|
In his analysis James Debono wonders whether British voters had Gordon Brown in mind as their next Prime Minister when they re-elected Blair for his third consecutive term
Tony Blair’s name will be go down in history as the first and only Labour leader to have won three elections in a row.
Ironically he will also go down in history as the Prime Minister who gained the lowest share of the vote for a ruling party in modern times. Only 36 per cent of those who bothered to turn up to vote chose Blair as their Prime Minister and this means 64 per cent have voted for opposition parties.
It is also clear that Labour have won this election in spite and not because of Tony Blair.
Blair’s charm and charisma were an integral part of New Labour’s winning strategy in 1997 and 2001. Back then Blair’s smile, was his greatest political asset. In these elections it become a liability, an external mark of internal vanity, the mark of a dissembler who can smile, and smile and be a villain. Wiping the smile off Blair’s face was the unofficial slogan of the Tory campaign. Yet the antipathy generated by Blair was not enough for British voters to lose the baby with the bath water. And in this case the economy was the baby and Tony Blair the bath water.
Contacted by MaltaToday former British journalist Wylie Cunningham said: “British voters disliked Blair, but they did not dislike him enough to get rid of him.”
Gordon Brown’s prominent role in this election was interpreted by political observers as one of a leader in waiting.
Although Brown is firmly anchored in the new Labour frame of mind he manages to appeal to the more socialist wing of his party by giving priority to public services, employment, childcare and welfare.
Cunningham describes Brown as an experienced career politician with roots in the more leftwing Scottish Labour Party. Yet he also notes that Brown was very much involved in the creation of New Labour.
Maltese Labour MP Leo Brincat expects Brown to take over in midterm. That would mean that Labour’s agenda in the coming years will be decidedly more “social democratic”.
Leo Brincat welcomes the result because a third consecutive landslide would have perpetuated “an arrogant streak in Labour.”
“Bearing in mind that there are more than fifty anti Blair Labour MPs Blair will have greater difficulty in pushing controversial legislation,” notes Brincat. Most probably this will also act as a brake on his adventurism in international affairs.
Blair has already committed himself on this being his last term. According to Cunningham “if things go according to schedule the succession will take place in 2007. Yet Blair might find dealing with the 50 odd rebel Labour MPs frustrating especially in a restricted government majority. “This could result in an early exit for Blair.”
Yet by winning in spite of him, New Labour has shown that it no longer depends on Blair’s charisma. It has become a dynamic hegemonic force in British society.
By moving towards the political centre and appealing to the middle ground, New Labour has found itself outflanked by the Liberal Democrats and smaller experiments on its left.
George Galloway’s success in getting elected in a safe Labour constituency is evidence of the unease felt by many Labour voters.
But Blair’s drift to the centre has left little space for manoeuvre for the Tories.
Michael Howard was simply not enough of a credible alternative to unseat a Labour government, which was delivering. “The major theme of this election was that British voters have gone for continuity in policies.”
Howard was caught between those in his party calling for radical tax cuts and those who did not want to alarm voters concerned that tax cuts would erode public services. In the absence of an alternative fiscal project, Howard ended up basing his campaign on fear and negative campaigning.
After the election results Howard did the honourable thing and announced that he will soon step down as party leader.
Cunningham observes that British electors were very wary of having the Conservatives back in power.
“They were in power for a long time under Thatcher and Major and they have not found a suitable leader since then.”
Luckily for the Tories one issue which did not raise its head in this election was Europe.
“Yet Europe could become an issue again in Britain because of the forthcoming referendum on the EU Constitution. In such a scenario the Conservatives led by a new leader will sooner or later have to make up their mind on Europe.”
While failing to increase their national percentage of the vote the Conservative strategy to target marginal seats paid off.
The Conservatives have managed to win 33 more seats than in 2001 in spite of the fact that they increased their overall popularity by a mere 1 per cent.
Although there was a far greater shift from Labour to the Liberal Democrats the Liberals only won 11 seats more than in 2001.
The results of this election highlight the grotesque nature of the British electoral system. With just 36 per cent of the vote Blair will go down in history as the Prime Minister elected with the least number of votes in recent UK history.
On the other hand with nearly 23 per cent of the votes the Liberal Democrats have gained a record of 62 seats.
Had the UK had a proportional system of representation like the rest of Europe, the Liberals would have ended up with around 150 seats. This would have made them a vital component of a ruling coalition.
jdebono@newsworksltd.com
|
