Local elections in Britain are usually soporific affairs, evoking little
interest among either political commentators or the electorate. In 2004, for
instance, the turnout for local elections was just 28 per cent.
The local elections that took place in Britain last week were, however, different.
The turnout is unlikely to have been much different from normal (the full
figures are not in yet). Nevertheless they provoked a degree of media interest
unprecedented in such elections.
In part, the interest reflected the fact that these elections are likely to
have been Tony Blair's last as Prime Minister and Labour Party leader. He
hinted last week that he will step down this month, and possibly even retire
entirely from politics to concentrate on the lucrative celebrity lecture circuit.
Labour's calamitous showing - it took just 27 per cent of the vote - is an
issue that will have to be addresses by his successor.
Tony Blair was celebrated for transforming Labour into party that could appeal
to 'middle England' - the mythical middle class backbone of the nation. Last
week's elections was the latest evidence that the love affair between New
labour and middle England is coming to an end. Indeed the Labour Party chair
Hazel Blears explained away the loss of one seat as the result of it being
'an affluent middle class' area, implicitly acknowledging that such areas
are now beyond Labour's reach. Labour, it appears, is being forced back into
its traditional urban and northern heartlands.
But in one of its heartlands, far from finding comforting retreat, Labour
faced devastating defeat. And this is the second reason why last week’s
elections has caused so much interest. For in Scotland – which Labour
had ruled for over half a century - the Scottish National Party (SNP) has
now become the largest party in the Scottish Parliament. Labour set up the
Scottish Parliament in 1999 as part its policy of devolving power from Westminster
to the regions. The aim of the SNP, however, is not devolution but full independence
for Scotland. Little wonder that many commentators have hailed the election
results in Scotland as historic. In the eyes of many, the unprecedented success
of the SNP signals the first step towards the end of the United Kingdom.
Yet, the Scottish results are not quite what they seem. For, if anything,
the electoral success of the SNP demonstrates not the triumph of the independence
movement but its very opposite. It shows how the dream of Scottish independence
has become soured by the cynicism of electoral politics.
The biggest loser in Scotland - as elsewhere in Britain - was undoubtedly
the Labour Party. Yet the results were no triumph for the SNP. A month ago,
opinion polls suggested that the nationalists would win at least 50 seats
in the 129-seat Scottish Parliament and have a minimum of a seven-seat lead
over Labour. In the end the SNP only just managed to finish as the largest
party - it won 47 seats to Labour's 46. And it did so by effectively ditching
its commitment to Scottish nationalism. Throughout the election campaign,
the party eschewed all talk of independence. Instead, party leader Alex Salmond
promised to hold a referendum on Scotland's future in three years' time. The
cynical aim of Salmond's strategy was to remove independence as a political
issue from the elections and to allow those disenchanted with Labour but carrying
no torch for independence to vote for the SNP.
The strategy worked a treat. Voters flocked to the SNP to punish Labour, safe
in the knowledge that there was no possibility of independence. As a result
support for the Greens and for small leftwing or independent parties, such
as Scottish Socialist Party - the traditional home for disaffected Labour
voters - collapsed. Such parties lost more than 80 per cent of their seats.
The end result is a triumph not for nationalism, but for cynicism. Scotland
will be governed by an independence party that won't talk about independence
and which has come to power largely thanks to voters who don't want independence.
In fact there never has been much enthusiasm in Scotland for separation. The
issue of Scottish devolution was first put on the political map in 1979 when
the then Labour government held a referendum on the creation of a separate
Scottish Assembly. Fewer than the required 40 per cent of the electorate voted
'Yes', and the plans were shelved. Twenty years later, a new Labour government
resurrected the idea of a Scottish Parliament. Just 60 per cent of the Scottish
electorate took part in the 1999 referendum that finally set up a separate
parliament for Scotland. Turnout in the 2003 elections to the Scottish Parliament
was less than 50 per cent - and less than 60 per cent of Scots who turned
out to vote in 2005 General Election for the Westminster parliament. Scots
are clearly less interested in their own parliament than they are in the one
at Westminster. Opinion polls suggest that more people in England, than in
Scotland, support Scottish independence.
At the same time, though, opinion polls have consistently shown that the majority
of Scots favour greater powers for the Scottish parliament. Why? Because it
is an expression of disaffection with mainstream politics - and in particular
with the Labour Party - a disaffection that far from being unique to Scotland.
The SNP has clawed its way to power by exploiting this disaffection. But its
own cynical willingness to subordinate its most fundamental principles in
order to appear electorally attractive - a very New Labour strategy - can
only help exacerbate the anti-political mood.