The Tribune

By PETER YOUNG

The race is finally on. Following last week’s dissolution of Parliament by The Queen, official campaigning is under way in the lead-up to a General Election in Britain on May 7. Six hundred and fifty seats at Westminster will be contested and few would dare predict the outcome of what is likely to be an exceptionally close battle.

Since the 1920s, two main parties – Conservative and Labour – have traditionally dominated British politics. But this is no longer a two-horse race. The country’s political landscape has changed dramatically so that next month’s nationwide poll has become a multi-party contest with the main players most probably losing votes to the minority parties, one or more of which is likely to hold the balance of power in a hung parliament if neither the Tories nor Labour manage to secure an overall majority.

Only the incumbent, David Cameron, or the Labour leader, Ed Miliband, can become the next prime minister. But the opinion polls suggest that neither will be the outright winner and will thus have to seek support from other parties. If this turns out to be the case, minority parties will exercise disproportionate power and influence.

The political pundits say this election is likely to be the strangest of modern times. It is, therefore, worth examining, at this early stage of campaigning, the issues and possible opportunities for co-operation.

At the last election in 2010, the Tories were expected to achieve a comfortable victory in the wake of an unpopular Labour government which had been in office since 1997. While it had run out of steam and become stale, it was also perceived to have mismanaged the economy in the aftermath of the 2008 global financial crisis.

But the Tories failed to win a majority and, rather than trying to run the country with a minority government which would have resulted in instability and continuing political uncertainty, they went into coalition with the Liberal Democrats as the next largest party. To the surprise of many, this coalition has survived throughout the last parliament despite clear policy differences on certain issues.

Now, some sort of similar arrangement is likely following next month’s election, though perhaps not involving the Liberal Democrats this time since their support has dwindled significantly to the extent that they may lose up to half of the 57 seats they won in 2010; and even their leader, Nick Clegg, is under serious threat in his own constituency in Sheffield in the north of England.

Growing support for minority parties is partly a reaction to the two main parties and the Liberal Democrats offering broadly the same policies on major issues and becoming increasingly out of touch with their own supporters, though they now differ on the need for continued austerity. There is an important difference, too, in relation to Europe in so far as the Tories are the only party committed to providing a referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union.

It seems that politicians of the main parties are now generally held in low esteem despite their power to affect people’s lives or, perhaps, because of this and their failure to do so in a positive manner. They are widely seen as being untrustworthy and out for themselves rather than the constituents whom they represent.

Even though Labour under Miliband is a centre-left party, it remains committed to certain socialist policies. Tony Blair had earlier moved the party away from its leftist roots in order to secure what turned out to be a landslide victory in 1997; and this included formally ending its adherence to Clause IV of its constitution (state ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange).

The Conservatives have similarly moved from the right to the centre ground of politics. But the emergence of a multi-party system, resulting in the main parties attracting a diminishing share of the vote, could lead to a period of instability if Cameron or Miliband are indeed forced to seek support from others. That could make it harder to govern effectively and would put them at the mercy of extremists on the right and left wings of their parties.

Recent polls show the Conservatives and Labour running neck-and-neck but with the former recently taking a four-point lead at 36 per cent of the vote. This will inevitably vary – almost daily – as campaigning continues over the next month.

Of the minority parties, the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) with 12 per cent has overtaken the Liberal Democrats (nine), but the most significant change has been the emergence of the Scottish National Party (SNP) which has now moved ahead of both and is predicted to take as many as 45 of the 59 seats in Scotland, having won only six in 2010. This would leave Labour trailing badly “north of the border“ and the Tories almost wiped out.

Meanwhile, the other nationalist party, Plaid Cymru in Wales, has a limited following while the Democratic Unionist Party, the largest party in Northern Ireland, won eight seats in 2010 and could do well again, though it seems to have limited influence, and the Green Party is likely to increase its share of the vote to about five per cent.

So, it now looks as though the SNP and UKIP are the ones most likely to be in a position to affect the outcome of the election even though the latter is unlikely to win more than a handful of seats.

Following its stellar performance in last year’s UK local and European Parliament elections, UKIP’s fortunes have waned recently as a result of controversies about its candidates. But it has broadened its basic anti-European Union agenda and emphasis on immigration to include issues like extra funding for the National Health Service (NHS) and cuts in the foreign aid budget.

Without winning many seats itself, apart from an expected victory for its leader, Nigel Farage, in South Thanet in Kent, the party is still likely to make a strong showing in marginal constituencies with an increased share of the vote. This means that, like the Greens who offer a progressive far-left agenda, it will garner support from radical disillusioned Labour voters and the working class as a whole. It will also receive votes from right-wing Conservatives. Thus, in a hung parliament UKIP could have some sort of role to play in influencing the formation of a new government.

However, while UKIP’s meteoric rise was making the headlines last year, the emphasis is now on the surge of the SNP and its potentially crucial role in the aftermath of a close-run UK election. If the SNP were to win as many seats in Scotland as predicted, this would more than likely make it the largest minority party in the new parliament. Assuming neither the Tories nor Labour won an outright victory, it would therefore hold the balance of power.

All eyes are now on the SNP and its leader, Nicola Sturgeon, whose stock has risen after last week’s televised debate of party leaders when Cameron, who was steady and business-like, was judged to have carried the day (just about) over Miliband and the others. But commentators are enthusing about the SNP leader, who showed herself to be a serious and substantial politician.

The SNP is a left-wing party, dedicated to putting Scottish interests first, which wants to end austerity, get rid of Britain’s nuclear deterrent and secure more money from English taxpayers in order to pay for increased public spending. It also wants to break up the United Kingdom despite having lost the Scottish independence referendum as recently as last September.

The party has rejected a deal of any sort with the Conservatives and has ruled out a formal coalition with Labour. However, if the latter formed a minority government, it might seek a more informal anti-austerity alliance with the SNP to obtain its support on an issue by issue basis in order to stay in power. Be that as it may, the SNP would wield influence and could hold the nation to ransom with the sort of left-wing agenda and return to 1970s socialism which was long ago rejected by voters in England.

The televised debate was an opportunity for the two main players to set out their respective stalls. Cameron offered more of the same; namely, a growing economy (best performing of the major industrialised countries) with creation of thousands of new jobs and further reduction of the fiscal deficit together with lower taxation, renegotiation of Britain’s EU membership and an in/out referendum, more investment in the NHS and control of immigration – in his own words, “after five years it’s working so let’s finish what we started. A return to Labour means economic chaos with more debt and more taxes”.

For his part, Miliband pledged to put working people first, soften the harshest aspects of austerity and increase public spending, but he did not explain how this would be paid for without increasing taxes (apart from a mansion tax and possible higher rates for the wealthiest).

So it is not hard to see why the pundits are calling next month’s election the most unpredictable for many years. It is likely to remain too close to call right up to the day.

Who can know, however, what may happen in the next few weeks while the political class tramps the highways and byways of Britain in a tireless quest for every last vote. The situation may just become clearer as election day approaches, but don’t bank on it.

• Peter Young is a retired British diplomat living in Nassau. From 1996 to 2000 he was British High Commissioner to The Bahamas.