This month, like the rest of Britain, Hammersmith had an election for both national and local government. Two of the candidates reflected the diversity of the area: one, the Conservative, was a charismatic West Indian and the other, the Liberal Democrat, a bright Chinese-Singaporean. The winner, however, was a stereotypical British Socialist, a highly professional performer, as inspiring and as English as a warm hot-water bottle.

The fringe parties, representative of the xenophobia that runs through the darker regions of English life, received little support. One, the UK Independence Party, wants Britain out of Europe and all Europeans to go back where they came from; the other, the British National Party, has wider ambitions and wants all bloody foreigners, from wherever, to return whence they came. With that policy, Hammersmith would lose half its inhabitants and all its restaurants, except perhaps for its local MacDonald’s. Lord knows, the future is bleak enough without that happening.

As regards local government, Hammersmith voters chose the Conservative Party, mainly because it keeps the streets cleaner and avoids tax rises. An irresistible combination. For the future, as we survey the roads ahead, the one through Hammersmith, though fraught with danger, will at least be a little less littered with the take-away rubbish of the consumer society.

In the country beyond Hammersmith Bridge, the Conservatives have become the largest party in Parliament, and the Labour (Socialist) Party, after 13 years in government, has been forced in into opposition. The difference between the two is simple: in general, Conservatives cut while Socialists spend. Under the one, costs and government services will be reduced; under the other, taxes and services will be increased. With a new Conservative government, we can therefore expect unemployment to rise miserably.

Although the largest party, the Conservatives do not have an overall majority in Parliament. They need the support of the Liberals. At this point, matters do get interesting, because the Liberals, as the third party, demand some form of proportional voting system (PR). Conservatives dominate the countryside, and Socialists, the cities, but the Liberals are spread evenly across the whole country and so the number of seats (actual geographical areas) they can win is limited. With 23 per cent of the vote, they have only 54 Members of Parliament (MPs), while the socialists with 29 per cent of the vote have almost five times the number of MPs and the Conservatives with 36 per cent, almost six times the number. As the English say, it is not fair. It is not fair and, given a referendum, 62 per cent of them would vote for a change to PR.

My own interest in PR systems stems from my dislike of the sycophant and warmonger, Blair. A fishmonger sells fish; a warmonger sells war. It may be an idle hope, but I believe that with a PR system, a wider range of views will be heard in Parliament, and extreme policies become more difficult to implement. Along the road, in the next two years, we should have movement toward a new voting system because it is unlikely that the Liberal will continue to support the Conservatives unless there are clear signs, probably through a national referendum, that PR is going to be given a chance. Without Liberal support, considering the harsh economic measures that will need to be taken, the Conservatives will not be able to govern, and a new election will be called. At that point, Labour will be returned to power.

A rocky and uncertain road lies ahead. Hammersmith wishes its new government well, but its expectations are not high. It has learnt, the hard way, not to trust its politicians. On the other hand, it is grateful that its streets are cleaner.