A record win for Labour

Labour creates history by securing the biggest majority for any party for a second consecutive stint in the United Kingdom and dealing a body blow to the Conservative Party.

THERE was simply too much instant history crammed into a day - Tony Blair became the first ever Labour Prime Minister to win a second successive full term; Labour chalked up a record by securing the biggest majority for any party in a second consecutive stint; the voter turnout plumbed to its lowest level since 1918; and the Conservative Party crashed to its worst defeat in living memory.

June 8, 2001, the day Labour returned to power in Britain's first general election of the new millennium, was tailormade for statisticians, its political significance somewhat clouded by a welter of "firsts", "bests" and "worsts". William Hague contributed to the record books by ending up as perhaps the only Conservative Party chief to throw in the towel just after four years in the hot seat. There was an even more dubious record which few Britons should be proud of - the far-Right British National Party (BNP), for the first time, won a respectable vote in racially sensitive Oldham, in Greater Manchester, two weeks after the town was hit by race riots, allegedly inspired by the BNP and its ally, the National Front.

Although the BNP lost both the seats - Oldham West and Oldham East - which it contested, it got enough votes for its chief Nick Griffin, who contested one of the seats, to declare that the party had arrived in Oldham. He even acknowledged that the racial tension may have helped his party and said that if elections had been held two weeks earlier - that is, before the riots - he may have lost his security deposit. His colleague Mick Treacey, a cab driver, hailed the BNP as the new "voice" of Oldham.

For a traditional Labour stronghold to be tempted by a fascist outfit is ominous, and commentators hoped that the party would reflect on it after the victory celebrations are over. The fact that the elections were held under a shadow of growing racial tension - the riots in Oldham were followed by a night of rioting in Leeds - and the immigrants' increasing distrust of state institutions, particularly the police, was seen as bad news for race relations in Britain.

Oldham is a an inner city area steeped in poverty after the closure of its once-famous cotton mills and with a large population of uneducated and unemployed Asian youth, particularly Bangladeshis, frustrated and angry with a system that they think is hostile to them. Their fears and sense of insecurity feed on the xenophobia of the other side, creating a climate of permanent tension ready to explode at the slightest provocation. It is stated that the BNP chose to contest Oldham because it realised that there were votes to be had there after weeks of tension following an attack on a white war veteran.

The elections produced few surprises. The outcome ran close to pollsters' forecasts with Labour gaining a majority of 167 (12 fewer than in 1997) in a House of 659; the Tories picking up a solitary extra seat; and the Liberal Democrats, under their new and modest leader Charles Kennedy, emerging as a credible left-of-centre force which, in coming years, should expect to benefit from the growing public disillusionment with the two major parties. The Liberal Democrats gained from some of the tactical voting (Labour supporters voting for it in areas where it was directly pitted against the Conservative Party) at the expense of the Tories but insisted that it was not going to be soft on Labour. Kennedy promised to provide an effective opposition to the Blair government.

What is more interesting are the post-election developments, starting with Hague's resignation within hours of the debacle. The speed with which he moved was clearly intended to pre-empt any attempt to challenge his leadership. That his job was on the line was one of the worst-kept Tory secrets and despite the facade of unity it became clear as the results started to come in that his days were numbered. In the event, Hague outsmarted his potential challengers and earned himself praise for the dignity with which he conducted himself in the end. He also declared that he would not accept any position on the front benches. According to the tabloids, Hague's hands were forced by his wife Ffion who thought he had had enough of it - the daily humiliation of ever-declining popularity ratings, and being seen as a liability for the party.

Soon after the results started coming in, Blair declared that the victory was a "clear instruction" to deliver on the party's promises and that he intended to take it seriously. His second term, he made it clear, was to be devoted to "delivery", particularly in the key areas of public service: education, health and public transport. Commentators noted that it was a "more anxious" Blair who entered 10 Downing Street on June 8 compared to the debutant Prime Minister who did so in May 1997.

The first hint that Blair indeed meant business came a few hours later, when he reshuffled his Cabinet - replacing Robin Cook as Foreign Secretary; bringing the no-nonsense, tough-on-crime, David Blunkett into the Home Office; kicking Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott upstairs; appointing a euro-sceptic Jack Straw Foreign Secretary; and inducting seven women into the Cabinet to silence those who had been accusing him of promoting a laddish culture and running an old boys' network.

Both the scale of the reshuffle and the complexion of the new Cabinet were widely noticed, and even Blair-sceptics sounded impressed with what they described as an attempt to give a more businesslike image to the government. It was described as a Cabinet of "doers" - women friendly, professional, maybe short on style but strong on delivery. Above all, it was seen as the work of a man at the height of his authority. The Times, London, described it as a "Blairite Cabinet in his own image."

