"The Commonwealth of Britain" - Republican UK Wikibox TL

[powerab]

Some of UKIP's Parliamentary cohort.

“The Tory party is dying. For us to kill it we need to talk about the EU, immigration asylum, multiculturalism and the flat rate of income tax. We cannot be a Conservative side-project.” - Robert Kilroy Silk announces his bid for the presidency

UKIP had steadily grown over the course of the early days of the Commonwealth, cementing itself as the Commonwealth’s fourth party. Party elites knew a strong performance for the Presidency was needed to take the party forward. To this end party leaders such as Nigel Farage and David Bannerman quickly unified around South West Senator Roger Knapman. Knapman had served as a junior minister in the Major Governments, just what UKIP needed to bring legitimacy to their growing party. Knapman was from the traditional “bluekip” wing of the party, who believed in Libertarian economics and wanted to cooperate with the Conservatives where possible.

Senator Knapman announces his bid for the Presidency.

“You tried to ignore us, well now we have a voice at Westminster, you can’t ignore us anymore!” -UKIP Parliamentary Leader Nigel Farage’s speech at the opening of Parliament (2002)

The only major challenger to Knapman was TV personality and East Midlands Senator Robert Kilroy-Silk. Kilroy-Silk was a relative newcomer to the party only joining a few years prior. However his national profile was a great boost to the party. Kilroy-Silk became a leader of UKIP’s “redkip” faction which aimed to appeal to the “patriotic working class.” Kilroy-Silk challenged Knapman arguing UKIP should become a more economically populist party, and should challenge Labour and the Conservatives in equal measure.

Kilroy-Silk had very little support amongst the party faithful. Knapman ran a boring but effective campaign. This was unlike Kilroy-Silk whose campaign was increasingly detached and controversial. The UKIP debate wasn’t broadcast at primetime and would have gotten little attention if not for Kilroy-Silk’s strange racist ramble about Arabic people. Knapman commented on Kilroy-Silk’s candidacy in the debate, saying: “I want to take this party and this country forward, Senator you want to take yourself forward.”

The result was a landslide for Knapman and a humiliation for Kilroy-Silk. Knapman named UKIP’s parliamentary leader Nigel Farage as his running mate and Kilroy-Silk was promptly left in the dust. The next challenge for UKIP was getting the 26 MPs required for a Parliamentary bid. After a call around some old friends Knapman managed to convince two Conservative MPs, Stuart Wheeler and Malcolm Pearson (who was offered UKIP’s lead candidate spot in the 2005 election) to cross the floor giving UKIP the 26 MPs needed.

“This party is full of stars, whether in Parliament or regional Government they have been given a chance to shine. It’s time to show the British people we mean business.” - Roger Knapman’s victory speech at the party’s conference in Newport

Ever dramatic, Kilroy-Silk announces his new party Veritas, during his speaking slot at UKIP's conference.

At the same time Ken Livingstone decried the Labour Party and announced he would be creating an “anti-war coalition” to run for the Presidency. Livingstone managed to talk the Green Party, Respect, the SNP, Plaid and the Scottish Socialists into a rickety alliance.Livingstone promised an open primary allowing all parties to run candidates and all supporters to vote. The short-lived coalition managed to raise nearly £100,000 pounds, enough to pay the Presidential deposit and then some. However the coalition only had 20 MPs in Parliament, Livingstone swore he could get six left-wing Labour MPs to “broaden the debate.” However he failed to win any MPs over and the coalition quickly fell apart over ideological differences between the parties and distrust of Respect and the Scottish Socialists. Ken then denounced the Commonwealth’s political system and told his supporters to boycott the ballot as none of the main parties were truly anti-war.

“I said to Ken, look I’m ready to back you but I’m not going to risk it all for nothing, how many MPs do you have? Ken refused to answer. I knew then it was hopeless, I wouldn’t be surprised if I was the only one” - Lynne Jones in an interview with the New Statesman (2010)

Ken Livingstone on the phone to Labour MP Brian Sedgemore, who informed Ken he would not be nominating him.

