Election debates: the trouble with the new consensus

Posted on Tuesday 22 December, 2009
Filed Under Politics

 


SERIOUS political debate – in the sense of well-argued clashes between sharply opposing viewpoints – has been on the decline in this country since it was stifled by ideological consensus at some point in the 1980s.

The key problem is that once all sides share all the same essential premises, it becomes increasingly harder to achieve product differentiation. The rhetoric becomes ever more consensual, because underlying political anger cannot any longer be sustained.

So ignore the hype surrounding the three promised Brown/Cameron/Clegg talking heads shows coming to all major networks next year. Not only are the programmes unlikely to galvanise public interest in the electoral process, they may ultimately benefit the parties that like to present themselves as the radical alternative to the establishment

It is a cliché of current punditry that Labour has bought into the Thatcherite settlement on free markets, while the Tories have adopted centre-left positions on social issues and on private morality, and the Lib Dems seek out distinctive niches in this broadly centre-right ecosphere.

At the level of values, there is a lot in that generalisation. That is not to say that there are not differences of substance, especially in the crucial field of macroeconomics. For instance, Brown has fought the recession by deploying Keynesianism for the wealthy, stripped of any social democratic content.

While such measures get few socialist pulses racing, they remain preferable to anything the Old Etonians are likely to come up with. Watch what will happen to GDP once the wingnuts return to the Treasury, and you will soon find yourself nostalgic for good old 0.2% a quarter falls.

The trouble is, party leaders cannot use the forthcoming head to heads to discuss the economy in terms that will be intelligible to only a small proportion of the population. Instead, everything will boil down to a Dutch auction on who cuts what, and by how much.

Once, politicians in this country sought electoral backing on the basis of how many jobs they were going to create and how much they planned to boost public services. It is a clear sign of just how far extremist free market ideas have gained intellectual ascendancy that the three main party leaders will be slugging it out in terms of how hard they intend to wield the axe. How do you want your progressive austerity, love? Fried or boiled?

On every issue of consequence – from the European Union to nuclear weapons, from the environment to immigration, the disagreements are those of degree rather than principle, and the likelihood is that this will not go unnoticed out there in Viewerland. Consensus politics means one thing in Westminster, and quite another in Workington.

OK, I’m a North London middle class leftie. What do I know? If I could somehow be teleported into a sitting room in Rochdale, I might find myself pleasantly surprised at just how well somebody who has just lost their job at the callcentre accepts the logic that the interests of the City must come first at all times.

There might be surprising reservoirs of heartfelt support out there for the Lisbon Treaty, which has doubtlessly been dissected in terms of both positive and negative aspects in workies’ clubs across the land, and endorsed so overwhelmingly that a referendum is deemed superfluous.

But my suspicion is that there are large numbers of issues that find the great unwashed not yet with the programme. If the debates boil down to a 90-minute Brown, Cameron and Clegg agree-a-thon, they will be more willing to consider the other options on the ballot paper.

The left is in no position to offer a credible electoral alternative. That will offer an obvious opening for political forces who can convincingly talk in terms of populist solutions and readymade scapegoats. In one sense, the British National Party and UKIP will be on the platform, even if they are not.


<<Go back

Comments

12 Responses to “Election debates: the trouble with the new consensus”

  1. Bill Corr
    on December 22nd, 2009 at 17:59

    Will Smooth David hire Grinning Tony Blair – or Victoria Beckham – as his accent coach?

    Will Smooth Dave use muted glottal stops and drag “… I sincerely believe …” into his utterances in this ghastly public ordeal?

    Note that Clegg is now very often tieless. Will all three be tieless?

  2. pansy potter
    on December 22nd, 2009 at 19:12

    All the three have just one speech each, which they give every time they appear. As I have heard all three I see no reason to watch thro it all again as it just makes me feel ill.

  3. JimD
    on December 23rd, 2009 at 08:40

    These debates are Brown’s last salvation.

    I have always argued Brown is the wrong man to lead a major party in these image led times, these debates will prove if that argument is correct.

  4. Robert
    on December 23rd, 2009 at 10:26

    I’ve been looking which way to go I’ve left labour after forty odd years, and I joined Plaid that lasted six weeks when I went to a meeting to find a set of stairs in the way, wheelchairs tend to not like stairs, then I asked the idiot on the door how do I get in, he replied in Welsh that people in wheelchairs do not come to meetings, thats an understatement.

    So I thought after forty years I might as well look round the Lib Dem’s do not hold meeting in my area, so I though shit try the BNP, I was welcomed and I went in sat down and they talked the biggest load of crap about taking over the world and fighting the Talban in the UK with blood and guts, not theirs of course but the foot soldiers.

    So it looks like next year I will join the million who do not bloody bother.

  5. Laban
    on December 23rd, 2009 at 13:20

    “in the sense of well-argued clashes between sharply opposing viewpoints – has been on the decline in this country since …”

    In terms of the three main parties, yes. There seems to be no shortage of sharply opposing viewpoints “out here on the perimeter”.

  6. Bill Corr
    on December 23rd, 2009 at 16:55

    Robert’s experience with a BNP branch seems to have been very very similar to that experienced by many people with adequately-functioning brains joining the Communist Party in the old days.

    Some of them were smarties and some were even beauties: where is Philomena Moriarty today?

    It’s a sort of odd conundrum: the BNP needs a better class of member – and plenty of smart people are in agreement with the BNP on the horrific effects of mass Third World immigration – but those people whom the BNP so desperately needs would rather undergo surgery without ether than attend BNP meetings.

  7. A Very Public Sociologist
    on December 23rd, 2009 at 19:08

    Robert, is there not a functioning branch of a socialist group (be it the Socialist Party, SWP or whatever) in your area? If so you should give them a try.

  8. Kevin Barry
    on December 24th, 2009 at 10:10

    One has to agree with Dave’s prognosis – the UK is bereft of any socialist parties/policies.However (and I am extremely hungover), as I said down the pub last night – even Nu Labour (I’m a member), is and always shall be, preferable to the Conservative Party. If they are elected it’ll be a f**king disaster. The Tories are run by a bunch of people who believe they are born to rule, and who don’t give a flying f**k about ordinary people.

    George Osborne has praised the Irish governments’ recent cuts in social spending – and that’s exactly what’s going to happen here, should they be elected.

  9. Jimmy Glesga
    on December 24th, 2009 at 12:32

    Kevin Barry. It is unusual to have an election campaign being fought on which party can make most cuts in the public service. It seems that none of them can have an original thought like stop the cuts and tax the rich. Is that just old fashioned!

  10. Robert
    on December 28th, 2009 at 11:01

    Brown has already started his speech, now is not the time to have somebody who is new young and inexperienced. Then again I’d say now is not the time to go with a bloke who cannot spell has difficulty adding up whats the difference between 10% and 20% in tax bands.

    I’m heading for a smaller party one that will have a raving lunatic in charge.

  11. Jimmy Glesga
    on December 28th, 2009 at 11:27

    Robert. Bush MANAGED OK for eight years and is still making eloquent speeches on the money train!

  12. SHOES INSOLES
    on December 31st, 2009 at 13:44

    Hi guys, all human situations have their inconveniences. We feel those of the here and now but neither see or feel those of the future