Globalaffairs

Issue 20/April-June 2010
By Glen Ruffle

On 11th May 2010, the 53rd Prime Minister in Britain’s history, David Cameron, took power. Yet it was not in the way that nearly every other took power before him. Under the First Past the Post electoral system, Britain is usually given one strong party that wins and allows clear and strong leadership.

However, this time, despite an electoral system that helps produce winners, there was no single, victorious party. The Conservatives, 13 years in opposition, almost achieved the magic 326 seats to make a majority, but fell 20 short. This meant they could try and govern as a minority, constantly risking losing every vote, or try to forge an alliance to govern as a majority.

The outcome has seen a most unusual alliance emerge. The right-wing Conservatives, anti-European, market-orientated and socially traditional, have teamed up with the Liberal Democrats, the most pro-European party, which talks of social regulation and a liberal society.

The campaign

How did this happen? In reality, this election was a defeat for the Conservatives. In September 2009 [1], they led in the opinion polls commandingly, and yet, when it came to the actual vote, they failed to win a majority. After 15 years of Conservative rule, in 1997, the country was so desperate to get rid of them that Tony Blair won with a landslide victory. How come the Conservatives did not do the same, considering Gordon Brown, the outgoing Prime Minister, and previously, Chancellor of the Exchequer (finance minister) for the Labour party, had consistently spent more than the country earned, increased the size of the state as a quick solution to unemployment, paid for it all by borrowing and taxing the wealth creators more, whilst also allowing massive inflation into the economy, conducted through the housing market, by the lax control of monetary policy, that helped record numbers of people get into debt and, when the problems began in the financial system (as they were bound to) helped cause the greatest recession since the 1930s, is a miracle of bad management.

Gentlemen from Eton

The Conservatives - wrongly - planned a campaign on the belief that ordinary people were tired with normal, argument-based, politics. As a result of this, when Labour were down, when Gordon Brown’s claim ‘the end of boom and bust’ [2] was clearly seen to be hollow, the Conservatives did not jump on it and exploit it like they should have done.

Consistently, when Labour was weak, the Conservatives failed to hammer the point home that Labour was failing and had failed. The Conservatives forgot their own lesson: under Thatcher, Sir Bernard Ingham, a former journalist, developed the abilities of spin and media control that Tony Blair and Labour then took to new levels. Another former journalist, Alastair Campbell, brought in by Blair, took manipulation to a new level, which many people found disgusting in its cynicism [3]. Despite many bad days, Labour was able to escape serious consequences, earning Blair the nickname ‘Teflon Tony’ [4], for whatever problems were thrown at him, they bounced off.

The Debates

Having failed to capitalise on Labour’s problems, and allowed Labour to claim that the UK was beginning to recover because of Brown’s leadership [5], the election campaigns began, and for the first time ever, live TV debates would take place between the leaders of the big three parties.

This was a crucial moment to allow the leaders to defeat the arguments of their opponents, in live debate, in front of the nation. These were not free, unscripted arguments, but they did reveal some crucial strategic mistakes.

When Gordon Brown questioned David Cameron on policy, the Conservative leader chose not to answer, trying to look like he was a leader who did not need to argue. This was a mistake - instead of being a leader, he looked like a man without an answer, afraid of telling people the harsh truth.

The Conservatives tried to avoid arguments, believing them to be negative to the voters, but in avoiding debate they failed to offer strong leadership. Tony Blair would have fought the argument, and then told people passionately, “this is where I am going. Come with me”. That is leadership. That is what Cameron failed to deliver.

The Conservatives also focused on some good ideas that they had completely failed to communicate to the wider public. The idea of ‘the big society’, where people are given more power, completely failed to enter into the popular imagination [6], and so when Cameron talked about it, no one really understood what he was saying.

Fundamentally, most people are not that interested in politics. They have little time to understand complex arguments about taxes or economics; instead they want someone who will simply communicate to them, as Blair did, a strong, encouraging message. Blair won an election by simply repeating “education, education, education” [7]. Yet few understood what the parties were offering in 2010.

The TV debates did do one thing: they launched the small, third party, the Liberal Democrats and their leader, into the public mind. Nick Clegg, by sounding different from the main two leaders, showed that the public is easily swayed by style over substance [8]. Whilst many did not vote for him on election day, his performances in the debates brought out enough of his own supporters to ensure the Conservatives were denied a victory.

Result

So when the people cast their votes, we saw a large swing from Labour to the Conservatives, but in the Liberal Democrats strongholds, the Tories failed to win. This was thus the election the Conservatives threw away. Better planning, strategy and leadership would have seen a commanding victory; though it is difficult to imagine who else could have done a better job than Cameron; and Labour’s internal discipline was remarkable, given Brown’s unpopularity.

