2010 was always going to be an election year. The campaign itself has been running for close to a month, and the end is near. This thursday, the UK electorate votes for a new government, and potentially a new prime minister.
This is the fourth general election in which I’ve been able to vote, and in that time, I’ve seen a new government sweep to power (1997), and since then I’ve seen that party make so many great strides forward for Britain, and yet at the same time let me down on so many levels.
The Labour party (I refuse to refer to them as ‘New Labour’) swept into power on the promise of a fairer society. That Britain would be a meritocracy, that money would no longer be able to buy you privilege. That those people at the top of the financial scale would pay their fair share of tax to ensure that the poorest in our society wouldn’t have as little. That government would no longer be soiled by scandal, bribery and influence-peddling. We were going to see reform of the House of Lords. No longer would a family name entitle people to have a say in how our country is governed.
Where are we now?
For a start, we’re 13 years down the line from Tony Blair’s crushing 1997 victory. 13 years in which some people in Britain have prospered. Some people have risen out of poverty, while others have remained mired in the same holes they were in 13 years ago. We have a national minimum wage, which successive Conservative governments (and oppositions parties) argued would bankrupt tens of thousands of businesses every year, and which in fact did nothing of the sort. We have more schools, we have more hospitals, and the NHS has so much money it employs a personal assistant for every doctor and nurse in the country (OK, that was a lie).
So things got a lot better. People felt wealthy as the value of their houses rose. People could borrow more, buy more things, build bigger houses, consume more. But it was all built on sand. And the sand moved in 2008, with the banking crash.
While I wouldn’t say I played any part in the banking crash, you could argue that I benefited directly from the behaviour that contributed to it, since the deposit on my house was paid from money earned in bonus payments from the bank that I work for. So I’m as much to blame as any other home owner out there who took out a mortgage at a ridiculously low rate that it was obvious the banks couldn’t sustain.
My point is that none of us are blameless. We, as consumers, knew that the financial boom couldn’t last forever, and yet we carried on spending, and borrowing and consuming like there was no tomorrow. Our financial institutions and our government knew that the boom couldn’t last forever, and yet they carried on borrowing, lending, spending and consuming as much as they thought they could get away with.
And that’s why we find ourselves at a crossroads with this general election in 2010.
Britain has a history of lurching from one side of the political spectrum to another, because of the ludicrous way our parliamentary first-past-the-post electoral system operates. For decades we’ve swung between the Labour Party and the Conservative party. The ‘workers’ and the ‘management’ parties. It’s easy to think that this election will see the inevitable swing back to the right that the newspaper and the media (and David Cameron) were expecting.
Except this election could be different. For the first time in my lifetime there appears to be a credible alternative party in Britain. And they could hold the balance of power at the forthcoming election if people actually vote the way they keep telling the polling organisations they will (although I’m naturally wary of all market research companies).
What I’ve found most remarkable about this election is the way that the Liberal Democrats have emerged as a credible alternative to the two-party state. It appears to have all started with the first televised debate between the three Westminster party’s leaders. This was a first for Britain. Previously, we’d been a bit too stiff-upper lip (or at least, far too blase) to actually have the leaders of the parties debate each other. It just wasn’t British. Television debates were for those savage, backward types in the colonies (and the US). And yet, when the debate did happen, people actually opened their eyes and realised that there was actually a 3rd party they could vote for – and they actually had some ideas that make sense!
It makes me angry, and frustrates me that the people of Britain are so apathetic that it took a televised leaders debate to make them actually wake up to an alternative voice in British politics. Were people paying such limited attention to the country’s political landscape that they were unaware that a 3rd party even existed?
After the first leader’s debate Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats saw a huge leap in their polling figures. As a I write, following the third and final debate, and with the election looming this thursday, those polling figures still seem to be holding up. It appears that for the first time since 1974, Britain is heading for a hung parliament, with no one party in control.
With a hung parliament the most likely outcome (according to polling data), political attention has turned not to the Lib Dem’s policies, but to merely a cat-and-mouse game of trying to work out who they would side with. And it’s this which makes me most angry of all.
The media in our country (both newspapers and TV) like to portray themselves as above politics. They aim to inform us, to root out injustice and hypocrisy in our politicians. At least, that’s how they like to portray themselves. Instead, they’ve actually become part of the problem.
I had been moved to write this piece earlier in the campaign and chose not to. But a fairly insignificant event took place today which cut through my own apathy and made me sit down and type.
