IT TAKES TWO

Talk about false dawns. Those invigorating in-between times – those by-elections and local elections and European elections – always fool us into believing they’re the harbingers of political earthquakes rocking the foundations of the two major parties; and yet, the real threat to the red and blue corners’ century-old monopoly of power, if it comes at all, tends to come from within rather than without. The Labour and Conservative Parties are more than capable of destroying themselves without any assistance from outsiders. Give them the exclusive right to elect their respective leaders and look what happens. Having said that, however, their joint ability to overcome these internal disasters is either a tribute to their admirable capacity for survival or a damning indictment of not only the other parties snapping at their heels, but the first-past-the-post system – and possibly even the electorate itself.

Two and-a-half years ago, pre-General Election talk was of the death of two-party politics; come polling day, the nation chose to give Labour and the Tories the biggest share of the vote they’d had since 1970. This time round, pre-General Election talk was of the death of two-party politics; and now, just days away from polling day, all focus has shifted back to the usual suspects. The first half of this year was dominated by the formation of TIG and the overnight Euro success of the Brexit Party, yet as we approach its end all talk of a major break with the old politics seems as deluded as putting money on an unlikely club winning the Premier League simply because they topped the table after the opening weekend of fixtures. Regardless of unrealisable spending plans, anti-Semitism or born-to-rule arrogance, like the Old Firm poised to do battle in today’s Scottish League Cup Final, it’s the same teams playing for the trophy once more, with everyone else relegated back to making up the numbers.

Naturally, nobody was expecting anyone other than Boris or Jezza as PM from the kick-off; but perhaps the unique, if unenlightening, head-to-heads the pair have taken part in on TV have served to remind voters that when it comes to deciding who runs the country there’s only ever a choice between two – even if the two on offer are the worst two in living memory. The quick-fire format of those debates doesn’t promise much more than the enticing prospect of a heated argument to make for good television, anyway; even if the electorate had faith in either man, it’s doubtful watching such a programme would make up the mind of a floating voter. Viewers come away remembering Jezza’s wonky glasses or the laughter greeting Boris’s theories on trust in politics – whereas ‘the message’ is lost somewhere along the way, buried beneath instantly forgettable catch-phrases and vapid sound-bites.

Lest we forget, one issue continues to dominate discourse, and I suspect without it the Tories would be toast, even up against such an unpopular opposition; the Brexit factor will save their skin, for when Leavers look around and are confronted by wall-to-wall Remainers, there’s only one party that can (in theory) ‘get Brexit done’ – and that won’t be Nigel’s barmy army, something even he acknowledged when announcing his decision to pull out of several seats where his party’s presence could split the vote. On the eve of the campaign, the Leave/Remain votes appeared to be spread evenly, yet the defection of four prominent (ish) Brexit MEPs to the Tory cause last week suggests most Leave voters will probably back Boris; similarly, the Remainers now seem to be favouring Labour more than the early frontrunners for the pro-EU vote, the Lib Dems. And so, the traditional equilibrium is restored just in time for polling day.

Outside of General Elections, it’s as if the electorate are a philandering husband who repeatedly tells his Lib Dem and Brexit Party bits-on-the-side he loves them and will definitely leave his wife for them; then, as soon as a General Election is called and the reality of the gamble hits, he heads back home to the familiar certainty of the marital bed. Characteristically overconfident, premature bravado on the part of Jo Swinson having now been quietly swept under a carpet once belonging to David Steel, the Lib Dems have slipped back to recognising their realistic place in the scheme of things; as with both the SNP and DUP, they can cling to the possibility their presence might count for something in the event of a Hung Parliament; but that’s the best they can hope for.

If the smaller parties serve any purpose beyond their own interests, one could say they exist to give the big two a rejuvenating kick up the arse; any by-election drift away is swiftly addressed as the factors that tempted previously loyal voters to look elsewhere are absorbed into the Labour and Tory machines, luring the faithful back home. It happened way back in the early 60s, most dramatically at the Orpington By-Election of 1962; the appeal of Eric Lubbock and the Liberal Party to the red-brick graduates was noted by Harold Wilson when he took charge of the Labour Party a year later, wooing the Liberal voters by presenting Labour as the only modern, dynamic alternative to the Conservatives – and the only party capable of ousting them from office. And what did the Tories do when the likelihood of haemorrhaging votes to Farage on the biggest stage of all threatened to scupper their chances of victory? They allowed the ERG wing to take control and Boris purged the party of dissenting voices, thus presenting themselves as the ‘real’ Brexit Party come this Thursday.

