This Coalition Government Could Actually Be A Good Thing

w

h

Unsurprisingly, a lot of people seem pretty pissed about Clegg and Cameron cuddling up to each other. If you were in a two or three way marginal, and got a leaflet from the Lib Dems claiming a vote for Clegg would keep the Tories out, you would be justifiably enraged right now.

Equally, if you're a Conservative dinosaur whose not keen on arabs, gays or dole scroungers, you might not be too pleased with the prospect of your young and already slightly liberal leader jumping into bed with a Euro loving lefty who wants to give asylum seekers a home in Britain. Don't get me wrong; I like Clegg and his immigration policy, but I feel I'm in the minority.

But before we all go rattling our sabers at the gates of Westminster shouting for a fair outcome to our shitty general election that didn't even allow everyone to vote, we might consider the pro's of the situation.

It's not ideal (far from it, many would declare), but we are stuck with it, so you're going to have to like it. Another general would just be a pain in the arse for everyone and, without any electoral reform, would probably yield a similar result. If Cameron had decided to go it alone and rule with a minority, it would have held out for about as long as an alcoholic in a rum factory. Even this would have been preferable to the 'rainbow coalition', the centrepiece being a Labour party well and truly on its last legs in the eyes of the electorate.

Britain did need a change, if only for the sake of pleasing the majority of people who, thanks largely to the media, were certainly fed up with the previous government. In my eyes, the Tories aren't the ones to provide this change. Therefore, I am quite pleased that their policies in some areas have had to be 'moderated' for the sake of pleasing the Liberals.

This is effectively what the coalition has done. It has managed to scrub out the controversial or perhaps 'more extreme' sections of each sides manifesto. The Lib Dems have had to scrap their immigration policy, which has probably made more people happy than sad. At the same time, the Tories have been forced to look at their incredibly suspect inheritance tax plans, Trident legislation and immobile stance on electoral reform. These are just some examples.

In forming a coalition, both parties have had to make sacrifices. As voters, we are inclined to focus on the concessions our own party has had to make, but this is democracy. I certainly feel safer knowing that Cameron isn't going to be left to run the ship alone. We have a Liberal holding the reigns, although how tightly and how effectively we are yet to see.

Remember, hung parliaments are a frequent thing in Europe, and it hasn't done them any serious harm (we'll ignore Greece for the sake of the sentence). This is certainly new ground for us, and could well be a progressive and hopefully positive step in British politics.

w

Disillusionment Awaits The Lib Dems And Tories

Well, if you had to place a bet, it looks as if you'd go for a Lib-Tory coalition with Cameron at the helm. If Clegg stays true to his word, he'll back the party with the most votes. Since Dave's team have the most votes and the most seats, Long Legged Cleggy Weggy (as twitterites have so eloquently dubbed him) would be hard pushed to invent a reason to support anyone other than the blues.

In all of this post election hullabaloo, Gordon Brown looks as if his days are well and truly numbered. His statement of 'for my part, I am willing to negotiate with any of the party leaders' seems sweet but pointless. I don't think they care about you Gordon. You lost the election.

David Cameron could face tough times though, and so could Clegg. If a coalition were to emerge, the alienation of 'hardcore' supporters is a likely consequence. Old school Tories aren't going to want to share a bed with a Europe loving, immigrant cuddling lefty, and liberals aren't going to want to snuggle up with homophobic dinosaurs, even if it does mean a little slice of power in the commons. Since Cameron is so clear on his stance on foreign policy and the EU, and since he certainly has the right to dictate terms rather than receive them, the Lib Dems are certainly going to have to make some big concessions on their manifesto.

Is it worth it? If a Tory government rules without another parties help, Clegg can kiss his idea of electoral reform good bye. However, his support will probably stay the same, if not steadily increase over five years of a Tory government who may well cock things up. He may be in a position at the next general to make another bid for first (or second) place, although given the sudden death of Cleggmania this time round that would be a bold prediction to make.

If he decides to jump into bed with Cameron, his party may well be able to get through a few of its own ideas, possibly even PR (although Cameron is calling for a government review and Clegg a referendum). However, staunch Lib-Dems or even those who put a cross next to Clegg hoping for a change are going to be justifiably pissed that their vote is going towards a Tory government. By ruling in a coalition, Clegg may paradoxically be giving his party what it has been looking for since birth, and destroying the chance of it ever happening again.

