h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

It's occurred to me that the assumption that a general election will decide the next UK government might be wrong.

The measures necessary to stabilise the economy might be so unpalatable to the public that no single party could be expected to enforce them. The electoral backlash would be too severe.

Therefore, with an all-party consensus on the broad requirements, Brown and Cameron might agree to form a National Government and push legislation through together. I'm talking about measures like reform of public sector pensions (wholesale conversion to a defined contribution basis).

What do others think?

I think it sounds like a good idea but then who would be the leader of the three because some people might want one leader. However, having a joint leadership may mean that all three have to agree so there is more opinion than just one. This though could create arguments. Even thought there are already arguments. I think that combining to make an all party government is a good idea.

No no no. Nope. Absolutely not. You don't have two leaders in a crisis. I'd rather have a Lib dem government. If it gets to the point of overiding party politics, you choose the strongest and most ruthless person to be *temporary* basically 'dicatator', (note I say temporary). If you have a 'national government' which would be a kind of rainbow thing, it would be essential to have *one* figurehead to rally around, and unify people. Not in my worse nightmares could I imagine a Brown/Cameron joint leadership. And it just wouldn't work in practice; it's so alien to all our democratic structures. You either have the will of the people democratically decided, or a temporary emergency leader, that people will accept.

But such things should only be in extremis. If and when extremis occurs, and we're *nowhere* near it, it's essential to have a temporary/emergency single leader.....(I think the public will buy unpalatable measures 999/1000 in preference to such a dog's dinner).

Brown/Cameron

I'm not suggesting we have any choice in the matter. I'm suggesting two, maybe all three main parties form a National Government, standing as one party for one term only in the event that an election is called.

I'm not dead sure of the constitutional point, but I don't think there has to be a general election if the sitting government resigns. Even if there was, though, a Cameron/Brown coalition would probably be certain of winning.

I'm not sure it would be a bad thing either. Tough measures will need to be administered. And if you want a demonstration on how inappropriate an election is in time of economic crisis, look no further than the US of A.

I do think that it probably be better if there was a single leader than a joint leadership but as pointed out what happens if the public vote for the wrong party. There are some people who know who exactly would be the right party but it comes down to the majority of the publics vote and they can be easily persuaded into another party during this economy. I think that having an united party means that every opinion counts and not just one.

What hard reasons are you giving for the UK to suddenly, overnight do something that goes against all our democratic traditions and structures, in a crisis? **Come on argue your point.***

All I see is that in a crisis what's needed is a solid structure that panicking people/populace will feel safe with. Not some new, completely alien revelutionary thing we've never had. How's that meant to give the people confidence?

How on earth is such a conservative nation as Britain going to suddenly turn all 'wooly jumper and sandals' without utter chaos?

Politics is nasty and brutal. I don't see your idea ever working in practice.

My reply to pinniped

What do you think of my points.

reply to jhawkesby
> what happens if the public vote for the wrong party.<

What do you mean by the 'wrong' party? I mean are you suggesting that whatever the public vote for is not neccesarily the 'right' party, (I don't tend to use words like that, when it comes to describing the democratic process we have; but your words).

I'm a democrat who thinks the present system is essentially democratic, so I believe in going along with whomever the public vote for. In the long run of history I think you have to trust your fellows, if the system is essentially democratic.

*So if not the public, WHO decides what is right and what is wrong?*

I am sorry I didn't mean to offend anyone. What I meant was that as the economy is what it is today, it is easy to believe anyone who say that they will make everything better but if the government joined together then everybodys opinion is taken into account. The government can think to hard about who is going to win the next election than thinking about the real issues that we are facing today.

It isn't a completely alien environment in the UK; the coalitions from 1931 to 1940 qwew called National Governments although nowadays we call them Coalitions.

Let me be clear. I'm not advocating this. I'm saying there's a possibility it will happen because both major parties will want it - even need it - that way.

The national economy is shackled by long term liabilities. One of the biggest and easiest to rationalise is the public sector pension liability. There are others, but let's think about that one.