Corbyn’s cabal have taken a similar path by forcing moderates out of the Labour Party and ensuring all new recruits are loyal to the leader’s vision, though Labour don’t have a Brexit-like issue that will attract the floaters, regardless of how much everyone professes to love the NHS. The big two are now controlled by what used to be their respective lunatic fringes – and if it wasn’t for the good fortune of all the other parties promoting the Remain cause, the Tories would be as buggered as the opposition. But what of those who voted for Tony Blair in 1997, 2001 and 2005 – or even David Cameron in 2010? Where do they go now? Even the traditional welcoming harbour for voters lost at sea – the Lib Dems – have undoubtedly been tarnished by having a crack at their own version of extremism; and they’ve left it too late to repair the damage and offer the usual bed-for-the-night to the politically homeless .

It’s hard to see any ‘good’ outcome to come here; whoever is declared winner on Friday or spends next weekend cobbling together a coalition, it’s nothing to look forward to. Whichever candidate receives my cross next to their name on Thursday, there’s no way I’ll be able to walk out of that polling station without feeling an overwhelming sense of shame and embarrassment having momentarily endorsed a party boasting more I vehemently disagree with than agree with. There’s no pride in 2019.

© The Editor

3 thoughts on “IT TAKES TWO

  1. Uninspiring as the TV debates may have been, older readers will only be too glad that this staged spectacle was not around earlier to demonstrate the characterless likes of Alec Douglas-Home and Clement Attlee, of the latter of whom it was once said by Churchill, “An empty taxi drew up and Clement Attlee got out”.

    It is, of course, odd that we are offered such excess coverage of those party leaders but, in our non-presidential system, we don’t get to vote for them: we only get to vote for individual local candidates, many of whom will wear those parties’ labels but some of whom disagree vehemently with the stances of their apparent leaders. If I approve of Boris but not his local candidate, how should I vote? If I rate the local Labour candidate but can’t stand the sight or policies of Corbyn, same problem. If I’m a democrat, I can’t vote Lib Dem because they evidently abhor democratic outcomes.

    In the end we may all default to the rationale adopted by my late father: vote for the one who’ll do you the least harm, because none of them will do you any good.

    As for the two-party system, that’s almost inevitable with the first-past-the-post approach but the fact that it’s been the same two parties for the best part of a century says much about their ability to adapt to the electoral zeitgeist.

    It’s no accident that the Conservative Party is considered the most successful political organisation in the world, largely because it has always been smart enough to recognise that, with one person one vote, there are never enough rich folk to keep them in power, so they need to have just enough appeal to just enough poorer folk to bridge the gap. The Labour Party too recognises that it can no longer rely upon under-educated organised labour in sweat-shop industries after those industries and their dire working conditions have expired, so they’ve shifted their appeal to different sections of the terminally distressed to feed their ballot hunger. I see no sign of either disappearing anytime soon, regardless of the accidental efforts of the ‘Boris & Jeremy Show’.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I take your point re earlier leaders being placed under a similar media spotlight – though it would undoubtedly be fascinating to witness a British Pathe debate between consummate performer Churchill and quiet man Attlee, and perhaps to speculate what impact that might have had on the outcome. Mind you, perhaps it was overexposure to Sir Winston by 1945 that helped swing it. I’ve read that TV debates were proposed as far back as the 70s, though always by the Leader of the Opposition rather than the incumbent PM; in that particular case, Harold was keen, Ted not so.

      What great words of wisdom from your old man, by the way – should be inscribed above the entrance to the Palace of Westminster.

      Like

      1. Looking even further back, I get the impression that a Gladstone v Disraeli TV debate would have had echoes of Ian Duncan Smith v Tony Blair, hardly an equal contest in performance qualities.

        My current MP is aware of my father’s wisdom and that tolerance will only apply so long as the harm-quotient remains limited.

        Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.