In many ways, the cloud of volcanic ash that began to spread across Britain (and half of Europe) on Thursday, 15th April is an apt metaphor for the current state of the nation’s politics. First of all, it symbolizes the uncertainty surrounding the results of the imminent general election. Not too long ago, a Conservative victory seemed assured, until the opinion polls began to show their advantage over Labour diminishing. It also symbolizes the indecision and, worse, the lack of clarity in the election proposals made by the two principal opposing parties : both Gordon Brown and his rival David Cameron have presented manifestos that are full of promises but somewhat lacking in practical details. Above all, having an ash cloud darkening the skies and filling the air with gloom certainly seemed in tune with the island’s recent fortunes : after years of prosperity, the UK has found itself plunged into its worst crisis in fifty years. A short-circuit at the heart of the neo-capitalist system forced Brown’s government (the first in Europe) to put a considerable number of emergency measures into place to curb the damage, and led to an inevitable decline in public finances.

If nothing else, this general election is driven by the following bleak prospects : Britain is a country that risks becoming ungovernable, that has little idea of its own future direction, and that is trapped by a double-figure deficit. For these and many other reasons, the election creates a turning point in history, a crossroads between the slow yet inexorable decline of the old Victorian Empire and the chance to keep the country afloat in a world where the rules are constantly changing. The stakes are far higher than they were in 1979, at the beginning of the Thatcher era, or in 1997, when Labour were reborn under a young Tony Blair. The parties seem to be aware of this. And so do the voting public.

The struggles of Gordon Brown (and David Cameron)

Westminster

Source : bweeth ; flickr.com

The election campaign began on the 6th of April when Gordon Brown made the traditional visit to Queen Elizabeth to inform her of the dissolution of parliament and to announce that polls would open on the 6th of May. But the UK had been anticipating this moment for almost three years, ever since the nervous Prime Minister, having just succeeded Blair and looking for a democratic mandate, was momentarily tempted to call an early general election. But he changed his mind when opinion polls showed that he was likely to lose. And all this before numerous gaffes caused considerable damage to the reputation of a politician who lacks the interrogative talent and assertive communication skills of his predecessor. In fact, apart from the occasional exploit, Gordon Brown’s approval rating has been in constant freefall, in spite of his rather prudent management of the financial crisis or, for example, him showing what some might call dynamism in foreign affairs. Ultimately, there has been too much hesitation and too many u-turns, all adding up to an ill-concealed lack of direction that has exposed an erratic, frequently uncertain leadership. Many of Brown’s party colleagues have noticed this, especially those who were faithful supporters of Blair, and the rebels’ ranks have swelled with each Labour election defeat : in local polls, in by-elections, and finally in the European elections last June.

The parliamentary expenses scandal, in which a large number of Labour figures (but also Conservatives) found themselves embroiled, dealt the final crushing blow to Brown’s regime. Or at least it seemed that way. A two-party democracy like Britain’s leaves all other parties, with the exception of the Liberal Democrats, with a negligible electoral quota (around 6%) and thus consigns them to public oblivion. This type of democracy works on the logic that electing a government merely comes down to a choice between the two dominant parties. So when the Conservatives failed to capitalize on the unpopularity of the Labour leadership, the latter inevitably gained ground in the polls. The Tories’ double-figure advantage has reduced over time to somewhere between 3 and 7%, which would not be enough to assure them a clear victory and has instead lead to the resumption of a battle that only several weeks ago it seemed that they had won.

David Cameron has worked unceasingly to modernize his party, getting rid of the traditional small-minded, bigoted and anti-statist element that had provoked a hostile reaction from many sections of the British electorate. With one eye on the phenomenology of the right-wing parties of continental Europe, the young Conservative leader has embraced causes that in the past have been unpopular with the party, such as the National Health Service and environmentalism. Yet at the same time he has not discarded the fundamental principles of Thatcher orthodoxy, from deflationist policies to euro-scepticism. This rather superficial approach soon showed cracks, slowing down the assault on centrist public opinion that is the focal point of Cameron’s campaign. Moreover, so much incoherence is symptomatic of a fractured nomenclature between a more modern, moderate front line and a hardcore group of delegates who are reluctant to depart from tradition. In the meantime, it appears that Labour’s recovery can be partially explained by Brown’s repositioning himself towards the left in an attempt to stop his traditional electorate fleeing to the Liberal Democrats and other minor parties. There is still no telling how many people are disillusioned enough to go and join the already long line of those abstaining.

