Having prepared for it for several years, politicians in the UK still enter the general election unsure of the mood of the people, writes MARK HENNESSY, London Editor
EVERY ELECTION has its eponymous voters, the ones that best represent the will of a nation. In Election 2010 in the UK, that distinction may be held by the tens of thousands who use a train line that runs between Bedford and Brighton.
Known as “Thameslink”, the line traverses many of the constituencies that fell to Labour in 1997 under Tony Blair and which must now be secured by Conservative leader, David Cameron, if he is take command of No 10 Downing Street.
On that May night, which has gained a mythology since but which was marked by a sharp fall in turnout, constituencies along this line were taken by Labour that had always, or practically always, been Tory blue.
By 2005, in contrast, Labour received 36.2 per cent of the vote in England, Scotland and Wales, the lowest ever for a winning party and, not surprisingly, the lowest-ever share of the population as a whole, 22.5 per cent.
Some of the Thameslink constituencies have gone back to blue since 1997, but many of the 16 of the 24 ‘super-marginal’ seats on May 6th, where the Conservatives lay in second place behind Labour, are on its route.
On May 6th, Cameron must also win most of 40 other seats in serious contention elsewhere, many in the West Midlands, and even if success is achieved there, he would still be well short of the 116 extra seats he needs for a majority of one.
For some in Thameslink land, the recession has hit hard. City professionals have seen jobs disappear – or, if not, bonuses wither – while the less prosperous struggle more than they had to do so.
For others, it has been, so far, relatively painless. Job losses have not been as bad as during the recessions of the 1980s and the 1990s, while low mortgage interest rates have left some of those in work better off.
Cameron faces a major hurdle, needing a lead in the popular vote of between seven and 10 points just to get a majority of one in the House of Commons, depending on which pollster one reads.
Even in 2005, Labour won a comfortable majority with just a three-point lead, but Labour seats traditionally have fewer voters, and a lower turnout, so it has always managed to squeeze the last ounce out of every vote.
Boundary changes since 2005 have reduced this in-built bias in favour of Labour, but not eradicated it; while no-one knows whether the tactical voting that existed in recent elections against Tory candidates will be repeated.
Last September, the Labour party gathered in Brighton at the end of the Thameslink line in mournful mood, with an unpopular leader, and fretful that British voters were ready to take revenge.
Just weeks later, a recovery of sorts began. The Conservatives, having spent years trying to bury their past as “the nasty party” – reignited old fears that public services would be crucified under their control. In October, shadow chancellor George Osborne warned that an age of austerity loomed.
Labour, having spent months trying to present a bogus “Labour investment versus Tory cuts” argument, were able to move on to surer ground.
Certainly, cuts will have to be made, said Brown and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Alistair Darling, but they can, they said, be done sensitively, protecting the weakest. That will not be the case, but it will do for now.
Since then, the British economy has moved from recession to anaemic growth to a point where, as the Organisation of Economic Co-Operation and Development said, it could have the best growth, bar one, of the seven wealthiest nations in the months ahead.
Such findings are manna from heaven for Brown, buttressing his claims to have led the UK through dangerous waters and his pleas to voters not to change captains while squalls continue.
THIS WEEK’S SPAT between Labour and business leaders over a National Insurance increase from next April was worsened unnecessarily by Brown and Peter Mandelson’s charge that the businessmen had been “deceived’.
Titans of industry rarely accept such a dressing-down, and they did not. On Thursday, Stuart Rose, the chairman of Marks and Spencer, harrumphed on Radio 4’s Today programme on Thursday that such a charge was an “insult”.
The row damages Labour’s carefully-crafted wooing of business since long before 1997, though the political fall-out is still impossible to gauge. In some circumstances, a row with business may suit Labour.
For now, the Conservatives are cock-a-hoop, believing that they have taken the high ground on the economy – but Labour is urgently trying to turn the argument back to the credibility of the Tories’ cuts plans.
However, all Labour MPs are nervous, and some are resigned, as they showed on Wednesday during Prime Minister’s Questions, when they mostly sat mute in the face of taunts from Conservatives.
