Britain's Three-Party Election: How the Strange Has Become Possible

Strange days indeed.

Volcanic ash. The most serious economic downturn in a generation, maybe two. A conflict in Afghanistan which is more a never-ending intervention than a war and an occupation of Iraq which has been left behind.

And now the Liberal Democrats, in the space of days, have emerged as contenders for a share of power after the elections on 6 May. Although shrewd onlookers picked up on signs even before Parliament was dissolved, Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg's performance in last Thursday's debate with Conservative counterpart David Cameron and Prime Minister Gordon Brown has turned a three-party race from glimmer into shimmering prospect.

So as the candidates move to this Thursday's discussion on foreign policy: what happened and will it last?


1. CHARISMA AND THE LEADER

Rightly or wrongly, debates turn parties into an individual. On Thursday, Clegg was the one man who, primarily by speaking to the millions in the television audience as well as the dozens in the studio, had a significant impact.

This was more than a one-evening phenomenon, however. With the probable exception of 1992, this is the first poll since 1974 and the Ensuing Thatcher-Blair era without a dominant leadership figure. Brown, limited even before he took office by Labour in-fighting, has not been able to morph from effective Chancellor of the Exchequer into powerful PM. Cameron, in the eyes of many non-Conservatives (and I suspect a few inside the party) appears manufactured and lacking substance.

This did not guarantee Clegg's emergence as an equal amongst candidates --- I doubt that he was a household name at this time last week. Instead, the weaknesses of the two leading contenders and Britain's first-ever debate among would-be PMs gave him an opportunity.

2. DRIFT

Again with the probable exception of 1992, this is the first campaign in a generation without a trump card for one of the candidates. Thatcher had the Falklands Factor in 1983 and economic recovery in 1987. Blair had his "New Labour" in 1991, his own economic good times in 2001, and --- for enough, if not most, Britons --- his role as post-Iraq crisis PM in 2005.

Brown and his advisors may argue they avoided economic free-fall but that is not the same as a platform of resurgence. Afghanistan --- and if little else comes out of this Thursday's debate, this will by default rather than by admission --- offers no prospect of "victory".

Normally this lack of a Government banner issue should play into the hands of the main opposition. This year, however, the Conservatives have not defined their own big statement, either positive or negative (those with long memories will recall the effective 1979 slogan, "Labour Isn't Working").

On the economic front, there has no been grand alternative, either on the immediate crisis of lending and bank solvency or on the longer-term stimulus question. Indeed, the terrain of challenge --- who will cut or raise taxes? who will cut or raise social spending? --- is little different from any contest of the last 40 years.

And in foreign policy, there is no Iraq to define, for better or worse, a crisis candidate and party. Afghanistan offers no alternative --- escalation gives no benefit of imminent victory, withdrawal opens the door to accusations of defeat before extremism --- so will remain a rather anodyne talking point for the foreign policy debate.

3. RESPONSIBILITY AND RESPECT

It is not the case that the Liberal Democrats offer that Big Idea that could determine the outcome of the election. However, in the absence of either the Conservatives or Labour offering a political approach which offers either the answer for economic recovery or a resolution to Britain's interventions overseas, the Lib Dems may be able to capitalise by showing that they can at least be trusted with the oversight of the country's future.

The American comic Rodney Dangerfield had the famous catchphrase, "I Don't Get No Respect". That has been damagingly half-true for the Liberal Democrats. For decades, they have been a participant, often the leading one, in the running of local councils; however, at the national level, they have been relegated to the man shouting loudly from the Visitors' Gallery. Britain's system of Parliamentary election, based on first-past-the-post rather than proportional representation, has made the challenge more difficult.

It should not be forgotten, however, that the Liberal Democrats had their best result in more than 20 years in the 2005 elections, winning 52 seats in the 650-member Parliament. In a contest defined to a significant degree by Britain's involvement in the 2003 Iraq War and the ensuing occupation, the Liberal Democrats could define themselves as the only party to oppose the military action as both unnecessary and irresponsible.

While Iraq has faded as an issue because of the withdrawal of British forces from the country, the headline issue of recent months --- the members of Parliament castigated and even facing criminal charges for abuse of expenses --- also could play to that theme of Lib Dem responsibility. Whether because the party has fewer MPs than Labour or Conservative or whether its representatives are indeed more scrupulous, not a single Liberal Democrat has been amongst those named and shamed.

Nick Clegg's task has been to build upon the image of Liberal Democrat respectability at local level and to transform individual touchstones of responsibility into a voter decision that the Liberal Democrats are just as entitled as either of their two competitors to be trusted with day-to-day power in London. The prospect of that transformation was his big victory in last Thursday's debate.

WILL IT LAST?

If I could answer that question, I would be on-line at the bookmakers in the next few minutes, casting a large bet on Britain's first "hung Parliament", with no party winning a majority of seats, in almost 80 years.

The conventional wisdom is that voters considering a ballot for the Liberal Democrats will shy away at the last minute because of the Safety/Fear Factor. Better to entrust political fate with one of the Big Two who have been in power for generations rather than putting faith in an untested party. And, of course, both the Conservatives and Labour will be playing steadily upon that Factor in the next two weeks.

However, in this unusual political year, the Election Day aversion to a Lib Dem vote may not be as strong. The shakiness of both Labour and the Conservatives in defining their political approaches, combined with the lack of faith in Gordon Brown or David Cameron, has opened up a space which could be exploited by the Liberal Democrats.

So once more to the importance of last Thursday's debate. When Nick Clegg took the platform, he was the first Liberal Democrat to be treated as a political equal in the Prime Ministerial contest in post-1945 Britain. When he came off it, he was --- at least for the next seven days --- head and shoulders above his rivals.

Forecasting whether the Liberal Democrats can sustain political parity all the way to 6 May is even more difficult than predicting if this volcanic ash will clear enough for my return to the UK. For now, however, let it be said: the strange has become quite possible.

Comments

[Mike Dunn]

Tomorrow's debate on international affairs should be interesting (and if the Twitter rumours and heavy security presence are anything to go on it's happening a couple of miles from my house). On paper Clegg should lose it as the inexperienced third party candidate, but up against Brown's unpopular war and Cameron's seeming inability to define a position on anything he might pull off another surprise.

I think there will be a lot of talk on the replacement of Trident- Clegg says an independent nuclear deterrent is a waste of money. Cameron says we'll need it in the event of war with China (!). Brown agrees with Cameron on the need for replacement, so maybe Clegg can once again distance himself from 'the other two', as he calls them...

[Catherine]

The televised debates during the presidential campaign in Iran were what finally galvanised the electorate and totally electrified the last weeks of the campaign. I was there and I saw apolticial, apathetic, "they're all the same - nothing will change" people turn into passionate supporters of one candidate or another overnight because of the debates. Maybe the UK, a NEWCOMER to these TV debates ;-), will experience something similar?