This campaign will surely rank as e closest battle since Labor’s last win, in 1974. After Thatcher led the Conservative comeback in 1979, obituaries for Britains Labor Party became more common than cloudy days in London. But the notices were premature. Early projections of the Labor vote stand at 43 percent, up from the 31 percent the party actually polled in 1987. That’s a striking turnabout, given the entrenched party loyalties tied to social class in Britain. Labor’s three-point lead in the latest polls would translate into a loss of about 75 Conservative seats in the House of Commons–enough to make Labor the largest single party, though not enough to give it an outright majority. Even if Labor wins only 40 percent, it would be “one of the most remarkable recoveries in British political history,” says Andrew Gamble, the head of the politics department at the University of Sheffield. “Why didn’t Labor collapse? Neil Kinnock is a much-derided leader, but he’s also a lot of the answer.”
The personal qualities of the party leaders will almost certainly count for more than in past campaigns. Thatcher cast the three elections she fought in stark ideological terms: unvarnished market capitalism versus Labor’s “loony left.” At first, it worked. Her policy of cutting taxes, privatizing public industry touched off an economic boom, especially in the heavily populated south of England. Voters overlooked her hard-edged personality. But as Thatcher introduced a hated poll tax and the economy worsened, even members of her own party began to see her as an electoral liability. Following a Tory leadership vote that demonstrated her increasing weakness, she resigned in November 1990. She was replaced by the blander but more reassuringly moderate and even-tempered Major, then the Tory chancellor of the exchequer, despite his lack of a university degree. It was not an exciting choice: the popular satirical TV program " Spitting Image" usually portrays him as a gray-skinned puppet who spends his nights at home silently eating dinners of green peas. But it was a comfortable one. He was almost too bland to dislike.
By comparison, the Welshman Kinnock is a firebrand–son of a coal miner, whose industry was ravaged during the Thatcher years. He has a keen sense of his roots–including the Welsh tradition of oratory. At the same time, he has renovated his party. Since seizing the leadership in 1983, Kinnock has transformed Labor’s socialist orthodoxy into social democracy. No longer do Laborites demand unilateral disarmament or renationalized industry. The party talks instead about pensions and national health, housing and education. “Mrs. Thatcher converted the public on unions and free markets, but has failed to convert us fully on taxation or the welfare state,” says David Butler, professor of politics at Oxford University. “People are willing to spend on welfare. The question is: how much?”
At a time of ideological convergence between Tories and Labor, that looks like the campaigns sharpest question. If Labor wins, Britain will become the first European country to move its politics leftward–if only marginally–in more than a decade. Is a sea change at hand? Probably not. Even if Labor wins, says Bernard Donoughue, a member of the last Labor government, " we replaced lunatic socialism with lunatic individualism under Thatcher, and the electorate now is moving away from that."
Who will triumph? The oddsmakers were still hedging, but M.P.s on both sides of the aisle were relieved that the formal campaign was at last at hand. One member of the Tory cabinet confessed to feeling “fatalistic euphoria … We want to get out of the trenches and go over the top.” A hung parliament is a distinct possibility–and with it, an array of possible outcomes, including a key role for Liberal Democratic leader Paddy Ashdown. The former marine’s party commands up to 20 percent support in the latest polls. In these murky waters, British politics has taken on a decidedly nasty tone. “Because the parties are so close together,” says Oxford’s Butler, “they’re being bitchier than usual.”
As former prime minister Harold Wilson used to say, a week is a long time in British polities. The 17 working days required between the dissolution of Parliament and the actual ballot is an eon. Anything can happen. Even if 1992 turns out not to be the meanest-ever campaign, it will certainly be the longest. This is only the fourth time in the 20th century that a British election will take place the same year as an American one. But the concurrence should lay to rest forever the myth that British elections are short, sharp affairs by comparison. This British campaign cycle began with Thatcher’s resignation. Since then, Major and Kinnock have been facing each other in a general-election race that lacked only a finish line. This race-with a fourth straight term for the Tories at stake-is the one Thatcher dreamed about when she said she hoped to “go on and on.” For John Major, getting to go on once will be a good enough place to start.
