Who owes a huge debt?

One of the likely contenders to lead the Labour Party, as it moans and groans about how the incoming government is paying for the debt it incurred, is Ed Miliband.

Apparently he tweeted "We owe Gordon a huge debt: Britain is a fairer country and our world is more just because of what he did."

No Ed, the country owes a huge debt because of Gordon. You lying lowlives pretended this wasn't real, scared the people who you've made dependent on the state that they would be out in the cold if it was addressed.

Gordon Brown has left the UK with record public debt, a record budget deficit (at levels akin to Greece) and a legacy that will burden taxpayers for many many years, including the children of taxpayers.

Good riddance. It was the most optimistic outcome of the election that you spendthrift liars were ejected from continuing to borrow your way in office by propping up those who you depended on for power.

UK 2010 - NZ 1996

Despite the noisy baying of far-left violence touters outside Number 10 last night, already demanding their own bloody vision of the future, the new Conservative-Liberal Democrat (a leftwing wit called it Con-Dem) coalition is not a return of free market Thatcherism.

More's the pity.

Had the Conservative Party been a party touting a shameless belief in capitalism, wealth creation, property rights and a sound scepticism of government on both practical and moral grounds, then this coalition might actually be positive for freedom in the UK. The sole thing the Liberal Democrats can bring is a belief in social liberalism - and by that I am not meaning the vile socialist conformity that means that a priest can be arrested for expressing his point of view, but a belief that individual rights comes first, at least in respect to law and order matters. The element of the Liberal Democrats sceptical about laws on drugs, censorship and creating new offences every time a particularly hienous crime is committed, would be helpful.

Sadly, the salad bowl of these two does not fill me with optimism, yet I am going to give this government a chance. Why? Life's too short to be constantly negative, so I'll rate this lot on what they do, not what they said they would do. For the latter would simply be depressing.

Y

So I am hoping taxes don't go up, although both parties campaigned on it to greater or lesser degrees.

I am, in fact, hoping that the Lib Dem promise to make the first £10,000 of per annum income tax free goes ahead. That WILL help put money in the economy, just not the way that socialists embrace.

I am hoping that the promises to abolish ID cards, and get rid of the criminal offences created under Labour since 1997 are kept, and the Orwellian Independent Safeguarding Authority is abolished.

I am hoping that LibDem Finance spokesman Vince Cable's recent conversion to cutting the deficit means that some serious spending cuts can be implemented this year.

I hope privatisation increases in pace, noting that unlike NZ, it isn't a dirty word in the UK, and continued throughout the Blair and Brown administrations. The Royal Mail, Channel 4 and Met Office were all considered for sale under Labour, and should be back on the agenda.

Finally, I am hoping that the Conservative policy of allowing anyone to set up a school, with minimal regulation and funding following the pupil (ala Swedish school vouchers) proceeds. It is perhaps the only policy that had anything worthwhile in it.

Yet the seeds of discord have already been sown in this coalition. The LibDems have been promised over 20 middle and junior Ministerial roles, for a party with 57 MPs this is grossly disproportionate compared to the 307 Conservative MPs. It is especially disconcerting given that absolutely none of them have ever been in government before.

So this is where the parallel to NZ lies. In 1996, the National Party and the NZ First Party formed a coalition. It immediately caused discord among many NZ First supporters who opposed National, so the LibDems will already be under substantial grassroots pressure to ensure the Conservatives have their policies severely moderated (not that there is much to moderate).

However, with over 20 LibDems in executive roles it is easy to see where announcements of sheer banality and stupidity will come from. Bear in mind the LibDems include those who have been aligned with the Marxist Stop the War Coalition (Chaired by the supporter of North Korea's regime, Andrew Murray), the LibDems embrace the European Union in ways that the Conservatives rightly find an anathema, and the LibDems are fanatical supporters of cutting CO2 emissions according to the Green Bible of "fossil fuels always bad", and have a Cabinet Minister leading that policy. The announcement of broad agreement on many policies would seem to indicate that the Conservatives had little to surrender, and showed how little the Conservatives really offered that means chance.

Yet it still remains that there are many in the Conservatives eager to cut back the role of the state, and many in the LibDems keen for the opposite. How long those tensions can be papered over is unclear. It helps that, unlike NZ in 1996, the minor party is not led by a prima donna who seeks attention, but does little work. Although it also helps that Clegg and Cameron genuinely get on, not something that could have been said for the Bolger-Peters relationship at first.

Whatever happens, there will be disenchantment. If it proves to be a government shrinking the state then the LibDems will split, as it has been the repositary of protest votes for leftwing opponents of New Labour for so long. If it proves to be a government of pablum and little serious change, then many Conservatives will be fed up and bored with government that simply "conserves" what Labour did, and makes selective cutbacks (and tax increases) to address the deficit.

