There is a
great deal around the media about the Bradford
by-election and the return of the Scottish-London East Ender George Galloway to
the House of Commons. A number have
commented that looking down the years it is not so exceptional a result. There have been by-elections of the past that
have had a “shock” effect.
Apparently,
George won just over half the votes cast.
Tellingly this was said to be a “good” turnout of just over half the
electors. So George is essentially
elected by a minority of the electorate and it is not the “massive” victory
that is claimed.
A rag bag
of reasons have been given for this, TV comments have mentioned that he is
“charismatic” and “knows what people want”.
One wonders how many dictators, also elected essentially on a minority
vote owed their rise to exactly these qualities.
My view is
that these by-election and “surprise” results very often occur when a local
electorate does reflect a wider view of the state of affairs. Also, what is critical is when an electorate
is baffled, uncertain as to who stands for what at the centre and has begun to
dislike what has been happening to it.
My memory
of one by-election which fits this bill is that of Orpington on 15 March 1962
when Eric Lubbock, a local Liberal councillor and last minute choice turned
over a large Conservative majority and shut out the Labour party.
This was
before the 1963 Profumo Scandal broke and the campaign was essentially about
economic policy and the way we were being governed. Harold Macmillan had managed to revive the
Conservative Party to win the General Election in 1959 but did so by ramping up
public spending.
By late
1961 the vultures were coming home to roost and picking over what was left of
the Conservative economic policy. A wage
freeze on public sector workers had just been announced in 1962 and it was the
effect on nurses; then paid poor wages, that commanded the media attention
along with teachers.
Also,
during the period 1960 to May 1963 National Service in the military was being
wound down. This impacted on employment
in many ways. There were large
numbers of officers whose careers were seriously affected and left to look for
anything in “management” that would take them.
With the difficulties in what was left of an Empire in rapid contraction
there were the many returning personnel at all levels, also seeking comparable
employment.
Whilst many
still held on to visions of British greatness and all that, my feeling is that
amongst the former rankers there were very many who felt that the sooner we
were out of it all the better and wanted just work, housing and a decent
education for the kids, thank you very much.
Whilst
Conservative support during 1961 declined the Labour Party had its own
problems. Gaitskell had been defeated in
1959 because he and his supporters had failed to convince enough voters and
supporters and he was still struggling into 1963 to move the Party
forward.
Between
unions with a strong distaste for change but a huge appetite for State support
of major declining industries, increasing and substantial foreign competition,
no clear way forward for a changing and more aware population and clear
disarray in the government neither party
could control either the course of events or the direction of policy.
The
electorate were faced with choices that simply seemed unworkable and
irrational. Also, the attempt to go into
Europe had been blocked and other avenues for
progress or success did not seem to be available.
Had the
Liberal Party in 1962 had the organisation and structure to mount a serious
national assault on the traditional parties with policies more adapted to the
future than the past, the Lubbock
result might have triggered a revival.
They did
manage some successes under Jo Grimond who did have a vision for the future but
not one that the electorate as a whole felt comfortable with.
In any case
the changes of leadership bringing Wilson
to Labour on the death of Gaitskell and firstly Home and then Heath to put some
backbone into the Conservatives meant that the Liberals continued to struggle
for the critical share of the vote that might have meant access to power.
There is a
familiar ring to all this. For the
present what happens next will be what happens next. At least in 1966 we did win the World Cup.
No comments:
Post a Comment