Hanging In The Balance

Notwithstanding the inherent unreliability of opinion polls when it comes to predicting the result of the forthcoming election - margins of error, the problems of extrapolating a result based on a UNS & so forth - their effect on the parties' campaigns is undeniable.

As the Conservative poll-rating has shrunk from its double-digit lead of last year, we have been told, time & time again, that we are now firmly in 'hung-parliament territory', as a consequence of which the minor parties & the Lib. Dems. (i.e. everyone bar Labour & the Consertvatives) have been puffing out their chests, basking in the media spot-light & flexing their political muscle in anticipation of parliamentary influence far beyond what the number of seats they hold would normally confer.

For their part, both Labour & the Conservatives have been nuancing their approach. Gordon Brown has suddenly discovered a hitherto un-expressed zeal for parliamentary & voting reform, whilst the Tories 'love-bombing' of Lib. Dem. voters has been part of their Ashcroft-funded marginal constituencies focus for some time. And of course, Nick Clegg & his shadow front-bench have provided an object lesson in flirtatious coyness with their stoic refusal to accept the mantle of 'king-makers' come May 7th.

Of course, the three major parties have all stuck heroically to the script, insisting that they 'fight to win!', an assertion that fails the 'Hoggart Inversion Test' - i.e. would any party enter an election 'fighting to lose!'? Of course not. So far, so standard stilts-based nonsense; nothing to see here, move along. But I have detected something new from the properly minor parties. A word. A new word. Well, a word hitherto unattached to the word parliament in any case. And that word is 'balanced'.

Nope, I'd never heard the phrase 'a balanced parliament' before last week-end either. But is a 'balanced parliament' in any way different from a 'hung parliament'? Not as far as I can see - it doesn't mean all parties holding exactly the same number of seats - it just means minor parties potentially holding the balance of power. And that is a hung parliament. Period.

So, the word must be important for what it implies, rather than what it means. To be honest, I can understand the problem with the phrase 'hung parliament' - too many oppurtunities for insalubrious comments of either the nudge-nudge, wink-wink variety or the exclamatory "...Yeh, and drawn & quartered, if I had my way!" type. And the idea of a 'balanced parliament' sounds so much more reasonable, more moderate & altogether more acceptable. But in reality, I can see no difference between the two.

As ever, the word is the message, the message is the medium & the medium is average. Distinctly average. Do they take us all for fools? Of course they do. In fact, they are relying on it.