Fourthwrite .............................Issue No. 6

Election 2001

by Mark Hayes

On June 7th the Labour Party secured a second term in office with what was widely regarded as another "landslide" victory in the election. Whilst anxious to avoid the accusation of triumphalism it was quite clear that senior Labour politicians saw the result as a resounding endorsement of New Labourism and the politics of the "Third Way". However, upon closer inspection the election presents a far more ambiguous picture, and the Labour Party will undoubtedly face some very difficult choices in the years ahead.

As far as the election results are concerned Tony Blair has managed to sustain his massive majority in the House of Commons but, significantly, on the basis of a much reduced turnout. Turnout in the 2001 election has been described as the lowest since 1918, but was arguably the lowest ever. Comparisons with 1918 (the previous lowest) are slightly misleading because in that election 40% of men received the vote for the first time and people were being moved around because of the war. In 2001 approximately 40% of eligible voters (some 14-15 million people) never bothered to visit their polling station. This reflects very badly on the quality of democracy in Britain and raises important questions about the public’s commitment to the Parliamentary process and conventional politics. Moreover, the turnout in traditional Labour constituencies was especially low (in Sunderland only 48%). This would indicate a high degree of disenchantment amongst core Labour support. In addition to this Tony Blair was faced by a divided and ineptly led Conservative Party, purveying its own obnoxious brand of xenophobic populist "Common Sense", and a Liberal Democratic Party unable to overcome the obstacles imposed by a first past the post electoral system. Seen in this context the performance of New Labour is not quite so impressive.

Nevertheless, in securing victory New Labour made numerous pledges: to improve the quality of public services; prioritise investment in education and the NHS; to reduce child poverty; to develop an integrated transport system and so on. These commitments were presumably designed, at least in part, to assuage discontent in Labour’s heartlands. However, given the party’s performance in office so far, it seems unlikely that Labour will carry out its (albeit modest) proposals. In the first term Blair kept within Tory imposed spending limits, revealed a perverse infatuation with privatisation and private finance initiatives, and presided over the widening differential gap between rich and poor in society. All the indications are that Blair remains committed to enterprise capitalism and anxious to reassure business of his free market credentials. The Labour Party has become far too embedded into the corporate culture of global capitalism to extricate itself at this stage. The likelihood therefore is that Blair will continue to pander to the prejudices of "middle England" in the attempt to cling onto political power, and significant sections of the electorate will become still more disaffected. In the context of a Labour Party once more failing to deliver (even minimal) social reform the most indicative result of the General Election may yet prove to be the 16% of the vote secured by the British National Party in Oldham. Labour has a mandate in Parliament, but in the coming years the more significant political conflicts may take place beyond Westminster.