The far-right also tried to gather its forces for a Presidential bid. Nick Griffin, having clung on in the North West Senate, raised a mere £38,000 and failed to gain the nomination of even the most unsavoury UKIP or Tory MP. There were no other notable presidential bids, only the Monster Raving Loony Party and a few independents who all failed to make the ballot.

Ken Livingstone had more impact on the 2004 Presidential Election than Roger Knapman, discuss (30 marks) - A Level History Exam (2019)

 

[powerab]

The South West was one of the most watched regions in the 99 election. A close three way race and strong performance by minor parties made the election particularly interesting with the highest vote gained by any candidate in the first round a mere 28%. The South West became a focal point for the balkanisation of Commonwealth politics.

Labour selected Bristol MP and Paymaster General Dawn Primarolo. Primarolo had gone from darling of the left and CND activist to loyal Blairite over the course of her career. Primarolo's main policy focus was poverty and she had been credited with lifting thousands out of poverty through the creation of the tax-credit system. Primarolo adopted Labour 1997 slogan, "Things can only get better"

The Liberal Democrats selected their chief whip, Paul Tyler. Tyler had been one of the Lib Dem's lead negotiators in the establishment of the Commonwealth gaining himself a profile in national politics. Tyler was considered the Lib Dems best hope at getting Premier are the party poured tens of thousands of pounds into his campaign. Tyler emphasised his anti-main party policies with the slogan "Change the balance of power"

The Conservatives selected Party Chair Micheal Ancram. Ancram tried to appeal to rural voters with his social conservatism and emphasised his euro-sceptic politics with the slogan. "South West voice for South West laws"

The results were a shock to many, the seat was considered early on to be a Liberal Democrat/Conservative marginal. Even when the first round results came in many expected Ancram votes to go flooding to Paul Tyler. Unfortunately for Tyler his strong pro-European politics was a deal breaker for many Ancram and Holmes voters and many chose to stay home or even vote for Primarolo.

I strongly believe that a euro-fanatic Lib Dem premier is just as bad for the South West as a Labour premier. I am aiming to win and I will make it to the second round. But if I don't I would rather not use my second preference than vote for Tyler. I'd imagine many of my voters are the same. - Micheal Ancram speaking on the BBC show "On the Record

 

[George123457]

Is the queen still monarch but in more a style of Canada and New Zealand or is she simply not Queen?

 

[powerab]

Is the queen still monarch but in more a style of Canada and New Zealand or is she simply not Queen?

The Queen is still the head of the global Commonwealth of Nations and she still owns much of her land such and Windsor Castle. She is still treated with reverence by many but she is not the Head of State and has no legal political power.

 

[powerab]

Blair greets party faithful at a rally in York

“The Blair campaign was rotten from the start. A campaign of lies built on a Presidency of inequality, cutbacks, corruption and serial wars. Not even the best spin doctor could keep Tony his crown.” - Chris Nineham writing in the Guardian (2014)

The 2004 Presidential Election did not start well for Blair. Whilst polls back in 2003 had Blair with a clear lead of seven or eight polls ahead, a combination of the collapse of the coalition, unpopularity of the war and Livingstone’s challenge had drastically reduced Blair’s polling lead. Now he was within margin of error of Micheal Howard. Also worrying for the Blair campaign Kennedy’s personal approval ratings had shot up as the war continued. Some polls in 2004 had him as high as 29% of the vote, coming first in the first round.

Blair had gone from national hero to divisive figure over the course of his seven years at the top of British politics. Despite more and more public spats Blair remained on top of the Presidency and dominant over the Labour Party and he still had a relatively high approval rating.

However Blair had numerous problems. He was increasingly perceived as an authoritarian, having gone through one coalition partner his Government became increasingly insular and major figures in British politics found themselves sidelined. Including PM Gordon Brown and Senate Leader David Laws. Blair also found controlling his party’s left difficult. Ken Livingstone’s campaign had electrified the Labour left, many were defecting to the Lib Dems or refusing to vote all together.