Not surprisingly, there was much speculation over why Cook was moved out of the foreign office and condemned to relative obscurity as leader of the House of Commons. The reasons, mentioned in the media, ranged from his "abrasive" nature to his undisguised euro-enthusiasm which, it was stated, brought him into conflict with the more cautious Gordon Brown, the Chancellor. The most credible explanation was that in the run-up to a possible referendum on single currency, Blair wanted someone who appeared less partisan on the issue and would therefore be likely to carry greater conviction with people. "So, while the cautious will regard him as an ally, the euro-enthusiasts will see him (Straw) as a more convincing salesman than Mr. Cook if the government decides the conditions are right during this Parliament," The Times pointed out.

THE reshuffle was rather a dramatic climax to Britain's longest, and arguably the dullest, election campaign in recent memory. So much so that what ought to have been its lowest point - Prescott throwing a punch at a protester - was greeted as a much-needed diversion. Rather than facing flak for punching a voter, Prescott in fact ended up earning a few brownie points for putting some life into what The Times famously called a "phoney" campaign. Political parties, however, cannot be blamed for not trying to make it interesting. If Labour did its bit by dressing up Hague as Margaret Thatcher - complete with lipstick, eartops and her imperious coiffure - the Conservatives returned the compliment with a display of a pair of boxing gloves to drive home the pugilistic tendencies of New Labour. The Conservatives also produced a "Blair bubble" and asked voters to "prick". Voters ignored it.

The campaign also had its share of diversionary controversies, starting with Blair's decision to choose a girls' school to kick off electioneering, inviting the charge of exploiting a state-funded school for party propaganda. Then there was the case of a missing high-profile shadow Minister who simply disappeared after disclosing his party's "secret" tax plans to The Financial Times. For days the media were at his heels while the Tory leadership tried to disown his remarks amid a Labour chant of "Haguenomics" gone haywire. And, in the last days of the campaign, one had the strange spectacle of the Tories suddenly talking about a Labour "landslide" and warning of an "elected dictatorship" ahead.

This was the first sign that finally the Tories had read the writing on the wall and that all they wanted now was to contain the size of the Labour victory. Blair indignantly called it the "last throw of the dice" by the Tories in their attempt to create voter apathy. The Tories' switch to negative tactics was said to have been inspired by what happened in Queensland, Australia, in 1995 when a similar campaign by the Opposition produced a dramatic outcome. The much-talked-about "Queensland effect" however failed to work in Great Britain, but the controversy the tactic generated did help revive interest in a dying campaign. And Labour's sharp reaction provided an interesting glimpse of its sense of insecurity despite an unassailable lead in the opinion polls and solid media endorsement. For the first time in its history, The Times publicly endorsed a political party, the Labour Party.

Yet, until the last moment, Blair stuck to the theme that the widely predicted victory was nothing but a "pie in the sky" and should not be taken for granted. He nearly went down on his knees as he beseeched the people to vote, saying they would be "dishonouring" the memory of their forefathers who fought for a free vote. But this had little effect on a lazy and cynical electorate. Barely 58 per cent of the voters turned up on polling day, raising serious questions about the nature of contemporary mainstream politics which simply did not seem to interest the people. Both Labour and the Tories, it was stated, had lessons to learn from a trend which in the long run could affect the credibility of a political system removed from popular participation. For Labour, there were also lessons to be unlearnt. Commentators said that in his first term Blair could explain away his difficulties by invoking the deadhand of Tory legacy but that refuge may not be available to him during the second term. He was more likely to be judged by his government's performance and rhetoric - "not the distant record of its predecessor", The Times remarked. The Guardian was equally blunt: "Let us have less nonsense and more honesty. Let us have less cringing and more confidence. Labour must respect the voters' desire for better public services by delivering nothing less in return. The voters trusted Labour. Now Labour must trust the voters more than it has done in the past."

For the Conservative Party, on the other hand, it is a question of survival as it struggles to find a new direction, and a leader to turn it around. Observers believe that if the party wants to become electable again, it would need to reinvent itself in order to broaden its appeal. Michael Heseltine, a party veteran and former Deputy Prime Minister, said the Tories must recognise that Britain has changed and the old Thatcherite agenda is well past its use-by date. The party would have to reshape its responses to the demands of a modern Britain. "You've got to realise the need to accommodate other views in a relaxed way," he said stressing the need to get over the image of a party that is seen to be xenophobic, uncomfortable with personal issues such as homosexuality, and fanatically anti-Europe. Its debacle was the price it paid for its obsession with issues - Europe, asylum, taxation - in which people were not really interested. They wanted to hear about better public services, pensions and jobs - issues that Labour raised effectively.

With the Tory leadership up for grabs, the contenders are divided between the Right and the Left - the former represented by the shadow Home Secretary Ann Widdecombe and the latter by the shadow Chancellor Michael Portillo and former Chancellor Kenneth Clarke. There is talk of a Portillo-Clarke "deal" to head off the challenge from the Right.

Meanwhile, a grim political scenario is unfolding in Northern Ireland where the moderates, both among the Unionists and the Republicans, have lost significant ground to extremist groups, bringing the Good Friday Agreement under pressure. The fragile peace process is suddenly looking even more vulnerable, presenting the Blair government with its first real test in its second term.