Leading article: An electoral debacle that might save Gordon Brown
Voters reveal disenchantment with the PM and growing hostility to Europe
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
Fears of a Labour meltdown, as it turned out, were not exaggerated. When the UK results of the European elections were all finally in, the party had recorded some of its poorest results not for 20 years, not for 50 years, but ever. And there was worse: the more entrenched Labour was in any given region, the sharper the fall in its support. Labour's vote collapsed right across the north. The party came second to the SNP in Scotland and second in Wales to the Conservatives – the Conservatives, for heaven's sake.
The catastrophe for Labour was undeniable; so much so that party spokespeople, from Harriet Harman down, did not even try to spin it as other than "dismal". It was a catastrophe, what is more, that spelled a future that could be even more gloomy for the party that won power by a landslide in 1997. If Labour is losing its heartland, what price a return to government?
But it is important to distinguish what messages the voting in the European elections did and did not convey, before claims become facts and the wrong lessons are learned. Chief seductive, but wrong, fact is that any one other party did spectacularly well. In terms of share of the total vote, the results for the other parties in the top six showed a remarkable consistency with the results last time round.
Even the UK Independence Party, seen as a great victor on Sunday night, actually saw its share of the vote rise by only 0.3 percentage points. In terms of share of the vote, the Conservatives gained only 1 percentage point, while the Liberal Democrats lost 1.2. The Greens did best, gaining 2.4 percentage points, but that did not translate into more seats in the European Parliament, whereas Ukip's higher vote did.
Which brings us to the second headline of the night, after Labour's disaster: the election of the first – and second – British National Party MEPs. In principle and in practice, there is no getting round it: this represents a signal victory for the BNP and puts Britain's far right in the limelight as it has not been for nigh on 80 years. There can be no doubt either that the election of these two MEPs will be seen in places as lifting a taboo and making an overtly racist somehow more acceptable. It will also give the BNP access to the sort of financial and administrative support it can only have dreamt of as a fringe party in the UK.
Dubious achievement
But the scale of the BNP's dubious achievement must also be put in perspective. Across the country, the party's share of the vote increased by 1.3 percentage points; that is less than, for instance, the increase in the vote for the Christian Party, and slightly more than half the increase achieved by the Greens. In the north west, where the party leader, Nick Griffin, won a seat, their vote actually fell. The BNP won its seats in the European Parliament for the same reason that the Conservatives and Ukip also appeared to do so well: they rode to representation on the back of the Labour Party's debacle.
Taken together, though, the results for these parties say something that should be of great concern for those who believe that the best prospects for Britain lie in Europe and that the shape of the future is cooperation, not isolation. Of those voters who have fallen out with Labour and did not stay at home last week, the vast majority turned not to the Europhile Liberal Democrats, but to Eurosceptic, even Europhobic parties, including ones with a distinctly xenophobic tinge.
We know that such views – which combine hostility and suspicion towards foreigners with a blind faith in the superiority of the British way of doing things – exist in this country today, because their proponents seem increasingly unashamed to voice them. But this is the very opposite of progress in the ever more connected modern world. With the Conservatives withdrawing from the centre-right EPP grouping in the European Parliament, the majority of British MEPs will fall outside the EU mainstream. That cannot serve our national interest.
The persistence, even growth, of Euro-phobia is something that sets Britain apart from the majority of its European partners. And Labour, as a pro-Europe governing party, deserves much of the blame. Not only has it failed abjectly to champion the European cause over its 12 years in power, but it has done far too little to nip the xenophobic tendency in the bud.
Eurosceptic trend
Notwithstanding the strong Eurosceptic strand in British politics, however, the UK's overall voting pattern in EU elections seems to be growing increasingly European. In most of the larger EU countries, the centre right performed strongly – even where these parties were in government. The centre left, for its part, fared abysmally, evidently unable to convince voters that it could have handled the "crisis of capitalism" any more effectively than the centre right. As in Britain, more voters resorted to the margins, but the gains of far-right parties were more modest than expected. They gained seats in 10 of the 27 member states, including the Netherlands, but suffered sharp losses in Belgium, France and Poland. The next European Parliament's centre of gravity will be a little, but not significantly, further to the right.
Viewed from Britain, of course, the relative consistency in Brussels has been eclipsed by the drama in Britain, where the future of the Prime Minister was seen to be – and last night remained – in play. Paradoxically, Labour's disastrous showing could have saved Gordon Brown's skin for the moment, by scaring rebelliously-minded MPs off a change of leader that could precipitate an early election and unseat them. A day after learning that he had led his party to its worst results on record, Gordon Brown may have that same debacle to thank for his survival.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
If Labour and the LibDems had not demonstrated their subservience to their masters in Brussels, (because they feared the people would not vote the way the Brussels politburo wanted) then they might have retained more voters.
Perhaps the Europhiliac journalists at the Guardian might consider the thesis that one of the reasons for Labour's disaster was Brown championing the European constitution, and refusing to give the people the referendum that his party committed to in their manifesto.
It could be argued that:
Regimes do not change by act of governments.
Governments are facilitators, a communicative and servicing body (liaisons) between citizens and regimes.
They are not meant to devolve or revolt against those whom they are employed by.
Furthermore, governments have not much authorises to legislate and pass laws on their own initiatives (independently), unless seeking advice, agreements and confirmation by their regimes and citizens.
