Still a few results to come in but it looks as though there will be a weak and wobbly Conservative government dependent upon support from the Northern Ireland Democratic Unionist Party. Several different trends seem to have emerged. Governing parties (Conservatives and Scottish Nationalists) lost ground, yet big parties prospered at the expense of small ones. The most pro-Brexit party, UKIP, was more or less eliminated. More young people voted this time and they caused much of the upset. This is another of those odd British elections in which the combined left parties got more votes yet the combined right parties got more seats (similar to what happened in the US presidential).
Theresa May is trying to stay on as prime minister, but I can't see this working. The Conservative Party are intolerant of losers. The position of the leader of the opposition, Jeremy Corbyn, has strengthened, but not enough to make him PM. All this bodes ill for the EU negotiations because it is difficult to believe that any government formed in this circumstance can actually deliver what it promises. A weak Conservative government trying to bring about a "hard" Brexit when the electorate clearly do not want it is not a happy scenario. We could be in for another election before very long.
Replies
The DUP Deal is Improper Conduct
Well, TM has survived as PM a bit longer than I expected, but the deal with the DUP is most improper. To spend large amounts of public money essentially simply to bribe a party into propping up the government is surely a corrupt practice and can only lead to trouble and a contaminating of the standards of public life. I accept that there is much poverty in Northern Ireland and it needs some subsidy but that is a completely separate matter which should be dealt with on its own merits in proper time and due course. The deal with the DUP is simply misconduct and should not have happened. It is not that it is unfair to other parts of the country - it is that it is corrupt practice to use national funds for party advantage.
Instead May forms an alliance with a party that has very bigoted views and now looks to what other party, any party that might allow her power.
Does a government have to do anything? In democratic government parties have a time limited innings and so feel a need to present a programme and change the law in various ways - usually one's that the opposition are pledged to undo when they get their innings. When one thinks about this it can seem somewhat absurd and rather removed from the real needs of the situation. Britain currently has a situation where the government has very little power to do anything. The Brexit negotiations are going on in a context that is rather surreal politically and we are probably all wondering where it is all going. I saw yesterday speculation that if things fall through with the DUP and the LDP has a new leader, the Conservatives might approach them for support. The fact that there can even be speculation about this rather illustrates the current incoherence - it is hard to imagine two parties more diametrically opposite than the DUP and the LDP (is there anything they would agree about?). Perhaps we shall have a period with a government that presides but does not enact anything - would that be better or worse?
The Problem of Cooperation
Andrew wrote: "We have had this uncertainty since the Conservative and Lib dem alliance." I think it is true that some of the present difficulty can be traced to that period, especially in that for a coalition to work there has to be a cooperation between the participating parties each to maintain the dignity of the other. In that case, however, the smaller party emerged rather humiliated. This has created a situation in which none of the smaller parties are keen to enter into a coalition with anybody. This, in turn, makes it very difficult for either of the big parties to form a government by any means other than winning an overall majority. As politics in UK is now split on more than one dimension (left-right on economics; pro-and-anti in relation to Europe; and the immigration issue) hung parliaments become more likely. However, the British politicians have not learnt the gentle art of cooperation. Thus, now, the LibDems will not even talk about cooperation and the DUP will not enter into a coalition. DUP support will continue to be highly conditional and uncertain. Is this not a case of comeuppance?
'My interest in politics is not particularly partisan, it is more spiritual and psychological. I want to see what makes people tick and I want to see the spirit of the times at work and try to get some insight.'
An antidote and a very helpful approach to navigating the huge, vague unease stirred up by the various media outlets, who all have their own agenda to advance.
David Brazier said:
Thanks, Andrew. This is a very complicated matter. The Con-Lib coalition was about the only British government in the past half century that could claim to have been supported by more than 50% of the electorate. If Britain did have PR almost all governments would have to be such coalitions. This has pros and cons. The Dutch are still struggling to form a government. Then there are many different kind of PR. It is evidently "fairer" as between the parties to have PR, but that might not be the only consideration. Does it produce good government? This is a very difficult question to resolve. The ancient Greeks sometimes used another "fair" system which was to draw lots - then they could say that the gods had decided the matter. The Romans, during the republic, had a system in which different factions had different patronages - this would be as if in UK the Labour Party always chose the Home Secretary and the Conservatives the Chancellor. One can immediately see difficulties. Perhaps they could alternate - there would still be problems. There is no perfect system. If there is a strong feeling running in the country it does not much matter what the system is - Macron would have got his government in France whatever the system - but when things are finely poised the system can make a lot of difference. During the Con-Lib period the government proposed a mild move in the direction of PR with "single transferable vote" but the country rejected it. I have a sense that there is some truth in the adage that counties get the government they deserve and the whole thing unwinds in mysterious (and often paradoxical) ways. Nice to have your comments - thank you.
A view from America: "The UK's election results show a diminished country that is not at ease with itself or its recent decisions. None of its political parties was given the nod to sort things out. When asked who they wanted to govern them, its population said simply: not you! At best the country is uncertain; at worst it has entered a nihilistic rage." http://dld.bz/fPxAp
Yes, much can happen behind closed doors. I think a lot can be learnt about politics by watching those old Laurel and Hardy films. "Look what a fine mess you've got us into now!" and all that. I think there was certainly some of that in the three people she appointed to handle Brexit - "you got us into this so now you can handle it," sort of thing.
-
1
-
2
-
3
of 3 Next