During the course of the election Blair saw a re-branding from the liberal change candidate to a tough leader and safe pair of hands. He emphasised this in his slogan “Britain is Working.” His Campaign Headquarters were in Sunderland.

Blair officially launches his campaign at a press conference in Reading

“The Blair campaign preferred to avoid big picture policy questions such as Iraq, the Euro and the future of the Commonwealth. Instead the campaign focused on “bread and butter issues” such as the economy and generous increases in benefits and pensions.” - Transforming President Blair, Margaret Scammell (2007)

Howard’s approval had greatly improved over the course of late 2003 and early 2004.After a successful primary campaign the Conservatives united and he quickly hit his stride. However he was still dogged by the “nasty Conservative” image and focus groups reported many voters found Howard unsettling.

Howard also aimed to appeal to Liberal Democrat voters by taking a hands-off libertarian approach to the Presidency. Promising to work with the Prime Minister as an equal and denouncing the Blair presidency for abuses of power.

Howard tried to overcome his harsh image by appearing in casual clothes and conducting interviews in his Folkestone home

Howard ran a populist campaign. Howard knew that the fast social change the Commonwealth had experienced, alongside the unpopularity of the Euro could be a winning combination for him. As such Howard heavily targeted working class communities in Wales and the North of England. Emphasising he would be a President for the “left behind” rather than Blair’s perceived London-centric politics. Howard’s main policy platform was railing against the Euro. Howard argued Blair had become too subservient to Brussels and Washington. Howard claimed he would reassert Britain’s leadership in Iraq and have a tougher line on Europe and the Euro. This was summarised in his campaign slogan: “Putting Britain First.” His campaign headquarters were in Bexley, South-East London.

“My task is to show the British people that there is a better way. A better way that gives them back control. A better way that makes it easier for them to fulfil their potential. A way that will put Britain First” - Micheal Howard’s campaign speech in Manchester (2004)

Unlike the Hague Campaign the Howard Campaign made frequent use of marches and rallies. Photo taken at the "March for Britain" in Cambridge

Charles Kennedy had many advantages beginning the Presidential election. The Liberal Democrats were a truly national force. Polls showed a close three way race for the first round. Enticingly, polls showed if Kennedy made it into the final round he would win handily against both Howard and Blair. Kennedy was also the only anti-war candidate on the ballot and was able to outflank Blair to the left on issues such as the environment and income tax.

Charles Kennedy had come onto the national stage as damaged goods. The Liberal Democrat primary had been more divisive than many had expected and many Liberal Democrat elites were openly unhappy with Kennedy’s nomination. Kennedy tried to capture some of Ken Livingstone’s magic by making his party the party of the anti-war movement. However many hardcore anti-war activists distrusted his credentials as the main who had served as Blair’s Chancellor mere months before the invasion began. Most dangerously, rumours began to swirl about Kennedy’s personal life, specifically a drinking problem.

Kennedy’s campaign had two major prongs. The first was personal, the straight talking Kennedy up against the tyrant Blair and ghoulish Howard. Kennedy presented himself as taking division and ego out of politics. Secondly was policy, Kennedy emphasised his progressive economic policies and humanitarian attitude towards foreign policy, summarised with the slogan: “Freedom, Fairness, Trust.” His campaign headquarters were in Aberdeen.

Kennedy meeting a voter in Belfast. Kennedy made a point of walking around openly in every major city in the Commonwealth.

The only candidate with no chance of winning was Roger Knapman. Knapman saw it as his responsibility to “take the heat off Howard.” His campaign was very similar to Howard, just more radical. Whilst Howard argued to reject the Euro and to devolve power from Brussels, Knapman campaigned on the break up of the European Union as an entity. Knapman also took the more socially Conservative policies Howard didn’t want to touch, such as rolling back legislation liberalising LGBT rights. Most controversially Knapman was the only candidate to oppose the Commonwealth. Knapman stated if he won the Presidency he would immediately call for her majesty to take back the throne of Britain. But the majority of his campaign was old-fashioned euro-scepticism, with the slogan “Say No to European Union.”

