Right To Reply #5: Election Special

(If you’re wondering what this is all about, click here.)

The participants:
Ben - your host
The Girl of Girl With A One Track Mind
Jez - likes Stereolab, dislikes Margaret Thatcher
Jonathan of Assistant
Jonny B of Jonny B’s Private Secret Diary
LMT of Between The City And The Deep Blue Sea
Lol - likes the high seas, dislikes last orders
Mike of Troubled Diva
Paul of 1000 Shades Of Grey
Pete of The Whole Wide World Of Fat Buddha
Phill of Danger! High Postage

Part Five: The result

If Labour were to be re-elected, what would that mean? A positive vote in their favour or simply a reflection of the weakness of the other parties?

Jonny B: Actually, I think it'd be a positive vote in their favour, for all my talk about negative reactions to the party leaders. People have so many easy reasons NOT to vote Labour – Iraq, Tony Blair, weaselly broken promises, cronyism etc. So if they are comfortable and positive enough in their environment to push these aside, you have to regard it as a vote of confidence in the Government's general performance.

The Girl: I am sure Labour will be re-elected. Not because they are the "best" party, but because they are the least worst.

Mike: I think there's still a large anything-but-the-Tories, lesser-of-all-the-evils factor. I sense an overriding sense of lethargy and complacency hanging over this election. A Labour win would therefore mean very little, "historic" third term or not. Merely a continuation of business as usual.

Jonathan: It would probably mean four more years of disappointment, let's face it, and four more years of small, creeping improvements in issues like childcare, education, and health. It wouldn't be a disaster, nor a victory. It's a fairly sad indictment, I suppose, on the limitations on our collective ambitions. What we're basically saying is "there's just you, and you let us down, but there's just you".

Ben: Depressingly, I think Labour will triumph in spite of their actions and decisions over the past four years rather than because of them, for the simple reason that they're still perceived as more capable of governing effectively and (eventually) getting things right than their rivals. A Labour victory would, for me, say next to nothing about them but speak volumes about the deficiencies of the other parties, as well as the increasingly cynical and negative voting strategies of the electorate. Even The Sun admitted as much in their remarkably lukewarm endorsement of Labour: "The Sun urges Britain to vote for Tony Blair and Gordon Brown for two reasons: standing firm on Iraq and the lack of a real alternative".

The Girl: The political lines between the parties are now very slim: they are all right wing. For example, a normal Labour-voting member of the public who believes in the Welfare State, free education for all and is opposed to fighting imperialistic wars (typical "Old Labour" policies), by voting for Labour now, it has much larger implications for them, than it has done in the past. When Labour won in 1997, it was largely as a result of 18 years of Conservative rule, and the voters wanting a change in government, rather than the populus supporting Tony Blair and his right wing policies.

Paul: [Labour will] treat it as a ringing endorsement of everything they are doing (even if their majority shrinks). However I believe it is more a result of the fact that nobody offers a credible alternative and voters tend to adopt a "better the devil you know" approach (just ask John Kerry).

Phill: The present Government does not in fact have a democratic mandate. The "first past the post" system means that it only has 40% support from voters and 24% support from the electorate. So effectively Labour have the support of less than a quarter of adults in the UK. If they were re-elected, in my eyes it would indicate a poverty of ideas in mainstream British politcs and the current mainstream political system. Labour have better PR and marketing, they are the ultimate modern political party - sleek, polished, efficient, soulless and completely lacking in principles.

Paul: The best result could well be a narrow Labour majority which forces them to listen to the backbenchers if they want to pass anything controversial. At least then some of the old Labour diehards could ensure that some of their old values remain at the core of the party rather than being bypassed by Tony and his cronies.

Lol: [It] very much depends on the scale of any re-election. A large Labour mandate would be used as a positive endorsement of their politics and the weakness of the opposition. A much reduced majority would be seen as a rebuttal of some policies (Iraq etc) and the resurgence of opposition. This is my stab at how the election will be assessed: majority < 60 = resurgent opposition, Blair susceptible to early leadership challenge; > 60 but < 100 = good working majority but disaffection with Iraq; 100 = Blair will complete full third term, business as usual, Tories in another leadership crisis (they couldn’t have a 68-year-old Michael Howard at the next election).

The Girl: If (or when) Labour get in this time, the low voter turnout and protest voting will highlight this: people still want change. Not only in WHO is in power, but HOW they are in power too. If this election changes anything, I hope that it will be a wake-up call for the Labour party, a change in leadership, and, more importantly, a change in the way British Government governs. Well, one can hope...

Jez: More importantly, as the result is a foregone conclusion, is how will the other parties fare in the election and how will the political landscape change? Will Iraq turn voters towards the Lib Dems? Will UKIP split the Tory vote? Will natural Tory voters drift back towards the party’s newer hardline stance? Will the Tories implode leaving the Lib Dems as the opposition? Will the Lib Dems form a coalition government? These questions could cause the psephologists a night with even less sleep than Charles Kennedy.

A big thanks to The Girl, Jez, Jonathan, Jonny B, LMT, Lol, Mike, Paul, Pete and Phill for their contributions over the course of the week, which have helped to make what has been a fascinating feature (at least for me - I hope it was for you too). Thanks also to those who have joined in the debate in the comments boxes.

Right To Reply will be back some time in the not-too-distant future. The subject matter is as yet undecided, but if you'd like to take part or have any ideas for what might make for a good topic then please do get in touch.