Out of all this, Labour may well be able to salvage some hope. If a coalition emerges, there are going to be a lot of pissed Liberals looking for an alternative, and at the end of five years, possibly a lot of disillusioned Tories wanting a change. At the moment, Gordon Brown just has to wait. To pass the time, he might consider packing a few things.

Election Night - Approximately 2:20AM

Well, despite a predictably dry coverage from the BBC, the live election so far has proved almost as fascinating as female wrestling. The exit poll seems to show that Britain have jumped off the Lib Dem ship into the icy waters of two-party politics at the very last minute. Nick Clegg may well have locked himself away in the men's, with Vince Cable hovering like an economic yoda outside the cubicle to whisper wise words of encouragement. It's late, and I'm in a strange mood.

Paxman is enjoying himself immensely, demanding answers from flustered cabinet ministers and party representatives before scoffing at their ignorance, whilst Dimbleby sits as calm as a lamb on his BBC anchor throne. In the background, presenters tap away at virtual screens that sometimes work and sometimes don't. One man seems to be walking across an LCD Britain. It's all very high tech and fancy. Andrew is on a boat interviewing tipsy B-list celebrities who don't really know what they're talking about and offering what the BBC are hoping is 'light relief' during all this electoral babble. It's kind of like having your nipples yanked during un-anaesthetised tooth surgery.

Politically speaking, it's not looking good for the left. Although Labour are managing to hold on to some of those key marginals, the overall Tory swing appears strong enough to topple Brown and even put Dave into number 10. Basildon South has just fallen to a toff in a blue tie who looks like a right smug cunt and, what's worse, the BNP got over 2000 votes.

At least the Green Party won their first seat, which is good for that bloke with the ridiculous beard we saw on a stage in Tooting, looking like he was at a gardening convention.

The biggest shock for me is the dramatic drop in Lib Dem support though. With such positive poll results, it's very surprising to see many figures for Clegg's men actually falling below those of the last general.

And regarding the people having their vote refused - regrettable, but I don't reckon there's anything we can do about it apart from calling a 'serious review', which will inevitably mean fuck all. I'm sure someone will kick up a fuss, and hopefully returning officers and the Electoral Commission will take a hint. They have another five years to get their act together. We knew this one was going to be a big turn out. I knew that, and I don't even have a copy of the electoral roll. Somebody sort it out for God's sake.

Brown's Citizens UK Speech

Just watched Brown's Citizens UK address on YouTube. Hats off to the man - for someone whose public speaking ability and presentation at times has made his own aides and cabinet members want to sink into the ground and disappear, he really pulled the rabbit out on this occasion. Well written, expertly pitched and, most importantly, passionate. I would certainly say it stands out as being the most spine tingling and dramatic moment to grace our generally mediocre and repetitive TV debates. Clegg and Cameron always have that air of over rehearsal, especially the latter, and Brown has come out on top for once.

Unfortunately, like all appearances in public politics, the address was rhetoric and not reality, dreams and bold statements rather than thoughtful pitches and proposals. Like any other ovation worthy speech, it was littered with 'equality', 'fairness for all', 'a brighter future' and everything else we're promised every day and still love with all our hearts. This is what people want to hear from politicians, and rightly so in many ways, since real politics can be boring as fuck.

And if Brown is elected on Thursday, and if he can make good on the impassioned promises he made today, we definitely have a brighter Britain to look forward to.

A Note On Brown's Bigot Blunder

It's time for a few people to get off their high hypocritical horses I do believe. This nonsense about Brown calling some ignorant pensioner a bigot is nonsense for two reasons.

Firstly, the woman was a bit of a bigot. Her question of 'All these Eastern Europeans what are coming in, where are they flocking from?', beautifully captured by the press in all its inability-to-string-a-sentence-together glory, is not only wonderfully poetic in its migratory bird imagery, but also manages to answer itself. Oh yeah, and it was ignorant, bordering on racist. Gordon quite sensibly put her in her place by informing her that people migrate in and out of the country, an idea that may well have been too lofty and complex for her internationally limited mind.

Secondly, if you can show me one person with the ability to speak who has never said one thing to someone's face and then another behind their back, I will buy you a house and even give it a fortnightly clean. Brown's mistake was failing to restrain himself before getting out of reach of the microphones. The fact that he was forced into some plastic, press-ready, insincere personal apology to calm the prejudiced old bag and that shitty proportion of the electorate who all hold themselves to be worthy of sainthood is fifteen hundred times more disgusting than the initial comment was.