Clegg’s got the X-factor

If the British political contest was purely bipartisan, reduced to a sort of pointless ping-pong match between Labour and the Conservatives, pre-electoral conjecturing would be far easier. In fact, there is a third force in Parliament, the centre-left Liberal Democrats, who are equipped both with the necessary organizational tools and a strong support base amongst the electorate. They are also adept at attracting discontented voters from both ends of the political spectrum. Saying “No” to the war in Iraq, the high point of their opposition to the Labour-Conservative hegemony, earned them the vote of almost a quarter of the British electorate (23%) in the 2005 elections, which was their best performance in 60 years. A party in the European Liberal-Socialist tradition (it is no coincidence that they were born of the amalgamation between the Social Democrat and Liberal parties ; ideological differences between the two factions reappear from time to time), pro-European, environmentalists, and also in favour of a greater decentralization of national power, the Lib Dems have long suffered due to the principles of the British electoral system : a majority system that leaves little or no margin for minor-party representation. The Byzantinism of the afore-mentioned process, together with the peculiar electoral situation, could however offer an uncommon chance for young Nick Clegg to climb the political ladder.

Nick Clegg

Source : Liberal Democrats ; flickr.com

The map of constituencies, rather dated in terms of demographic profile, could prevent the Conservatives from obtaining a stable majority in parliament, even with a comfortable electoral advantage (under 7%). A hung parliament, which occurs when no political party wins an outright majority of seats, appears ever more likely. And it is here that the Liberal Democrats come in to play, as holders of the balance of power. Whether they form a government with either of the major parties, or whether, more realistically, they agree to support a minority government, this is their first chance in half a century to put some of their own policies in to action. These do, coincidentally, include a reform of the electoral system. The likelihood of such a scenario was reinforced by Clegg’s brilliant performance in the first televised election debate (a first in British electoral history) that saw the percentage of people intending to vote for the Liberal Democrats shoot up to 30% (the Conservatives remained at 31% and Labour slumped to 27%), defying all expectations. It is too soon, however, to be celebrating election success. The Lib Dem brand of politics often runs contrary to the deepest instincts of the British people - in matters concerning illegal immigrants and the European Union, for example. For the first time these policies will find themselves under the media microscope, and they will inevitably attract a storm of public criticism. But even if this surge in the opinion polls turns out to be a flash in the pan, by deciding to which of the main parties they will lend their support, Clegg and company will be responsible for deciding who will occupy Downing Street. The party is not letting anything slip about their intentions, but an alliance with the Conservatives seems unlikely, in view of the Tories’ euro-scepticism if nothing else. This would leave just one possibility, which seemed unthinkable such a short time ago : a fourth Labour government in succession, and a reprieve for the much-vilified Brown.

Political deadlock on the horizon

The economic crisis has devastated the UK’s public finances, causing the budget deficit to soar to almost 12% of the GDP (in 2007 it was just 2.7%). Within four years, public debt has increased from 40% to 70% and unemployment is almost at 8%, almost twice what it was two years ago. These figures don’t make easy reading, and they will force the new government, whoever they may be, to make some rather painful choices. The sun has set on the prosperous New Labour years, when taxes were reduced and public spending was increased without anybody feeling the pinch. In economic matters, there is a traditional difference of opinion between Labour and the Conservatives, with one defending a still substantial welfare state and the other promoting the interests of the private sector. These differences have once again arisen, albeit to a lesser extent, as this election campaign has progressed, as shown by the parties’ respective plans for pulling Britain out of the crisis. The Tories are proposing a swift succession of cuts in order to quickly restore the financial calm of the past two decades, and are accusing the outgoing government of having been too indulgent. Labour on the other hand are asking for more time before clamping down on state spending, in case the UK slips back into recession. They are also proudly claiming responsibility for the impressive stimulus measures put in place to counter-act the crisis. At the same time both parties continue to make expensive promises, such as reducing taxes or improving the health service, but without making clear where, in these financially straitened times, they will find the resources to keep them.

In between, the Liberal Democrats have at least had the intellectual honesty to include a tax increase for higher earners in their manifesto, in order to put some money in the coffers. But public finances apart, there are numerous issues on the agenda for the incoming government : the civil service, schools and universities, energy, local authorities, the electoral system : these are only a few of the sectors that are in need of fundamental reform. The problem is that, without having a strong majority and being obliged to make unfamiliar compromises, it will be difficult for the new British government to find the impetus and the political support to introduce new, improved policies. The chance to revive the ailing country could be strangled by that need to trade favours and offer compensations, actions which become ways of life for coalitions and alliances.

Headline picture:bixentro ; flickr.com