A prolonged hung parliament would be a disaster
The arithmetic of the next election makes a "hung parliament" in which no party has a majority a horribly real possibility. While one should always be careful not to over-react to one or two opinion polls, a recent small upturn in Labour support has caused some people in the MSM and blogosphere to speculate about whether such a result is likely.
Certainly David Cameron has always been the first to warn Conservatives not to take victory for granted. Believe me, we don't. No Conservative with any sense will regard the election as being in the bag until the results have been declared.
However, it says something about how desperate some Labour spinners and supporters have become that they are gasping with exitement at polls showing themselves only eight points behind. I remember some Conservatives clutching at straws like that in the run-up to the 1997 election - and much good it did us.
There is everything to play for. But I certainly hope we don't get a hung parliament because this would be a disaster for Britain and for Copeland - in some ways even more disastrous than if the present government, dire as they are, were re-elected.
A prolonged period of minority government would be a disaster for Britain because the terrible financial crisis, in which one pound in every four that the government spends goes staight onto the National Debt, and the annual cost of paying the interest on that debt goes up by £6,000 a second, will take tough measures to sort out. I don't believe for a second that a "hung parliament" would approve the necessary measures.
And a hung parliament would be a disaster for Copeland as well as Britain because it might give the anti-nuclear Lib/Dems the balance of power.
Obviously my preferred outcome would be a Conservative majority government, either straight away, or after a short period of minority administration. If that doesn't happen:
You cannot vote for or against a hung parliament. But you can hope and pray that we don't get one.
Certainly David Cameron has always been the first to warn Conservatives not to take victory for granted. Believe me, we don't. No Conservative with any sense will regard the election as being in the bag until the results have been declared.
However, it says something about how desperate some Labour spinners and supporters have become that they are gasping with exitement at polls showing themselves only eight points behind. I remember some Conservatives clutching at straws like that in the run-up to the 1997 election - and much good it did us.
There is everything to play for. But I certainly hope we don't get a hung parliament because this would be a disaster for Britain and for Copeland - in some ways even more disastrous than if the present government, dire as they are, were re-elected.
A prolonged period of minority government would be a disaster for Britain because the terrible financial crisis, in which one pound in every four that the government spends goes staight onto the National Debt, and the annual cost of paying the interest on that debt goes up by £6,000 a second, will take tough measures to sort out. I don't believe for a second that a "hung parliament" would approve the necessary measures.
And a hung parliament would be a disaster for Copeland as well as Britain because it might give the anti-nuclear Lib/Dems the balance of power.
Obviously my preferred outcome would be a Conservative majority government, either straight away, or after a short period of minority administration. If that doesn't happen:
You cannot vote for or against a hung parliament. But you can hope and pray that we don't get one.
Comments