The general election of 2010 is the closest in a generation. Left Foot Forward sets out its reflections on a most extraordinary election campaign.
Left Foot Forward will be updating the website today with films from the campaign trail in London. And please join us from 10pm for our liveblog of election night.
The general election of 2010 is the closest in a generation. If UK Polling Report’s poll of polls is correct, we’re heading for a hung parliament with no clear winner. Unlike four in 10 British voters, we expect that most of our readers will know how they’re voting this morning. But since there’s little point bringing you a newspaper review on a day that the news stops and the country votes, we thought you might like to know our reflections on the election campaign.
Britain is emerging from an economic crisis, may well wake up tomorrow in a constitutional crisis, and will face an environmental crisis unless swift action is taken. Sadly the election campaign has focused more on process than policy, more on style than substance, and more on fears than hopes for the future. Some of this has been inevitable. The bankruptcy of the electoral system and tightness of the race has necessitated speculation about what would happen in a hung parliament as well as strategies for tactical voting. The three TV debates have encouraged endless slow motion replays of hand gestures and gaffes. But both main parties have been guilty for running negative campaigns.
Labour’s campaign has shown moments of inspiration such as Gordon Brown’s speech to Citizens UK and Eddie Izzard’s “Brilliant Britain” video but much of the last month has focused on the legitimate (but negative) fears of what a Tory government would do. Labour has largely failed to defend its record or paint a positive vision of the future, despite excellent material in its largely progressive manifesto. That said, the Tories have been far worse. Their description of “Broken Britain” was torn apart earlier this year by The Economist but they continue to peddle lies and half truths about violent crime, Labour’s poverty record, youth unemployment, and comparisons with Greece’s public finances. The fears stoked about the risk of a hung parliament have been dubbed “irresponsible” by the normally favourable Institute of Directors. Worst of all they have been complicit in the disgraceful Murdoch-inspired right-wing attacks on Nick Clegg, which may well backfire. Their vacuous idea of a “Big Society” has done little to offset the negativity. Meanwhile, the Liberal Democrats have brought a breath of fresh air to the election and they deserve to increase their share of the vote. We have supported their approach to Trident and climate change. But much of their policy – particularly on tax, banking reform, and immigration – requires further scrutiny.
On policy, the economy should have been the big issue of the election with questions answered about how Britain will grow in the future, where jobs will come from, how the fiscal consolidation will be achieved, and how another banking crisis will be prevented. None of the parties have risen to this challenge. The debate has been largely devoid of any focus on a green new deal or other strategies to bolster Britain’s industries of the future. Although Labour deserves much praise for its Future Jobs Fund, which the Tories oppose, a wider discussion of unemployment has been noticeably absent during this campaign. As widely reported, the three parties have left more unsaid than said on the fiscal deficit leaving voters largely in the dark on where the axe will fall. Finally, only the Liberal Democrats have set out a radical vision for banking reform, but their policies still fall short of what is needed.
Instead of an intelligent debate about the economy, immigration has become the surprise issue of the election. It has been a concern for at least one-in-three voters for some time and was the only issue raised in each of the three leaders’ debates. Labour is deeply unpopular on the issue and spent much of its time in office with its head in the sand. “Bigot-gate” hardly helped. Nonetheless, its policies are the most coherent and all three parties accept Labour’s building blocks including free movement within the EU; a points-based system for work and study; and a much improved (if not perfect) asylum system. The Conservatives, by contrast, have failed to clarify details of their proposed immigration cap and the numbers don’t stack up. The Liberal Democrats’ proposed amnesty for illegal immigrations is a brave policy and has been well received by progressives but questions remain about how it would work in practice while their regional points-based system won’t provide a real solution.
On the environment, the Liberal Democrats clearly “get” the importance of tackling climate change and Labour has set out its own green appeal. The Tories, meanwhile, refuse to back up their positive rhetoric: their candidates reject onshore wind development, won’t pledge action to cut greenhouse emissions, many question whether climate change is man made, and they rank the issue bottom of a list of 19. Their frontbenchers cannot explain the party’s climate scepticism and it is little wonder when they are planning to open up offshore drilling. There is a similar story on constitutional reform. Labour and Lib Dems are both committed to reform of the electoral system and House of Lords, two of five key public demands. But the Tories have blocked removal of hereditary peers and ruled out changes to the electoral system.
Britain’s needs are clear: an approach to deficit reduction that protects the most vulnerable, a renewed focus on reducing carbon emissions, and a constitutional settlement involving meaningful electoral reform. The risk to Britain of a Conservative victory could not be clearer. Although it has run a lacklustre campaign and will need a new approach to its politics, Labour is still top on policy. But with virtually no chance of an outright Labour majority, the only hope for a progressive future is a hung parliament and a Lib-Lab coalition. Getting there is not straightforward. Unless you live in a Lib Dem – Conservative marginal, a vote for the Lib Dems will be largely wasted. The Lib Dems cannot win in 70 per cent of the Tories’ target seats and taking seats from Labour means less chance of a progressive future, not more.
In the midst of all this uncertainty one thing is abundantly clear: whatever you do today, vote. And make sure that your claim on the future enables real progress, rather than a back door route for Mr Cameron to enter No. 10.
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
23 Responses to “Vote 2010: An election reflection”
Samantha Frost
RT @leftfootfwd: Whatever you do today, vote. @leftfootfwd reflects on an extraordinary election campaign http://bit.ly/aepxYM
Fat Bloke on Tour
Anon …
I would suggest that you are not an ex-labour voter, you are a Blairite glory hunter out looking for another bandwagon to follow.
