Hang separately or hang together?

There are just four days to go until election day, and it still doesn't look like a clear victory for any party. The only thing that really seems to have changed, is the public have been engaged by the Prime Ministerial debates which have dominated our Thursday evenings. I'm not going to talk about who won and who didn't, because our political affiliations bias us all.

What did happen, however, was that the Liberal Democrat leader, Nick Clegg, seems to have made a connection with the public, and this has been backed up by a seeming surge in Liberal Democrat support. Whether this will translate into actual votes is another story, but from a general belief that the turnout could be the lowest ever, to thinking that it could be back up towards 70% again shows the real worth of the debates, and the inclusion of the Liberal Democrat leader on equal billing.

Ironically it was David Cameron who allowed Clegg into the party, and it may well turn out to be the most spectacular own goal of the whole election. Whatever people may think of the Liberal Democrats and their policies Nick Clegg has brought something different to the table. If Cameron and Gordon Brown had just been battling it out, then people may have switched off the campaign completely.

As a sideline, the issue of the length of the campaign seems to be an issue. Although it officially started on April 7th, in reality it has been going on for the last two years. Without the debates, boredom would have set in very early indeed. I don't know what can be done about this. Labour have proposed fixed parliaments, but as we see in America, the election campaign tends to start about two years into the term. So not a panacea, although it would take the power for deciding away from the PM.

To those of us who trudge around our constituencies, or zoom off to do work in marginals we hope to hold, or gain, one clear theme is the number of undecided voters. Many are upset by the expenses scandal, and indeed there will still be a large number of non-voters, who firmly beleive no politician can be trusted. Conversely, a lot of new people have registered, especially amongst the young.

It is hard to know where these votes will go, as each party is claiming converts, and getting them. Labour voters are going to Lib Dems, as are Tories. But some are also going to minor parties, which could skew the result completely. All the main parties need to make sure they learn from all this, and not take the electorate for granted. I wrote about this before the election, and still feel the points are valid
http://harbottlegrimston.blogspot.com/2010/03/carpe-diem.html

The debates were the big game changer, as Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats seem to have really joined the Tories and Labour parties as a potential government. The system seems to be against them, but my personal belief, is that on election day, if people believe that a Liberal Democrat could win the seat, or play a role in government, they will support them.

There have been a number of occasions when the leaders have been put on the spot, and not come out well. There is famously Gordon Brown's meeting with Mrs Gillian Duffy, dubbed 'bigotgate' (I think someone ought to launch an investigation into gategate. Surely there must be more original ways to name these incidents). But David Cameron had 'gaygate' when he messed up with the Gay Times, and the incident when pressed by a father on access to schools for his disabled son. In the first debate Nick Clegg described the Conservative European partners as 'nutters' for which he has had to apologise, because it was considered an insult to people with mental health problems.

There is much complaint of media bias in this election, and the way the Gordon Brown incident was focussed on did seem to back that up. However, on the day it happened, Cameron's encounter was played a fair bit on the news channels. Clegg's apology on the other hand, does seem to have been largely ignored. The newspapers unlike the BBC are not required to be balanced, but it is galling, and raises suspicions that other incidents may be being withheld.

The polls have been up and down like yo-yos throughout, and since the Liberal Democrats became major players, it has been even more confusing. The Conservatives would seem to be leading, with Labour and Lib Dems swapping second place between them. However, although they show a pattern, they are unable to demonstrate what is going on in individual seats, and the results from those are likely to be very unpredictable. Election night will be very exciting from that perspective, and will probably make all the polls virtually meaningless.

So, as we enter the last 80 hours of the campaign what awaits us? There are four major scenarios, A Labour majority, a Tory majority, a Labour minority, a Tory minority, or a variety of coalitions. A political earthquake could yet bring about a Liberal Democrat majority, but that seems unlikely.

The public appear to have made up their minds, in that they have, that they would like a hung parliament this time. They seem to feel that none of them can be trusted to act in the country's best interests on their own. I can see their point!

Conservative governments are perceived as only acting for a certain strata of society. Whether this is true or not is not relevant, it is the perception. Labour government's are said to not be good with the economy, again a matter of perception, which if we examined historically would both be shown to be largely untrue.

Since 1979 both parties have had long unbroken periods of rule, which have seen many peaks and troughs. The Tory period saw the rise of the yuppie and the selfish society, or lack of if Mrs Thatcher is believed. It also saw three recessions, the third one being in a large part responsible for the disaster of 1997, and two wars. At its death it became mired in sleaze, which although affecting very few MPS, tarred them all.

The Labour government saw a long period of growth, with much money being invested in services. However, there has also been a feeling that the state has become more authoritarian, especially in the period following 9/11, and then the attacks of 7/7, as security became a major issue. Perceptions of crime (although official figures show a a drop, it is perception again)have also led to more CCTV cameras being set up by police and local authorities. Then came the invasion of Iraq, a policy which many loyal supporters, and the majority of the population opposed. However, from a political perspective, of the main parties, only the Liberal Democrats hands are clean, which is probably why it hasn't reared up during the campaign.

The current economic crisis, though worldwide, did have other affects that perhaps could have been avoided if either party had done some things earlier. Bank regulation being one, and perhaps the most vital. The 1980's saw massive deregulation, but Labour have done little to roll that back in the last thirteen years, as Gordon Brown himself admitted a couple of weeks ago. There have been disagreements on policy, but mainly all three parties have supported the government's measures to a certain degree. For the record, although the Conservatives were initially against intervention, they did come round, so although the accusation they were against it is technically correct, it is not a point to labour too much.

Whoever gets elected will have very difficult decisions to make on the economy, and the public will feel as though they have been made to bear the brunt of it regardless. Whether cuts are made now or later, or which taxes are raised, there will be many losers, and almost no winners, so it could well be a completely different issue that helps p[people decide which way to vote. This could well be the issue of electoral reform, as the public decide they don't want single party rule anymore, and want to see politicians working together, not just scoring points.

So neither party can really claim to have the monopoly on the right things to do, and the Liberal Democrats have not been involved in government for ninety years. Therefore, whichever party gets in, there is an element of risk involved, because given a majority, to what extent can we believe they will be different from before?

So, I will make a surprising declaration. I would like to see Labour as the biggest party (preferably with the largest share of the vote), but far enough short of a majority to mean they have to work with the Liberal Democrats. I beleive thia would guarantee the elctoral reform I beleive is essential to reforming british politics. This could well be the most important thing to come out of the entire process. The debates have proved to have a big impact, now is the opportunity to continue in that vein, change the system, and get those in power to think more about us.