This is the fourth in a series of articles looking at the state of Thanet's politics in the run up to the 2010 elections. This article will look at the a possible outcome locally with a Coalition Council being formed.

In the last election Labour did not have what it took to control the District Council in Thanet with Labour holding 14 less Council wards in Thanet. Since then the Dane Valley by-election has shown a massive loss of votes from Conservative to Liberal Democrat. The end result of this is that it is likely that Conservative will become an insignificant minority in the next elections.

If this trend continues to any degree Liberal Democrats may be able to take over strong Conservative Council wards while where the contention is more even Labour may gain the upper hand do to insufficiently big gains from Conservative voters.

When the dust settles it may be that while Labour hold more seats wards than any other single party they do not hold a clear majority. The British way is to negotiate support from a smaller party and this is what Labour will probably do.

However what is best for Thanet might be something we normally save for war time and for other times of crisis (like now for example) - A Coalition Council made up of Labour, Liberal Democrats and Independents. Less likely but potentially possible might be a Liberal Democrats led Coalition Council supported by Conservatives and Independents.



Advocates of such things suggest that a coalition naturally leads to a more consensus-based form of politics. This is because a government or council made of two or more parties (with different ideologies) would need to concur in regard to policy. When it comes to selecting a leader of the council (who would select a cabinet) the cooperation between two parties would result in something that might not only work but work well avoiding the shameful behavior seen in session when it came time to elect a leader the last few times.

Additionally coalition council better reflects the popular opinion of the very people that elected the councilors to start with and might be the cure for voter apathy and a loss of the confidence of the people in the council as a body able to make even a speck of positive difference.

Even the woolliest and long winded co-operative multi-party council would be less of a joke in the real world than the current and recent incarnations.

Such a council would be very sensitive to the opinions of voters needing to maintain and increase confidence before any by-elections or failing that the next ellection because even a small drop in favour could kick them out of power.

A Coalition Council never would have dared to vote to allow the China Gateway planning permission with such disregard nor would it have been so closed minded about the building of an out of town shopping centre. Westwood Cross might have still been built but it would have been handled differently with more consideration to roads, to town centre impact and to the final outcomes that need not have been so damaging.

A Coalition Council can not afford to allow councilors to swan off to the outer reaches and abandon the people that voted for them - they need all hands on deck.

A Coalition Council can not afford to ignore people that ask hard questions nor can it afford to think that once it is in power it can treat people as it wishes and not worry until the new ellection is approaching.

A Coalition Council can not afford to elect people like Sandy Ezekiel and it can not afford to allow it's members to have open bitching matches on blogs and forums.

A Coalition Council must get the job done and make the area better or loose to the opposition on the very next election.

We can only hope that third options, the Independents and the minor parties make sufficiently good headway to make a Coalition Council something to consider.