For myself, I don't expect much difference. If that proves to be the case, then the big question will be whether David Cameron will have changed politics in the UK in form (not substance) by moving the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats together (leaving a sniping increasingly leftwing Labour in Opposition), or if this is the start of a polarisation process as the two parties find their inevitably diverse wings sniping and building support for a revolt.

In any case, the losers will always be the taxpayers, as no major party was standing up for them this election.

Conservative-Liberal Democrat government of austerity

or so it seems. Given imminent reports of the end of talks between Labour and the Liberal Democrats.

The incoming government will have one priority, addressing the budget deficit. It should do so with alacrity, and with a clear vision to strip out as much unnecessary spending as possible. It should not treat any budget area as sacrosanct. It may wish to delay tax cuts, but it should not increase taxes. However, I fully expect an increase in VAT and fuel duty at the very least, thieving bastards.

What it will mean is significant layoffs in the public sector, freezes for public sector pay, significant culling of public sector pensions, and the end to the wishlists of the many seeking money that does not exist.

It will also mean that the budgets of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will all be hit, despite the moans and groans of the socialist parties that largely represent those communities.

The LibDems will automatically lose popularity as leftwing supporters are upset about the inevitable, which was that the party would choose one of the major parties to support. However, both parties will cause an upset, since both barely touched the issue of the £100 billion deficit, with at best plans to deal to a tenth of that. The British voting public have both been deceived and wanted to be deceived.

They are about to face reality almost Greek style, they wont like it, and the Labour Party is waiting there to show sympathy, even though the Labour Party is mostly responsible for the problem in the first place.

I expect within weeks an "opening of the books" exercise of reality on the deficit, highlighting how bad things are, what happens if it is not addressed and pointing the finger of blame squarely at Gordon Brown and Labour. The Lib Dems will join in on this as well. Labour will seek to sidestep this, but it will be difficult to deny the truth of deficits year on year, and how the bailing out of the banks is only part of the reason for it.

The only question remaining for now is whether it is a coalition or a minority government. Either way, it wont be very popular very long. The answer will depend on what the Liberal Democrats decide.

Britain wont get proportional representation

With the Liberal Democrats proving that their negotiations in good faith with the Conservatives, include backroom dealings with Labour, it has become clear what the sticking point is. The problem for the Liberal Democrats is that there is no incentive on either major party to give in.

The sticking points with Labour were really only twofold, Gordon Brown and the need for more than Lab-LibDem to get a majority. The first part of this has been addressed, Gordon will be gone. The second part is an issue, especially since the SNP and Labour are far from friends. Yet it need not be quite that way. 323 seats are needed, if you consider Sinn Fein never turns up. So Lab-Lib Dem = 315. Plaid Cymru, Greens, the Alliance and SDLP add another 8. So it is done. The SNP is hardly likely to bring down such a government to give the Conservatives an advantage. Messy perhaps? However, the leftwing LibDem rank and file would embrace it.

So now the LibDems get to choose. Conservatives or a coalition of the losers? What will matter is electoral reform, since the LibDems want this to unlock the prospect of being near permanent kingmakers.

However, neither Labour nor the Conservatives are that stupid. Labour knows that it would enable its own vote to be cannibalised by the LibDems, Greens and even the BNP. The Conservatives fear the same from the likes of UKIP, but also fear there is likely to be a permanent leftwing majority.

So the electoral reform issue has been the card the two main parties have played, except it has come to a natural conclusion.

First, the Conservatives offered an all-party committee to look at wider political reform with proposals ready for the next election. The LibDems say that as a fudge, but the Conservatives said it would consider a far wider range of issues than just the electoral system (and that it wasn't the top priority).

Secondly, Labour offered legislation to enact electoral reform. Admittedly its own kind (called alternative vote, also known as preferential voting), but it would be in place for the next election. The LibDems were more impressed, but such a change would only benefit the party modestly.

Thirdly, the Conservatives proposed a referendum on the system Labour was offering. A big step for the Conservatives, but still less than Labour's offer.

Yet both main parties are not offering any form of proportional representation or even a referendum on it. Why? Because both know the other wont do it either. The Conservatives wouldn't offer it, because it would cause civil war within the party itself. Labour knows this, so has little incentive to do better than the Conservatives, yet has done so.

For the Liberal Democrats they are stuck. The Conservatives are offering a solid coalition or confidence and supply agreement, which could last and offers a chance at a referendum on voting reform the LibDems have little interest in, but which looks like a big compromise, as it is Labour's policy on offer. Labour is offering a less stable coalition, but guaranteed electoral reform, and a more acceptable policy mix. It has even rolled its own leader to achieve an agreement.

The corner the Liberal Democrats are in is one of their own making. If Labour is supported, the change in the electoral system will put proportional representation off of the agenda for many years, because change will have occurred. The public wont have much appetite for another change until that is bedded down. If the Conservatives are supported, the referendum will do the same. If it is a "no" result, then the implication is no public appetite for change. If it is a "yes" result, the change will still put proportional representation off of the agenda.