Successive governments have promised some 5 million people (rough figure) that they'll have pensions based on final salary. The only way to generate that money, though, is by equity value growth somewhere in the economy. The current situation is that that growth is not going to happen.

The government (of what ever colour) thus has a rob-Peter-to-pay-Paul problem of epic proportions. It has to cut services somewhere else, or hike taxes massively to cover the pension liability. It's not even an investment, because the people paid these pensions are unproductive and at the low-spending end of the economic scale.

The solution (according to most of the private sector facing the same problem) is to abolish final salary pensions, convert them all to defined contribution and basically hand the savings-value growth risk to the individual.

Whichever party takes this step, though, is out of power for a generation. The electoral backlash would be extreme, obviously.

The policy answer: one term of national government, and force through the necessary. Then back to normal party politics, with no legacy of individual blame.

You get it now? Now do you think Brown and Cameron might cut a deal, regardless of what the electorate wants?

Why would Labour want this? Before this crisis, they were a racing cert to lose the next election - possibly by a huge margin. Surely the smart thing to do politically, would be to walk away from the mess and let the Tories carry the can. Leave it to the Tories to make the hard decisions and become massively unpopular, then waltz back in at the next election.

Fair point SWL. For the reasons you give, if this were to happen then the first overtures would probably come from the Tories.

For Labour to acquiesce, there'd need to ba "national good" perception. If Labour don't play, the Tories won't administer the medicine, and the hole gets deeper, the economy flounders, we all suffer more etc.

Depends on how bad things are in a year's time really. Wiping the slate could be an acceptable notion to a lot of very unhappy people by then.

Another scenario, of course, is Tory go-alone, with a latter-day Thatcher to smash the public sector unions. Less likely than coalition I think though. I can't see the individual Thatcher-clone, and the party now knows to well the price of confrontational politics - ie years in the wilderness.

The result will surely depend on the election. I think it's possible we might see a Liberal Democrat and Labour coalition.

I'm not sure about all this stuff about needing a decisive leader though. It strikes me that there are probably not that many good solutions at this point, and no-one really seems to agree what exactly they are. If someone strongly and decisively takes the wrong choice of action, it would be far worse than dithering and doing the right thing too late.

Now that I've said that of course, Vladimir Putin will no doubt single-handedly rescue the world economy merely by waving his penis at it.

Another LibLab pact then.

This is all getting eerily reminiscent of the late 70s.

I'm not sure Cameron will make much of a Thatcher somehow, and the Lib/Lab is just my guess (or hope, since it's the only way anyone other than the two big parties will get their foot in the door). It's still a slim chance because the electoral system is set up to produce majorities.

The trouble is that in the 30s, government spending helped alleviate the crisis over time, while in the 70s it made it worse by driving up inflation. Bailouts to the banks are something else again, but does anyone know what they will do?

You get it now? Now do you think Brown and Cameron might cut a deal, regardless of what the electorate wants?<

Yes. No.

You get it now?

But where does the Govt spending come from - if that's the accepted route? In the 30s we were a manufacturing superpower, the world bought what we sold. Nowadays our economy seems to be built on the financial sector, which is rapidly falling apart.

We've already borrowed £500bn, how long before the IMF (or whoever) start insisting on public sector cuts as in the 70s? Remember, even through the "good years" the Govt borrowed heavily to finance public spending. If we couldn't afford the public sector when finance was bringing in loadsa money, how can we possibly afford it when we don't have that income?

I think this is enormously unlikely, for the following reasons.

First and most importantly, while pensions are a huge cost, it's unlikely that any govt is going to give 5m people any kind of pay cut when a deep recession is either looming or ongoing. It would be stupid, and politicos generally only do stupid things when they're popular.

Politically, I can't see Labour going for it. Maybe the Tories cos they're not exactly pro public sector, but the thought of Labour going through hell to make a group of their core supporters poorer doesn't ring true. Which isn't to say, of course, that any govt might be better off giving new civil servants defined contributions pensions.


<>

I think that sentence says more about your POV than all the rest put together.