To govern, Pierre Marc Gaston, Duc de Levis, insisted, “is to choose”. Much of the time, in practice, governments across the globe do their utmost to avoid awkward choices. Elections, by contrast, are unquestionably about choosing. The timing is chosen by the Government but the Government is chosen by voters aware that traditional allegiances might not suit local circumstances.
This newspaper does not presume to tell its readers how to cast their ballots, but it has a responsibility to express a clear opinion. In many cases, newspaper endorsements are predictable. The publications involved are shamelessly tribal — always in one camp irrespective of the quality of the company — and others are so uncomfortable with the realities of power that they instinctively prefer to protest from the sidelines. Neither of these courses has been the norm for The Times in its 220-year history. We are not a “Conservative” or a “Labour” fanzine. We also know that public administration is a profoundly worthy enterprise and one that is very difficult.
We have also been rather catholic in our taste for politicians and party preferences. In the elections for the European Parliament 12 months ago, we backed the Conservatives, contending that such a ballot would best enhance the cause of radical reform of the European Union. On the same day, nevertheless, an election was held for the position of mayor of London and we argued that Simon Hughes, the Liberal Democrat, was the most impressive of the contenders. We intend to continue to be consistent in our principles, but to be pragmatic as to which individuals can advance these causes in the political institution concerned.
Elections can be somewhat misleading exercises. They place a premium on polarisation and thus encourage the candidates to exaggerate their differences. This has been more striking in 2005 than in most campaigns. For all of the furious charges traded by Tony Blair and Michael Howard, in practice British politics has been witnessing a quiet conceptual convergence, infuriating the partisans who would prefer to live exclusively on a diet of policy red meat. This trend is, however, a cause of satisfaction to the normal members of the electorate.
Britain has never been better educated, or wealthier, or more aware of the world beyond its shores. There is also a broader, if not universal, understanding that these openings and opportunities are rooted in individual choices and responsibilities and, generally, not the result of delegating authority to the government. For this accord, the British people and, ironically, the Labour Party owe an extraordinary debt to Margaret Thatcher. It was her determination to be bold in economic policy and her drive to challenge entrenched institutions and vested interests that has shaped society in the past two decades. Without Thatcherism, Blairism would have been impossible.
Blairism can often seem like a doomed attempt to reconcile contradictory notions, and there are sometimes doubts as to whether Mr Blair himself is Blairite enough. It involves, at home, the ambition to pursue economic efficiency and social reform at the same time, while abroad it strives for a formula in which Britain can have a calming influence on the EU and retain an intimate alliance with the United States. There have been a number of occasions during the past Parliament when it has looked as if the Prime Minister’s juggling would come to an ugly end. Yet when the crucial moments had to be faced — be it top-up fees for universities or the deployment of troops in Iraq — he managed to carry enough people with him.
If there is a basic agreement on the “ends” of domestic policy, there is still scope for dispute about the “means”. Mr Blair’s objectives are usually admirable, but their execution has been the subject of legitimate criticism. Even he would concede that his administration was slow to realise how much change the public services required and that a sharp increase in state spending by itself would not transform anything. There are signs of improvement in the National Health Service and secondary schools, but these have been a long time in coming and further structural reform is needed to complete the task.
On this, Mr Blair is, at best, destined to be Moses. An astonishing spectacle of the past five weeks has been the reconciliation of Mr Blair and Gordon Brown, to the point that the former has virtually anointed the latter as his successor. The Chancellor is, therefore, an enormously important part of the 2005 electoral equation. He is an enigmatic, complex personality. There have been hints of late of him accepting that his missionary zeal could be counter-productive, for himself and the electorate — the test will be taxation; if it goes up, he will go down. For now, he remains a known unknown.
There is far less of a consensus on foreign policy today than on domestic matters. That has often been the case in British political life. Iraq has been the most obvious example, yet similar splits were evident in the response to the atrocities of September 11, 2001. There are elements of international relations — notably over his misguided passion for an ill-conceived EU constitutional text — where Mr Blair has been mistaken. But his reaction to the al-Qaeda threat and his willingness to be at the heart of the mission to liberate Iraq and play a notable part in the democratisation of a vital region of the world do count heavily in his favour.
Mr Blair took on a sizeable swath of his own party and then subsequently encountered an often opportunist opposition from within the ranks of the Tories as well. The revival of the “Little Englander” branch of the Tories, imbued with a dark anti-Americanism inspired by cultural snobbery has been one of the most disturbing events of the past Parliament. It has surfaced in the tone towards immigration as well. The leadership has to recognise this unwelcome tendency and face it down before it becomes a defining feature of the party.
The immediate aftermath of the conflict in Iraq was mishandled, although fault for that lies in sectors of Washington and not in London. The sacrifice of the lives of British soldiers — a further fatality was announced yesterday — has not been a vain endeavour. Iraq is slowly becoming a democracy and an example to its neighbours. The benefits of that process for peace and our security will last far longer than the term of a British government.
In the round, a third term in office for Labour would be the appropriate consequence of these hustings. What is a major policy experiment at home should continue to be seen through (with less tax and regulation if it is to work) with no false choice imposed on Britain between an EU that might be revived by enlargement and the United States. The Blair-Brown team is, in our view, best placed to strike the right balance. It is not yet time for a change.
This does not mean that another Labour landslide would be in the national interest. It would not. It would leave a distorted picture of public sentiment and stoke the inevitable arrogance of power. A healthy fear of, and hence respect for, voters is a positive force in politics. So is real competition and meaningful political choice.
This means that where the public has an unreconstructed Labour candidate or a moderate and modern Conservative alternative they should be prepared to use a ballot intelligently. Re-electing the likes of Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley), Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North), Ann Cryer (Keighley), John Cryer (Hornchurch), Frank Dobson (Holborn & St Pancras) Paul Flynn (Newport West), Glenda Jackson (Hampstead & Highgate), Lynne Jones (Birmingham Selly Oak), Bob Marshall-Andrews (Medway) or John McDonnell (Hayes & Harlington) will not do the country a service. If the Labour contender claims to read The Guardian, electors should cancel their political subscription.
This has been a frustrating election for the Tory party and for Mr Howard especially. The Tories are improving and beginning to make an impact in areas as diverse as policing, pensions and the arts. Their leader is almost a plausible prime minister, though, at times, he is too much the barrister delivering a brief and too little the statesman. Many of his Shadow Cabinet are, alas, not well qualified for the posts that they would like to fill. There is too much in the Conservative manifesto that represents work-in-progress and not a detailed blueprint for office. The Tories ache for an influx of fresh talent and original thinking. It is vital for British politics that such a transfusion of people and ideas should take place.
This may not end up as a disappointing election for the Liberal Democrats, but, in candour, we have been disappointed by them. It had appeared as if rational and realistic figures such as Vincent Cable, Mark Oaten and David Laws had seized hold of that party and might be capable of reconciling it to the disciplines that Premier League politics correctly demands. This too is a project that can be kindly described as work-in-progress. Charles Kennedy has found the temptation to fish in the pool of discontented left-wing voters irresistible. This may help him to acquire extra MPs on Thursday, but will come at the price of being less relevant to the nation in the longer term.
To elect is to choose and we have chosen Labour as our preferred government. We want more of a choice in 2009-10. For that to manifest itself, readers of The Times, a sophisticated body of voters, would be wise to employ local knowledge. The best result for Britain, we think, would be a smaller but a viable Labour majority and a larger and renewed Tory opposition.
