The Labour Party is seeking an unprecedented fourth consecutive term since triumphing by a landslide under Tony Blair in May 1997, following widespread discontent with John Major’s management of the economy and allegations of Tory sleaze.
As recently as the last months of 2009, Mr Brown’s chances of victory had been regarded by most observers as slim to non-existent, following on the heels of the economic recession in the UK and his part in it, first as Chancellor of the Exchequer (finance minister to the rest of us) and then prime minister. In addition, there was (and still is) massive public unhappiness with the government’s conduct of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and rising casualties in Afghanistan, and revelations about MPs – albeit from all the political parties – fiddling their expenses. The situation was beginning to evoke parallels with 1997 and the talk was of when, not if, David Cameron, the Conservative Party leader, would become prime minister.
Now, however, there has been a turnaround of sorts. Buoyed by encouraging economic data and showing a more resolute side to his stewardship, Mr Brown has been notching up better figures in the opinion polls. Meanwhile, Mr Cameron and his team have failed to capitalise on the public’s disillusion with the Labour government and have generally been unable to present themselves as a clear and convincing alternative.
According to the polls and the pundits, the race is too close to call and there are high expectations of a hung parliament, with neither of the two big parties gaining an outright majority of the 650 parliamentary seats at stake under the UK’s first-past-the-post electoral system. The result might well be decided by a relatively small number of marginal constituencies or else the division of seats among the three main parties might leave the door open for the Liberal Democrats to decide the winner and sneak into a coalition government.
Then there is the fact that Mr Brown himself was not elected prime minister, having acceded to the post on Mr Blair’s resignation in June 2007. This will therefore be Mr Brown’s first shot at winning electoral favour as the country’s leader and he will have his work cut out for him to gain the public’s confidence, much less their affection. He is certainly not the touchy-feely, charismatic type that Mr Blair was, and comes across almost as the stereotype of a dour, workaholic, impatient, grumpy Scotsman. Still, the contrast with his predecessor may actually work in his favour, for Mr Blair is increasingly being revealed to have been an instinctive and somewhat feckless politician, whereas few people doubt Mr Brown’s intellect or sincerity. What is of concern, rather, is his left-of-centre, almost classist policies and ideology and Labour’s traditional belief in big government.
Mr Cameron, on the other hand, while regarded by some as the bright, modernising face of the Conservative Party, is still seen by many as the upper class product of wealth and a privileged education (Eton and Oxford), and someone who will forget the working classes once he is in power. Moreover, given his relative lack of experience in high office, he will have a lot to do to convince the majority of the populace that he has what it takes to lead the country. In this regard, Mr Cameron seems to be turning to Barack Obama for inspiration. He is also claiming that he is fighting for “the great ignored” of middle-England taxpayers, laying out last week a vision for a more self-reliant, empowered people, free from the strictures of Labour’s “nanny state.”
As election fever grips the UK, a few issues are already clear. The campaign will focus heavily on the economy and taxes. Labour is expected to raise taxes to lower the budget deficit and maintain social services, while maintaining policies to continue with the economic recovery. On the other hand, the Conservatives are promising to cut taxes, reduce public spending and be more pro-business. Unsurprisingly, both sides claim that their recipe for managing the economy is the more appealing one.
Also, this election promises to follow the trend of the 2008 US presidential campaign with the Internet and communications technology playing an important part in reaching out to voters, particularly younger ones, and with the introduction for the first time ever of televised debates. In the latter respect, given the UK’s rich tradition of parliamentary debating, notwithstanding the almost schoolboyish rowdiness of some of the exchanges, and the weekly ritual of Prime Minister’s Questions, where the Prime Minister and Opposition MPs, particularly the Leader of the Opposition, engage in combative, fast-paced debate requiring a broad grasp of the issues of the day, a head for data and a ready wit, the turgidity of the US model is not expected to be reproduced.
Ultimately, the UK election, like elections everywhere, is all about choice and trust. Will the British people consider that the ruling party has had too long in the saddle or will they prefer not to rock the boat in these turbulent economic times? Will they choose the devil they know or will they opt for change and hope? Will the general disenchantment with politicians and politics translate into electoral apathy and a hung parliament or will there, in the end, be a strong statement by the people, one way or another?
With our own political shenanigans in the region, with constitutional uncertainty in Antigua, talk of a snap election in Trinidad and a shadow campaign for the presidency right here in Guyana, it will be fascinating to observe how the British protagonists try to sell themselves to the voting public over the next few weeks and who will prevail.
