Is Ming really the saviour?
In years to come, I have a strong suspicion that the Liberal Democrats may look back on the events of the past week as the moment they blew their best opportunity in modern British politics. Obviously, Charles Kennedy's alcoholism created a huge problem for the party, especially after David Cameron's emergence as Tory leader and shift towards a more liberal emphasis. But to dispatch him so mercilessly via a series of nasty leaks does strike me as throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Perhaps the ambitious 'modernising' (I'm beginning to really hate that word), section of the party had begun to believe some of the guff that passes for political journalism in Britain. Editorials and comment in nearly all of the broadsheets have united around the myth that somehow the 2005 election result was a failure for Kennedy, based on the disappointing tally of 62 seats. I don't know if these pundits are aware of this, but the third party don't get to choose the voting system at elections. Take away the appalling bias of our first past the post system, and Kennedy's party had their finest hour last May. As I argued in my election betting preview at the time, there was never any scope at all for a total of more than 75 seats. True, the decapitation strategy failed miserably for a variety of reasons. It proved impossible to win in the Tory heartlands with a distinctly left-of-centre manifesto, and more to the point the Tory hierachy was unlikely to be taken unawares as in 2001. The Tories' campaigning techniques had improved beyond recognition and the MPs concerned placed far greater emphasis on defending their own seats. But even that came at a cost as key Tory resources were diverted from other marginal battlegrounds, allowing the Lib Dems to comfortably hold other seats and move into second place in more consituencies than ever.
But the bigger picture was undoubtably rosy. 23% of the vote is a figure that the third party had not dared to dream about since the heady early days of the Alliance in the 1980s. A principled, redistributive, anti-war stance had made inroads into Labour's heartlands. This is where the future of the party should lie. Its fair to assume that the Tory results from 1997 - 2005 represent a low watermark for that party. If the Lib Dems couldn't win places like Orpington and Maidenhead now, then there is no prospect of them doing so after the Cameron revival. Labour, alternatively, look like a tired unpopular government, shorn of members and activists and hopelessly out of touch with the core working class constituency. Wherever Kennedy's charges had taken the fight to Labour in council or by-elections, whether it be Liverpool, Newcastle, Sheffield or Brent-East, the results had been very promising.
So what now? There is no successor that will do obviously better. Sir Menzies Campbell is odds-on favourite and commands the support of the vast majority of MPs. I like and respect Ming enormously. For the small minority of people who follow political life intensely, he is undoubtably an intellectual heavyweight. His pragmatic, forensic opposition to the Iraq war showed his qualities in the best light. But will a 64 year-old grandee, who seems far more suited to Westminster than "Chat Show Charlie", be able to communicate a simple message in the way Kennedy could? I doubt it. Critics in the Westminster bubble loved to mock Kennedy for appearing in Eastenders and Have I Got News For You, but poll after poll showed the public liked and trusted him. In 2001, against a backdrop of the main two parties promising better public services alongside no increase in tax or even tax cuts, Kennedy's honesty seemed refreshing. And when cool judgement was most required over Iraq, Charlie played an absolute blinder. Sure he looked lightweight at PMQs, but I wonder if it cost him a single vote.
Campbell will do very well to match these achievements, and the best they can hope for is to consolidate, weather the Cameroon honeymoon period before handing over in 5 years to one of the up and coming stars like Nick Clegg or Chris Huhne. The crucial issue is where Campbell positions the party in terms of domestic policy, as foreign policy is unlikely to ever be as electorally salient as in 2005. The strong hints are that the party will ditch its commitment to an increased 50% tax band for people earning over 100K. Some of the more radical MPs have even flirted with the neo-conservative wet dream of a flat tax rate. Quite who this is aimed at pleasing is beyond me. I just can't envisage a future scenario where people who desire such a system vote anything other than Tory. For all the talk of occupying the hallowed 'centre-ground', the third party must be distinctive or it will be crushed.
Far better in my view to go with the leftish Simon Hughes. As one of an increasingly small band of MPs who have some experience of working life outside Westminster and big business - Hughes was a cab driver before winning the Labour stronghold of Bermondsey in 1982 - he has the common touch that eludes so many politicians. As well as holding that seat for 23 years (no mean feat for a Liberal in such a socially conservative, working class area), this fluent media performer is well used to winning over TV audiences with his simple liberal, social democratic message. I only hope the party membership picks Hughes or political choice in Britain will be even more narrow than it is already.
