CAMBRIDGE LETTER
Thumbs down
BILL KIRKMAN
REUTERS
Reflecting public perception of U.K.'s politics.
ARE we on the verge of a major change in the political landscape in Britain and the United States? Having suffered during the past three weeks the usual surfeit of media coverage of the annual conferences of the U.K.'s three major political parties, I think the question is at least worth considering.
Something, certainly, was different from the norm. Each year, of course, some of the things that happen are wholly predictable. New policies are unveiled. Rumours run rife. The party leaders receive standing ovations.
The commentators have a field day in setting the scene in which these contrived occasions take place. For the party faithful they are the opportunity to meet like-minded people. For the general public they are the opportunity to make comparisons between the parties.
What was different this year was the climate of mistrust which was a major feature of the conferences of the two largest parties — Labour and the Conservatives.
At the Labour Party conference, Prime Minister Tony Blair gave one of his best performances. The Financial Times wrote of his blending "unfamiliar humility with more characteristic resolve". His leadership of the party seems safe, at least for the time being. And yet, there is widespread unease about the way he handled the Iraq crisis, unease nurtured by what has emerged from the inquiry into the death of Dr. David Kelly. In a recent opinion poll, 59 per cent of those polled thought Tony Blair lied to the nation over the Iraqi threat. In a later poll, the proportion of those thinking that Britain and the United States were wrong to invade Iraq was 47 per cent, a rise of 12 points since April.
Furthermore, after six years of a Labour government, many people are disillusioned about the state of the public services, particularly rail transport and health care.
The conditions, in short, would appear to be ideal for the main opposition party. This, however, has proved to be far from the case. The Conservative Party's conference turned out to be one of the most bad-tempered ever.
Plotting against the leader, Iain Duncan Smith, filled the columns of newspapers. IDS (as he is known) made a keynote speech of unusual nastiness, making a bitter personal attack on Tony Blair and accusing him of being a liar, and making a similarly unpleasant attack on Charles Kennedy, the Liberal Democrat leader.
None of this seemed to impress the general public. Most of the commentators were hostile. In an NOP poll for The Independent, only 53 per cent of Britons knew that IDS is leader of the Conservative Party: IDS, perhaps, as he is not known.
The Liberal Democrats, whose conference traditionally comes before the other two, had a much more positive event, buoyed up as they were by a dramatically successful by-election result a few days before.
Can we conclude from all this that the public at the next election may say "a plague on both your houses" — and if so, will the Liberal Democrats be the beneficiary? No election is due, and, famously, a week is a long time in politics. But when people demonstrate that they have little confidence in either of the main alternative parties, and when the emotions evinced by the political leaders is distaste and mistrust, it is not totally fanciful to believe that traditional political patterns may be on the way out.
Some support for this idea may be found in the election for the governorship of California. It is of course questionable whether Arnold Schwarzenegger is the best — or even a suitable — person to tackle the economic problems of America's biggest state. Virtually all of the commentators have made that point. Yet the fact is that the California electorate — foolishly perhaps, but unequivocally — chose him. Their decision to vote for someone with no political experience seems to have reflected disillusionment with experienced politicians.
In a BBC radio programme, "Any Questions", this week, the choice of Arnold Schwarzenegger was raised. One of the experienced politicians on the panel made an interesting point. It was, essentially, that if the experienced politicians are thought by the public to have made a mess of things, voters may well feel that it is time to choose someone who has been successful in another field.
They may, of course, later regret that choice. They might indeed be better served by the politically experience, however flawed. The fact is that the mood in the U.K. at the moment is negative. Politicians are not the flavour of the month.
Bill Kirkman is an Emeritus Fellow of Wolfson College Cambridge, U.K. E-mail him at
wpk1000@hotmail.com
Printer friendly
page
Send this article to Friends by
E-Mail
Magazine
