UK Election 2017: Immediate Reaction

UK Election 2017: Immediate Reaction

I woke to some good news this morning and, since good news is normally better to read than bad news, I shall relay it as I see it.

A hung Parliament is the best result I could reasonably have hoped for, so that pleases me. A wag has suggested that someone is going to have to explain to Donald Trump what a hung Parliament means, which should slow him down for a week or two (add coalition government and make that a month). Nigel Farage is upset, which should please everyone, and Rupert Murdoch is reportedly very angry, which means the Sun newspaper has failed in its campaign and puts it in the rubbish bin where it belongs. The best tweet I saw was football commentator Gary Lineker's, that Theresa May should be awarded own goal of the season. All good news.

A hung Parliament increases uncertainty and confusion and why should I want that? Because it gives the idea of a hard Brexit a good kicking and, to paraphrase May herself, shows that maybe no prime minister is better than a bad prime minister. Brexit means Mexit? I still regard the referendum result as a speculative extreme right-wing coup and the extreme right-wing got a good kicking too. Going in no certain direction may not be ideal but it is certainly better than going hell for leather («stably and strongly») in the wrong direction.

The financial markets reacted predictably by marking down the pound and the UK economy. But the financial markets typically change their minds every few days/weeks, in line with in-play betting saloon that they really are. I happen to believe that the election result could be good for both the pound and the UK economy in the long-term, which is never a concern of the financial markets.

A catch-phrase among opposition parties was that June should see the end of May. It has. She's staying on as Prime Minister for the moment, even though the honourable thing to do would be to resign. By her own declared criterion («if I lose 6 seats or more I will have lost the election») she lost the election. But what has honour to do with the current government? Still the knowledge that Tory bigwigs' knives must be hovering somewhere in the region of her kidneys should concentrate her mind wonderfully. If no one removes her earlier, perhaps a complaint registered with north Yorkshire police will do it. She lied about Diane Abbot in a pre-election speech there and to do so is a criminal offence with a precedent of a Conservative MP banned from public office. Who will eventually replace her must be problematic. Boris Johnson is surely too much of a clown and too lightweight to contemplate and I think that David Davis is not really trusted even by his own party. Maybe we can borrow Emmanuel Macron for a while.

I have been puzzled for months as to why neither of the major political parties appears to be interested in the middle ground, where most votes are generally considered to lie. The middle ground, though, has shown that it is still interested by apparently rejecting both extremes. Will some party please pay attention?

Some interesting statistics emerged in the pre-election wrangling. Pre-election polls showed around 70% of the over-65s intended to vote Conservative while the same percentage of under-25s intended to vote Labour. Interestingly almost exactly the same split appeared in the post-referendum analysis: 70% oldies to leave and the same percentage of youngsters to remain. The people with most at stake in the future of the UK have clearly shown what they want, even if they are unlikely to get it.

Some financial statistics were also of interest. It turns out that, over the last 50 years, Conservative administrations have borrowed significantly more and repaid significantly less than Labour administrations. So, contrary to popular belief, Labour has been the financially responsible party and the Conservative party the spendthrifts. Conservative complaints that Labour proposals haven't been properly costed are countered by David Davis admission that the hard Brexit for which we were headed hasn't been costed at all. Furthermore, since the last cut in corporation tax (with another promised by the government) investment in companies has gone down, not up as claimed, the extra money going to shareholders. So cuts in corporation tax do not encourage investment by

companies. The more Alice in Wonderland claims are made by politicians and myths promulgated the more reliable financial statistics become relevant.

What will be the effect of a coalition government, with the DUP? I've no idea, like most people probably. However, immediate post-election analysis showed Brexit to be the principal issue among Consservative voters and social matters to be that among Labour voters. Northern Ireland voted in favour of remaining in the EU and social concerns there will certainly be paramount, if not necessarily with the DUP. The Irish border and peace agreement dependency on the EU will also certainly be a major issue. Whatever the case, May may not get away with her apparent plan to sell off the NHS and turn the UK into an offshore tax haven with no appreciable public services.