Party leaders Gordon Brown (New Labour), David Cameron (Conservative) and Nick Clegg (Liberal Democrat) are in an utter state of limbo as the election day dawns upon us. Why? Perhaps there are a myriad of reasons but it seems that one of the key things to note is that for the first time in modern history, the election has been centred around the party leaders rather than the parties themselves. The United Kingdom electoral system has taken a turn from being it's usual party vs. party, to becoming more like the Presidential system seen in the United States. The three televised debates, the first set of their kind in UK general elections, shot all three party candidates into the limelight as the face of their party and with that, the 'cult of personality' has taken over. The election is no longer about party policy, it's about likeability. The debates themselves did little to help the two main party leaders but instead provided Nick Clegg (Lib Dem) with an equal platform from which to speak. The aftermath of the first debate was clear evidence of this. He went from obscurity to becoming a household name by saying two words over and over again; fair government.
- To Put Things Into Perspective -
Ultimately however the debates were little different from what can be seen weekley during Prime Minister's Questions which airs on numerous channels throughout the UK and Ireland and which can be seen online at various outlets. And, while the media circus that has promoted and profited off these debates has provided voters with a chance to hear the issues debated in a more structured format, the British electoral system is now in a state of potential chaos. Why? Because it manifests a paradox which, without proper electoral reform, is misleading and pointless. This is because voters in the UK don't vote for their Prime Minister. As in Ireland, voters choose their constituency Parliament members, those Parliament members are divided up by party and the party with the highest number of MPs forms government once they have reached 'the post' (327 seats of 650). In the event of a 'Hung Parliament', the incumbent government have the right to remain in power until a government majority coalition is formed. Therefore, while it is interesting to see the party leaders debate the issues, the way in which voters pick their Prime Minister has nothing little to do with who will be the next Prime Minister. In fact, the even greater reality is that there is a chance, though slim, that none of the three party leaders will even be eligible to be the next Prime Minister. In an extreme scenario, all the leaders could lose their seats and therefore would not be able to lead the country.
- The Result? -
When it comes down to actually voting, British voters, for the most part, will not be that heavily influenced by the debates. Indeed, first time, undecided and younger voters will most likely see what they have witnessed in the debates as something of a precursor to what lies ahead but, older more experienced voters will remain the same. Moreover, in a country where the government is chosen on a local representative basis, those who are esteemed and established in a community, those who have a record of delivering on their campaign promised in the past will largely remain unaffected. I also believe that when first time voters go to the polling booth, outside of the Witney (Nick Clegg), Kirkaldy & Cowdenbeath (Gordon Brown) and Sheffield Hallam (David Cameron), they will be surprise, confused and maybe disheartened when they realise that the faces they are so used to seeing and were beginning to trust, will not appear on the ballot sheet. This in itself could turn voters away and cause them to simply pick the name they recognise or like the most.
- What People Should Focus On -
If voters want some sort of clarity when it comes to choosing a candidate, here is not the place to get recommendations. However, a few pointers might help. Firstly, when you pick the party, read the bloody manifesto. Why? Here's a couple of reasons...
While Nick Clegg has become the Obamaesque character in the Uk general elections, little is really known about his policies. To give an example, did you know that if his party were elected to government they would regionalise immigration. In otherwords, if you were an immigrant to the UK, whether EU or not, you would be confined to working in the same region and would not be allowed to work outside it? If you were from outside the EU you would have to have a sponsor in the UK before you granted a visa (similar to the J1-Visa system in the US) and if you lost your job you risked deportation because the stipulations prohibit you from seeking work in the event of redundancy or 'sacking'. The Lib Dems also wish to initiate an amnesty program for people who have resided illegally in the UK for over 10 years. If that sounds good to you maybe Liberal Democrats if your most suited choice.
We all know that Gordon Brown signals the 'Old Guard' in current British Politics. Labour's policies have been a patchwork of good and bad and have disheartened many more conservative constituents as well as let down a number of Labour's core voters; workers. As far as immigration goes, Labour propose to fully initiate a points system for immigrants. In other words, if you aren't needed, you aren't granted a work permit or visa. Biometric passports, Labour believe, will almost totally eradicate the numbers of people entering the UK with false and illegal identification. Labour have both a repatriation and amnesty program for illegal immigrants. It seems to favour political refugees rather than economic refugees but would, according to the projected figures, would curb the number of illegal entries to the UK as well as reduce the number of illegal immigrants living in the UK.
The Conservative immigration legislation proposals are far less developed. The Tory party seem to indicate only that they will initiate a limit of the numbers of immigrants allowed to enter the UK annually. David Cameron has cited the large rise in Polish immigrants as a reference point. Stating that "we were told it would be 13,000 per year but it has been as high as 140,000 and 200,000 in some years" (Leader's Debate 1 & 2).
