Why I’m routing for a hung Parliament

With the 2010 General Election nearly upon us, all of voting age are confronted with that problematic question of where to cast our precious vote. That is of course assuming we wish to vote at all.
With all the chameleon, sleaze ridden, sensationalised, “Punch and Judy” style of politics we’ve witnessed over the past few years the issue of party-political loyalty has, undoubtedly, been muddied somewhat, to the extent that people, of all ideological persuasions, now find themselves in a state of unprecedented uncertainty as to which party best represents their views.
It was all so simple twenty years ago at the height of Thatcher’s reign: either you found yourself on the side of big business, private enterprise and neo-liberalist capitalism or else you supported the socialist policies of increased welfare, nationalisation and economic regulation. Back then, the dividing lines were clear and the positions, at least of the two main parties, were distinct (even polarised). Now, as Labour’s third term in office draws to a close, it can be difficult to discern exactly what differentiates the major parties – especially given the shameful image-centric brand of politics we now seem to be engulfed in; lambasting us with pseudo celebrity leaders and their “oh-so glamorous” wives, endless YouTube clips endorsing the “down to earth” normality of the prospective candidates and cringe-worthy interviews about politician’s personal habits or taste in music.
Since the election of New Labour in 1997, what we have essentially witnessed on Britain’s political landscape is a centralisation, if not a homogenisation, of the two main parties; with Tony Blair ruthlessly shaking off his more hard line socialists whilst, more recently, David Cameron has sought to distance the Conservatives from the toffy-nosed, public school image they’ve held for so long. Many, of course, would argue the merits of this moderation of left and right wing politics, pointing to it as a sign of a more coherent and, endemically more democratic society. I do not share this view and for two simple reasons: Firstly, the rush by both Labour and the Tories to occupy the centre ground actually serves more in disenfranchising majority swaths of the population from mainstream politics than it does to widen it’s appeal. For both the socialist and the capitalist it is now increasingly difficult to ascertain which party best expresses their social, economic or moral convictions. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, it leads to the shrouding of political parties in a smokescreen of ambiguity whereby no-one is entirely certain of quite what it is they stand for. And yet, the parties never cease to remind us, they are all most definitely “different.” But are they?
The problem, of course, is that we simply don’t know. What I mean is, we have little way of discerning a party’s true colours until they’re in government, at which point we often receive an unpleasant surprise! The one thing history has taught us however is this: give one party too much power for too long and it goes to their head; they make extreme and often rash decisions, they alienate their citizens and leave a trail of political debris for the next incumbents to deal with. We’ve seen this with both the Conservatives and now with Labour; from Thatcher’s despicable handling of the miner’s strikes and her whimsical selling off of British assets to Blair’s uncalculated decision to take us to war and Brown’s failure to keep a lid on the City’s irresponsible extravagance.
For this reason I am equally wary of Cameron’s platform of “change” and his self propagation as a modern, compassionate Conservative as I am of another term of Labour, given their less than impressive track record, certainly in more recent years. Although I admire and respect many of the policies of the Liberal Democrats and would certainly conclude that on issues like the economy and Iraq they emerge with the greatest level of integrity, I am also nervous about some of their more outlandish policies regarding Europe, Trident and other key issues.
So, what, you ask, is the solution?
The prospect of five years of either Labour or Conservative rule does nothing to excite me and I suspect I am not alone in this regard. Many thousands across the country will, on May 6th, be voting not for a party that excites or impassions them but for, what they deem to be, the lesser of two evils (and you can make your own minds up as to which is which!)
What say you then, of the prospect of a hung Parliament and five years of coalition style government? Admittedly, political coalitions have never received a particularly positive press in Britain and yet I can’t help but feel that, in 2010, the time is ripe for this form of governance. It would, for the first time in a generation, force cross-party consensus. It would temper the more knee-jerk “reactionist” policies that majority governments are prone to. It would devolve power back to Parliament and reignite the chamber as a place of debate, scrutiny and accountability. It would be more representative of the views of the country as a whole. It would necessitate greater levels of political negotiation and compromise leading to less, but more reasoned, legislation.
It would be difficult, yes and it would require great patience and unprecedented levels of co-operation. But is that really a bad thing? The more I think about it, the more I’m coming round to the idea!