Charities need to play a key role in the provision of more cost effective solutions, says Ian Allsop. And England needs to win the World Cup.

At the time of writing, I am sitting back in the heady days of mid- May 2010. All is rosy in the postelection coalition garden. Bluebells and daffodils grow in harmony. But we await the settling of the dust with the same uncertainty that exists when Icelandic volcanoes erupt. It is hard enough for political parties to stay in bed with themselves without falling out, let alone bringing in another one to complicate things.

Elements of the last few weeks have made me wonder whether it has all been an elaborate spoof. The point when Theresa May was made equality minister was when the joke went too far. I think we are all relieved that we can now move on and get on with worrying about more important things such as the World Cup or Britain’s Got Talent.

What the hung parliament has meant is confusion for everyone, including those in the media employed to add clarity. We all agreed that the “political landscape” had changed but no one was quite sure what would be built upon it. Voluntary sector pundits gave their views on whether it would be good or bad for civil society. There wasn’t much consensus – sort of a hung reaction.

The only thing certain is that the old uncertainties have gone and been replaced by new ones. And while a hung parliament shouldn’t have been a big surprise, the Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition possibly was. The first thing that needed sorting was what Clegg and Cameron’s Jedward name would be. If you take the “C” from Clegg and add the “ameron” from Cameron I think you get something that hints at where the power lies.

But what will this brave new progressive politics of consensus mean for charities? On paper there doesn’t seem to be much difference between the policies of the two parties, in so much as they bothered to state them. Much has been made of the Tory promise to treat the voluntary sector on the same footing as the public sector. That might not be worth much if it means they’re both going to be equally screwed.

The appointment of Nick Hurd as minister at least provides some continuity. He filled the brief in a shadow capacity for 18 months prior to the election and the sector honchos have spent plenty of time “engaging” with him.

What everyone is expecting is cuts. The only thing that won’t be cut is mentions of cuts. This could have a devastating effect on charities, especially those who sailed off merrily down the public service delivery river. But on the plus side we do get the chance to use the word “swingeing” a lot.

Rather than whinge, charities need to convince government they can play a key role in the provision of more cost-effective solutions, without being seen as the cheap fix. And they need to be proactive. The shortlisted charities for the Charity Awards 2010 were announced recently. I was struck by Lifeblood, the Thrombosis Charity’s lobbying success. It resulted in treatment being made widely available that will prevent 25,000 deaths but also save the NHS considerable sums of money. This is by no means an isolated success for a charity. By “pointing things out” the sector can both further its objectives and influence the government’s swingeometer.

The other area of uncertainty is Big Society, Cameron’s big [insert your own word here]. The sector has been cautiously enthusiastic as it hints at a key role at the centre of reactivating community cohesion. But the Community Sector Coalition has warned that it needs explaining properly or will be killed by cynicism.

You will not be surprised to hear that I am one of those potential assassins. While it is hard to judge fully without any detail, my first reaction when it was launched was that it was simply the application of a brand name to vague, patronising and contradictory rhetoric. I wondered how you could achieve something that was bottom-up by imposing it forcibly from the top. The language is of a nostalgic village fête philosophy where the grass is greener on both sides and all will be well if we just pull together and guess the weight of that cake.

I will need some convincing that the driving force here isn’t the state pulling back from people’s lives out of choice but encouraging them to take responsibility as an excuse to avoid spending so much money. Like a lot of what has been mooted and promised, we await the substance. Meanwhile, I hope the sector pundits are busying themselves considering their reaction to the effect that England going out on penalties in the quarter final will mean for charities.