Perhaps the ambitious 'modernising' (I'm beginning to really hate that word), section of the party had begun to believe some of the guff that passes for political journalism in Britain. Editorials and comment in nearly all of the broadsheets have united around the myth that somehow the 2005 election result was a failure for Kennedy, based on the disappointing tally of 62 seats. I don't know if these pundits are aware of this, but the third party don't get to choose the voting system at elections. Take away the appalling bias of our first past the post system, and Kennedy's party had their finest hour last May. As I argued in my election betting preview at the time, there was never any scope at all for a total of more than 75 seats. True, the decapitation strategy failed miserably for a variety of reasons. It proved impossible to win in the Tory heartlands with a distinctly left-of-centre manifesto, and more to the point the Tory hierachy was unlikely to be taken unawares as in 2001. The Tories' campaigning techniques had improved beyond recognition and the MPs concerned placed far greater emphasis on defending their own seats. But even that came at a cost as key Tory resources were diverted from other marginal battlegrounds, allowing the Lib Dems to comfortably hold other seats and move into second place in more consituencies than ever.
But the bigger picture was undoubtably rosy. 23% of the vote is a figure that the third party had not dared to dream about since the heady early days of the Alliance in the 1980s. A principled, redistributive, anti-war stance had made inroads into Labour's heartlands. This is where the future of the party should lie. Its fair to assume that the Tory results from 1997 - 2005 represent a low watermark for that party. If the Lib Dems couldn't win places like Orpington and Maidenhead now, then there is no prospect of them doing so after the Cameron revival. Labour, alternatively, look like a tired unpopular government, shorn of members and activists and hopelessly out of touch with the core working class constituency. Wherever Kennedy's charges had taken the fight to Labour in council or by-elections, whether it be Liverpool, Newcastle, Sheffield or Brent-East, the results had been very promising.
So what now? There is no successor that will do obviously better. Sir Menzies Campbell is odds-on favourite and commands the support of the vast majority of MPs. I like and respect Ming enormously. For the small minority of people who follow political life intensely, he is undoubtably an intellectual heavyweight. His pragmatic, forensic opposition to the Iraq war showed his qualities in the best light. But will a 64 year-old grandee, who seems far more suited to Westminster than "Chat Show Charlie", be able to communicate a simple message in the way Kennedy could? I doubt it. Critics in the Westminster bubble loved to mock Kennedy for appearing in Eastenders and Have I Got News For You, but poll after poll showed the public liked and trusted him. In 2001, against a backdrop of the main two parties promising better public services alongside no increase in tax or even tax cuts, Kennedy's honesty seemed refreshing. And when cool judgement was most required over Iraq, Charlie played an absolute blinder. Sure he looked lightweight at PMQs, but I wonder if it cost him a single vote.
Campbell will do very well to match these achievements, and the best they can hope for is to consolidate, weather the Cameroon honeymoon period before handing over in 5 years to one of the up and coming stars like Nick Clegg or Chris Huhne. The crucial issue is where Campbell positions the party in terms of domestic policy, as foreign policy is unlikely to ever be as electorally salient as in 2005. The strong hints are that the party will ditch its commitment to an increased 50% tax band for people earning over 100K. Some of the more radical MPs have even flirted with the neo-conservative wet dream of a flat tax rate. Quite who this is aimed at pleasing is beyond me. I just can't envisage a future scenario where people who desire such a system vote anything other than Tory. For all the talk of occupying the hallowed 'centre-ground', the third party must be distinctive or it will be crushed.
Far better in my view to go with the leftish Simon Hughes. As one of an increasingly small band of MPs who have some experience of working life outside Westminster and big business - Hughes was a cab driver before winning the Labour stronghold of Bermondsey in 1982 - he has the common touch that eludes so many politicians. As well as holding that seat for 23 years (no mean feat for a Liberal in such a socially conservative, working class area), this fluent media performer is well used to winning over TV audiences with his simple liberal, social democratic message. I only hope the party membership picks Hughes or political choice in Britain will be even more narrow than it is already.
posted by Paul Krishnamurty at 9:56 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home