The Tribune

Peter Young sets out what is at stake and why in the closest-fought British General Election for decades.

WITH just a day to go until Britain’s General Election, the most unpredictable contest for a generation remains on a knife-edge.

There has been little change in the polls over the last few weeks, though they suggest that many people remain undecided how to place their votes.

The latest pre-election test of opinion shows that, after being neck-and-neck for some time, the ruling Conservatives have moved slightly ahead with a five-point lead over the Labour Party. The United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) and the Liberal Democrats, respectively, have 12 per cent and eight per cent support, and, surprisingly, the Scottish National Party (SNP) is now predicted to win all the 59 seats in Scotland, thus wiping out Labour which won 41 seats north of the border in the 2010 General Election.

As the contestants come up the final straight of a month-long campaign, the evidence suggests that some voters may not make up their minds until the last minute. One reason for so much uncertainty is that the electorate now has a greater choice because Britain’s traditional two-party system has been broken up with the emergence of minority parties which have changed the face of the nation’s politics.

If, as is likely, neither of the two main parties wins an overall majority of at least 326 of the 650 seats at Westminster, the result will be a “hung parliament”. Theoretically, the party with the largest number of seats could form a minority government and seek ad hoc support from one or more of the minority parties, but the more likely outcome will be another coalition.

Following the last election, the Tories – led by David Cameron – and the Liberal Democrats, under Nick Clegg, formed a coalition which has lasted for the full parliamentary term of five years. Clegg maintains that he and his party were courageous in stepping up and putting country before party in creating a formal pact with the Tories in order to establish a firm and stable government.

This time, his own and his party’s fortunes have dwindled as some traditional supporters have never forgiven him for going into a coalition and thus reneging on certain liberal principles. However, the Liberal Democrats could still gain enough seats to enter another coalition with the Conservatives.

Equally, UKIP could build on its success in last year’s European and Local Council elections by securing a handful of seats and a substantial popular vote which would put it in a position to play some sort of supporting role. But, if the polls are accurate, it is the left-wing SNP which could well be calling the shots in propping up a future Labour government that won the most seats at the election but without an overall majority.

One reason for the late surge by the Conservatives could be last week’s final BBC televised debate between the three main party leaders.

Questions on a wide range of issues were put to each of them in turn by a selected and politically-balanced audience. Each was subjected to intensive and critical scrutiny for about half an hour. The questioning was surprisingly aggressive in an age when deference to politicians is no longer the norm — a tough debate in front of an openly hostile audience.

Cameron, who was well-informed and spoke with passion, was judged to have won by 44 per cent from Labour leader Ed Miliband (38) and Clegg (18). Conservatives now hope that this victory has finally kick-started what began as a rather lacklustre and low-key campaign.

In face of persistent questioning about the economy, Cameron hammered home his message that the last Labour government had seriously mismanaged the nation’s finances whereas, during the last five years, his government had halved the deficit by reducing public expenditure and putting two million people back in work so that Britain’s economy was now growing faster than any major country in the Western world.

More savings were needed to cut the deficit further but the recovery was well under way and he wanted to finish the job – in his own words “I’m not saying everything is perfect. I’m not saying we’ve fixed it. But we’re halfway through a building.” He was also adamant about the need for greater welfare reform, continuing support for the National Health Service and new conditions affecting European Union (EU) migrants in advance of an in/out referendum to be held by the end of 2017.

He warned that, by contrast, if Labour were allowed in, there would be excessive spending, more debt, more borrowing, more immigration and a government dependent on a socialist SNP intent on a return to the extremes of the old Left.

Of the three leaders, Miliband received the roughest ride – facing, in particular, harsh questions about the last Labour government’s poor handling of the economy, which he put down to the global financial crisis of 2008. He said that he planned to reduce public spending and, by raising certain taxes on the rich, he could balance the books without sacrificing public services. He also ruled out a coalition or any other type of deal with the SNP and confirmed his party’s view that it would be disastrous to leave the EU, so no referendum was needed.

As the finish line beckons, only the brave or the foolhardy will be tempted to put money on the outcome. As always, the economy will be the key. The choice appears to be relatively simple: either sound economic policy based on wealth-creating capitalism (viewed by anti-Tories as predatory capitalism) together with the necessary continuing austerity, fiscal responsibility and reduced welfare spending or a return to socialism with state intervention and wealth redistribution, higher taxes, more regulation and anti-business policies together with welfare dependency and the chaos of Labour’s rule in the 1970s.

Traditionally, the choice has been between these alternative approaches of the Conservatives and Labour. However, in practice, it is never as simple as that because of the moral dimension of the needs of a free and fair society and protection of the poor and disabled as well as those who are disadvantaged.

Britain’s “first past the post” system, rather than proportional representation, has worked well for a two-horse race. But in many constituencies the votes of both Conservative and Labour will now be split by the minority parties and the results could be distorted so that the party winning the most votes overall could fail to win the most seats.

For example, UKIP claims support across wide areas of the country, but that may not be sufficient to win more than a few seats. It has said it will target Labour-held marginals and could win a relatively significant proportion of the popular vote in a number of constituencies in the Midlands and the north of England. By so doing, and thus taking votes – there and in other constituencies as well – from both the Tories and Labour, UKIP will have influenced the outcome without itself winning the seats concerned.

The SNP is in an unusual situation. It will poll a relatively small percentage of the vote in the United Kingdom (UK) as a whole; but, if, as forecast, it secures all 59 seats in Scotland, it will be in a position to ensure the survival of a minority Labour government.

The party has already threatened to press Labour to become more progressive and adopt extreme socialist policies as the price of its co-operation. It also wants to scrap Britain’s nuclear deterrent and may press again for Scottish independence.

Since it is likely that, despite Miliband’s denials, Labour would be forced to work with the SNP, this minority party could thus bring to bear an excessive and unjustifiable influence on the politics of the rest of the UK.

As this five-yearly contest goes to the wire, the political pundits who thrive on uncertainty will be in their element. Then, in the event of a hung parliament , there will be a period of political horse-trading in order to form a new government. This will be a source of further fascination for all concerned.

Television coverage of election night on Thursday promises to be an extended and compelling drama. With the results coming in during the course of the evening, the psephologists will be offering informed analysis to keep viewers on the edge of their seats. The shape of Britain’s political future will gradually unfold while the nation awaits the final verdict in a notably significant election.

The stakes this time around are sky-high.

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