The result and subsequent negotiations saw Labour fail to secure an agreement with their more natural friends, the Liberals, because of Brown’s stubborn refusal to leave. As such, and as the people did give the Conservatives the most votes, the Liberals have made an alliance with the Tories, which saw Cameron and Clegg team up, despite Cameron’s previous immense distaste for Clegg’s inexperience.

The one guiding principle for Cameron and Clegg seems to have been, ironically, best stated by Tony Blair in 1995. Speaking at the Trade Union Congress, he said “But what has come home to me more than anything else is the utter futility of opposition. I did not join the Labour party to protest. [9]“ The fundamental arrangements of British politics mean that anyone in power, however weak, is able to o things the opposition can only dream of.

The Agreement [10]

Interestingly, the Conservatives have tied the Liberal Democrats into a real agreement, not a loose alliance. Given the pain that the British economy needs to go through in order to reduce its debt, one has to ask if the Liberals, or anyone, should have wanted to actually win the election. But either the lure of power has sucked them into agreeing and compromising, or something else.

And that something else is the real belief and idealism of the coalition. The Conservatives, at least their leader, seems to genuinely want to build a government for the nation, above party interest. And the Liberals seem to believe them.

The focus of the agreement established between the Conservatives and Liberals is to reduce the economic deficit, by reductions in the amount government wastes and spends, rather than by increasing the taxes on the British people. However, the amount spent on healthcare will continue to rise every year.

Taxation will focus more on middle-income earners and the rich, and the prestigious financial services industry will see a possible split between the investment sections of banks and the general retail banking sections, to make it harder for banks to use savers money in reckless investments. The bonuses paid to bankers will also be restricted, though this may easily be countered by increasing the basic salaries they are paid.

The electoral system in the UK may also change, with a second chamber (the House of Lords) reflecting more the composition of the elected first chamber, or by becoming fully elected itself. Local government will become more independent and responsible for the services it provides, to increase democracy and enable local people to deal with local issues.

Foreign policy

Britain’s foreign policy is an area where the parties differed most. And under the surface of the agreement, there is still a tension. Whilst nuclear weapons will remain at the core of UK defence, they will be fully appraised, and this may mean that no good decision will be made about a replacement for the ageing Trident system.

But it is with the relationship to Europe that the parties differed in most. And it is most notable that the new Foreign Secretary, William Hague (who previously campaigned strongly against Tony Blair’s wish to adopt the Euro single currency), went to America first, and said very clearly that the US was “without doubt the most important ally of the UK”. This was a calculated move on many fronts: it was a realignment with Britain’s older allies that would appeal to Conservative voters, whilst also being a clear signal to Europe and Brussels that this government would put Britain first, not Brussels. UK foreign relations will be governed from Westminster, not Brussels, and Washington will be the main partner [11].

The agreement repeatedly referred to Europe as a collection of nation-states, rather than recognizing the growing central power in Brussels, reflecting again the Conservative vision of a Europe of nation-states, not a superstate. To back this up, the Agreement promises to examine the full range of powers Europe has gained and promises that any new legal powers that would move to Brussels, such as activation of the ‘passerelle’ clauses in the Lisbon Treaty, would trigger a referendum of the people of Britain. The Working Time Directive will also be probably removed from British law - the first time a member state has actively gone to Brussels and taken policy powers back from Europe.

With a promise that Britain will not join the Euro for the next 5 years minimum, and not take part in moves to create a European public prosecutor, many would conclude that this is a strongly Eurosceptic coalition. However, when contrasted with the original commitments in the Conservative manifesto, there is significant backing away from the original promises. A commitment to pass the ‘UK sovereignty act’, an act of parliament to make it entirely sure that power ultimately rested in London, might now not be passed, and many other promises to bring back more powers from Brussels now seem to have disappeared. And the man who fought the Lisbon Treaty through parliament, the shadow Europe Minister, Mark Francois MP, was not chosen to become the real Europe Minister; a pro-European instead getting the job [12]. The impact of the pro-European Liberal Democrats has been strong.

Foreign Policy tension

At the core of this divide is an old tension in British foreign policy. Most people in the UK want to reduce the number of immigrants arriving, and the Conservative manifesto promise was to indeed reduce the numbers [13]. Yet what most people do not understand is that the UK has no power to stop most migrants, who come from the EU [14]. This is rarely mentioned by the major political parties, for many people would find it unacceptable that the UK can not control its own borders with regard to European immigration.

