The Tribune

By PETER YOUNG

Britain’s General Election, due in May, is shaping up to be the most unpredictable contest of its kind for many years. The country’s domestic politics have rarely been so fraught with drama and uncertainty.

The two main political parties, the Conservatives and Labour, are close in the opinion polls, despite questions over the leadership of the Labour Party, while the Liberal Democrats are trailing badly. But the rapid rise of the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) following its successes in the European and local elections earlier this year, has captured the imagination of the public to the extent that it is challenging the traditional two-horse contest. This has induced fear in the ranks of the political establishment that UKIP will split the vote.

The defections of two incumbent Conservative Members of Parliament to UKIP – Douglas Carswell and Mark Reckless – have led to potentially significant by-elections for the emergence of this new force in politics – one in Clacton, Essex, last month, the other in Rochester and Strood in Kent this week.

Having won at Clacton with Carswell, UKIP already had its first seat in the Westminster parliament, and the party last night won at Rochester as well with a majority of 2,920. There is the possibility of further defections of Tory MPs and this will put heavy pressure on Prime Minister David Cameron as he seeks to avoid the difficulties of the present coalition and form an overall majority government next year.

According to the latest opinion polls, UKIP now has the support of nearly 20 per cent of voters and a target list of at least 12 – and possibly up to 25 – parliamentary seats.

Political observers note that the party has yet to produce firm policies on the broad range of issues of concern to the electorate so its success derives principally from its anti-European Union (EU) stance. For example, UKIP has already made clear its intention to regulate the quality and quantity of immigration which is the top political topic of the moment – particularly the unfettered movement of people within the EU which has resulted in a major migration from poorer countries to richer ones like the UK with its generous benefit and welfare systems.

Since the EU has stated that this is not negotiable, UKIP would only be able to control such immigration by ending Britain’s EU membership.

This approach is attracting voters’ support. But, in advance of its election manifesto, the party’s broadening appeal and rise in popularity is attributable to other factors, not least that it offers a real alternative to voters who are generally fed up with the political class and their perceived mediocrity; and this includes their leaders – the claimed metropolitan elite.

Indeed it seems to be the case that the esteem in which MPs as a whole have always been held has dropped significantly and that there is now, anyway, little to choose between the Tories and Labour since the latter has abandoned its working-class base.

There is evidence that increasing numbers of people are concerned that, even though there are clearly good constituency MPs who look after the interests of those who voted for them, many are career politicians with little training or experience who are only in politics to gain power for its own sake.

Overall, the single most important factor is a lack of trust that they can be relied upon to try to improve the lives of those whom they represent because they seem to be ignorant of and indifferent to the concerns of Middle England and therefore out of touch with ordinary voters.

The expenses scandal of the last few years, when a number of MPs were roundly criticised for making false and unjustified claims (resulting in jail time for a handful of miscreants), has contributed to this perception, as have MPs’ excessive holidays, well-paid outside interests and what is seen as the gravy train of perks and benefits derived from working at the Palace of Westminster.

There is also palpable dissatisfaction with the current political leadership being in the hands of a small group of men and women who have been well-educated at public schools (traditional independent and fee-paying boarding schools) and Oxford or Cambridge universities but who are ill-equipped to run the country. In too many cases, not having had any professional training or a real job outside politics – nor, indeed, any significant accomplishments in life at all – they are seen as lacking the necessary capacity, maturity and experience to enable them to grasp major policy issues and reach sound judgments. Moreover, it is contended that the current leaders seem to lack ideological or political conviction and are concerned more with image than content or substance.

Cameron himself has been criticised for dealing in sound bites and breaking political promises by seeking to satisfy the latest whims of public opinion rather than sticking to sound and properly considered policies and to serious undertakings entered into at the 2010 General Election. He has also been under fire for unwisely pursuing controversial issues like gay marriage and ring-fenced foreign aid and, more recently, the European Arrest Warrant.

In the midst of all this dissatisfaction, it is tempting to compare today’s politicians, and their perceived inadequacies, with the so-called giants of yesteryear.

In seeking to make detached judgments, historians are as apt as anyone else to allow personal bias to affect their objectivity and distort reality. It is all too easy to view the past through the false lens of kindly nostalgia. As the Anglo-Welsh poet, Edward Thomas, wrote “The past is a strange land, most strange, for wind blows not there nor does rain fall ...”

While agreeing with that, however, it would be hard to argue with the opinions of the eminent constitutional expert and historian, Peter Hennessy, Attlee Professor of Contemporary History at London University, in his seminal work on the office and holders of the British premiership since 1945.

He paints portraits of successive prime ministers and is brutally honest about their strengths and weaknesses. But they are pictures mostly of people with varied backgrounds and achievements and with political convictions honed through personal and professional experience.

To take a few brief examples.

Clement Attlee, who trained as a lawyer and served in the First World War, consciously decided to become a socialist following the deprivation he witnessed in the East End of London. He became involved in the boys’ club established there by his old school, Haileybury, and his work with these young people changed his political views.

Winston Churchill was an army officer who saw active service in India and the Sudan and later became a successful war correspondent before entering Parliament and enjoying wide ministerial experience and then becoming Britain’s famous wartime prime minister. He also, of course, had a second term when the Conservatives won the 1951 election.

Harold Macmillan was badly wounded at the Battle of the Somme in 1916. He later worked in the family publishing business and became a Tory radical and social reformer after being elected as an MP in a seat in a depressed area of the north of England.

Alec Douglas Home was a countryman through and through who entered politics because of a conviction that it was a duty for one born with the means to be independent to undertake public service. In the 1930s, he was Parliamentary Private Secretary to Neville Chamberlain (forever associated with appeasement in the lead-up to the Second World War), and with much subsequent experience was well-equipped to become prime minister in 1963 even though his tenure was brief.

A further example was James Callaghan, who had served in the Royal Navy and was a strong trade unionist before entering politics. He was considered to be the model of Old Labour and was the only prime minister to have held all four major offices of state. So, when he succeeded Harold Wilson in 1976, he was uniquely well qualified for the top job.

Then, of course, there was Margaret Thatcher, the ideologue and conviction politician par excellence, who had a university degree in chemistry and trained as a lawyer. She served as a Cabinet minister before taking over from Edward Heath as Tory leader and becoming prime minister in 1979.

Notwithstanding criticism that she damaged Britain’s industrial base, Professor Hennessy, in his index of performance of post-war premiers, rates her and Clement Attlee as in “the very top flight”.

So, are Britain’s current politicians in the same league as predecessors such as these? It may be interesting to make the comparison and, with the benefit of hindsight, lionise former political leaders. But it is, of course, important to take account of the different conditions in which they operated, for in earlier times political leaders were not under such intense scrutiny.

Nowadays, the avalanche of information through the internet and social media, the televising of Parliament and an intrusive and indefatigable press – together with an increasingly sceptical and disrespectful public – all mean that MPs are permanently in the spotlight and under greater pressure than ever to meet their responsibilities to their supporters and to the nation as a whole.

It remains to be seen whether the current wave of public disquiet may change the way MPs approach their role as legislators and representatives of the people. Or perhaps the simple reality is that in modern times politicians will never be able to satisfy the electorate’s increased expectations.

A win by UKIP and Reckless at the Rochester and Strood by-election will increase the drama and doubt and result in further turmoil with a General Election less than six months away. It will also surely bring the debate about the attitudes and actions of MPs into ever greater focus.

• Peter Young is a retired British diplomat living in the Bahamas. From 1996 to 2000 he was the British High Commissioner to the Bahamas.