Your admiration for “business”, is one I don’t share, M+S pays £15mill for a new CEO to allow the chairman more time to build up his outside interests and that is good business, a £10mill bill for higher NI charges and the future of middle class knickers retailing is in grave danger?
I really do think not, hidden agendas at play.
Therefore your emphasis on the NI changes in 2011 suggest that you are neither progressive, understand economics or you are dog boiling wind up merchant. We are currently suffering from a lack of demand not high taxation.
GB / AD have kept the Credit Crunch in check with a little fiscal stimulus and a lot of the in built stabilisers of the tax and benefit system. The GDP fall in this recession has been higher than Thatch-1 in 1980/81 yet the effects have been much reduced and we look to be making progress to rebuild and re-balance the economy.
Consequently to parrot the CBI line about the NI changes suggests that you are not very progressive and are easily swayed by new economic orthodoxy of dog boiling.
Thatch1 — 4.7% drop in GDP — longer view has it at nearer 6% — North Sea Oil money comes on flow big time — 2 years in, riots on the streets — affects UK worse than any other major industrial nation.
Credit Crunch — 6.2% drop in GDP — Very steep decline — Banks in meltdown, sector needs government money to survive — Half way through, things picking up — Too early to tell how the UK has fared compared to the rest of the world, some aspects good, some bad.
We have to grow the economy out of the downturn, thrifting / cutting our way to salvation will not work. State spending needs to slow down / stagnate and it needs to be re-prioritised. The main thing has to be that we do not slip back into another bout of recession.
We are half way there, low pound — import substitution / export led growth — 5 years of hard slog will see us right.
Dave the Rave suggests we cut early, we cut often and we keep on cutting till the poor have paid for the bank’s profligacy — Aye right as they say in G1.
His £6bill of current year efficiency savings is pure political spite, the figure is a made up sham to cover his complete lack of understanding of the crisis itself and the best way to get us out of it.
It fails at the most basic level, is the figure net or gross?
Net figure and you will need to take £10-12bill out of state spending.
If it is gross then the real savings will not cover the amount needed to stop the NI changes in April 2011.
Why the difference, cut state spending and taxes receipts will go down, benefit spending will go up and public services will decline.
It is the reverse multiplier effect in action, in a hospital or school near you.
Specifics include £2bill removed from the public sector wage bill will mean an increase in unemployment of at least 60K.
The £2bill of contract negotiation savings is all wishful thinking and the £2bill cit in discretionary spending will hurt the economy and public services.
Consequently an NI rise will hurt and it will take 2 months of employment growth out the economy, 23K jobs delayed according to Dave the Rave’s numbers man when he was free to write the truth.
However in all of this timing is everything, April 2011 should see the recovery underway and jobs being created in meaningful numbers, May / June 2010 with Greece in meltdown and the EU under pressure is not the time to “fire up the chainsaw lets slash and burn”.
Be very wary of the new rabid right wing mentalist, economic orthodoxy as spouted by the Tories and the media, the deficit is important but it is a symptom of the state we are in not the cause.
THE current public sector deficit is a mirror image of the current private sector surplus.
2008 — State was the lender of last resort.
2009 — State was the spender of last resort.
Consequently Have Faith Brothers — 11 hours to save the recovery.
We do not live in the country of the blind — the dog boilers will not win.
And we do not live in the country of blind self interest.
For the record — what is a dog boiler?
A dog boiler is a member of the upper middle class establishment or one of their media / gullible fellow travellers who if asked, would rather have the poor and the unemployed consume their family pet for sustenance than have the state offer a decent level of support in economically troubled times.
Viewpoint was very popular in the Great Depression and has been revived by a desperate Tory Party all at see after the complete failure of Casino Capitalism and its hedge fund equivalent, Coin Clipping.
Vote 2010: An election reflection « The best Labour blogs
[…] More… […]
Laura Dagg
RT @leftfootfwd: Whatever you do today, vote. @leftfootfwd reflects on an extraordinary election campaign http://bit.ly/aepxYM
Anon E Mouse
Fat Bloke on Tour – Wow.
OK – my whole family have been lifelong Labour voters, grandfather a Labour councillor, missus a social worker – every member is in public service except myself but I am ex armed forces and have done my bit.
Yes I liked Blair – he was a winner and clearly Brown is not. I went off Labour when they tried to force a woman into Peter Law’s old stomping ground – luckily the people wouldn’t put up with that and rightly so.
Your tribal socialist loyalty must have suffered a blow when you discovered Brown scrapped the 10p tax and all the other things I presume you thought the disgraceful removal of Blair would achieve.
Unlucky dude. It’s over.
The fact is Labour MP’s lied to the electorate, stole our money and deceived us with as much spin as any other party but they claimed they were acting on behalf of the weak and poor. This lot are not the Labour Party my dad delivered leaflets for in the 70’s.
Anthony Charles Linton Blair with his privileged upbringing and John Major from a council flat in Peckham. You don’t see the irony there?
On the financial front Darling told us he had identified £14 billion of *waste* – waste and he doesn’t want to cut it yet? Waste not cut and what happened to the PBR?
And the taxes on fuel using the smokescreen of climate change nonsense to impose it whilst approving a third runway at Heathrow. You don’t see the hypocrisy in that?
I’ll stop now, could go on all day on boom and bust, gold reserves and on and on…
Finally you confuse the economy (which is basically generated exclusively by the private sector who employ people to generate taxes) and the public sector which is all big socialist drivel and needs rapid culling.
A Guardian job:- “five-a-day outreach coordinator” what the f*#k is that? Do you really believe the planet would stop spinning if that job didn’t exist?
And by the way if the banks shares had collapsed they would have just been bought by larger banks it’s (normally) the way it works and please don’t give me this “I saved the world” stuff… it’s over. good.