The Merging of Political Thought

Mark Siara - Mon 28 Apr, 2008

There is very little to choose in policy distinctions these days as the major parties fight for the same middle ground.

Mark Siara asks: What really is the difference between the two political parties?

We are inundated with choices on a daily basis. Indeed it seems that much of our consumer-driven society is predicated on there being plenty of choice. You choose the car (from Germany, Japan or France) you drive to and from work in, maybe stopping off for an Indian (or Chinese or Thai or Mexican) takeaway on the way back. Once at home you sit in front of your recently chosen, recently cut-price flat screen television (made in Japan or Europe) and choose an on-demand film made in the US. If you have children you may choose one of their Chinese made toys to play with them, before putting them to bed and choosing that well-deserved bottle of French wine from the rack. Choice – it makes you proud to be British doesn’t it?

But there is one area where the choices are narrowing and the options are reducing and unfortunately it is far more important that whether you prefer a double-caf choco, mocha coffee, hold the foam (from Starbucks – US) or a cup of English Breakfast tea (Hurrah – actually, don’t get too excited, the tea is picked in India). That area is politics, the one place where a choice is not only desirable but essential.

In Britain the options are fairly clear cut – we will either have a Labour government or a Conservative one. That’s a shame for the Liberal Democrats who, although they have one of the best, brightest and most astute MPs in the excellent Vince Cable, are never going to win a General Election unless Proportional Representation is adopted. And why would the party in power change the system that elected them in the first place? The only reason I can think of is if said party is in danger of losing the next election. Hmmm. So maybe the Lib Dems will have a more significant presence in national politics in the next few years... Even if they don’t win it outright, they could hold the balance of power in a hung Parliament...and then the future’s bright, the future’s orange. That would make Nick Clegg the first Liberal Leader with actual power since David Lloyd George was Prime Minister in 1922 (in a coalition with Andrew Bonar Law’s Conservatives).

This is all starting to sound like former Liberal leader David Steel’s clarion call of 1981 for delegates to “go back to your constituencies and prepare for government”. It’s not going to happen - the Lib Dems will just have to be happy with a significant presence in local politics. So, back to political reality then, where the decision for the electorate will be between Gordon Brown and David Cameron.

At first glance it seems there is a real difference there. Our current leader is the son of a Church of Scotland Minister. His high intelligence was spotted early on and he went to Edinburgh University at the age of 16. With deep Labour roots, the 57-year-old counts amongst his heroes the likes of Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy. Then there’s the Leader of the Opposition, David Cameron. Aged 41, the Old Etonian, who subsequently went to Oxford University, took over as head of the Conservative party in December 2005. His success in turning the Tories around is highlighted in recent opinion polls showing them to be well ahead of Labour.

But, in reality, what is the difference between the two leaders, their parties and their policies? In many cases not much. On matters such as the economy, taxation, the environment, law and order, health or education the two parties stand so close together that you often couldn’t put a piece of paper between them. And that’s when they’re not stealing each others’ ideas. Alright, there are differences to be had if you look closely at policy details, but that’s just it – it’s all about the details. Time was when you didn’t need to wade through manifestos or policy documents to find the distinctions. The Tories were tough on law and order, against further European integration and in favour of low taxation. Labour’s priorities on the other hand lay with improving education, healthcare and public transport. You paid your money and you took your choice.

The lack of a mainstream alternative has given rise to the smaller political parties, such as UKIP or the BNP where one policy dominates. It is easy to dismiss the followers of these parties as cranks or dangerous extremists with no chance of forming a government. That may be true but they can still have an influence – witness the growing importance of environmental issues in UK policy under the influence of the Green Party, once dismissed as sandal-wearing tree-huggers (Commodities expert Garry White has plenty to say on that particular subject).

So why the convergence of ideas? It seems that both parties want to occupy the middle ground, an expression that is the triumph of marketing over matter. The centre of anywhere sounds safe; it’s not at those dangerous margins where the extremists lie. Where exactly that centre currently sits is unclear, but it’s further over to the right than it was thirty years ago. In those days your average Labour voter worked down a mine and blue-rinses and floral dresses were de rigueur for the average Tory wife.

The battle lines are more subtle now, with middle England the place that the political warriors must fight. The reason for this is simple – middle England is where the floating voters and the marginal seats are located. If you can change the opinion of these relatively few people enough seats will change hands to alter which party is in power at Westminster. This is a serious flaw of the British electoral system where policies target a small percentage of the population – maybe PR has more merit than it’s currently given.

It’s not just in the UK where the voters are hampered by a lack of alternatives. Take the US where the next President will come from one of the following: a senior citizen, a woman or a black male. Diversity there, it’s true, but no real choice; it’s window dressing. Which one of these candidates is going to offer any truly different policies? How about a policy that, say, gives free healthcare to all Americans, or one that nationalises the oil industry in an attempt to control the supply of this increasingly scarce resource? What about a return to the gold standard to stem the dollar’s decline, or how about abolishing the Fed to allow the market to decide the price of money? Not going to happen. No choice.

On a worldwide scale, the choice is diminishing too. China and Russia are turning away from their communist leanings and becoming more free market, although currently it is state-sponsored capitalism. In terms of political ideology it seems the battle has already been won - to loosely paraphrase Hillary Clinton’s husband, these days it’s not about left or right, privatise or nationalise, it’s about the economy stupid.

As the worldwide downturn continues, the economy is going to become the one and only issue for politicians across the globe. They have to do something to address that issue - they’ve no choice really.