Kennedy’s last chance?
I’ve been thinking about the election, because in some ways it was quite odd. Now, I’m in no way an expert but I have been following elections and politics for about twenty-five years, more or less. One thing everyone has been saying this time that I haven’t heard before is that so many people did not vote that it calls into question Blair’s mandate and raises questions about the health of our democracy (such as it is).
A lot of guff has been talked about this, with one or two Labour bods having the gall to suggest that people didn’t vote because they were contented with the government. Oh, yes, that’ll be the reason. There was much talk of the need for politicians to engage with people — particularly young people — more. Hmm.
What I think, and I could be wrong, is that there are two basic reasons for the low turnout. The first reason is based upon the fact (which no politician or journalist seems ever to be aware of) that most people are completely uninterested in politics and current affairs. How many people outside the political and media establishment watch the Channel Four News and Newsnight? How many listen to Today or PM? Not the majority by any means.
I’m not talking about some grubby underclass, the nemesis of paranoiac fascists everywhere, I’m talking about people of all types. This was most forcibly brought home to me in the approach to the 1999 elections in Scotland, the first to the new Scottish Parliament. At the time I was close to an intelligent young woman, a Ph.D. who worked in a university department of Sociology. She had looked forward to the 1997 general election, correctly, as the chance to finally dislodge the despised Tories from power. Yet I discovered, to my astonishment, that as late as four months before the Scottish general election she:
- was unaware that there was going to be an election — she had thought that the referendum was the only vote connected with the Scottish Parliament
- had no idea about the dual voting system which would be in use
- did not know what the date of the election was.
This was someone of above average intellect, someone who did watch documentaries and some current affairs programmes. Many people never watch such programmes, or even the news.
What is the relevance of this to the election? I have never, as long as I can remember, known an election in which there was so little campaigning.The one party which did campaign extensively seemed to be the SSP, which obviously had everything to gain as the new fifth party challenging for third place. I heard of the odd Labour candidate doing some campaigning — George Galloway apparently got the Labour double-decker out again, though this time with no jazz band. (A pity: that enlivened the already buzzing Hillhead by-election no end in 1982.) I got two leaflets through the door, both from the Tory candidate. I still have no idea who the LibDem candidate was, having seen the name precisely once — on the ballot paper. I had to seek out actively the name of the SNP candidate.
For the first time I can remember there were no loudspeaker cars. Throughout the day of the election there was no sign, apart from the small placards attached to lampposts (does anyone pay any attention to these?), that there was anything different about it from any other day. If the politicans can’t be arsed campaigning, what right do they have to criticise the public for not voting?
The second reason, I think, is down to a sense of helplessness. If any one person is to blame for this, I’d nominate Paddy Ashdown. In the wake of the catastrophic defeat suffered by the Tories in 1997 the LibDems had an opportunity to make a move for the high ground by vigorously opposing the government. With the Tories sidelined by their internal tensions, the LibDems had a real opportunity to displace them and become the party of opposition at the next election. Unfortunately Paddy Ashdown, with the longstanding Liberal inclination to coalition government, was more inclined to seek consensus and cosy up to Labour than attack them.
Since Charles Kennedy took over, the LibDems have been a little less inclined to be seen as Labour’s little buddies — something I think contributed to their improved showing of 56 seats (the best since Lloyd George, I think). If he behaves as an opposition leader should, he will be less concerned with an image of fairness than with attacking the government and seeking out weak spots. The next general election will be the LibDems’ big chance — and possibly their last.
It all hinges, really, on the Tories. I remember the Sixties and early Seventies, the tail end of “Butskellism”. Tories and Labour alternated in government, the leaders keeping to the middle ground in defiance of the more doctrinaire elements on the extremities of both parties. That changed in 1979. Thatcher began her mission to drag the Tory party to the Right and exterminate socialism. The Labour Party began its long journey through the Slough of Despond, initially veering leftwards before heading back to the centre and eventually crossing the line to become a right of centre party.
Throughout the period of 1979–97 the Tories were hardly wildly popular, yet they held on to power. In fact, at various times the Tory prime minister was absolutely loathed by more people than approved of her, and her colleagues were hardly more liked. What kept her in power was three things: she fought and won a war (the indian summer of the Empire, I suppose); for the first five or so years, the Tories were adept at keeping the right demographic groups happy so that the extensive detestation of them and their programme never spilled over into electoral defeat; and, of course, the Labour Party was doing everything in its power to be completely unelectable.
Labour, of course, sorted themselves out. They were getting there in 1992 and might even have succeeded had the Tories not ditched Thatcher and Kinnock not been so hubristic in the approach to the election. When 1997 came around, voters had had more than enough of the Tories and John Major, and Labour were absolutely oozing electability.
And the problem at the moment is that people don’t like the oleagninous Blair and his government but no one has forgotten the 18 years of the Tory government. If Tony Blair is intensely disliked (he’s certainly the first prime minister I’ve heard of being addressed as “Oi! Blair! You tosser!”), the Tories are still widely loathed. Nothing they have done in the past four years has endeared them to the public. No matter how much people disliked Blair’s supercilious manner and distrusted the intentions of his government they knew the Tories would be at least as bad. That has left most people with no credible alternative to vote for.
In four or five years, a lot will depend on whether the Tories have managed to pull themselves together and convince the voters that public services are safe in their hands. After four more years of Blair’s government that might be easier than it seems at the moment. They will still, though, have to convince that they are not the same as the Tories as led by Thatcher.
If the Tories pull off that trick and the LibDems haven’t got their teeth into Labour, the LibDems’ last chance to become a potential party of government may trickle away through their fingers.
© DC 2001. All rights reserved.