Thursday, 20 May 2010

News Flash: This Coalition Is A Joke

I'm absorbing Question Time reluctantly and all it's (predictably, these days) generating in me is an intensifying mood of futility, especially after the pathetic Clegg/Cameron long grass double act earlier today. This 'strong and stable government' nonsense is a dangerous misunderstanding on the part, particularly, of the Tories of what the general election result really meant.

People have had a bellyful of 'strong and stable governments' that are basically all mendacious mouth and no trousers, having had 13 years of a catastrophic version of 'strong and stable' Labour government. We're through with elected dictatorships when they're actually elected. But this increasingly disconnected, disingenuous, dysfunctional Libdum/Tory stitch-up version of a 'strong and stable government' certainly wasn't voted for - by anyone! It's the wittiest form of 'strong and stable government' I think I've ever seen. And the joke's on us.

People, if anything can be read into the outcome of the general election (and not a lot can), did not vote for a 'strong and stable government' that would carry on for five years as if Cameron's and Clegg's convenient interpretation was the only one that mattered. What people actually 'voted for' (if a mass ballot really can have a mind and character of its own, which itself borders on insulting inanity) is a weak and unstable government that would have to make policy according to principle, be answerable to the people every day of its existence, and would have to rely on pure guts and political nous just to get through one parliament.

A minority Tory government would have delivered that, and would have shown the country that the party still had a soul and some real courage. It would have earned them a proper victory down the line, too, possibly with a new leader who genuinely represented those erstwhile traits of the Conservative institution.

As it is, forget what I've said before, (although I've been pretty consistent in the post-election propaganda landscape), the middle class Richmond/Notting Hill shits are in charge again (this time with a bluish-yellow hue rather than a red one). They've welded Parliament's doors shut to the likes of me and you, and are now talking to themselves while really, honestly imagining, laughably, that they are running the country.

It did not take long, but the consequences, as the world economy tanks - this time for real - will be awe-inspiring and devastating. We could have had a weak but principled and determined government. Instead, we don't even have a 'strong and stable government'. All we really have is weakness, fudge, paralysis and hot air.

Not impressed. Plus ca change, right?


  1. Cheer up! The great thing about this coalition government is that the two parties will stop each other doing anything. So we'll get fewer new laws, less meddling etc.

    About the only thing they broadly agree on is civil liberties, so they may well do some good in that area as well!

  2. The Great Repeal Bill, although it has been seriously watered down by the gushing-wet Limp Dumbs will be the only decent thing to come out of this stitch-up, D. The only other positive rumblings I've heard today is that after Cameron's blatant attack on the 1922 Committee, (which he "won" by keeping it secret until the last minute, knowing full well that all the MPs who would have voted against him were not able to be present and ordering the compliant new intake of MPs to vote for him so that he rammed it through with 168 votes to 118), the 2010 Committee was formed today - current membership.... 118! Oh, how I laughed. ;-)

  3. "Strong & stable" is just the tag line for economically and forcefully planting in the minds of the public (and the party!) the justification for doing a deal with the Liberal Democrats. It also binds the Lib Dems in - for repudiating their obligation to help provide that in these troubled times and denying the British people what prima face is "a good thing" will bring them no credit. It is meaningless tosh though - proven by asking who would offer the opposite - "weak and shaky"?

    Interpreting the collective will as expressed at the election is to be led astray if that goes beyond stating that the public were not convinced sufficiently by any of the offerings to back it. That does represent a failure on Dave & co's part but they have snatched power, if not victory, from the jaws of defeat. They know, surely, that their actions in government have to provide the conviction that will allow the British people to repose confidence in them sufficient to secure re-election. They also have to eclipse the Lib Dems - which is a bit of a shame as their role, if they have one, is to consign the New Labour Party to the ash heap of history. These requirements cannot be misunderstood: hence principle will not only be applicable, it will have to be seen to have been applied.

  4. I think I agree with you, your eminence. I'm not sure.

    My previous replies to Adam and Spidey didn't appear for some reason. Oh well, suffice to say I always appreciate your comments. Last Thursday was a busy day of examinations - hence the slightly bilious post - but even it was trumped by yesterday, which was hell!

  5. I've given up on QT. They pick their guests to fit an angle they want to push, the audience is full of clueless lefty trustafarians and Dimbleby lets the animals run free. Take any question time and put thoughtful intelligent politicians on the panel, drop the comedy relief/sideshow guest (Yes Marcus Brigstock and Will Young, this means you!) and ensure audience is invited in advance so as to get a decent demographic sample so that it's not filled with spotty trot herberts baring a grudge because their girlfriend left them for a Tory in a jag. Then...and only then, might it be worth watching.


Any thoughts?