It is regarded by many as absurd that the UK is tied to the EU, a collection of many nations, speaking many different languages, with a history of only bringing trouble to Britain, when Britain’s natural allies, the United States, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, India and the Commonwealth, all either born from Britain or with strong historical and linguistic ties to the country and genetic ties to the people, are pushed to the side. This tension is at the core of British foreign policy; why do the politicians ignore the popular desire to change the relationship with the EU [15], a declining block losing power and influence in the world [16]?

The Future

The defeated Labour party has been left leaderless, after Gordon Brown announced his retirement, and it looks as though one of two brothers will replace him, David or Ed. However, both lack the charisma and charm of Blair, and it is difficult to see them attracting the average person back to Labour.

The situation is therefore open. Labour will become a force again, able to win where the current coalition government makes mistakes. And it is the ability of this coalition to hold together, control the media, control the internal party disciplines of the Liberals and Conservatives, and reduce the budget deficit without causing too much pain in the country, that will decide the next election. If they don’t work together, this coalition could destroy the Liberals and the Conservatives for years to come, but if they do succeed, this coalition could see the Liberals move forwards as a force to displace Labour, and the reshaping of British politics forever.

Glen Ruffle MSc, BA (Hons)
Worked with the Conservative Party during the Treaty of Lisbon debates in 2008.

Bibliography/Sources

[1] Jonathan Isaby (2009) Ipsos-Mori put Tory poll lead down to 6%, Conservative Home, at: http://conservativehome.blogs.com/thetorydiary/2009/10/tories-17-ahead-in-ipsosmori-survey.html

[2] BBC News (2008) ‘Brown on end of boom and bust’, at BBC News: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7691853.stm

[3] BBC News (2002) ‘Spin memo row duo quit’, at BBC News: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1823120.stm

[4] Peter Riddell (2005) ‘The collapse of Teflon Tony’, 10/11/2005, The Times, at: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/peter_riddell/article588490.ece

[5] Angela Monaghan (2010) ‘Gordon Brown says Britain is emerging from recession thanks to government action’, 27/09/2009, The Daily Telegraph, at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/recession/6237217/Gordon-Brown-says-Britain-is-emerging-from-recession-thanks-to-government-action.html

[6] Toby Helm (2010) ‘David Cameron’s critics erupt after ‘heir to Blair’ fails to deliver majority’, 9/05/2010, The Guardian, at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/09/david-cameron-critics-erupt

[7] Sean Coughlan (2007) ‘Education, education, education’, 14/05/2007, BBC News, at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6564933.stm

[8] Christopher Hope (2010) ‘Nick Clegg’s TV debate performance ‘changed election dynamic’, says Ashdown’, 16/04/2010, The Daily Telegraph, at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7596570/Nick-Cleggs-TV-debate-performance-changed-election-dynamic-says-Ashdown.html

[9] Tony Blair (September 1995) speaking at the Trade Union Congress, quoted on page 25 of Larry Elliott and Dan Atkinson (2007) Fantasy Island, Constable books.

[10] BBC News (2001) ‘Hague to step down’, at : http://news.bbc.co.uk/news/vote2001/hi/english/newsid_1377000/1377309.stm

[11] Alex Spllius (2010) ‘William Hague hails ‘unbreakable alliance’ between Britain and USA’, 14/05/2010, The Daily Telegraph, at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/7726332/William-Hague-hails-unbreakable-alliance-between-Britain-and-USA.html

[12] Tim Shipman (2010) ‘Cabinet job snub as Cameron passes over Tory eurosceptic for post of Europe minister’, 14/05/2010, The Daily Mail, at: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/election/article-1278240/NEW-CABINET-David-Cameron-appoints-David-Lidington-Europe-Minister-Mark-Francois.html

[13] The Conservative Party Manifesto (2010) ‘Where we stand: Immigration’, at: http://www.conservatives.com/Policy/Where_we_stand/Immigration.aspx

[14] Jeremy Kempton, Russel Haque, Christian Dustmann, Francesca Fabbri, Ian Preston, Jonathan Wadsworth, Michael Shields and Stephen Wheatley Price (2002) ‘Migrants in the UK: their characteristics and labour market outcomes and impacts’, report published by the Home Office; RDC occassional paper number 82, at: http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/occ82migrantuk.pdf

[15] YouGov poll (2009) ‘New YouGov poll launches TPA/Global Vision EU campaign: Overwhelming public demand for radical change’, 11th January 2009, accessed at: http://www.global-vision.net/GVTPAY2106.htm

[16] Ian Milne (2008) The UK’s future export growth markets, research published by Global Vision, accessible at: http://www.global-vision.net/perspectives10.asp

and;
Ruth Lea (2008) ‘Europe’s worsening demographics’, research paper published by Global Vision, 8th April 2008, accessed at: http://www.global-vision.net/files/downloads/download447.pdf

The views and opinions of contributors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of Global Affairs