archived: 21 Oct - 3 Nov, 2007 Back Next
UPDATED: OCT 22, 2007
LETTERS FROM THE U.K.
After Blair. (6)
In my last two TPJ columns (AUG 26, 2007 & OCT 7, 2007) I looked at the origins of the “special relationship” between Britain and the United States. I argued that this relationship could only be understood in the context of Britain’s post-imperial decline and the post-World War Two rise to globalism of the United States. The relationship was, I argued, one of British subservience to the U.S. after 1945. The delusion of grandeur survived Britain’s decline as a world empire and persuaded its leaders that their partnership in the transatlantic relationship, first forged by Churchill during World War Two, somehow entitled Britain to “Great Power” status.
I shall pursue this theme further in my next column. For the moment I want to comment on the course of events in British politics during recent weeks, mainly because these events have upset assessments that were being made about Gordon Brown’s premiership and confident forecasts about the likely outcome of an election that was thought to be imminent. In the early 1960s, Tory Prime Minister Harold Macmillan, when asked what might upset the apparently stable political apple cart of continued Tory rule, famously replied “Events, dear boy – Events”.
From the moment he succeeded Blair as Prime Minister, Brown, contrary to many expectations, became popular. He reversed a Tory lead in the opinion polls that had been growing steadily due largely to increasing disillusionment with Blair. He appeared steady and calm in face of the storms of flooding in British cities and terrorist threats on British streets and airports. His style contrasted markedly with the irritating flamboyance of his predecessor. The fact that, despite the personal animosity between him and Blair, Brown had been one of the main architects of the New Labour project, seemed not to matter. He wasn’t Blair, and that mattered a great deal. By the time of the Labour Party conference in September, the party had notched up a 10 point lead over the Tories in the opinion polls. Tory leader, Cameron, was being openly criticised by right-wing traditionalists in his own party such as Thatcherite “elder statesman”, Norman Tebbitt, who went so far as to praise Gordon Brown as a “commitment politician” like Margaret Thatcher. Brown felt sufficiently confident that his position was unassailable to indulge in a few pre-election gimmicks. On the eve of the Tory conference he invited the frail Margaret Thatcher, dressed in a pink suit, to an audience at Downing Street. The newspapers splashed a picture of the two of them over their front pages. During the Tory conference Brown paid a flying visit to Iraq where he posed for the T.V. cameras with British troops and confirmed that many of them would be home for Christmas.
Speculation about an October election dominated the columns of the political commentators. Some advocated striking while the iron was hot, others urged caution. Reference was made to significant precedents. Two stood out – both involving decisions by earlier Labour Prime Ministers. In 1970 Harold Wilson, who had a majority of more than 100 seats and enjoyed a substantial lead in the opinion polls, called a snap election. He lost to Edward Heath and the Tories. In 1978, Wilson’s successor as PM, James Callaghan (who by this time led a Labour government which depended for its House of Commons majority on the Liberal Party) decided in October of that year to postpone an election which many believed he could have won. When, in May of 1979 the election finally took place, Callaghan lost to Margaret Thatcher. The Tories remained in office for 18 years. What lessons, if any, could be learned from these cases? It is difficult to say.
Despite later claims to the contrary, it is clear that just prior to the Tory conference Brown was persuaded by some of his advisers to go for an early election in late October. Then things changed dramatically. What happened? The Tories rallied behind Cameron who made what was considered to be an effective, though rambling and politically vacuous, speech to the conference. The vacuity didn’t matter – most conference speeches are politically vacuous. What pleased the Tory delegates and the Press was that he spoke without an autocue or notes! This was also a gimmick. But it is a telling comment on the state of British politics that in this age of celebrity, stage management and spin, something as elementary as the ability to speak effectively in public without such aids is now regarded as so extraordinary as to warrant special comment and praise. However, it was not Cameron’s conference speech that shifted the poll ratings. One thing, more than anything else, accounted for the shift in Tory fortunes which kicked in immediately after the conference. Cameron and his supporters in the leadership had watched in dismay while their Labour opponents under Brown stole their political clothing. This had proceeded to the point where there was little to distinguish the two main parties on most policy issues. There was one issue, however, where New Labour took their eye off the ball. That was the issue of inheritance tax.
Britain, particularly England, like the United States, but unlike almost every other country in Europe, has a very high proportion – about 70% - of owner-occupiers. House prices in Britain are higher than almost anywhere else in the world. Inheritance tax of 40% is currently levied on properties valued at more than £300,000. Over the past fifteen years property prices have risen year on year so that now, in London and the South East of England the average house price is little below £300,000. This is a big issue with millions of middle class people. The Tories announced at their conference that they would exclude from inheritance tax properties valued at less than £1.000.000. This seemed very attractive to most property owners. The announcement caused immediate consternation in the Brown camp. There was also the perception that the Prime Minister’s visit to Iraq had been a cynical election stunt – a not unreasonable charge. Suddenly all the obvious pre-electioneering of the preceding weeks came under the spotlight and Brown’s bubble burst. The man who had built his reputation on being solid and reliable, uninterested in stunts and spin, suddenly seemed not so different in this respect from Blair. The honeymoon was over.
From the moment that he announced that there would be no election this year – or for that matter, next year either, things got worse.
Brown denied that he had ever been committed to an early election. This claim was so unconvincing that it caused derision and further reduced his credibility. Within a week the opinion polls had turned around completely and some gave the Tories a 10 point lead over Labour. Indeed it had been the shift in the polls prior to this that had prompted the announcement that there would be no election.
Had Brown called an early election and lost, he would have entered the record books as the shortest serving prime minister in British history. But in a sense these things are the froth of politics. Electoral opinion is clearly extremely volatile at the moment and it is not possible to make any predictions about what the state of opinion may be in a month or so – let alone by this time next year.
I will conclude with a few remarks pointing to something more substantive. One of the obvious issues here is the fact that this country does not have fixed term parliaments. The un-codified British constitution operates on the unwritten rule that no government may stay in office for more than five years. Prime ministers have the power to call elections at any time during that five year period. They usually do so at a time most convenient for themselves, that is, when they calculate they are likely to win. Thus, the constitution lends itself to forms of manipulation. It is disingenuous of his opponents to criticise Brown for doing what all prime ministers do. The office of prime minister is very powerful. A British prime minister, as leader of the majority party in parliament, could remain in office for much longer than, for example, F.D. Roosevelt was president of the U.S. prior to the constitutional amendment limiting presidents to two terms. Margaret Thatcher remained in office for eleven years and Tony Blair for ten. If fixed-term parliaments were introduced in Britain it would not prevent a prime minister remaining in office indefinitely as long as his or her party continued to win elections. It would, however, put an end to the kind of manipulation we have seen in recent weeks.
Next time I shall return to the theme of the “special relationship”. In considering the way this has been treated by Blair and Brown, I shall also develop my earlier argument that under Blair’s leadership the Labour Party, as a party of Social Democracy, has effectively been destroyed. Although this is a matter of great importance, it has received too little attention.
Last Update: 11/03/2007