The hyperbole of Westminster
Daniel Korski 12:57pm
Campaigns are conducted in poetry, former New York mayor Mario Cuomo once said. This one seems to be conducted in hyperbole. Every party is doing their level best to show that there is a difference, and a big one, between them and their opponents. That's normal. But to do so, they are stretching good arguments beyond what is sustainable.
"Brownies" may be a particular mendacious form of hyporbolic campaigning (and governing), but there are bound to be a few Tory and Lib Dem exaggerations on display during the campaign.
Exhibit A. The Tories say a hung parliament will doom Britain as the markets will react badly to a potentially unstable government - with ruinous consequences.
Exhibit B. Labour is at it too. They say that Tory withdrawal from the EPP will doom a Conservative-led Britain to the margins of Europe.
Both statements contain elements of veracity but both are overblown and overdone.
The markets will react to an inconclusive result, a divided parliament should be avoided and a change in government is badly needed for a host of reasons. But large, solvent industrial economies like Britain are not about to collapse. Bankers want signs that the debt will be repaid and a new government has a credible debt-paying plan, but they also know we are good for it.
The same qualification can be made of Labour's euro-criticism of the Tories. The departure from the EPP will take a string from a Prime Minister Cameron's bow. To deny that is to show ignorance of the EU policy process and the post-Lisbon role of the European parliament. But it won't push Europe's most militarily capable, most dynamic country to the margins of the continent.
None of that is to minimise the need for a change of government or the fact that the Tory offer is better than the Labour merchandise. But after a decade of exaggerated achievements - of the "I have abolished boom and bust" variety - as well as overwrought counterclaims, many voters would like to hear clear but unexaggerated positions.
Previous
logdon
April 8th, 2010 1:42pm Report this comment"The departure from the EPP will take a string from a Prime Minister Cameron's bow."
I noticed that the increasingly snidey Ming brought this up on QT last night.
Out of context but by the slightest thread, this expenses cheat beamed in a kind of holy halo of self satisfaction as he thought he'd launched a killer blow.
It was left to Dimbleby to demolish the sanctimonious bastard's glow as a later Campbell utterance, 'I never said that' was proved a falsehood by written facts.
Even then he spluttered. So much for the vaunted Lib/Dem rectitude.
Victor Southern
April 8th, 2010 1:57pm Report this commentThe UK has clout in Europe as a major contributor of cash and as a source of armed troops. Our MEPs at Strasbourg, irrespective of what party, can do nothing at all, at any time, to sway important things in Europe.
Yam Yam
April 8th, 2010 1:58pm Report this comment"The departure from the EPP will take a string from a Prime Minister Cameron's bow."
Yeah, and departing the EU itself will add a whole new orchestra in its place.
Promises
April 8th, 2010 2:07pm Report this commentI thought you told us you were leaving this site alone for a few weeks?
Osred
April 8th, 2010 2:14pm Report this comment"To deny that is to show ignorance of the EU policy process"
Daniel, there sure is a huge amount of ignorance about this. As a confirmed pro-European perhaps you could enlighten us. In doing so you would surely convince folk why being in or out of a grouping would be detrimental to the UK.
As the years roll by we get the 'being at the heart of Europe' line time and again as, without any reference to voters, we are tied ever tighter for all but the most minor of benefits but all too real costs.
denis cooper
April 8th, 2010 2:20pm Report this comment"The departure from the EPP will take a string from a Prime Minister Cameron's bow. To deny that is to show ignorance of the EU policy process and the post-Lisbon role of the European parliament."
I deny it; now prove me wrong.
Only a euro-federalist could support the confinement of Tory MEPs in the euro-federalist EPP, so why not come clean and openly admit where your true loyalty lies?
There's no shame in honestly believing and saying that it would be better if your country ceased to be an independent sovereign state and instead become part of a sovereign European federation; the shame is in believing it, but dishonestly pretending otherwise.
Chuck Unsworth
April 8th, 2010 3:06pm Report this commentAt its simplest the markets will react to what they regard as the stability and profitability of the UK as a whole.
And actually we're at the margins now. With Brown in charge for another five years, or a hung Parliament, we'll be over the edge.
When do the markets see a return on their cash, and how much? That's the bottom line. Currently China is a better bet.
Ivy Eileen
April 8th, 2010 3:43pm Report this comment"large, solvent industrial economies like Britain are not about to collapse".
Well, a country (unlike a company or an individual) technically cannot become insolvent - because, for example, it can just print more money.
But we have a country where the liabilities (debt) side of the Balance Sheet is way too high re: GDP and we have an Income Statement that is in the red (deficit).
The markets don't like uncertainty and will react accordingly by withholding inward investment, withdrawing existing funds, pricing any new funding more expensively (increasing the problem) and scrutinising more diligently any financial policies.
If there is a hung Parliament, where is the political will to correct matters ? There is no-one with the power to correct the carcrash of the country's finances.
This concern is not "overblown and overdone".
Sacre Bleu
April 8th, 2010 4:36pm Report this commentSurely you can stop this pu hui crap being posted on every topic. Piss poor English and totally out of context.
David Bouvier
April 8th, 2010 5:08pm Report this commentDaniel - since you are so sure of your knowledge of European politics, you could correct your article on a matter of fact.
The Conservatives left the EPP-ED; it was only once they had left that the group returned to the EPP name.
Why did they leave? Because the hard-won EPP-ED settlement was not being honoured by the hard-core EPP. So I have no time at all for EPP whining about our leaving - they forced us to choose between subservience or getting out. We don't do subservience very well.
As for losing "a" string from a bow (and leaving aside the multi-string bow analogy - you might want to think arrow from quiver instead) - there is normal incremental politics and dynamic transitional politics.
This move will probably reduce the amount of bureaucratic inches we can claim, but the presence of an coherent multi-national Eurosceptic group is a "game changer" that will alter European politics profoundly and for the better.
Initially the EPP will try to punish us for having the temerity to expect they would fulfil their promises, or for wanting to express the clear view of the UK electorate in an allegedly democratic institution, but sooner or later (and with enough use and abuse of the opportunities that arise) they will accept that the group is here to stay, and go back to normal politics, and let us have a fair share of chairmanships etc, we and the EPP will cooperate on issues of common interest.
And when we are being punished by the EPP, and you, and the BBC moan and Tristam whats-his-name, why not for once remind people about the EPP-ED history, and that we are being punished for not knuckling under and not failing to express the pretty clear will of the British people in an allegedly democratic institution.
Back to top