Labour canvassers insist that the mood has changed on the doorsteps, that the UK’s five million public servants know, as one said, that they “have skin in this game: if the Tories win, some of them will lose their jobs”.
Certainly, public servants are disgruntled. In Liverpool this week, the National Union of Teachers gave outspoken Public and Commercial Services (PCS) union leader, Mark Serwotka, a standing ovation when he railed at politicians, and not just the Conservatives.
Having chanted “the workers, united, will never be defeated”, delegates agreed to oppose declarations by all the parties to curb public spending, or worse, once the ballot boxes have gone back into storage.
Despite reservations about Labour, public servants may have little choice but to vote for Brown, for fear of something worse. If they do so, along with those working for private companies who supply the public sector, Labour seats could be saved.
In the opening days of the campaign, the economy has dominated, and though it will be overshadowed at times during the long month ahead, it will remain the key issue.
Intellectually, the British electorate fully understands that a budget deficit of £166 billion this year, and a near-trillion pound national debt in total is not sustainable indefinitely.
However, as everywhere else, the voters, as they showed when Osborne offered a taster menu in Manchester last October, want the next guy to be the one to suffer: the rich, public servants. Anyone, just not them.
While Labour points to the growth predictions as evidence that it has been right, the same figures can be used by the Conservatives to justify its belief that action must start this year, and quickly – and not next year and more slowly, as Labour argue.
Nevertheless, the innards of the latest crop of statistics support Labour’s view: purchases by companies, which slowed at the worst of the crisis, are still only slowly budding back into life.
In truth, the British public is faced with two main choices, neither of which it likes: Brown, who is seen as dour and scheming, and Cameron, who has not acquired the gravitas necessary to make him the guaranteed heir.
Equally, the public’s judgment about the MPs’ scandal, and the subsequent one where outgoing ministers were seen to tout for lobbying business, is difficult to predict. Many of the sinners have left the stage, afraid of, or barred from, running again.
In most societies, such a scene would see voters drift to smaller parties. However, the first-past-the-post voting system militates against, but does not entirely remove, the chances of a vote being cast in such a way that it would influence the final outcome.
MEANWHILE, THE TREND, slow but perceptible, is away from Labour and the Conservatives. In 1951, the two captured practically everything between them. In 2005, nearly 100 MPs came from other parties.
The presence of the Liberal Democrat leader, Nick Clegg, in the three televised leaders’ debates, beginning next week, is evidence of the fissures that have taken place, though the stakes have increased correspondingly for him, as well.
In the last Conservative victory in 1992, the Liberal Democrats won just 20 seats, while in the outgoing Commons it has 62 seats and hopes for more – if it can convince enough voters that it is a credible party of government.
In 2005, the Liberal Democrats were the main beneficiary of Labour’s decline. It won 22.6 per cent – its best total since 1987 – but lower than the 26 per cent achieved in the heady days of 1983, and its biggest tally of seats since the 1920s.
Significantly, perhaps, it gained 12 seats from Labour, with no losses, but against the Conservatives it gained three seats and lost five. Indeed, their worst performance came in seats being defended against a Tory challenger.
Cameron is bound to take some Lib Dem scalps, but not nearly enough for his purposes. Instead, most of the victories will have to come from Labour. Even then, however, he will struggle.
The key for Cameron will be the marginal seats – the 150 seats, bar some surprises, that are genuinely in play now, and the Conservatives have invested much in the exercise, part of it paid for by the billionaire Lord Michael Ashcroft.
In Staffordshire, for example, candidate Karen Bradley, a local woman, has been working on the ground for four years, as have many of her counterparts elsewhere. Such preparations must produce fruit on election night.
The foundation of Tony Blair’s first victory and Labour’s extraordinary defence of all but eight of those 146 gains in the election four years later was its successful targeting of marginal seats.
In 2001, Labour’s vote fell 4.2 per cent in its safe seats – a percentage that the party could easily afford to lose, but in the marginals its support fell by just 0.3 per cent – leaving candidates with enough to hold on.
Four years later, Labour’s share fell a further 7.5 per cent in its safe seats, but it also fell 6.7 per cent in the marginals – a fall that would have been disastrous, except for the fact that only 1.1 per cent of the lost vote went to the Tories.
