The Strange Rebirth of Liberal England?

Elections are often entertaining blood sport (Bigot-gate a fine example!), and sometimes actually significant or important to your life.  Very rarely are they of generational and historical significance.  The 2010 UK Election could be.  


There’s a famous book most students of British Political History would be familiar with: The Strange Death of Liberal England.  


The Liberal Party of Gladstone and Lloyd George (even Churchill very briefly) died a sudden and mysterious death at the 1922 election.  Certainly it became for the most part politically irrelevant as the Union-backed Labour party surged into ascendancy on the back of Universal Suffrage in 1918 and the changing make up of industrial, urbanised, post-WW1 Britain.

Its a very exciting thought that Nick Clegg in 2010 – more than 80 years later – could be bringing the party back from the dead like one of those scenes in Sci-Fi movies where cryogenically frozen astronauts are resurrected (Cleggmania spreads across Britain).  It could mark another tide-mark in the fascinating story of British politics – hopefully.

Labour’s relationship with the Unions that blessed its founding almost became the death of it in 1978.  "The Winter of Discontent" was where that relationship had finally become abusive and a dysfunctional state of near-revolution existed as uncollected rubbish and unburied dead mounted up.  1979: Enter the Thatcher years which dragged Britain so far to the right that when Labour did win back power 18 years later, Labour were forced to have become a softer, more socially acceptable version of the same thing when “Tory Sleeze” brought an end to Major’s government in 1997.  But even those two truly historic elections might not be as important as the one about to happen in this narrative of the changing make-up of one of the oldest democracies in the world.  

And what of the Liberals?   Answer – an ever intensifying flirtation with the Labour Party:  the Lib-Lab pact in the 1970s that didn’t work; the “Gang of Four” Labour MPs that left Labour in the 1980s and formed the Social Democrats (that ultimately merged with the Liberals to form what we have today  - The Liberal Democrats); and Paddy Ashdown’s dalliance with Tony Blair in the 1990s that almost saw him in the cabinet.

The final chapter of that story could happen on Thursday when hordes of disgruntled Labour voters – betrayed by Iraq but still offended by Tory sleeze – can’t bring themselves to vote for either and flock to Mr Clegg as a last resort, giving him anointing-power in a hung Parliament.  The 1920s leftward-shift - over corrected in the 1980s by Thatcher’s angry lunge to the right - might finally be coming back to the centre ground.  (Check out Scenario B here.)

Whether Clegg is able to anchor it there is another matter.  But it makes a refreshing bloody change whatever happens!
(I would like to see: Brown back in, beholden to Clegg, until he is quickly sacked by the Milliband Borthers – Camelot-esque – who achieve Labour renewal after new election within the year.)

UPDATE: Now the results are in and what has amusingly become known as the ConDem coalition brought to life, this new era in Liberal England has fully dawned.  Despite losing seats rather than winning them, the Lib Dems are a renewed force on the British political scene.  With a referendum on electoral reform on the agenda, the 70-year effort to regain political relevance in England for the Liberal party has almost been achieved.  Nick Clegg has secured five Lib Dem cabinet seats including the nebulous role of Deputy Prime Minister for himself (portfolios to be announced), not to mention 15 ministerial posts across Whitehall. The Tories are apparently furious that Cameron gave so much away, and many observers are quietly admiring Labour's tactic of negative bidding to force Cameron into negotiating himself an even more powerless position than he already had.  How the coalition will operate - how right it will be and how centre - will be fascinating, particularly as they get down to the business of brutal spending cuts to reduce the Greek-sized deficit.  The youth and inexperience of the combined, not to mention their philisophical incombatability - will hamper them greatly.  It will be fascinating blood sport thats for sure!

I predict: 2010 a repeat of 1992 in reverse

I wonder if the UK election on May 6 is going to be a repeat of 1992 – but completely in reverse.

As I remember it, The Tories staggered into the 1992 election in much the same state Labour are now.  With an economy in shatters, an unelected leader – John Major – who while experiencing a slight bounce of popularity initially purely for not being his hated immediate predecessor – John's Margaret Thatcher to Gordon’s Tony Blair – normal unpopularity service was quickly resumed.  The Tories were HATED and Labour were a sure thing.

But, as the election grew closer and closer, the polls converged.  A Hung Parliament began to appear to be a distinct possibility.  As today, many speculate that “its too close to call”.  How Cameron has haemorrhaged his apparently unassailable lead is not clear to me living 11,000 miles away and not across the British political scene as much as I’d like to be.  But I wonder if its for the same reasons that Kinnock managed to lose in 1992.

To win a landslide in Britain with the “first past the post system” (FPTP) you’ve got to win over so-called “Middle England”.  This isn’t so much a place as a state of mind.  For Thatcher it was the Essex Man; Cameron seems to call them the "Great Ignored".  Upper Working Class types with aspirations for better things.  She promised them self-betterment, and Blair – as her theoretical heir – re-promised it.  They are a mix of Tory and Labour fair-weather supporters.

For the Tory flavour, Kinnock was as much anathema as Cameron is to today’s Labour equivalent.  Just as Cameron offends the working-class man – however disloyal – with his rich, privileged Etonian born-with-a-silver-spoon smoothness; so Kinnock was abhorrent to any swinging Tories.  Not only was he Welsh and Socialist – even his hair was red!

I think when it comes to voting day – perhaps the result will be the same but in complete reverse: a slight majority for the incumbent (Major stunned everyone with a majority of about 20, which he steadily pissed away over the next 5 years).  Not enough voters will be able to bring themselves to make a tick in favour of this anachronism just as they couldn't bring themselves to vote in Kinnock as PM. Kinnock's perceived arrogance and complascency (excemplified in the famous Sheffield Rally - said to have lost the election for him) - is also an echo of criticism of Cameron.  This is entirely possible given what a complete eediot-muppet Cameron is quickly revealing himself to be:

And maybe thats for the best. In 1992 I hoped for a hung parliament.  I longed for the paradise I imagined “consensus” politics might achieve.  I wanted Lib Deb balance-of-power.  After nearly 10 years down under, FPTP Rules!  The Federal Government hasn’t controlled the Senate here for more than about 18 months since I’ve been here and legislative failure is the name of the game.  Labor’s failure to pass the ETS Bill is a case in point. 

Today’s minority government decision in Tasmania is a great example of PR (Proportional Representation of course, not my profession!) of how it can fail the electorate.  And as I’ve always said, the idiocy of Steven Fielding of the so-called “Family First” Party is the perfect reason why PR and consensus politics talks a great game but delivers nothing but farce.

So I might be going out on a limb here but: I hereby predict (slightly wishfully) that Labour pull victory from the dark jaws of defeat.