The traditional two-party Westminster dogfight between the center left Labour Party and center right Conservative Party seems to have been consigned to the scrapheap of history.
Instead, judging by poll after poll, especially in the aftermath of the historic inaugural Prime Ministerial Debates on British television channels over the last three weeks, a new party pooper on the block has emerged.
Baby-faced Nick Clegg, not bereft of a hint of arrogance, is taking the political establishment by storm with his centre left Liberal Democrats promising, amongst other things, a cleaner government in the wake of the pernicious MPs expenses scandal that has rocked the British politics for the last year.
The party has also pledged to reduce Britain’s burgeoning public debt of over £170 billion, lower taxes for the poor and higher taxes for the rich, offer a selective amnesty for over 600,000 illegal immigrants in the UK, and eventually abandon Britain’s nuclear deterrent, saving at least £100 billion over the next few decades.
How incumbent Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Conservative leader David Cameron must rue their decision to agree to a US-style leaders’ debate on national television.
In this age of image, celebrity culture and mass communications, Clegg, fresh-faced and heavily media-prepped, seized his main chance, albeit egged on by a cynical British political culture and an increasingly anti-Brown and anti-Labour media – both baying for change after 13 years of uninterrupted Labour rule.
Clegg’s arrival, rather than the Lib-Dems, may change the immediate face of British politics. But there are inherent risks given his inexperience and what his political opponents call “flaky policies”.
A few days ago, Clegg even had the audacity in telling voters that Election 2010 is now a two-party battle between the Lib-Dems and the Conservatives. Labour in reality had lost the plot and were a poor third in the polls.
On Saturday, the Guardian newspaper, traditionally a Labour supporter, switched its allegiance to the Lib-Dems.
Even more significant was the support of The Times, the newspaper of record and of the establishment, for Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats.
The Times of course is owned by right wing media tycoon Rupert Murdoch, whose other British titles, especially The Sun tabloid, are strong supporters of David Cameron and the Conservatives.
But are Clegg and the Lib-Dems in danger of having their honeymoon before the actual marriage?
The latest polls suggest several scenarios. One poll on Sunday predicted that the Conservatives would win by a slender majority of four seats. Another puts the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats neck-and-neck in terms of the percentage vote, with Labour trailing well behind.
Given the current vagaries of the electoral system, Labour could still emerge as the party with the largest number of seats in the House of Commons, even if they come third in terms of the popular vote.
Not surprisingly, with the emergence of the Lib-Dems in British politics and with them overtaking Labour in the polls, the election campaign has been buzzing with terminologies and concepts largely alien to British political and electoral culture. The buzzwords these days include “hung” or “balanced” parliaments, meaning that none of the three main parties will emerge with an overall majority of MPs.
In other words, Britain is faced with the realistic prospect of having to form a coalition government. But be warned. As the saying goes, “a week is a long time in politics”.
In 1992, John Major’s Conservative government, racked with internal bickering over Europe, was supposedly facing certain defeat in the general election. A triumphalist Opposition Labour leader, Neil Kinnock, even dared to parade his “government-in-waiting” at a rally in Sheffield on the eve of the election. History will show that John Major outsmarted all the pundits and polls to win the election by some 20 or so seats.
Of course Gordon Brown would like history to repeat itself, but this time with him as the underdog.
David Cameron however is no mug or Neil Kinnock. The Conservatives have been careful not to take anything for granted. Before the TV debate, they were almost certain to win an outright majority. But with the near deification of Nick Clegg, the Conservatives may have suffered a body blow from which they may find it difficult to recover.
Cameron in a damp Obamaesque imitation is stressing “change” but the Clegg phenomenon has all but put an end to any Conservative pretence or allusion to “yes we can.”
At the same time, the Lib-Dems are assuming the veneer of “newness” in British politics. In reality, they are far from a new party.
In fact the Liberal Party, before it merged with the Social Democratic Party in the 1980s, is older than the Labour Party, with the last Liberal Prime Minister David Lloyd George presiding during the First World War. Even the famous Winston Churchill was a Liberal before he became a Tory (Conservative).
How unsurprising that both Cameron and Clegg come largely from the same class and economic background. Cameron is an Old Etonian and Clegg went to Westminster – two iconic public schools in British society.
In fact, it was the aristocratic former Tory Foreign Secretary Lord Carrington, a family friend, who introduced Clegg to politics. This is in contrast to Brown, whose father was a Church minister from a staunch Calvinist background.
No wonder class has not featured much in this election. The overriding issue is the future management of the British economy, which like most of the world has been affected by the worst recession and global financial crisis since the 1930’s.
Here there is clear blue water between the three parties – Labour is against any spending cuts during fiscal year 2010/11 because it claims that any contraction would seriously undermine the fragile recovery, leading to higher unemployment and hardship and Britain sleepwalking into a double dip recession. Labour, however, has proposed to increase national insurance from 2011, which the Tories have attacked as a “tax on jobs”.
On the other hand, the Tories stress that the public debt is so high – about 12.5 per cent of GDP – that the deficit needs to be cut immediately. The longer the government waits, the harder it will be in terms of austerity, debt servicing and achieving balanced economic growth, they claim.
The Lib-Dems are somewhere in between. They want the deficit cut urgently, but they want the rich to bear a greater burden of responsibility and have promised to raise the threshold for paying tax at the lower end of the income scale in order to help poorer families.
The Institute of Fiscal Studies in London has analysed all three parties’ economic manifestos and has accused all of them for not being honest with the British electorate in revealing the true extent of the budget and debt cuts they may be planning and that are needed.
Some high street business leaders are supporting Cameron and have warned that the hike in national insurance will damage the job market. However, a group of prominent economists at Oxford, Cambridge, LSE and the London Business School have come out in support of Brown and current Chancellor Alistair Darling, warning that any premature contraction of the economy could result in the dreaded double dip recession.
Only a few days ago, the major banks warned Cameron against a planned Tory levy on the banks, saying that could undermine their performance and hence impact negatively on the economy.
While Brown’s popularity, in the light of his manifold gaffes, is probably the lowest of any post-war British Prime Minister, his partnership with his Chancellor has won the plaudits as the most experienced team that could see the country through economic recovery and a balanced GDP growth.
In many respects Election 2010 has been hijacked by the television debates and is probably the most dumbed down election in British political history. Even when you factor in the economic debate, the election is more about posturing rather than substance.
Never mind the fact that the contribution of real GDP growth over the next few years and windfall returns from the bailout of British banks such as Lloyds TSB, Royal Bank of Scotland and Northern Rock have been deliberately or conveniently ignored in the debate.
The chances are that should Cameron or Clegg get into power, they will almost certainly benefit from the above windfall and growth and no doubt they will seize the credit for it.
Brown unfortunately has been his biggest enemy – he is neither a natural politician nor a gifted orator like his predecessor Tony Blair. But neither are Cameron nor Clegg. Come the early hours of Friday the 7th, Britain may well have a new government. Whether it will be Conservative or Lib-Lab is too close to call because campaigning will go down to the wire.
But one thing remains clear – never underestimate the British electorate. They may yet have the last laugh.
