The financial disaster the British election has ignored
Matthew Lynn writing for Bloomberg News in London says that Britain is facing the prospect of Greece-like financial failure; that the three parties have not addressed this problem at all; and that a coalition with the Liberal Democrats based on having a referendum on electoral reform would be the worst distraction from these pressing problems. He says that the best thing would be for Cameron to let Labour and Lib-Dems form a coalition, which will crash in six months, and then in a second general election the Conservatives can win a real majority and then (perhaps) start facing Britain’s terrible financial crunch, which will require severe cuts in its entire social system. (Speaking of which, I’ve never seen a single article in the British press explain how the British government keeps untold numbers of people, including Muslim terror supporters, on welfare, including free residence in “council houses,” apparently for life. Have you?)
UPDATE: When I posted this, I didn’t catch the contradiction in Lynn’s argument. On one hand, he says a Labour deal with the Liberal Democrats would be terrible, because it would commit the government to a referendum on electoral reform which would be an injurious distraction. On the other hand, he says that Cameron’s best move would be to allow a Labor/Lib-Dem coalition, because it will collapse in six months alowing him to win a true majority in another election.
A deal between the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats would be an alliance between two losers. It would be propping up an unelected prime minister. And it could be secured only with a promise of electoral reform. The idea that the U.K., in the center of a global sovereign-debt storm, should spend a year arguing about different systems for electing their politicians is absurd. They might as well spend a year discussing whether Charles Dickens was a better writer than Shakespeare.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at May 08, 2010 07:52 PM | Send