Time for a coalition?

I'll be honest - I have always been deeply sceptical about the viability of coalition government in the UK. I also don't think any coalition can claim to have been voted for by the people. People may say "52.0% voted for a 'progressive' coalition" or "59.1% voted for a libertarian coalition" or all manner of combinations, but the fact is that none of these coalitions were actually offered to the voters. It is false to conscript votes to one option or another.

That said I am also deeply worried about the news from the financial markets. It's a scary time and the country desperately needs a stable government that can take decisions. If getting that involves compromise then so be it. Governments have to compromise all the time with interests both at home and abroad.

I don't think the country's voting system should be simply changed for the sake of this. But that isn't actually what the Liberal Democrats want. They want a referendum on changing the voting system. But the outcome of such a referendum isn't a foregone conclusion. It could instead endorse the current system - British Columbia recently had two referendums on changing the provincial legislature's voting system from First Past The Post to Single Transferable Vote. The first had a majority but failed at the threshold, the second saw much greater information campaigns and rejected it outright. Don't take the opinion polls as indicative either way.

But right now the most important thing is the economy. All parties have to make the current situation work. And if we are to have a voting system that makes hung parliaments more regular outcomes then lets see the advocates of that voting system make those outcomes work.

If I hear that a Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition has been agreed, it won't be the end of the world. At the moment it's the best option available.

"People who matter"?!?!?!?!?!

I see that once again José Manuel Barroso has gone an shown the utter contempt for democracy that is at the heart of the European Union. He has gone about declaring that the current economic crisis has made it more likely that the United Kingdom will join the Euro, which is a fair enough comment (though the degree of "never" makes it splitting hairs) but what really sticks is this:

I know that the majority in Britain are still opposed, but there is a period of consideration under way and the people who matter in Britain are currently thinking about it,

(BBC News: UK 'closer' to adopting the euro)
"People who matter"?!?! As any decision to join will be taken by a referendum, it is the "majority in Britain" who matter!

It is another example the typical contempt for democracy that is so prevalent in Europe and which Barroso regularly expresses. You may remember him intervening in the domestic debate about whether or not the people should have a say on the EU Constitution "Treaty of Lisbon" to again pour scorn on the very idea of democracy.

Of course since Barroso was never elected President of the European Commission in any meaningful sense it's no wonder he spouts this rubbish. And for someone who said when he was appointed that he wanted to tackle Euroscepticism, he's doing a pretty lousy job!

Bye bye Woolworths

Last month the Woolworths Local in Forest Gate was closed. Now the entire company is to follow. (BBC News: Woolworths enters administration)

Like so many others, I have memories of shopping at Woolies, but looking back it seems the store primarily filled in the gaps rather than offered anything distinctive. As a child it was the main toy shop in Epsom (and effectively the only one when John Menzies phased out their small section). It was also the only place in town with pick 'n mix. Later it was one of the main places to get videos/DVDs (and, in Forest Gate, the only one), especially as the music chains like Our Price and HMV were usually a bit more expensive. It's also been handy for general stationery requirements over the years.

But none of these are a distinctive section of the market. Woolworths always seemed a bit all over the place in terms of what it sold - for example when I was young I don't remember it stocking the magazines it does now (well did). It did a few books but I don't remember it getting anywhere near a supermarket best-seller section. And its video/DVD stock wasn't exactly awash with the longer shelf-life titles but nor did it feel like a current hot titles stock. One could go on.

Will we ever see a store like it? All business & marketing logic says not, but stranger things have happened...

Economics, schnomics?

Far too many years ago I took Economics at A-Level. I can't pretend to remember too much from it now, other than the details of the Hogg Cycle, reasons why we should never adopt the Euro, a vague outline of the Keynesian and Monetarist theories and a sense that all economic theories were considered bust and that "muddling along" was about as good a method of economic management as any other. (Oh and that Keynes is pronounced "canes" not "keens", but that was only really useful at the University of Kent where the name one of the colleges is frequently mispronounced.) Ah the 1990s was such an innocent era.

Flash forward many years and we're almost now at the point where arguments about what economic theory of management should be followed are about to become a live political issue again. Alastair Darling, the Minister for Invisibility who is apparently also Chancellor of the Exchequer, has recently praised John Maynard Keynes. So too has the Daily Mail. (ConservativeHome: CentreRight: Daily Mail now calling for Keynesian borrowing-funded tax cuts) And it's even been suggested that "The debate is now between two forms of Keynesianism" so we even see the debate skipped altogether!

It's partially because my business knowledge has rusted that I haven't commented much on the current economic troubles. At times some of the figures quoted have seemed fantastic, whilst the markets all appear to be yo-yoing, changing direction with every government announcement. The main role for government has to be to create the conditions for the markets to strengthen and protect the ordinary public from problems beyond their control. If we had back into too much control and planning in the economy then long term prospects for growth will be stifled, to the detriment of us all.

Debates on economic theory will often go over the heads of many - I still have problems understanding what the US Presidential election of 1896 was about with a battle over the Republicans advocating Gold vs the Democrats advocating Silver (now there's an interesting thought about how to change political colours in the US!) - but can ultimately determine whether there are jobs, whether one can get an essential loan, if one is able to invest and so forth. I hope that the next such debate will come in terms people can understand.

Odds and sods

For some reason every time there's been a major political resignation lately I've been out and about and unable to comment on it at the time. It's hard to feel sorry for Peter Hain though.

More widely I've generally sought to avoid commenting on party funding issues (other than major cock-ups by party leaders) because the issue is inherently complicated and the system of regulation has, if anything, made matters even worse - look for instance at the confusion over whether donations needed to be declared to both the Electoral Commission and the Parliamentary Regulator. What's not been noticed as much is the way that what is morally right has been superseded by what is legally right and many of the rows have focused on the detail of the rules.

It also reinforces my concern about the way the media report cases. The assumption of "innocent until proven guilty" is often thrust aside, with a new assumption that anyone who donates to individuals or parties is just seeking personal reward and that any recipient with a question mark over them has automatically done something wrong. This is not good for politics at all. I also feel it does little to help the situation when an almost tit for tat process of reporting MPs left, right and centre for various ambiguities are picked up by the media and reported as a sign of mass guilt. Ths is a problem that goes beyond partisan interests and trying to harness it for them is deeply damaging.

Most of the proposed reforms so far focus on the symptoms rather than the cause, whilst the public keep indicating they don't want to finance parties. And why should they? A political party is a voluntary organisation. If it is unable to inspire people to fund it, it won't be able to inspire enough people to vote for it.

On other matters, the race to be the next US President continues in earnest, though I note that Dennis Kucinich has abandoned the race. (The Associated Press: Kucinich Abandons White House Bid) Kucinich was always a very long shot hope getting limited coverage and what coverage I've seen of his race has focused less on his position as one of the most socialist Democrats but instead on his new wife Elizabeth (who I was at university with though I can't recall us ever speaking). But as Kucinich was polling extremely lowly and was shut out of key debates, his withdrawal will do little to accelerate the Democrat race for the nomination. The question remains as to when John Edwards will accept the inevitable and pull out.

The economy is more worrying. For all the talk of rogue traders, I fear we're in for a world recession. That's not a good sign.