|
July 2008 Issue
Britons want the alternative, but history says otherwise.
By Aidan McCaffery
Sorry to do this to you, but imagine you're on a honeymoon with David Cameron.
I did say I'm sorry.
Anyway, you're on your honeymoon with the leader of the opposition, and he's
been annoying you. You really have a bone to pick with him – maybe he's
been kicking you in bed. Maybe he chews his food too loudly. Maybe you didn't
like that off hand comment he made about your mother's dress at the wedding.
You decide to let it go. It's your honeymoon, after all, and you don't want
your special holiday ruined by petty bickering. Oh, and while you're at it,
you vote him and the Conservative party in for five years of government rule.
Come on, how could you not? He'll be in a mood all the way back to Heathrow
otherwise. It's your honeymoon!
The Conservative’s David Cameron
(John Stillwell/PA)
We British have become so cynical in our attitude to politics that we welcome
any change, no matter how superficial, as a good thing. Last summer we welcomed
Gordon Brown into 10 Downing Street with a 'honeymoon period' of favourable
opinion polls, despite the fact that the genetic make up of the Labour Government,
increasingly out of favour during their ten years of power, hadn't really
changed. It had merely been rearranged slightly, like one of Pablo Picasso's
distorted faces. If the Conservative opposition still have their current
20 percentage point lead in the polls in 2010 then we might well be taking
our love affair with Any Form of Change Possible to the voting booth, resulting
in the country's first 'honeymoon election.' Any bad will we have towards
the Tories for their 80s callousness, 90s sleaze or 21st century opposition
for the sake of opposition style of opposition will be briefly forgotten,
as the nation bites it's collective lip and thinks 'hey – we're on
our honeymoon!' We'll smile, clink our glasses of wine and save the argument
for the flight home – while handing parliamentary control to the Tories,
with no good reason other than "fancying a change."
London’s Mayor Boris Johnson.
It's hard to see the Conservative party's current popularity as being anything
more than dissatisfaction with Labour. David Cameron is being tight lipped
about policy. Everyone has every right to be disappointed, angry in fact,
with Labour and their broken promises, but it's hard to sympathize with an
electorate who think the answer is to vote the Conservatives back in power.
They're too coy on policy to convince us they're the party to make a difference;
last summer's shift to the left on what few policies they suggested is unconvincing
coming from the privately educated Cameron and their attempts to connect
to young voters only highlight the lack of depth in their makeover. It's
enough to make you shake the poll voting public and go "there's more
than one other political party! Vote in the Liberals! Or the Green party!
Or the Monster Raving Loonies! What do you mean you don't vote for whomever
you think will be the most comically entertaining winner? You voted Boris
Johnson for London Mayor!"
Of course, the 2009 or ‘10 general election might actually unmask the
shallowness of the Tory party's popularity. John Major, who took over the remainder
of Margaret Thatcher's third term as Prime Minister in 1990, was largely expected
to lose the 1992 general election to Labour, then the opposition. Despite dissatisfaction
with the Tories, the country wasn't quite ready to return Labour, then under
the leadership of Neil Kinnock, to power. Americans know of their own surprise
leadership victories. Leading a divided Democrat party, the increasingly unpopular
President Harry Truman was expected to lose the 1948 election to Republican
challenger Thomas Dewey, so much so that that some papers printed headlines
announcing the latter's victory. A famous photo shows Truman holding a copy
of the Chicago Tribune, which had lead with the headline 'DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN.'
U.S. President Harry S. Truman, 1948.
So will the sinking ship that is Gordon Brown's popularity go the way of Truman
and Major? Part of Truman's victory lay in the fact that the Republicans
believed their victory was so guaranteed that all they had to do was avoid
controversy and they'd win. This lead to a risk free campaign that was vague
on what Dewey planned to do once in office. David Cameron seems to be doing
something similar now; in the heat of an election battle similar coyness
will be seen as __________, and will work to Brown's favour.
Part of John Major's victory was due to the personal touch he brought to the
election, often appearing on upturned soapboxes at public meetings. Considering
Brown's unfriendly press demeanour and visible unease with public appearances,
especially in comparison with his charismatic predecessor, Tony Blair, Brown
might not have Major's good for tune. And if it's the personal touch people
like, then public school boy David 'Call me Dave" Cameron might blag it
in the face of sour faced competition.
Former British PM John Major
However, if it's policy and a vague sense of direction that the public crave,
then Cameron better get his thinking cap on, as Brown might just luck out with
four more years in number ten.
Despite the circumstances of their elections being different, one thing both
Major and Truman had in common was a weak challenger, and one that the country,
despite dissatisfaction with government, decided wasn't yet fit to govern.
Maybe Brown will live to fight another day.
Send comments on Aidan’s
column to a.f.mccaffery@gmail.com
|
