FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

The Coming British Elections

by BINOY KAMPMARK

What are we to make of Nick Clegg who now holds the banner of the Liberal Democrats in Britain?  The historian Max Hastings in The Daily Mail (Apr 28) is dismissive.  ‘It would be foolish to expect honesty from Nick Clegg and his party,’ he suggests, as they will only hope to force ‘proportional representation on whichever party is willing to cut a deal with them.’  The major political parties have suddenly realised that Clegg has become an unavoidable force in British politics, a potential spoiler of the balance of power in a country that, Benjamin Disraeli claimed, had no love for coalitions.  A clue is gathered, at least from Labour, in the opinions of the Foreign Secretary, David Miliband.  Reaction towards Clegg is based on a form of ‘anti-politics’, a sweet, relieving meal for those impoverished by corrupt, and dull politics.

The attack is orthodox, tried, and worn: anti-politics, Milliband wants to assure the electorate, is no substitute for government policy.  ‘Anti-politics is fine for opposition, but it is not sufficient for government.  There is a market for anti-politics, due to the sickening expenses scandal, but it is not a basis for running a country’ (Guardian, Apr 23).  Stay warming the benches of the opposition, rather than the seats of government, suggest the very political Milliband.

Cameron has made similar remarks – that Clegg is in danger of promoting a ‘holier than thou’ attitude, the saint whose halo shines with idealistic authority in the House of Commons.  Politics is a grubby business, and cleanliness is hardly desirable in this field.  Clegg is, without doubt, gathering steam for the very reason that he comes with a certain squeaky clean disposition, however disingenuous it might actually be.

Labour’s position on this has been a touch more fluid, despite a firming up of positions heading into the final days of the election. Lord Adonis was even complimentary in parts, paying tribute to the Clegg factor and similarities between the parties. Such flattery is presumably meant to get the beleaguered Labour party some leverage when it comes to forming that most unusual creature of British politics: a coalition.   That potential reality cannot be dismissed.  Labour is now falling behind in the three-cornered contest, finding itself languishing in third place in various polls.  The political exterminator is being readied to sweep the party that was brought into office under the leadership of Tony Blair in 1997.

Voters are also given a paternalistic warning: don’t be ‘tactical’ about preferences. Don’t make protest votes to punish otherwise favoured parties who have strayed from their allotted grounds.  From Labour’s perspective, the tactical vote might spell doom for them, given the tight contest in some 100 key Tory-Labour marginals.  But the Tories will be concerned that those ‘Essex voters’ – the political force of the ‘Basildon man’, will actually return to them as they did to Margaret Thatcher during the 1980s.  And the numbers in this group of low-earning workers are a formidable force: some 14 million, many in households with total incomes of £27,000.  Polling by the Resolution Foundation has found a 11-point lead in favour of the Lib Dems amongst voters in that group (The Independent, Apr 28), a development that may critically impair Cameron’s chances for a secure victory.

The true winner in the last stages of this curious election battle will be Clegg, who has managed in recent times, and certainly in the debates, to look more telegenic and exploit the power, with all its frivolousness and guile, of the camera.   Voters, for so long disappointed, are now waiting to be astonished again.  Cameron’s charm, as former leader of the Liberal Democrats, Lord Ashdown, suggested, was duly ‘leached away’ to Clegg before British television sets.  At times, both Cameron and Prime Minister Gordon Brown seemed bemused, even stunned by their more energetic opponent.  Clegg is making yards on the issue of fairness.  Direct elections to the House of Lords is desired.  Tax reform is required. Inequalities have to be righted.  Political spending, and spending by politicians, has to be scrutinised.

In truth, there is not much separating the parties – other than Clegg.  Whether Cameron is able to net those Basildon men will be something Tories will be fearful off.  What will be even more worrying will be what the winner inherits: the onerous task, the institute of Fiscal Studies has suggested, of making the deepest public spending cuts in 30 years.  On that score, all the leaders have been, and continue to be, reticent.

BINOY KAMPMARK was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

WORDS THAT STICK

 

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

More articles by:

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

zen economics

January 23, 2017
John Wight
Trump’s Inauguration: Hail Caesar!
Mark Schuller
So What am I Doing Here? Reflections on the Inauguration Day Protests
Patrick Cockburn
The Rise of Trump and Isis Have More in Common Than You Might Think
Binoy Kampmark
Ignored Ironies: Women, Protest and Donald Trump
Gregory Barrett
Flag, Cap and Screen: Hollywood’s Propaganda Machine
Gareth Porter
US Intervention in Syria? Not Under Trump
L. Ali Khan
Trump’s Holy War against Islam
Gary Leupp
An Al-Qaeda Attack in Mali:  Just Another Ripple of the Endless, Bogus “War on Terror”
Norman Pollack
America: Banana Republic? Far Worse
Bob Fitrakis - Harvey Wasserman
We Mourn, But We March!
Kim Nicolini
Trump Dump: One Woman March and Personal Shit as Political
William Hawes
We Are on Our Own Now
Martin Billheimer
Last Tango in Moscow
Colin Todhunter
Development and India: Why GM Mustard Really Matters
Mel Gurtov
Trump’s America—and Ours
David Mattson
Fog of Science II: Apples, Oranges and Grizzly Bear Numbers
Clancy Sigal
Who’s Up for This Long War?
Weekend Edition
January 20, 2017
Friday - Sunday
Paul Street
Divide and Rule: Class, Hate, and the 2016 Election
Andrew Levine
When Was America Great?
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: This Ain’t a Dream No More, It’s the Real Thing
Yoav Litvin
Making Israel Greater Again: Justice for Palestinians in the Age of Trump
Linda Pentz Gunter
Nuclear Fiddling While the Planet Burns
Ruth Fowler
Standing With Standing Rock: Of Pipelines and Protests
David Green
Why Trump Won: the 50 Percenters Have Spoken
Dave Lindorff
Imagining a Sanders Presidency Beginning on Jan. 20
Pete Dolack
Eight People Own as Much as Half the World
Roger Harris
Too Many People in the World: Names Named
Steve Horn
Under Tillerson, Exxon Maintained Ties with Saudi Arabia, Despite Dismal Human Rights Record
John Berger
The Nature of Mass Demonstrations
Stephen Zielinski
It’s the End of the World as We Know It
David Swanson
Six Things We Should Do Better As Everything Gets Worse
Alci Rengifo
Trump Rex: Ancient Rome’s Shadow Over the Oval Office
Brian Cloughley
What Money Can Buy: the Quiet British-Israeli Scandal
Mel Gurtov
Donald Trump’s Lies And Team Trump’s Headaches
Kent Paterson
Mexico’s Great Winter of Discontent
Norman Solomon
Trump, the Democrats and the Logan Act
David Macaray
Attention, Feminists
Yves Engler
Demanding More From Our Media
James A Haught
Religious Madness in Ulster
Dean Baker
The Economics of the Affordable Care Act
Patrick Bond
Tripping Up Trumpism Through Global Boycott Divestment Sanctions
Robert Fisk
How a Trump Presidency Could Have Been Avoided
Robert Fantina
Trump: What Changes and What Remains the Same
David Rosen
Globalization vs. Empire: Can Trump Contain the Growing Split?
Elliot Sperber
Dystopia
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail