of Conservative seats falls in the 250-300 bracket, the Liberals come into play. Tricky. Although these two do share several policies broadly within spitting distance of each other, their differences are surely too big to overcome. Specifically, the Liberals want to join the Euro and also demand a referendum on electoral reform. On neither of these could the Conservatives possibly negotiate. Thus, a Lib/Con coalition is an absolute non-runner. So, in short, anything less than 300 seats would almost certainly preclude the Conservatives from sitting in any coalition.

So let us consider the alternatives. Could Labour reach 300 seats and seek the support of the Nationalists? No, definitely not. First of all, I can hardly see Labour reaching 200 seats - never mind 300. They will be judged on their legacy and where we are now. This will be their downfall. Inflation is starting to rise. Ditto unemployment. Ditto government borrowing. The spectre of Greece appears uncomfortably close. I read a story a few months ago about a chicken which fell down a well in rural Egypt. One man climbed in to rescue it and drowned. Another man drowned trying to save the first man and so on. Eventually, several villagers lost their lives and yes, you guessed it, the chicken against all odds, emerged unscathed. When I think of this story, Gordon Brown and his cronies always spring to mind. Namely, in spite of the poor historical outcome, if you keep persisting with the same strategy, it will have to work eventually! Wrong! Advice to New Labour in the form of a famous saying: "Sometimes its better to just stand there and look stupid rather than open your mouth and remove all doubt".

So a Labour haul of at least 250 may put a Liberal coalition on the table. This assumes a Liberal haul of at least 90 seats based on current data. Even joining together, their collective majority would be paper thin. The differences between them seem too great although one wonders what Gordon Brown wouldn't do to cling on grimly to power. In short, such a marriage would only be short lived and I doubt whether it would even reach Christmas. Six months of a dithering, bickering Lab/Lib coalition would see the Conservatives returned with a stonking majority of at least 150 seats. By contrast, should the Conservatives realise a majority now, it is unlikely to exceed 20 seats. This would be too slender to go into a second term. This would be necessary to have a fighting chance of undoing the carnage wrought by Labour.

So, which would you rather. A doomed coalition with a short shelf life or tiny majority which would lead us back to where we are within four years. Looking at it like this, it seems that the Lib/Lab coalition would be best in the long term. But, should Labour come third in the popular vote, Clegg has stated publically that he could not endorse Brown to continue as PM. On what grounds? My understanding is that he feels that a party coming third does not have the right to provide the leader. Do you see where I'm going? I really believe Clegg aspires to be PM himself! With approximately 150 more seats, Labour won't wear that. So a compromise will have to be made. Who are the alternative Labour candidates? Johnson has already talked himself out of it when previously touted. Milliband wants it desperately but is respectfully waiting for the nod from the Dark Lord. Balls has made no secret of his ambition but I ask you, Prime Minister Balls? Now that really would be the icing on the cake. Who could take seriously a bickering coalition of Balls? Bring back Lord Sutch!

No comments:

Post a Comment