Making two parties work together would 'serve the national economic interest'

By Jonathan Bartley
April 13, 2010

A letter in the Financial Times today from the Chairman of Corporate & Public Affairs, at Weber Shandwick, suggests that far from being a problem, a hung Parliament would be economically beneficial:

From Mr Jon Mcleod.

Sir, I keep reading that a hung parliament would be bad for business, create market uncertainty and stagnation (“Finance directors fear effects of a hung parliament on economy”, April 12). Mmm. Are we really sure?

What clear majority governments do is pump through endless legislation in the Westminster law-making sausage machine. Many of these laws or the prospect of them create blight, uncertainty, cost, and general economic mayhem. Yet no one says: “A clear majority would be bad for business.”

Making two parties (or more – government of national unity anyone?) work together would actually serve the national economic interest by forcing the executive to focus on good governance and economic management rather than legislative self-actualisation in parliament.

That is what happened in 1976 to 1978, when the Liberal-Labour pact actually called the economy to order, brought inflation to heel, and introduced some fiscal discipline.

The job of fattening the statute books can take a back seat for once.

Jon Mcleod,
Chairman Corporate & Public Affairs,
Weber Shandwick,
London WC1, UK

Although the views expressed in this article do not necessarily represent the views of Ekklesia, the article may reflect Ekklesia's values. If you use Ekklesia's news briefings please consider making a donation to sponsor Ekklesia's work here.