Surely, you can't be surprised by Gordon Brown's words ("I am surprised, and don't call me Shirley"). But seriously now, you might disapprove of his unprofessional-ism, which is in fact his real fault here, but not his sentiment. You'd have to be a fucking idiot to think that politicians value every single citizen's opinion. No one in their right mind is going to think highly of every comment or every person, especially one who doesn't seem to realise that Eastern Europe is in fact a geographical location. I'm sure every politician, every counsellor, every teacher, every policeman, every lawyer, every doctor has spoken negatively of someone once they've left the room and closed the door. The leaders of our country are highly intelligent, experienced in their field of expertise and, for the most part, well equipped to do the job. This doesn't mean that they harbour no opinions, smile upon everyone as if all are equal and are incapable of becoming angry and irrational when under stress.

What Gordon Brown uttered in the car is the same thing I and hundreds of thousands of others would have uttered in the same situation. Worse things are said every hour, they're just not caught on tape a week before a general election.

It's The Instinct Behind Anti-Immigration That Is Wrong

Despite a relatively liberal immigration policy, I would say that our country, based upon the general opinions and gossips of the everyday man and woman, is against foreigners. As Brits, we do like a good old moan about anything and everything. We moan about our rotten weather (God may well be listening, since I seem to remember being told that it's getting hotter every year). We moan about the dreadful state of our country and the corner shop robbing, car snatching, knife sharpening youths of our under cleaned, poorly paved and dimly lit streets. We moan about our family members, our partners, our children and our neighbours. We moan about where we work, or who we work with. Somewhere, tucked away among these bitchy snippets of local pub and post office gossip, the foreigner can often be found.

Obviously, not everyone dislikes immigrants, so don't get your lefty liberal panties in a twist. But, take a general sample of the population, and the majority of people would class immigration as a bad thing. Surveys have shown this. A recent poll even found that a startling number of people don't even think that England feels like England any more (the exact statistic I can't remember, much to my annoyance, but take my word that it was saddening to read).

Now, there are economic reasons for lowering the number of immigrants in our country, most of which I'm sure you are aware of: strain on public services, less jobs for Brits, blah blah bloody blah. There are also economic reasons for allowing immigrants into the country. This isn't an analysis of pro's and con's though.

The fact is, that the vast majority of people don't understand the economics of our country in enough detail to back up a claim that immigration has an ill effect on our financial welfare. People are of course entitled to their opinions, and opinions don't always have to be based on facts to be valid (there is something called gut instinct), but saying that immigration is ruining our country financially and will be our downfall is nothing short of ignorance. There are, obviously, people with economic expertise who vouch for the benefits of a protectionist, anti-immigration state. There are also, not surprisingly, people of economic expertise who disagree strongly, and point to the wide range of possibilities and financial bonuses that come with allowing a more diverse and ethnically broad workforce.

We, for the most part, are not these people. I am not an economist. I have a vaguely educated idea of the pro's and con's behind immigration, and unashamedly admit that I focus on the former more than the latter since my bias tends that way. I do, however, find business and financial matters confusing and, rather ignorantly some might say, boring.

But my feeling on immigration is driven by ethical values and social ideals. My instinct tells me that a man or woman has no more right to reap the benefits of their country than someone from across the border, especially since the location of your birth is a matter of pure chance and nothing else. Humans should be allowed to move as freely as they wish when nationality is effectively decided by the throw of a dice. We should value the multi-culturalism that our country has come to inherit, should focus on the positives rather than the negatives, and should remember that we are all immigrants somewhere along the line. No one has a birthright to wealth or power or security; these things should be shared and built upon by all.

Views such as these are not based on economic knowledge, but ethical and social observation. You could say that my opinions are no better or more considered than the racist drunk who rants about the darkies stealing his factory job and running his corner shop. What I find so disheartening, is that despite the fact we know so little about the real financial effect of immigration, our instinct is to shun rather than welcome. We have an innate mistrust of the outsider. We are the rich men hoarding our wealth and guarding it against what we see to be the scrounging poor. If a British man takes our job because he is more efficient, we call it capitalism. If an Eastern European takes our job because he is more efficient, we say 'bloody Poles, send 'em all back'.

