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.
23 Responses to “Vote 2010: An election reflection”
Charlie Beckett
Will Straw says #GE10 campaign was about process not policy – I disagree – see my comment to his blog http://is.gd/bX2vg
Liberal Conspiracy » Majority Government – or tabloid rule?
[…] Rebuilding a sustainable economy and the public finances and reforming our politics is hard and responsible work, and we need everyone […]
Charlie Beckett
Dear Will,
You say that “Sadly the election campaign has focused more on process than policy, more on style than substance”. Where’s your evidence? I just don’t believe this is true. There has been more policy information and discussion than ever before, partly thanks to the Internet. It may not go down to the mind-numbing detail you might like (although a lot of it does) but to say that real issues have not been picked over is simply not true – compared to previous elections. Look at the growth of Fact Check services, look at the constant critical oversight of social media, look at blogs and websites like your own. And then consider whether people should actually make their mind up on character, values and vision rather than just policy.
cheers
Charlie Beckett
(Polis/LSE)
Confused of Croydon
In terms of the parties’ vote share, this will not be the “closest election in a generation”. Unless the polls are very wrong, it will be more decisive than the last one- i.e. the Tories will win by more than Labour won by last time. It’s only the pro-Labour bias of the voting system that means that it may be close in terms of seats.
In one sense, that suits me as I vote Labour. But it still makes me feel rather queasy as a democrat.
Fat Bloke on Tour
Anon …
Given the range of jobs that your extended family is involved in I fear you are about as worldly wise as Chicken Licken when he met Foxy Loxy.
Regarding your range of opinions, well the only thing consistent with them is their inconsistency. TB, do you like him or not?
Regarding GB, he is poor politician and in this election he has been both unlucky and ill served by a progressive media that has decided to be loyal to their class and not their principles. The editor and management of the Guardian should hang their heads in shame regarding their coverage and their constant desire to make GB pay for TB’s mistakes.
In your comments regarding GB where you seem to bundle him up with all the professional politicians that now inhabit all three parties is interesting as I would expect someone of your proclaimed background to know a little bit more about GB than you seem to do. Anyone who comes into parliamentary politics supporting Michael Foot in 1983 is not in it for the easy ride to a seat in a government limo.
That then is GB, what about the alternative? The only question for me about Dave The Rave, will he be as two faced as “W” or as ineffectual as Grocer Heath? He is an accident waiting to happen, a political soufflé who has made the most of the intellectual train wreck of the post Major Tory party. He has made the most of his limited abilities aided and abetted by a pliant and subservient media. If you can’t see that then you either weren’t looking or you don’t care as it suits your current worldview?
GB’s lack of luck is encapsulated in the Mrs Duffy incident, horrible remarks but done up like a kipper by a scavenging press pack. On this issue though, I am Spartacus, I have been in his situation and have made some choice comments after the event but who cares about a no-hoper council candidate in Sunny South Essex. You are naive to the point of incredulity if you think others in politics have not expressed similar sentiments on a daily basis.
Mrs Duffy is important in this election because she highlights the duplicity of a lot of voters. She has taken from the welfare state but doesn’t like giving something back especially to people she thinks don’t deserve it. She and others like her want to have their cake and eat it.
She talks about the deficit followed up by a shopping list of extra spending she would like and then finishes off with another gripe about the deficit. All this and for good measure a few cheap jibes about East Europeans flocking to her area. Surely an attitude like that deserves comment not agreement.
Finally by all means take the view you seem to have but please don’t try and salve your conscience by suggesting it is the Labour Party that has moved away from you, you have moved away from the Labour party and the cause of progressive politics in the UK.
Society may not owe you anything but you owe it to society to make sure the opportunities that were open to you are available to others.
It is not too late, you have 3 hours to save the recovery.
Keep the Faith Brothers — Don’t let the dog boilers win.