People's Democracy

  UK Polls: People Have No Real Choice

Kiran from London

CHARGED with blurring the difference between the traditional Left and the Right in British politics, the ruling Labour Party in Britain is vying for an unprecedented third consecutive term in office during the general election, scheduled to take place on May 5, 2005. Prime minister Tony Blair has called for election about a year before it was due. The three major political parties – Labour, Conservatives and Liberal Democrats – are in the race for 646 seats. In the 2001 election, Labour had won 413 seats while Conservatives had got 166 and Liberal Democrats had secured 52 seats.

With only about a week left to go for the polls, at the time of writing this, the Labour Party has been laying stress on taking the credit for building a strong economy, pouring in more funds into the state-run National Health Service and government schools, improving childcare, paternity and social security benefits and making communities safe.

The Conservative Party leader Michael Howard has been raising the bogey of immigrants and asylum seekers flooding Britain and the need to fix a quota or the number of immigrants who can annually be allowed into Britain. The other major issue raised by the Conservatives is improvement in National Health Service with focus on deaths of patients admitted to hospitals due to infections acquired in hospitals. Conservatives also talk of lower taxes through savings on government spending and improving school discipline and more school choice (read private schools for the few). After supporting Blair government in undertaking the military aggression on Iraq, Conservatives now accuse it of ‘lying’ with regard to the advice obtained from attorney general on legality of war.

It is pertinent here to note what renowned journalist, John Pilger wrote about the coming polls: "Truth can be subverted, but for millions of decent Britons the subversion is over, and the penny has finally dropped. For that, they have Blair to thank. On May 5, they will silently go on strike against a corrupt, undemocratic system, as they did at the last election, producing the lowest turnout since the franchise, including barely a third in some constituencies. Others will come under extraordinary pressure to put aside considerations of basic morality and vote for this "successful" Blair government. They - allow me to change that to you - ought to be aware of what this will mean for your fellow human beings. By voting for Blair, you will walk over the corpses of at least 100,000 people, most of them innocent women and children and the elderly, slaughtered by rapacious forces sent by Blair and Bush, unprovoked and in defiance of international law, to a defenceless country…

In 2005, we have an election, not politics; a media court, not critical debate. True politics is about all of humanity, and our responsibility for those who commit crimes in our name. No reverence for the sanctity of a debased vote or a false choice - or the lesser evil of a non-existent, sentimental, pre-Blair Labour Party - will change that. We owe that truth to the people of Iraq, at least."

Liberal Democrats are promising scrapping of student tuition fee, free care for elderly, higher pensions for those over 75 years of age, abolition of local service charge (council tax) with a local income tax. Most of the party’s concessions are supposed to be funded through a 50 per cent taxation on earnings of above pounds one lakh a year. The party seeks to reverse the identity card scheme of the Labour, which is seen as a measure to isolate immigrants/asylum seekers. Liberal Democrats have held the most consistent stand on Iraq war and opposed the invasion throughout. Various pollsters engaged by British media organisations to determine day-to-day lead of different parties say that the Labour leads the Conservatives by three to ten percentage points, at the time of writing. The Liberal Democrats are stated to be consistently improving their position but are way behind the Labour (by 15 percentage points behind).

Traditionally, the general election in Britain has been determined by domestic policies of the parties. Performance of the economy has had a major role to play in influencing voters to make up their minds and the situation does not appear to be very different this time. According to estimates, the GDP per person in Britain from 1996 to 2003 grew by 2.4 per cent per year. Labour claims to have achieved economic stability with regular growth in economy ever since it came to power, which it boasts has led to a fall in unemployment rates. The real estate sector boom and no major bust as witnessed in 1980s and 1990s has lent strength to its claim of a stable economy. The Labour government has managed to keep inflation low despite changing international scenarios and it feels this would help it in the polls. This has prompted Labour to go ahead with its electoral slogan – ‘If you value it, vote for it’ – in preference to its previous slogan – ‘Britain Forward not Back’ – which was considered grammatically suspect.