Consider the instinct behind this mentality. Consider the fact that we, as Brits, tend to opt for slamming the door rather than opening our arms when there is no concrete evidence available. Most people don't know a thing about immigrants, their culture, or their effect on our country, but that doesn't stop them from having a good old moan.

TV Clash of the Political Titans - Pt II

Illustration by Shelly Asquith

Gordon Brown looked a bit shaky out of the starting blocks this evening with a fumbling and unconvincing opening address. Cameron's was predictably well rehearsed, clear and slimier than something from a garden pond. Clegg was clearly buoyed throughout the evening by recent poll boosts, and in his opening statement when claiming that change really was possible, he almost managed to sound like he believed it.

On the EU, Dave was outnumbered and outgunned. With electorate spooking rhetoric such as 'homophobic', 'anti-semite' and 'extreme right' in their arsenal, Clegg and Brown had little trouble drawing public attention to Cameron's association with European figures of questionable political, environmental and ethical stance. Dave didn't do a great job at fending off these attacks. He almost seemed to ignore them, perhaps following the advice his mother no doubt gave him on how to deal with bullies - sticks and stones and all that bollocks. Nevertheless, it certainly seemed implicit that a Conservative party would adopt a more isolationist approach to Europe. Even though Cameron appeared the outsider on this issue tonight, his vaguely anti-EU stance may have struck a chord with much of the electorate.

Of course, no political debate would be complete without it's fair share of waffle and repetition, especially since some of the second half's questions bore similarities to those asked last Thursday. At least the leaders managed to dispense with a lot of that sentimental crap on brave soldiers and valiant nurses they were throwing around last week. I nearly puked.

The general stance on Afghanistan seemed to be that better equipment was needed, although a party would be hard pushed to claim it wasn't and still have an MP get even a whiff of Westminster. I was surprised that Nick Clegg, apart from once in his opening speech, did not refer or harp on about the Lib Dem's opposing of the war in Iraq. Maybe we've all forgotten about that one.

The most worrying moment of the night may well have been the reference to Islamist extremism in Yemen and Somalia - not that we didn't know it was there, but that we may actually need to go and sort it out at some point. Looks like our boys won't be back home any time soon after all.

They all had a bit of a threesome when the question on the Pope came up, and seemed quite proud to be able to agree on something. Since none of them are raging homophobes, evangelical priests or LSD soaked human rights protesters, they held the line of: 'We don't agree with the Pope's mates fiddling kiddies, and we don't necessarily agree with his views, but we know lots of people do, so we can't arrest the old fart at passport control because it'll cause a bloody church riot.' It was something like that, I think. Regardless of what was actually said, this was in fact the point at which the leaders came closest to each other in their responses. Strangely enough, the question on working together and political cohesion didn't yield such results.

Nuclear weapons came up, predictably. What wasn't so foreseeable, I thought, was Clegg's inability to capitalise on his anti-Trident position. No one likes a Cold War, and the term 'nuclear weapons' is almost as emotive as 'genocide' when it comes to foreign policy. So the fact that Dave and Gordo muscled him out and made his stance look naive was surprising, especially since Clegg's claims that the Trident decision has been made too hastily seem perfectly valid. As he said twice tonight, we need to 'move with the times'. I'm sure there are other alternatives that allow us to retain a nuclear deterrent (sadly a necessary tool in a world where developing countries don't just grow financially) but also set money aside to be spent on front line troop equipment more applicable to the here and now. They'll need some new Landrovers and flick knives if they plan to take the fight to Africa next.

Once again, immigration came up. Cameron's cap (a fashion idea doomed to failure?) is still a load of shite, not only in its arbitrary nature, but also in the assumption it promotes: immigration is always a bad thing. I know Dave isn't really enough of a prick to think that, but harping on about rising numbers of outsiders and how his party will cut those levels doesn't give the right impression or mind set to easily influenced viewers. It's like a politicised and televised statement from The Daily Mail. I still thought Clegg's amnesty-esque approach was the strongest and fairest idea, although I'm sure he wouldn't thank me for naming it that.

Winner of the closing speeches? Clegg I reckon. Gordon's was marginally better than his opening one, but still a bit uncomfortable around the edges. Cameron still hadn't cleaned himself up after his dip in the garden pond. Clegg's sounded good. A bit dramatic in places, but good.

Two down, one to go.