Nonetheless, we also need to ask ourselves that what gives the governments that false perception to act beyond their means and limitations.
Independency and security is directly dependent on financial stability.
When stability is threatened, the first respond will be that there is a fault within the financial mechanism (system) amid its disability to predict and adjust to coming undesirable economical events: the global financial meltdown.
Governments then get involved in a situation to protect the interest of all parties, which requires them to act solo.
As the result of chain of some long lasting and persisting events, governments are required to take a radical solution: change.
However, the change thenceforth is necessary; it ought to be gradual and thoughtful, in accordance with law and not for protecting governments or some individuals.
Two BNP MEPs are two warning shots from Real Labour Britain, across the bows of all quisling blatcherist snouts and fellow travellers , not only those still being shaken out of government.
http://bnp.org.uk/2009/06/bnptv-intervi
In two distinct elections, council and Europe, the citizens of the U.K. showed very clearly they no longer want the current Labour government. Again, Labour MPs showed all they want is to save their snout in the trough jobs. Doing the citizens will and meeting their demands is not part of their job description. Therefore they ALL clearly lied to the public when elected, that is why we will not get an election.
Gordan - You can run from the electorate
But you cannot Hide.
We will have our say
You will be kicked out of Downing Street
If as a consequence the Labour Party is out of power for the next two decades
on your head be it.
It was obvious yesterday morning that Brown would survive simply because the results were so bad and even Labour Turkeys don't vote for Christmas or, elections they are guaranteed to lose along with their salaries, perks and pensions. If the expenses scandal showed nothing else, it was that our MPs are very venial and cheaply bought. In addition, following Purnell's bold and honest resignation, once again Lady Boy Miliband flaked and ran off into the bushes. Carpe diem seems to translate for him into "crap my pants", how could anyone pretend this man has leadership qualities ?
However that illustrates the problem Labour has which is that the long feud between Blair and Brown where there were two distinct camps within the Labour Party, has destroyed a whole generation of potential future 'Top Party Politicians' which will take likely 10 years or more to rectify. Put another way, Labour doesn't have an alternative to Brown, for the past 14 years it was only either Blair or Brown all the rest were and still are, sheep.
Plus there is another factor to consider and likely weighs most in the minds of the rather feeble contenders available, Miliband, Johnson, Harmon etc. the next Leader of the Labour Party will be a thankless appointment designed to take Labour into the political wilderness in search of their Moses who likely, is still at school as we speak. The truth is that last night the Labour Party opted for electoral oblivion come the next election although one hopes the likes of Frank Fields and Kate Hoey survive.
On the EU, you are twittering on foolishly because at every level and regardless of whether one is pro or anti the thing, people are very hacked off with it all and feel that it is a total con. The EU makes no attempt to 'sell itself' but does everything within its power to suppress democracy and debate, including within the EU Parliament. The Lisbon Treaty IS the EU Constitution on which we were promised a Referendum and anyway had been previously rejected by the French and the Dutch...
Brown's failure to hold that Referendum on a flimsy excuse has not only harmed Labour but created a crucial turning point for the British electorate the consequences of which may prove significant. Previously there were strong Pro and Anti EU camps with frankly the majority of voters not motivated too much one way or the other which on the basis of electoral inertia alone, would gift a vote to the Pro Lobby.
Due to a combination of things, the expenses scandal which undermined trust in politicians, not having a promised Referendum and the economic situation, I think and it only an opinion that the mood has changed to one of "Prove It" and even now, Brown should withdraw our ratification, this issue needs to be confronted but, he isn't too smart and impotence will be the theme of the next 11 months.
The EU has a serious and fundamental democratic deficit which stems from its basic unresolved dilemma: is it a confederation, or a federation?
The advantages of a federation have never been put to people, probably because those who would devise its constitution would not possess the wisdom that was available to the young USA in the 1790's: people who had seen the abuse of power at first hand and knew that separation of powers was the first - and central - means to checking it. (The Lisbon Treaty is a neoliberal artifice.)
It is the absence of checks on the Commission which most readily exposes the EU's biggest problem, in that the commission is - if previous British encumbents are anything to go by - a lucrative gravy train for failed politicians like Neil Kinnock.
On more practical matters, the EU has failed miserably to get on top of overfishing, and it's actions on climate change risible. Carbon trading is a gigantic con, and should play no part in combatting CO2 emissions.
European integration was a good idea in principle but it's been hijacked by the unelected who have sought to impose their ideologies on us having failed to get them adopted through the ballot box.We were denied a vote on the Lisbon Treaty and now we are having unelected people brought into our cabinet.
Democracy,it seems,is dead.
From being a joke, with their legislation on the curve of cucumbers, they have become an all-enveloping self-congratulating morass. Failed poiliticians sneak off to Europe to be be feted and become rich, and pass laws controlling the lives of the people in their home countries.
If Europe is so good for the UK then explain it us and let us vote on it. Personally, I wish I had listened to Tony Benn when I had the chance.
The politicians should be confronted to these hard statistics!
Conservative share of eligible registered UK voters is 9.7%, Labour just over 5.2%, yes that 5% not 15% not 50%. (based on a turnout of 34.7%)
This was an election of non voters. Remember only 34.7% of people voted.
The political establishement believe that tinkering around the edges is sufficient and that they are off the hook.