However, the policies of Labour have involved selling off chunks of public sector companies into private hands and throttling unions, which has not gone down well with its traditional supporters. At the same time in the name of boosting investment and entrepreneurship, corporate tax and such other tax had been considerably scaled down. Recently MG Rover car company with its 5000 workers was allowed to go to seed, while investigators now go into the allegations of millions being siphoned off by top management. A Conservative supporter chuckled, "This is the best Tory government we have had in the name of Labour."

Economic performance claims of Labour Party notwithstanding, a chunk of traditional Labour supporters is unhappy with the party for abandoning its core values and could either not vote on polling day or switch loyalties to Liberal Democrats wherever their candidates are in the reckoning. The Liberal Democrats’ emphasis on taxing very high earners and subsidising education etc make it an attractive alternative for many traditional Labour supporters. However, Labour has pressed Treasury secretary Gorden Brown into countering this. He has emphasised time and again that Labour doubled the government funding for National Health Service and education and with its introduction of National Minimum Wage for the first time, the charge of Labour giving up its core values does not hold. His forceful arguments have also not been able to convince all.

The Conservatives have failed to unveil a convincing blueprint on economy or social security matters which could be called entirely their own. It is being increasingly seen to be in the business of merely point-scoring or reacting to the agenda set by the Labour. The dilemma of the Conservative Party in this election stems from the fact that Labour Party under Blair has usurped the Tory agenda virtually leaving them issue-less. In the process it has adopted many regressive policies – introduction of identity card scheme resented by ethnic minorities and recent legislation giving extraordinary powers to the executive in dealing with suspected terrorists – all at the cost of liberal values. Conservatives have had to support all the decisions of Labour in these areas whether it was identity cards issue or the Iraq war.

Continuing the British policy of being a lackey of the US, Labour government took it to new heights by actively supporting US in invading Iraq. This had led to massive resentment amongst the genuinely Left elements and the ethnic minorities in Britain and had spilled into the streets in the form of anti-war protest by lakhs of people. Now Conservatives are trying to mount the offensive by charging Tony Blair with lying and influencing the attorney general to change his advice on Iraq war but it is unlikely to cut ice with the electorate. On the other hand, the consistent opposition of Liberal Democrats to Iraq war which they term ‘Illegal’ is likely to carry more credibility with the voters.

The Conservatives have upped the ante on asylum- immigrant issue by their scare mongering. Its slogan – ‘Are you thinking what we are thinking’ – has added fuel to fire. This, despite the fact that ethnic minorities comprise merely seven per cent of the population of Britain. The Labour’s policy has hitherto been to put into practice the hardline essentials of asylum-immigrant policy, with as little fuss and fanfare as possible but this has not gone unnoticed. Liberal Democrats have opposed identity cards scheme of Labour and such other measures, which is likely to endear them to those disposed towards liberal values. On the other hand, based on their performance in economy and by stealing the hardline essentials of what may well have been a Conservative agenda, the Labour Party could compensate its loss of liberal and ethnic minority vote, with neo-converts or by merely retaining its old voters in large numbers. And, this is a scenario which appears both possible and plausible and could help the Labour retain a majority in the House of Commons. Meanwhile, Liberal Democrats may make some new gains on the strength of liberal and ethnic minority votes in some areas though bottom line of their electoral campaign is - ‘The Real Alternative.’

However, estimates by pollsters show that National Health Service, crime, education, pensions and social security, asylum-immigration and taxes are uppermost in the minds of voters, in that order. The actual electoral battle and campaign is taking place in about eighty constituencies which all sides have identified as crucial or swing constituencies and due to the small margins of victory, they could go either way. As per one estimate, less than ten per cent of the electorate seems concerned about Iraq war issue.

The personalities of leaders are playing a limited role in this election. While Tony Blair seems to have attracted a negative halo around himself, in the eyes of many, who see him as too street-smart and too much of an actor rather than a leader. The Labour has been pushing Treasury secretary Gorden Brown to play a more active role to neutralise this negative influence. This led to sneers from Conservative camp which coined – ‘Vote Blair, get Brown’ – to signal a likely post-election scenario if people were to vote Labour. On the other hand, Conservative leader Michael Howard, though quick in repartee, has been unable to set a new alternative agenda for the party which might also enthuse its traditional voters. Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy is seen as decent, consistent and scrupulous but not ruthless enough. He is also handicapped by the limited effective presence of his party in the country.