So if it's policy you are after, you really should be looking at what your party's manifesto says because it may not mention the policies that matter most to you.
The second key point to remember is that you the voter does not choose the Prime Minister. While the debates are nice, and as I have outlined above, and interesting, outside of the three constituencies in which the leaders reside, you don't choose which on of them will be PM. Only party members make that decision during their party conferences when they choose the Party Leader. You are voting for the Party representative in your area. If they have delivered in the past and been true to their word, if they seem true to their word and you feel you can trust them, vote for them. Pay no attention to the glamorised faces of the party because this will ultimately be of no use to you in a time when dealing with peoples' needs seems to be paramount. Although you may have a nice image in your head of which Party Leader would look better when standing next to Barack Obama, you don't make that decision and maybe shouldn't let picture effect your vote.
- Personally... -
While I can't vote in the UK General Election, I have paid close attention. All three parties seem to have relatively strong manifestos. They all seem to deal in one way or another with the challenges that Britain is facing and will face in the future. However there are some typical party traits that are clearly visible when you view the manifestos. Conservatives certainly have inherited part of the Thatcher legacy, this is both good and bad. Good in the sense that they want to get people back to work instead of becoming complacent in the face of a generous social welfare and benefits system. Bad in the sense that they seem ill-prepared to deal forcefully with the banks and institutses got Britain and the rest of the World into the economic mess it currently finds itself in. I also think that the Conservatives proposals for education are potentially dangerous. They propose that parents should be allowed to start schools and in some events take over schools. I take issue with this because it will inevitably lead to elitism within communities. Middle-class parents who open a school for their children will most likely do what they can to make it impossible for working class children to attend. With this specific policy proposal I see nothing but disaster and an emerging educational 'oligarchy' that will only make the current situation regarding underprivileged kids worse. It will also spell major expenses for government. If parents wish to set up a school, government will have to partly (if not totally) subsidise it. Schools will pop up in random places where they are not needed and in many cases, I forcast, poorer kids will not recieve similar finaicial aid.
The Liberal Democrats are perhaps taking some ideological clues from both of the two main parties. From Labour when they speak of the responsibiity the banks have to the people. From Conservatives when they mention their immigration proposals. Personally I take issue with the Lib Dem immigration policy proposals because they seem to have forgotten that they signed the 'Free Movement of Labour Act' with the EU, along with Ireland and Sweden. This enables all EU citizens to seek residence and employment in these three states. I dislike the idea of going back on an agreement this immense because it can lead to increased hostility between ethnic communities. Another reason it displeases me is that it seems totally unrealistic because I find it impossible to fathom how regionalised, or county confined, immigration can be maintained. It seems unrealistic. Also, as a self-confessed 'pro-European', I believe that all EU members should be allowed to live and work in whatever EU state they choose. Otherwise, what's the point? As Europe moves towards a superstate it is a clear braking point when countries go back on commitments. It slows the process down and it means that the European idea doesn't develop. The Liberal Democrats immigration policy would be a major spanner in the works for Europe. This also goes for the Conservative immigration policy and general attitute towards Europe.
As far as Labour go, yes it is much of the same ole politics. They are not proposing any dramatic 'Change' and they are not exactly inspiring. From a foreign policy point of view, they have much to do. Their Trident nuclear submarine missile program is a shambles and their plans for the Middle-East as unclear and seem to pander to the US agenda. Labour win on immigration however. The biometric system seems the fairest and most realistic system of curbing illegal immigration. Their plans for Education and the NHS are somewhat of a continuance of older policies but those are not bad policies. They certainly could do with recieving more funding and I think in time they will.
All parties however are proposing much needed change in the House of Lords. This could potentially cause a drift away from the trend of British aristocracy acting in their own interests. In my opinion, this is a good thing.
Who would I vote for? Probably Labour. Not because I feel much for the party, but because I can see the social cleavages that will widen if the Conservatives and/or the Liberal Democrats sieze the reigns of government. A re-elected Labour government will most likely spell the end of Gordon Brown's reign as party leader due to the most likely election of a hung parliament and the impending Labour-Liberal Democrat Coalition which I forecast. This is perhaps best for Labour and for Gordon Brown. He works well in a cabinet capasity, but had inherited a failed government after the resignation of Tony Blair on June 27th, 2007. Perhaps he will return to form in a more 'behind-the-scenes' role. Who know's? Maybe Nick Clegg will be the face of a 'Lab-Lib' coalition. This luckily will not come without some major policy bargaining and realization between both parties.
But don't let my preferences play a role in the way you vote. Read the manifestos or even synopses of each, that will be enough to make an informed decision. However, don't fall victim to the Hollywood media circus that has surrounded this years general elections. This trend is a sign of how British politics is and will remain to be portrayed for the forseeable future but as long as the electoral system stays the same, don't expect the change being promised to be easily made.
Happy Voting,
SHC