“When people ask me what this campaign is about, I say its about getting back what we’ve lost. Not just our Queen and our Parliament, but our sovereignty, our freedom and pride in our country, that's what Blair has taken away.” - Roger Knapman in his party political broadcast “What we Lost” (2004)

How far do you agree with the statement "The 2004 Presidential Election was Blair's to lose" (30 Marks) - A Level History Exam (2019)

 

[Fenrisúlfr]

Exciting! Looking forward to seeing who wins! The realist in me thinks it'll come down to Blair and Howards and Blair will win.

 

[EYates]

This has enthralled me with what you have posted so far. It would be interesting if it came down to Kennedy and Blair because Kennedy is more left wing in my view so if it was Blair vs Kennedy it would be a Blair landslide and a similar scenario if it is Blair vs Howard. Unless of course it turns into Howard Kennedy then it is anyone’s ball.

 

[Fenrisúlfr]

As far as I understand it, elections for the President, Regional Parliament, Lords, and the Commons are staggered. Could you clarify what happens when over a 5-year cycle?

It would be interesting if Howard or Kenedy won but have to work with a Labour government. I'm not sure if the adversarial Westminster system could cope with that! It'd be a real shock!

 

[EYates]

My biggest surprise came when the third party increased when they had an election rather than decrease. But I guess as the UK is now a republic anything could happen.

 

[powerab]

As far as I understand it, elections for the President, Regional Parliament, Lords, and the Commons are staggered. Could you clarify what happens when over a 5-year cycle?

It would be interesting if Howard or Kenedy won but have to work with a Labour government. I'm not sure if the adversarial Westminster system could cope with that! It'd be a real shock!

Yes elections are staggered, "executive elections" (President, Premiers and Mayors) take place every five years. Senate elections, both regional and national take place every four years and Parliamentary Elections, both national, regional and local councils take place every three years.

In some regions you are seeing mixed Governments. For example in the South West we have a Labour Premier overseeing a Tory/Lib Dem coalition Government.

 

[powerab]

My biggest surprise came when the third party increased when they had an election rather than decrease. But I guess as the UK is now a republic anything could happen.

That is fair, I'd justify it saying a lot of it is down to the novelty of third parties, also due to the weakness of the Conservatives thus far, it's impossible to do that "vote for x get y" attack line when all three parties are within margin of error of each other and equally viable to form a Government. However the smaller third parties are struggling UKIP's support has hovered near the 4% threshold, the Greens barely scrapped a handful of Senators and more radical third parties such as RESPECT and the BNP are stagnating and struggling to break through.

 

[powerab]

Yes to Euro chairs Senators Clarke and Mandelson in a joint interview.

“We three standing before you strongly believe Britain's future is in the Euro. At home we have forged a new consensus, a new Commonwealth. We believe Britain's place should be at the head of Europe, forging a new consensus abroad.” - Peter Mandelson speaking at a Buckingham press conference.

As well as the Presidency there was another reason for Britons to go to the polls, the Euro referendum. Whilst there had been rumblings from figures such as Gordon Brown, the referendum went ahead despite the end of the coalition. The Government feared the loss of face from cancelling the referendum. The Euro was particularly divisive amongst all the parties and Labour especially struggled to find someone to lead the “Yes” campaign. Many high profile Labour politicians considered it a poisoned chalice, preferring to work on the much less controversial Presidential campaign.

Eventually the yes campaign had assembled its three co-chairs from the three major parties.

Whilst he had decided against being Labour's representative on the "Yes" campaign, Byers took part in several Referendum events, including a BCC panel discussion.

From Labour Peter Mandelson was selected, both a committed Europhile and Blairite, Mandelson was considered a trustworthy candidate to avoid embarrassment to the Presidency. Other candidates considered were Business Secretary Steve Byers and former Justice Secretary Robin Cook. However Byers, whilst a committed Pro-European was reluctant to be the face of the unpopular Euro campaign. Cook on the other hand was vetoed by Blair, his betrayal over Iraq meant he could not be trusted to be the voice of the party.

From the Conservatives Ken Clarke was the obvious choice. A party grandee with little sentimental attachment to the Howard campaign. Clarke was one of the few mainstream politicians to take to the Euro campaign with gusto. Former Deputy Prime Minister Micheal Heseltine was considered but Clarke was seen as a better campaigner and had a stronger cross-party relationship.

“Why wasn’t I picked? Well to be honest they saw me as yesterday’s man. They’re probably right. The Euro is about our future, it's about the future of the young men and women in this audience. They don’t need an old man like me lecturing them about economics.” - Micheal Heseltine Speaking on Question Time’s “Euro Referendum Special” (2004)

Vince Cable thanks Liberal Democrat activist for electing him as their Euro campaign representative. Photo taken at Special Conference in Brighton

For the Liberal Democrats Senate Leader David Laws seemed the obvious close. He was the most senior Liberal Democrat in the country and had a strong cross-party working relationship. The problem was his unpopularity with Liberal Democrat activists, his campaign for President had gotten less that 10% of the vote. Unlike the other parties the Liberal Democrat elected their representative and party activists elected rising star Mayor of Richmond and former economist Vince Cable.

Across the river the no campaign began to take form. They had none of the problems the yes campaign had. They assembled with several high-profile politicians eager to lead the campaign.

For the Labour side the campaign initially approached Vice-President Prescott. Whilst Prescott would be voting no to the Euro he was too loyal to Blair and too busy with the Presidential Campaign. There was a similar story from Former Senate Leader Margaret Beckett and Yorkshire Premier David Blunkett. Prime Minister Brown was even approached at one point, and whilst the opportunity to embarrass his old rival was tempting cooler heads persuaded him against. Eventually North West Premier Jack Straw agreed to put himself forward as the Labour voice against the Euro.

Labour's "No" representative Jack Straw often found himself sidelined during the campaign

The Conservatives saw a clamour of politicians wanting to lead the campaign. Eventually it was narrowed down to a shortlist of three people. Former Presidential Candidate William Hauge, Senator Micheal Portillo, and Former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. To the disappointment of many, Thatcher was dropped fairly quickly, she was simply too toxic. Of the final two Howard nominated his old rival Micheal Portillo. Portillo was seen as less radical than Hague and was seen to be the person who could put forward a modern argument against the Euro.

Finally the Liberal Democrats there was no competition. Senator Paul Keetch was the only Liberal of note to break ranks on the Euro and he was promptly rewarded with a chairmanship.

The “Yes to Euro” Campaign decided its best bet was to pin itself to the personal popularity of Blair and Kennedy, much to the annoyance of Clarke. Whether these politicians were as popular was the campaign thought they were was another story. The Yes Campaign emphasised the “modern Britain” image Blair had tried to create and Blair featured often in campaign literature and posters. Something Blair advisers such as Alastair Campbell were increasingly agitated by.

“Alastair said to me, look are we fighting to have Tony elected or are we fighting for the f*cking euro? We can’t have both and its looking like we might end up with neither” - The Third Man: Life at the Heart of New Labour, Peter Mandelson (2011)

The Referendum divided even Blair's loyalist allies.

The No campaign had the advantage and they knew it. The campaign used the old fashioned sovereignty argument. Team No calculated that many had been dissatisfied with the speed of change in the Commonwealth. They decided that if they could present the public with a convenient emergency break button they would push it. Jack Straw was dispatched to campaign around the North West, North East and Yorkshire to rally support against the Euro. Meanwhile Portillo used his platform to hammer Blair.