title: " Bitchier Than Usual " ShowToc: true date: “2023-01-23” author: “Reda Kopp”
This campaign will surely rank as e closest battle since Labor’s last win, in 1974. After Thatcher led the Conservative comeback in 1979, obituaries for Britains Labor Party became more common than cloudy days in London. But the notices were premature. Early projections of the Labor vote stand at 43 percent, up from the 31 percent the party actually polled in 1987. That’s a striking turnabout, given the entrenched party loyalties tied to social class in Britain. Labor’s three-point lead in the latest polls would translate into a loss of about 75 Conservative seats in the House of Commons–enough to make Labor the largest single party, though not enough to give it an outright majority. Even if Labor wins only 40 percent, it would be “one of the most remarkable recoveries in British political history,” says Andrew Gamble, the head of the politics department at the University of Sheffield. “Why didn’t Labor collapse? Neil Kinnock is a much-derided leader, but he’s also a lot of the answer.”
The personal qualities of the party leaders will almost certainly count for more than in past campaigns. Thatcher cast the three elections she fought in stark ideological terms: unvarnished market capitalism versus Labor’s “loony left.” At first, it worked. Her policy of cutting taxes, privatizing public industry touched off an economic boom, especially in the heavily populated south of England. Voters overlooked her hard-edged personality. But as Thatcher introduced a hated poll tax and the economy worsened, even members of her own party began to see her as an electoral liability. Following a Tory leadership vote that demonstrated her increasing weakness, she resigned in November 1990. She was replaced by the blander but more reassuringly moderate and even-tempered Major, then the Tory chancellor of the exchequer, despite his lack of a university degree. It was not an exciting choice: the popular satirical TV program " Spitting Image" usually portrays him as a gray-skinned puppet who spends his nights at home silently eating dinners of green peas. But it was a comfortable one. He was almost too bland to dislike.
By comparison, the Welshman Kinnock is a firebrand–son of a coal miner, whose industry was ravaged during the Thatcher years. He has a keen sense of his roots–including the Welsh tradition of oratory. At the same time, he has renovated his party. Since seizing the leadership in 1983, Kinnock has transformed Labor’s socialist orthodoxy into social democracy. No longer do Laborites demand unilateral disarmament or renationalized industry. The party talks instead about pensions and national health, housing and education. “Mrs. Thatcher converted the public on unions and free markets, but has failed to convert us fully on taxation or the welfare state,” says David Butler, professor of politics at Oxford University. “People are willing to spend on welfare. The question is: how much?”
At a time of ideological convergence between Tories and Labor, that looks like the campaigns sharpest question. If Labor wins, Britain will become the first European country to move its politics leftward–if only marginally–in more than a decade. Is a sea change at hand? Probably not. Even if Labor wins, says Bernard Donoughue, a member of the last Labor government, " we replaced lunatic socialism with lunatic individualism under Thatcher, and the electorate now is moving away from that."
Who will triumph? The oddsmakers were still hedging, but M.P.s on both sides of the aisle were relieved that the formal campaign was at last at hand. One member of the Tory cabinet confessed to feeling “fatalistic euphoria … We want to get out of the trenches and go over the top.” A hung parliament is a distinct possibility–and with it, an array of possible outcomes, including a key role for Liberal Democratic leader Paddy Ashdown. The former marine’s party commands up to 20 percent support in the latest polls. In these murky waters, British politics has taken on a decidedly nasty tone. “Because the parties are so close together,” says Oxford’s Butler, “they’re being bitchier than usual.”
As former prime minister Harold Wilson used to say, a week is a long time in British polities. The 17 working days required between the dissolution of Parliament and the actual ballot is an eon. Anything can happen. Even if 1992 turns out not to be the meanest-ever campaign, it will certainly be the longest. This is only the fourth time in the 20th century that a British election will take place the same year as an American one. But the concurrence should lay to rest forever the myth that British elections are short, sharp affairs by comparison. This British campaign cycle began with Thatcher’s resignation. Since then, Major and Kinnock have been facing each other in a general-election race that lacked only a finish line. This race-with a fourth straight term for the Tories at stake-is the one Thatcher dreamed about when she said she hoped to “go on and on.” For John Major, getting to go on once will be a good enough place to start.
