Though Cowards Flinch

Ham-fisted as ever, both John Reid and the Daily Mail have eagerly jumped on the dilemma that any government needing votes from the regional parties – SNP, PC, DUP or SDLP – will likely have to give away pork barrel promises on spending or primary legislation. Both sound positively gleeful in anticipation of the Englishman’s offended national pride.

The danger, of course, is that whether or not any of this is accurate, the argument that the Scots, Welsh and Irish are better off under Labour and any coalition partners is one designed to turn anger away from where it should be – all the main parties and their cuts agenda – and towards nationalist sentiments. Which is unhelpful.

Potentially this is a much more explosive form of the anti-European sentiment, encouraged by UKIP, the BNP and others that if Britain was basically left to its own devices – without paying any money to the EU – we’d all be a whole lot better off. Now the argument is, if we didn’t have Labour paying extra money to Scotland, we’d be better off.

In reality, the alternative is a Conservative government. Though it would likely tackle the devolved governments on their budgets, it would also make things rather difficult for the average English person. Yet the narrative of English national pride could be invoked to distract from this situation; a phenomenon we’ve seen before, ably assisted by the media.

Such an approach would make things difficult for the Liberal Democrats to enter into coalition with the Conservatives. Yet Labour cuts are going to produce a backlash all of their own, and without the various national paranoias that the Right can take advantage of, that it’s all a conspiracy all directed against YOU by THEM, the result will be electoral defeat.

People will not simply accept that their job must go, without any sort of safety need to transition them into a new one. They will not simply accept the reneging of the State upon its duties to provide free healthcare and so on. And why should they? They fulfilled their part of the bargain; they turned up to work every day and worked hard.

They turned up to vote, and voted. And even had they voted for a Conservative government (if one assumes that this is the default view of those who represent the market), they would be in the same situation. For the average person, whatever they look, they lose – and there’s no reason they should accept that while decision makers and those who made billions over thirty years of financial markets should get off scot-free.

Anger results. Either it finds expression in a class-based response to the government, or, having failed to stop the government, it finds expression against other people, who are often in exactly the same position. There’ll inevitably be continuing anger at the ‘Westminster’ or ‘liberal’ elites, and this could be supplemented by national chauvinism, directed at other parts of the United Kingdom populace, or directed at more obvious ‘foreigners’.

These are the fires that the Daily Mail and people like John Reid are feeding with their rhetoric.

Rud eile: did anyone notice David Blunkett, man sacked for corruption, talk about the Lib-Dems acting like harlots? That gave me a chuckle.