The only way the Liberal Democrats can back themselves out of this is to seek a little less than the Conservatives are offering - a referendum to back, in principle, a change in the electoral system (with a second one on the options after an election), or to focus electoral reform on the relatively toothless House of Lords. Labour wants a fully elected House of Lords, pushing for a form of proportional representation there, might be acceptable to both major parties, given the Lords only has limited powers to amend or reject legislation.

So whatever happens in the next few days, it will be clear that PR is not going to happen. There will be many upset at this, but then again the majority of votes cast at the general election were not for parties pushing PR.

As for me, I'm agnostic about how heads are counted, when what's in them is what matters. I was never enthused about proportional representation in NZ, but then I'm not enthused that my vote didn't count under FPP unless I wanted to pick between four choices I found distasteful. So whatever happens, happens. What matters far more to me is resolving the West Lothian question, which surely will come to the fore if a Labour-Lib Dem government is formed, consisting of a great deal of Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs, with the vast majority of English MPs in the Opposition.

What next for the UK government?

There are now four possible permutations of a new British government. Don't be deluded that the substance of any of them remotely reflects the difference in form. So what are they? What do they mean for less government?

Conservative minority government: A confidence and supply agreement between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. It will have to include at least some commitment by the Conservatives to support steps towards electoral reform, and principles around a budget. The Conservatives would form the government and Cabinet, and the Liberal Democrats would agree to support a budget and keep the government in power. Beyond that every bill would be negotiated on a case by case basis. Likely to be more acceptable to the wider Liberal Democratic Party as it would mean many of its policies would not be sacrificed to a coalition, but subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Liberal Democrats can claim some independence. Conservatives would implement manifesto only subject to obtaining a Parliamentary majority, which would become increasingly difficult. Difficult to see how extensive spending cuts can be implemented. Conservatives may need Labour support for some legislation. Unlikely to last for full-term.

Verdict: More likely to ensure Conservative instincts to restrain taxes will be implemented, but less likely to ensure the few positive Liberal Democrat influences on civil liberties will be addressed. Think watered-down Cameroonian Conservatives, a bit like watered down low-alcohol beer - what's the point?

Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition: A comprehensive agreement, which means a government led by the Conservatives, but with the Liberal Democrats having Cabinet positions. Clegg as Deputy PM (perhaps Home Secretary), and possibly Cable as Chancellor of the Exchequer. Would include a commitment on agreed policies, Liberal Democrat acceptance of certain Conservative policies, and moves towards electoral reform. Gives Liberal Democrats a long sought after direct sharing of Executive power. However, Liberal Democrats will be seen as being part of a Conservative led administration, and so will share responsibility for all policies. Likely to upset many Liberal Democrat supporters, especially if it is a government of austerity as it is likely to send many voters to supporting Labour. Essentially a trade-off of power vs. risk of unpopularity. Verdict - Expect perhaps a more solid commitment to not being authoritarian on law and order, but likely to have a far weaker commitment to cutting spending. An empty glass at best.

Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition, with confidence and supply agreements with multiple minor parties (coalition of the losers). A new Labour leader would be Prime Minister, with Clegg as Deputy and a few other Liberal Democrats in Cabinet. There would be some form of electoral reform given Labour's statements, and policies would be some blend of the two leftwing parties. May need concessions to protect spending in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland whilst spending cuts are harsher elsewhere. However, it binds the two leftwing parties closely, and means another Prime Minister who wasn't standing as such in the election campaign. Verdict - Perhaps some easing of the draconian state of Labour, but watch taxes rise and spending rise (though not so much). Weak hemlock. Watch it try to be a grand coalition for the children and co-parents who are the current majority, and disappoint progressively.

Labour minority government, with confidence and supply agreements only with other parties. As with a coalition with the Liberal Democrats, except Labour carries the Executive and the responsibility for the government, and has to gain approval for all legislation. Likely to be far more unstable, and short lived as the minor parties seek more and more Verdict - Business as usual, except with the need to offer more to the minor parties.

On my part, I simply want two things:

- A government willing to make serious spending cuts;
- A government willing to wind back at least some of the authoritarian measures implemented under Labour.

I don't believe any government involving the Liberal Democrats will do the former, and frankly it is preferable that the next government comprises the thieving parties on the left, and is unstable, than being a short-lived limp-wristed Conservative government. A Labour led government will be a government dominated by parties that did NOT win in England, but won in the other three constituent countries, and if it pillages England to reduce the deficit, leaving the others intact, it will exacerbate the whole West Lothian question.

So go on Nick, Gordon and Mandy (Peter Mandelson), do a sordid little deal, watch you sacrifice English taxpayers to keep the Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish in their Soviet bloc style public sector based economies, and pay the price. You'll delay the inevitable, make it obvious what needs to be done, and you'll force another election, and by no means will a majority support proportional representation at that point. You see at that point, a significant number in England will happily let Scotland and Wales go, or demand an English assembly.