The BBC news channel were showing live footage of a Lib Dem rally in Streatham. Quite honestly, it felt a little uncomfortable, with almost a punch-and-judy pantomime style speech by Nick Clegg (whether it was intentional or not, the crowd might as well have been chanting “he’s behind you” about David Cameron). But it wasn’t the uncomfortable speech that prompted me to write. Shortly after returning from a weather forecast, a local BBC reporter spoke to Nick Clegg. But rather than ask him about his policies, or how he would help the people of Streatham, about the quality of the local candidate, or what good he (or she – since the candidate’s name was never mentioned by the BBC) would do for the local area, there was simply one question that the reporter wanted to ask. “Who would you side with in the event of a hung parliament?” “No, I really need to push you on this – don’t you think the voters deserve to know?”
This might have been just an annoying local reporter wanting to get her foot on the ladder to becoming a Westminster correspondent, but it struck me as representing the election in a microcosm. The media don’t want to have to discuss policy with politicians, because they think the viewers don’t like it – and they’re right. So instead they stick to trying to get a soundbite out of the politicians in the hope that they’ll feature on the main news broadcasts. “If I get a scoop about what the Lib Dems will do in the event of a hung parliament, I might get promoted!”. The viewers, meanwhile claim to not want to be patronised by politicians – and yet when the politicians do talk about policy, the nation switches off. Or goes off to moan about immigrants taking all of the (low paid) jobs (that British people feel are beneath them).
So the broadcasters have to take their fair share of the blame. Primarily I find myself angry with the BBC, as it’s their news I watch most. Sky obviously have their proprietorial agenda, and ITV news is just utter trash, suitable only for people who don’t know the meaning of the word hyperbole. But they all share this incessant need to create a story, rather than try to actually try to understand party policies, and their underlying reasons, influences and impacts.
The newspapers also need to take their fair share of the blame. And in this, not one newspaper escapes unscathed. I’m not even going to get into how disgusting the Daily Mail is with it’s “Clegg Nazi Slur” headline. Likewise the Sun and the Express make me want to vomit. However, newspapers like the Guardian, with its liberal-leaning bias have been equally culpable during this election campaign. I point you at this article in the Guardian. This entire article was written after watching Nick Clegg being interviewed by Andrew Marr the previous day. I also watched that interview. And anyone with an ounce of political awareness could tell that the article was written entirely with its own agenda. The newspapers think they have to interpret things for us, to tell us a story, to explain what Nick Clegg actually said. The story becomes what he meant, rather than what he actually said. The BBC were also complicit in this, since they spent the entire day replaying, and having a seemingly 15-year old “Westminster correspondent” dissecting the interview (or, more accurately, a 30 second clip of it). The “correspondent” again seemed desperate to make a story out of something that was actually a very straightforward conversation. Nick Clegg quite openly expressed a view that (shock horror!) the party with the most votes should get the first opportunity to create a ruling coalition in the event of a hung parliament. And that it was actual votes rather than parliamentary seats that is important. And that his party wouldn’t be interested in sharing power with either the Conservatives or Labour unless they were prepared to share a legislative agenda with the Lib Dems, including electoral and financial reform, as well as cleaning up the decades of financial abuses from politicians across the political spectrum.
This interview became the story. The story wasn’t about the Lib Dem’s political agenda. It was about what they would do in the event of a hung parliament. Rather than let us hear the actual interview again, the BBC push forward a spotty-faced oik to tell the viewing public what the BBC interpreted Nick Clegg’s comments as meaning. Once again the media (in all it’s forms) failed in its duty to educate the voters of this country, instead preferring to childishly pursue one single line of questioning. “Are we there yet dad?”
So that’s where we’re at. A faltering economy, an election days away, Britain seemingly becoming more isolationist and right-wing, and a government I previously supported breathing its last.
You may think after reading this paean to the lib Dems, that that’s who I’ll be voting for on Thursday. You may be right. For the first time in 13 years I go into an election still trying to weigh up who’ll get my vote. My choice is made all the more difficult by the fact that my constituency MP is a remarkably honest, decent, honourable man. He was not involved in the expenses scandal (other than to stand out as one of the beacons of honesty trying to fix the system). He stands up for his constituents, and he doesn’t slavishly follow his party’s line. In fact, looking at his electoral leaflet, it takes a minute to actually spot the party logo – it’s almost as if he’s ashamed of the party which he purports to represent.
And therein lies my problem. For all his honesty and honour, he represents a party that I no longer feel represents me. I don’t think I’ve changed. Those people who know me know that I’m as much of an agitator and political animal as I always was. But the Labour party have forgotten who they represent, and who they need to stand up for. Whichever way I eventually vote, I won’t do so with a heavy heart, because I’ll either be voting to change the electoral system or for an honourable man who’ll subject whichever party is in power to the same level of scrutiny he’s always applied.
I just hope that my vote counts for something. And I hope my next post isn’t under the auspices of a new landslide conservative government, which truly would be a disaster for this country.
Posted in Uncategorized
Tags: Politics