Share
Stuart Nathan
Features editor
Jaw, jaw is better than war, war
The most important events for engineers and industry in general this week are the ones that only a handful of people know anything about. They are, of course, taking place in the Cabinet Office, and will decide whether the next government will be a Conservative minority with tacit Liberal Democrat support, a Con-LibDem coalition or, if the talks between Cameron’s Clique and Clegg’s Cabal break down completely, a rainbow alliance of Labour, the Lib Dems, and anybody else who fancies the ride.
It’s not like we can complain about this, because it’s what we voted for; the implications of a hung parliament were trailed extensively before the election. At least, it’s what 65% of us voted for. We can only speculate on what might have happened if the hundreds of people who, for some reason, overwhelmed Polling Stations who weren’t expecting this barely-moderate turnout, were allowed to vote; or, indeed, if the remaining thousands had made the arduous and insurmountable trek to the polls (or to put it another way, had bothered to turn up).
In any case, as this newsletter reaches you, some three hundred readers have told us what their favoured result from the election will be on our current poll. Interestingly, a Conservative-LibDem coalition is currently by far the least popular option. Could that be because it’s the one that nobody expected to happen — least of all the LibDem science and technology spokesman Evan Harris, who lost his seat on Thursday?
An inspiration, a role model, or a warning?
By a complete coincidence, today is the 70th anniversary of Winston Churchill taking over the wartime coalition government. Famously, Churchill had nothing to offer the country but blood, toil, tears and sweat; equally famously, he was unceremoniously chucked out of office once the coalition disbanded for the 1945 General Election. Does the UK’s structural deficit mean we can expect similar hardship in the coming years? And will the next prime minister face the same fate? Let us know what you think.
In the meantime, we can expect to hear today what effect the Icelandic volcano had on UK airports in financial terms, as BAA issues its monthly traffic figures. And still with the aerospace sector, one of the biggest players in this arena, Airbus, is presenting its latest technologies at its annual Innovation Days event in Chester; we’ll be reporting on that in the next few days.
Readers' comments (9)
Zdzislaw Meglicki | 10 May 2010 2:41 pm
How can you say that "a Conservative-LibDem coalition is currently by far the least popular option", if the counts of votes cast and seats gained clearly show that this is the most popular one with the electorate? And... don't step on Churchill. Were it not for Churchill, we would hold this conversation in German, if at all. Sometimes all that a nation gets, if it wants to survive, is "blood, toil, tears and sweat."
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Editor's comments | 10 May 2010 2:41 pm
The comment refers to the Engineer readers' poll, not to the General Election result.
Anonymous | 10 May 2010 5:27 pm
The Tories have the right to govern because
1. If the consituency boundaries were redrawn so that all constituencies were the same size they would be most unlikey to need the support of others.
2. Scotland has ruled the UK for the last 13 years. Its now the turn of England.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Patrick Duffy | 10 May 2010 6:07 pm
As an outside observer I find the ractions to your election results more interesting than the elections themselves. For many (I actually believe most but am being polite) the notion that a few percent between parties can make such a difference in seats gained seems plain wrong, it seems a crude system. However, leaving that aside, are folk unaware that each party is in itself a coalition of views? - Can anyone seriously claim that all Tories think alike, or all Labour voters? No, there is a possibly a vaguely shared spectrum, plus a distribution of views on any topic. Such distribution clearly doesn't map 1: to the distributions of other parties, but you bet there is a lot of intersection. So what's wrong with coalitions aka parties talking? Furthermore I believe that coalitions can be better than single party government much of the time for the very reason that people must meet and seriously engage in, consider and take account of the views of others, the result being typically a more agenda-focused government. Each party is then very anxious to be able to point to implementation of its policies, so there is more implementation than normal.
I hope you get a good government (how will you know?)
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Dave666 | 10 May 2010 9:42 pm
Sadly the current maneouvres are unlikely to result in a greater awareness of the fact that we do not manufacture enough to pay the bills being run up by the public sector with their plethora of coordinators.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Harold M. George | 11 May 2010 8:59 am
I am a born and bred Yorkshireman who believes in good old Yorkshire values, but even I can see the faults in the current voting system.
If each and every constituency had the same number of voters then we would not be in this mess.
The Northern constituencies appear to be considerably smaller than those in the South-East.
Now Northern constituencies then to be, by tradition, Labour orientated whilst Southern constituencies tend to be Tory orientated.
The majority of manufacturing industries were set up in the Northern half of England by the Victorians and naturally they voted for Labour (since Labour were at the time mainly a Trade Union party).
Hence, Labour have an unnatural advantage in any voting system that relies on the current constituency boundaries.
Something to ponder over is why don't we have an English Assembly/Parliament like Ireland, Wales and Scotland have, which would be at a level just under the UK Parliament.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
kwik kawarider | 11 May 2010 9:03 am
In this there are, and always will be, three answers. Those that voted conservative think it's a disgrace that their chosen party might not get to govern because the two losers gang up on them. Those that voted Labour fairly happy with getting their choice no matter how it comes about and those that voted Lib Dem patting themsleves on the back for having the foresight to tactically vote the right way, to keep labour in power. Personally I think Nick's treading dangerous ground. He has the ball at his feet to enter the main arena and get noticed. Take a job with a more "in favour" party, keep his head down but get noticed to the extent that he might improve his position in the next election, whenever that might take place. On the otherhand, he might just shoot himself in the foot and be seen as self serving posturing and in it for the glory, like all the MP's we're desperate to chuck out. As for scots ruling the UK for 13 years, anon, I can see your point, but most of us are satisfied with a party in holyrood that do not get regular "string adjustments" from westminster. What we have shown (probably by accident) is that polititians of different factions can work together, when it's that or nothing.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Grant | 11 May 2010 1:10 pm
All MPs are elected thus any party leader who becomes prime minister has been chosen by the electorate (admittedly a small proportion of the total.) Equal sized constituencies would, of course, guarantee a conservative majority BUT 61% of the electorate voted for a left of centre government. At least the single transferrable vote option allows the country to move the constituency votes towards the balance or, perhaps, we should go fully proportional which would ensure that all party leaders are more representatively elected as they are always at the top of their party lists and we would have the governmental bias (left or right) that the population as a whole had chosen.
Our biggest and most successsful European competitor - Germany- has this system! Or are we not so flexible as their political extremes are at working together?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
BB | 11 May 2010 3:06 pm
The media focus on the difference between each party's policies on the half-dozen or so key issues may have made putting crosses in boxes easier for some members of the voting public, but it has caused some important issues for anyone interested in technology to be brushed under the carpet.
Though voting reform may lead the wish-list, anyone getting into bed with the Lib Dems must also beware a strong anti-nuclear power station new build stance, the termination of the UK's involvement in Eurofighter and the loss of jobs maintaining Trident submarines when the programme gets scrapped.
Who'd have realised in the throes of Cleggmania that a party selling itself on "new politics" and change could be such a bunch of Luddites?
Also, one L in "trailed" please. For shame.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Darren | 11 May 2010 7:32 pm
Tactfully, I think The Engineer’s Editors should stick to Engineering and not try to play politics with the publication. We are no more important or enlightened as engineers than any other section of society, and should never delude ourselves that we are.(this way madness lies)
Our democracy is not perfect, nor is any other system.
My point is all the parties have the same common gaol; the best interests of the Nation. Personally, I will be glad to see a coalition government as this will require the construction of rational arguments and courses of action in order to move things forward. This is much better than the previous lazy emotive political decision process of all previous governments whose confirmation bias analysis of very complex problems has lead invariably to new problem creation.
For those who think that we will cease to function without a dominant party in charge, we should remember that day-to-day living is the responsibility of the individual. This may come as a shock to some, but we are a nation of unique individuals not just three or so political demographics.
Politicians have a great knack of explaining constantly why they are so very important, a lot like middle management and city types.
The reality is they do not make a great deal of difference to anything much (They just tell us they do). It is our individual actions (including voting) that sum up to the macro performance of the country. If you want to really improve things, start with yourself, not blaming or leaving it to the politicians.
Just to clarify a technical point above, Luddites did not smash the machines due to a hatred of technology, quite the opposite in fact. They rioted out of being exploited by mill owners monopolising the then diverse independent weaving industry.
It was the ‘politicians’ who skilfully turned the voting elite against the movement saying that they were against ‘progress’. Sound familiar?
The resultant brutal put down saw the domination of the industry by a few wealthy mill owners, with significant political influence/control, and a general public sent into indebted slavery working for them. Ah, politics......
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment