UKIP target hung parliament

It is stories such as these that test my faith in humanity. The new UKIP leader, Lord Pearson, has resolved to target a hung parliament at the next general election. Speaking after his appointment was announced, Pearson said “My ambition is for UKIP to do well enough at the next parliament so that we can force a hung parliament and a realignment in British politics.”

Brilliant.

Not to be completely unfair to Lord Pearson, I do see his rationale; targeting a hung parliament is to target a break up in the two-party dominance seen at Westminster since at least the early 1980s and arguably long before. To do so would shift the balance of power towards minority parties and grant them greater freedom to enact their policies. But what Lord Pearson so obviously ignores is that UKIP will find little success in persuading any of the major parties to form a coalition with them or, even if they did, to commit to the binding pledge of an “in-out” referendum. Cameron and Brown have both had ample opportunity to signal this intention and neither took it up.

Moreover, to “target” a hung parliament is risky business indeed. Since nobody can be mathematically certain that this is what we are heading for, it follows that to target a hung parliament entails running the risk of the vote swinging too far back to the Left. All this would serve to do would be to prolong Labour rule and, in turn, see the Conservatives relegated to the sidelines of British politics for four or five more years. It is a perverse form of politics indeed that seeks highly improbable outcomes at the probable expense of pragmatic reform. Were we to be presented with a hung parliament in 2010, the more likely outcome would be a Lib-Con government.

This would place doubts over the ability of the Conservatives to enact their (albeit tame) Sovereignty Act. But if you think that act isn’t going far enough, then the hung parliament spells even more inactivity on the Eurosceptic front. In fact I suspect what we will see is the Euro argument rearing its ugly head once again. The only referenda we’d likely get in that situation would be on electoral reform and entry to the Euro zone. UKIP are walking a political tightrope, risking a fall that could have grave implications for the nation. Paradoxically, a party which seeks action on matters European is running the very real risk of jeopardising the only tangible effort by a British administration to limit the law-appropriating powers of Brussels in history. Baby steps they may be, but at least its movement.

A hung parliament in 2010 will grind it to a resounding hault and, with it, the best chance for 27 years to at least begin to redefine our relationship with the EEC/EC/EU institutions.

Parliament sitting through August...

If this is true, then the Conservatives are to be commended. People are deeply disenchanted with the political establishment and this is not going to subside in the absence of MPs’ activity in Westminster. As Dan Hannan said earlier today, what would be ideal is for parliament to sit as little as possible. But the integrity of the House is genuinely at stake here. I was canvassing in Leamington Spa several weeks ago and of the 100 or so houses I went to, not a single one pledged to vote either Labour or Conservative. Now whilst I understand that this might not be reflective of the nation as a whole, it is certainly not encouraging. In one case, I was shouted down by a man who insisted that his neighbourhood receive a bird house like the one claimed through expenses. People are not letting this go, and they won’t until they see action.

An MP I spoke to over the summer (whose name I will not give) raised a particularly interesting point, however. Of course reform is needed, he said, but something else has dramatically contributed to this whole furore. 50 years ago MPs represented constituencies to which they had no affiliation; Churchill was MP for Stretford, for instance. But in recent we have seen a surge of opinion which holds that prospective MPs should know a constituency through and through and, what’s more, that they should live there. This creates a situation in which the vast majority of MPs are forced to live in far flung corners of the country despite needing to be in London. The MP I spoke to saw no problem with an MP living exclusively in London and representing a constituency elsewhere.

I think he’s right.

Allow MPs to live solely in London whilst ensuring that they are well clued up on local issues in their constituency and you completely remove the need for second homes. I did some work for an MP last year who represents an Essex constituency. After just two weeks I felt fairly competent in discussing issues related to that constituency, having never been there in my life. Not living in a particular area does not mean you are unfit to represent it so long as you are committed to the representative element of your role as a Member of Parliament. If anything, not having to constantly flit between two places will aid a representative’s ability to concentrate on the task at hand. Residence in one’s constituency two days a week at most is nothing but a superficiality, and in dropping this pretence that it is somehow a necessity we will in turn save billions.

Reform the expenses procedure and regulations for the Commons and you take away the immediate problems. But the potentiality will exist until we address the fundamental causes; the reasons that some MPs feel compelled to act this way. Upon addressing this, we will solve this conundrum once and for all.

Mission statement

Politics is in peril. Among voters, an intense apathy tempered by disillusionment has set in and threatens to undermine that which Britons have held dear for centuries. Whether it is the conduct of MPs or the mismanagement of welfare provision by bureaucrats in Whitehall, the people of the United Kingdom are hazardously close to disengaging with mainstream politics. The evidence is there for all to see; whilst our majoritarian system guards against an impulsive rise to power of extreme parties such as the BNP, this is not a reason to ignore the fact that 6% of the British electorate deemed it fit to vote for the party last time they were asked to go to the polls.

The denigration of society has rendered a situation in which people genuinely fear to go out alone in some parts of the country. The current focus upon ‘knife crime’ is simply not good enough, and allows for nothing more than politicians to be seen to be doing something without actually lowering attacks on the person whatsoever. I speak not in sensationalist, abstract terms here, but from personal experience. I am putting what I have experienced mildly. For three years in my early teens I attended a failing London comprehensive, witnessing the surreal depths to which a significant proportion of our education system has sunk. In the past three years, I have been attacked twice by gangs in the same town of about 100,000 citizens. These are real problems and they exist because they are not properly understood.

On a more institutional level, politics has been characterised by the shameful abandonment of sovereignty and of popular participation. The ratification of the Lisbon Treaty is a prime example of this. A democratic revolution is needed in which power is repatriated and subsequently devolved downwards all the way to the individual. Referenda should be the norm in localities, not complete novelties used only for electoral advantage or to simply be ignored.

Once the ephemeral media furore has moved on post-election time next year, the Conservatives will be faced with the harsh reality of a nation with a two-tier problem. The first is the misappropriation and misconception of what sovereignty is and where it belongs. This can only be addressed through the empowerment of citizens to direct what goes on in their lives. The second tier is a comprehensive reformation of the education system, social welfare and law and order. Fundamentally, this must include a shift in focus from attempting to implement superficial policies to actually seeking causalities. Don’t tackle knife crime, shift the focus onto tackling gang culture, for instance (as Ian Duncan Smith has laudably tried to do to his credit).

Given that this is the maiden post here on Ad Infinitum, I would be naive to presume that I can command a readership instantaneously. I therefore hope that having read the above, you check back soon and help advance the case for democratisation, social reform and the imperative need for a cleaning up of our political institutions.