BRITAIN: It's been a bad year for politics and politicians, with an expenses scandal exposing extraordinary greed, writes MARK HENNESSYLondon Editor
BRITISH POLITICS has provided many dates that have lingered in the public memory, and May 7th this year is one to remember for a long time to come, having besmirched the standing of the House of Commons.
The date marked the opening salvo by the Daily Telegraph, which had come into possession of a computer disc detailing MPs’ expense claims over four years – information the MPs had long tried to suppress.
When it emerged, in a damaging day-by-day list of new revelations, the reputations of politicians were battered into submission, leading many occupants of the House of Commons to opt for retirement.
Indeed, the next election is likely to see the greatest number of new arrivals to Westminster since the post-war 1945 general election, when the pundits’ predictions about Winston Churchill were turned to dust by an exhausted electorate.
Months on from the initial expenses revelations, the House of Commons has yet to emerge from the crisis: new rules to ensure the egregious actions of the past cannot be repeated have been promised, but have yet to be brought into force. A few MPs could yet face prosecution.
Conservative MPs were some of the worst offenders – former cabinet minister Douglas Hogg’s claim for cleaning his moat being the most memorable, though no party was without sin.
Conservative Party leader David Cameron, however, came out ahead in the public ratings for showing a surer touch in gauging the anger of the public than did prime minister Gordon Brown.
The Conservatives though are fortunate that the inquiry of Thomas Legg did not fully investigate the practice of MPs shifting the location of their main home from their constituency to London bases.
This, known as “flipping”, allowed many to avoid significant tax bills on properties that would in normal circumstances be classed as second properties, and thus liable for capital gains.
The public’s fury was evident in the summer European and local elections, with the United Kingdom Independence Party doing well in the former, and all of the main parties performing badly in both.
The question is: will public anger last? Labour and the Conservatives will seek to ensure the worst offenders are not on the ticket for next year’s election campaign, while minor offenders will pray for forgiveness.
Equally, people’s attitude to, and interest in, Afghanistan has waxed and waned during 2009. They clearly do not want British troops there, but what is not clear is how badly they want them out.
For many, the homecomings given to Britain’s Afghan war dead by the Wiltshire town of Wootton Bassett – more than 100 this year alone – has illustrated the UK’s traditional respect for its military, and its grief at the losses.
Gordon Brown’s handwritten letter of condolence to the mother of one dead soldier, in which he spelt the soldier’s name wrongly, was met with vitriol from the Sun, but, ironically, rebounded to his advantage when the public deemed the Sun attack unfair.
The shortage of helicopters and mine detectors for the UK forces in Helmand province and disagreements with senior military officers were persistent problems for Brown, leading to December commitments to upgrade both significantly – but not immediately.
Labour and the Conservatives are agreed that the troops must stay, though the Liberal Democrats, who voted against the Iraq invasion in 2003, may yet stiffen their position into a “Bring Our Troops Home” stance, depending on how matters develop.
The British role as “wingman” to former US president George Bush returned to centre-stage with the opening of the Iraq inquiry in November, and will do so again in the New Year when Tony Blair gives evidence.
Through all of 2009, the global financial crisis and its effects dominated the agenda. For months, Brown sought to portray the Conservatives as “the party of cuts” and Labour as “the party of investment”.
The Conservatives sought political advantage when shadow chancellor George Osborne outlined some of the cuts he would make if he replaces Alistair Darling in No 11 next year. However, these are a fraction of what would be needed.
Darling, in his pre-budget report in early December, insisted that Labour would cut the spiralling UK deficit by half within five years, though little in the document’s detail supported his claim. Key public services would be protected, he claimed, and paid for out of “efficiencies” gained elsewhere – leaving every other government department faced with cutting spending in real terms for every year of the next parliament.
In reality, even that is unlikely to be anything like enough.
Certainly, the UK’s spending problems are not going to be cut by efficiencies. Instead, brutal cuts – including in health and social welfare – will have to be imposed, whoever is chancellor.
Having recently attacked Cameron over his Eton and very “posh” background, Brown seems to have new fire for the general election fight ahead, though even some in his own ranks dislike the idea of a new “class war”.
However, the tactic may solidify the Labour core vote. If it does, Brown may be seeking to deny Cameron a Commons majority, rather than truly believing he can win power himself.