I just got back from voting (Lib Dem, tactically, having been a lifelong Labour voter), something which I always find a joy. For one thing, elections are usually in Spring, and they speak of hope and new growth. For another, to be able to vote is a precious thing. But you'll have heard people talk endlessly about that before, so I won't go on and on.
It's extraordinary how things have worked out in the run up to this election, a politics geek's dream of twists and turns. Those who work for all the parties (and that's another job I'd like if I didn't have this one) will be desperately trying to manage chaos. Anything can happen in the next day or so, or should I say the next week, because I very much doubt we'll wake up with a new government tomorrow morning.
David Cameron went into this election thinking it'd be a cakewalk, that the British electorate would do what they always do, vote against something rather than for something, flip from one state to its perceived opposite. But two things were in place to change that pattern. Firstly, the ground state of the electorate was different, because, bizarrely, and for no other reason I can think of than to boost ailing sales, the Daily Telegraph had spent the previous year making sure the electorate thought that both Labour and the Tories were thoroughly corrupt. This is, of course, not the case. We in the UK enjoy tiny levels of actual political corruption compared to most of Europe. I think most of the MPs who were caught over-claiming on their expenses had been encouraged to think that this was the way they made up for their (genuinely too small) salaries. (That's one thing I hope an incoming government of any stripe does: pays backbench MPs a decent wage, so the stream of talent out of parliament ceases and we're not just left with the fanatics who'd do it for nothing.) So, oddly, a whiff of being 'establishment' clung to Cameron, not just because of his accent and bearing, but because his lot had been tarred with the same brush as the government. Look at that video of him being confronted by the student who says 'I don't believe you'. He looks not like the Leader of the Opposition, but like a cornered government minister. The Telegraph has been desperately trying to make up for this in the last couple of weeks, having doubtless had its collective editorial balls grabbed by Tory whips (ouch). But the damage had been done. The second factor that changed everything was the TV debates. The electorate watched in their masses, they got interested, and they saw three people on the stand. And the third one, surprisingly, was more telegenic than the first two, and he often seemed unhindered by actual policy. (Indeed, some of the things Nick Clegg has promised on television should surely send Lib Dem voters running to consult the manifesto: tighter border controls? Really?) He grabbed the niche of Mr. Nice Guy Not Grim At All, which had been the shoes in which Cameron thought he'd be standing on those nights. The debates were a triumph. The lack of audience applause made actual debate rather than rhetoric the order of the day, they exposed all but the best of tactics (I enjoyed it when Gordon, who turns out to be hopelessly charisma-free on TV, and is let down by his disability, to be frank, moved things to the economy and started thumping, and so grew suddenly in stature) and they let the participants underline what their policy differences were, what they all actually stood for. Immediately afterwards we were in a three party race, and that's changed everything.
Let me pause here for a moment to say: I've never believed 'they're all the same', and I loathe the cant, so prevalent in fandom, that they're all representatives of some great oppressive power. That just saves people from having to think, and gives them the enjoyable frisson of feeling oppressed without having ever stood up for anything. I think one good reason for a Lib Dem government would be to see if Lib Dem supporters, unlike a lot of Labour supporters, could get their heads around supporting people who are actually in charge, or if, in a horribly British way, they'd always prefer to be mentally in opposition.
So what do I think's going to happen? I have no idea. The polls are literally all over the place, and all possible governments now lie within their margins of error. I think a lot of lying to pollsters is going on, possibly in the area of spouses cheekily putting a cross by the Lib Dem candidate, and then exiting the booth wearing their blue ribbons. But I think two outcomes are the most likely, and these will both take a week or so to come into focus. I think either there'll be a formal Labour/Lib Dem coalition (the fulfilment of the New Labour project as one un-named MP was quoted as saying this week), where Labour offer the Lib Dems their own proposed form of proportional representation, instead of the Lib Dem one (and dear God, I hope this one has safeguards against the BNP getting an MP or two), and the Lib Dems say yes, but insist that, for the British public to see change, Gordon has got to go. (I think Gordon might do his party a genuinely heroic service by falling on his sword before such negotiations even begin.) So we end up with David Milliband as Prime Minister, Clegg as Deputy. Which might strike the public as odd. Or, David Cameron will edge enough seats to make a deal with various independents, or, if chaos reigns on the other benches, will try and hack out a minority government, with life or death votes on every single bloody issue, and dare the opposition to treat the public to another General Election.
Neither prospect fills me with joy. I think a government should have a clear mandate, and get stuff done. If the Lib Dems won outright, I'd be happy with that, because it'd suck the liberalism out of the Labour party, and it'd serve the Lib Dems right to find that they have to do bad things sometimes. I think the other crap thing about the British is that they sometimes think a hung parliament might be a good thing, because it'd... well, stop anyone doing anything. Because oppositional news reporting has taught them that politicians only ever do bad things. And there are some more informed folk who point to the various times and places where coalitions have worked (note, I don't count those situations where everyone involved is being bombed, I think that imminent invasion tends to focus the mind). I think where there's genuine common ground, with a quite liberal Labour party and a right-moving Lib Dem party, then good government might result. They could write a quick shared manifesto, share a whip, actually nail something together than could just about float. When it's the Tories in continual panic and MPs being hauled in for late night votes of confidence every other week... not so much. The prospect of Italian politics is rearing its ugly head. Coalitions aren't like the Great Council of the Fair Kingdom, where everyone dresses in robes and wisdom prevails after learned debate. They're like a Mexican standoff in Reservoir Dogs, about who's pointing a gun where and who can blackmail who.
But still, exciting times. All one can do is vote, and say to everyone that this time, even if you believe this wasn't the case before, it's important. Cheerio.
Posts
