After the UK election: Some Propositions
After the UK election: Some Propositions
Paul Thompson: Making Sense of the UK Election
Putting pen to paper about the outcomes of the British general election has not been easy. Every time you think the dust has settled, some new twist emerges. The statement from Gordon Brown on Monday that he was stepping down to facilitate a deal with the Liberal Democrats was the most extraordinary twist so far. This excited talk of a historic opportunity for progressive politics. It took 24 hours for that opportunity to disappear. It looks like we are to have a Tory-Lib Dem coalition. Some dust has settled and in that context, I put forward some propositions about the outcome.
The outcome confirmed that Cameron and the Tories had not “sealed the deal.” Despite the most favorable circumstances imaginable, the Tories blew their poll lead. They achieved large swings in their suburban and rural strongholds (and in a few parts of regions), but their overall vote share only rose from 33 percent to a paltry 36 percent. This is despite pouring huge amounts of money?much of it supplied by the tax exile, Lord Ashcroft?into the elections. The big society was a big flop. Cameron is not liked by most of the electorate and has not shaken off his posh boy tag. At least it took a few years of office for the electorate to start hating Blair. If the immediate election aftermath hadn?t been dominated by attempts to form a coalition, rising right wing complaints about the lackluster centrist campaign would have been even more prominent.
The Labour Party is alive and could soon be kicking. Labour has been pronounced dead many times by commentators, opponents, and even occasionally adherents over the years. It was said after the elections of 1959 and 1983, as well as before and during this election, not least by Nick Clegg. Given that the government was politically exhausted, abandoned by the Guardian, the Independent, and the Observer, and blamed for everything from the recession to the expenses scandal, its share of the vote (29.1 percent) and seats (286) were a relief, if not a little remarkable.
What it showed is a considerable resilience in Labour support?with the qualification that this support comes from the party?s core vote in its urban and Scottish heartlands. This cannot be said to be a positive endorsement. Despite some good manifesto policies, Labour?s campaign was almost wholly negative, repeating the experience of 2005. Labour?s core support can, fortunately, see beyond its limitations and mistakes, and it knows who its friends and enemies are. Results in local election were also very positive, with Labour winning back big cities such as Liverpool and many London councils.
The Liberal Democrat bandwagon never left the depot. Whilst they have reasonable complaints of a continuing discrepancy between votes cast (23 percent) and seats captured (57), this was a resounding failure. The progressive part of the electorate is clearly less naïve than some members of the commentariat and intelligentsia. There is some initial psephological and anecdotal evidence that many potential, new Lib Dem voters baulked at the last minute and voted Labour, feeling that the Lib Dems would not protect them against a Tory majority. Subsequent events have proved that to be an absolutely correct judgment. There were also other reasons for the failure. After Nick Clegg?s pr triumph in the first television debate, attention turned to their policies, which doesn?t normally happen. Such scrutiny did not have a positive outcome.
The Liberal Democrats have done Labour a big favor by choosing coalition with the Conservatives. Many people who share my politics pushed strongly for a Lab-Lib deal and a new ?progressive majority.? I have no problem in principle or (most of the) policy. It?s the pragmatics. Labour doesn?t have the numbers to deliver a stable deal. This is not just a question of the aggregate party arithmetic. The idea that Labour and the Liberal Democrats could maintain internal discipline, while also making painful cuts to public spending, is fanciful.
The second pragmatic reason is the almost certain damage to Labour?s legitimacy. Though there is a perfectly reasonable case to be made that a Lab-Lib coalition commands the majority of those who voted, that is not how it will be perceived. The ?coalition of losers? tag would have stuck and the attempts by the New Labour rump to cling to power would be rightly perceived as undignified. More importantly, the party has been running on empty for a long time and needs a period in opposition to regroup and renew. The resignation of Brown and a leadership debate will be the start of that process.
The Liberal Democrats may have done Labour a favor, but I very much doubt whether they have done themselves one by getting in bed with the Tories. Polling evidence shows that most Lib Dem voters see themselves as left of center or center. Labour is probably already ordering the Vote Clegg, get Cameron posters. Liberal Democrat activists, many of whom are locked into vicious political combat with the Conservatives, will also be extremely uneasy. Despite the warm words during the coalition talks, most Tories are utterly contemptuous of their new allies. This coalition is likely to be unstable and unpopular. If they can get their act together, Labour may not be in the political wilderness for too long.
