Tuesday, 4 May 2010

Looking for an alternative to 'Hung Parliament''

There's an idea around that a 'Hung Parliament' would be a good thing.

Perhaps that is not surprising given how most people feel about Members of Parliament since the expenses scandal. The terms 'Politician' and 'Hung' seem to go together somehow.

Those in favour of a 'Hung Parliament' often refer to it as a 'Balanced Parliament' because it sounds somehow fairer, more even that way.

But those against don't seem to have managed to work out how to explain why a 'Hung Parliament' would not be fair or balanced or good. They seem to resort to just repeating that it would be a disaster - and are then accused of needlessly scaring people. Until they do explain why it would be a bad thing, it is unlikely that people will be moved to do much to avoid it.

So why would a 'Hung' or 'Balanced' Parliament be a bad thing?

Well. Imagine two organisations.

The first is run by a strong leader. The management team share a single vision that they have developed together over many years. They all know where they are going, they have a good idea how to get there and they have a clear plan to do it. When they hit a hurdle they work together to find a way around it. The atmosphere is positive, focussed and energetic.

The second has more than one person constantly vying to lead it. The management team have been thrown together as a result of compromise. There is no clear plan because there is more than one agenda and every time they hit a hurdle the organisation collapses into recriminations and in-fighting. The atmosphere is strained at best and everyone involves is constantly wishing they were somewhere else, part of another organisation, like for example - organisation 1!

Sounds pretty awful already doesn't it. But imagine you are a major investor who is already invested in UK PLC but in a few days time the organisation will become either a Type 1 organisation, or a Type 2 organisation.

If it becomes a Type 1 Organisation, you are likely to stay invested and to keep making your cash available to invest. You know the organisation has a huge debt burden but you also know that whilst the hurdles ahead are huge, the team will work together and do what needs to be done to eventually achieve the success that everyone wants. Whilst you will need to extend more credit before the team turn things around, you are confident that you will get your money back in the future.

But if it becomes a Type 2 Organisation you will run for the hills. You know that a divided team cannot succeed - you know teams that don't work together are not teams - just groups of individuals pulling in different directions with little hope of achieving what needs to be done - because they can't even agree on that. You will be looking to get out as fast as possible.

And that is exactly where we are at. The major investors in our economy, those who have lent our failed Labour Government vast amounts of cash and are currently lending us an additional £470million every day will, quite sensibly, just walk away, close down our lines of credit and go elsewhere and ask us to pay hugely increased interest on our existing debt mountain - crippling us in the process.

So the message is: Don't take voting lightly. If you want to create an 'Unholy Alliance' then vote Liberal Democrat or Labour.

Go on. Give Britain a fighting chance. Vote Conservative.


Post a Comment