"To be honest the No Campaign was never the political sovereignty, pro-European campaign I wanted it to be. It was an arm of the Howard campaign. I bitterly regret everyday being part of it. Many of my old colleagues still haven’t forgiven me." - Jack Straw speaking in a Foreign Policy Association Documentary “Britain and the Euro” (2012)

To what extent do you agree with above source that the "No to Euro" Campaign was an arm for the Howard Campaign (30 Marks) - A Level History Exam (2019)

 

[powerab]

The 2003 election was a sign of things to come in Northern Irish politics. The Northern Irish Senate had just eleven seats. It was purposefully designed so that grandees would get to know each other personally. It was hoped that the Senate would act to cool heads in the Parliament and could advise the Premier and Executive. The small number of seats coupled with the proportional voting system meant large scale changes in the Senate were unlikely, and parties would be unable to win more than a handful of seats, forcing them to cooperate. The Senate race saw increasing polarisation among the larger parties, with smaller parties that had broken through in 99 receding out of the Senate. The ruling SDLP continued to decline as Sinn Fein grew and the unionists became more eager to get them out.

On the unionist side, the Ulster Unionist Party gained the most votes, mainly at the expense of smaller unionist parties, such as the Progressive Unionists and UK Unionists who both lost their senate seats. The steady increase in unionist Voters, who had previously boycotted the Commonwealth's elections led the UUP to become the largest party both in seats and votes. The Democratic Unionist Party also gained a seat in the Senate despite losing votes nationwide due to a surge in support in the rural constituency. Both parties tried to portray themselves as the best party to defeat the now unpopular SDLP.

On the nationalist side, Sinn Féin saw a small increase in their vote, gaining six seats at the net expense of the Social Democratic and Labour Party. The SDLP continued to decline as Premier Hume indicated he would not be running for a second term. The ruling party fell into fourth place as many SDLP voters defected to Sinn Fein or the Alliance Party.

The Alliance was the only minor party to do well out of the Senate race. Naomi Long holding onto the retiring Seamus Close's Senate seat.

"The Commonwealth is wrecking Northern Ireland, don't allow four more years of Hume's concessions. It's time for a fair deal." - DUP Leaflet (2003)

 

[powerab]

Both Howard and Blair knew that if Kennedy made it into the final round, whichever of them had been eliminated would see their votes flooding to Kennedy, giving him the presidency. Some particularly nasty attacks were launched against Kennedy doubting his patriotism and some even alleged towards a drinking problem. Kennedy was also attacked for his policy to replace council tax with a "fairer" local income tax. This was branded economically illiterate by Senator Liam Fox, the Howard campaigns designated “attack dog.”

This is not to say Kennedy didn’t give as good as he got. Much of his campaign was based around attacks against President Blair. Accusing him of being powerless to act against his Prime Minister Gordon Brown. Stating that the Iraq War had made “Tony the Tyrant” into a lame duck with no authority.

“Whilst the 99 election had been relatively cordial. 2004 was where the Commonwealth saw its first wave of negative campaigning. This ultimately benefited Howard. Blair was forced to abandon his Statesmen demeanour and Kennedy went from straight talking maverick to another spinning politician” - “Political Marketing and the 2004 UK Presidential Election, Ashbel Smith (2015)

Kennedy especially was a target for heavy negative campaigning, as mocked in this Guardian comic. (2004)

Blair struggled with the mid stage of the campaign.Blair’s campaign emphasised a strong economy and public services. Many of Blair’s advisers hadn’t realised the extent of Blair’s decline in popularity. A poll by ICM showed only 33% of voters approved of Blair’s presidency. The poll also showed the most frequent words used to describe Blair were arrogant (69%), dishonest (61%) and a tyrant (56%). For the first time since the Commonwealth was formed, both the Labour Party as a whole and Prime Minister Gordon Brown were more approved of then President Blair. However Brown’s relative popularity was of little use to the Blair campaign, the relationship between the two had deteriorated so much that Brown virtually refused to openly campaign for Blair.

President Blair and PM Brown visiting a school in Edinburgh. Brown appeared infrequently during the campaign (2004)

The Liberal Democrats and Labour began a war of words over the Iraq War and tuition fees. The Kennedy campaign aggressively targeted heavily student and Muslim areas of cities like Leeds, London and Birmingham. The Blair campaign needed to respond. Running the “1 in 10” ad campaign Labour claimed that if just 10% of Labour voters voted for Kennedy it would lead to a Howard Presidency. However the lowest point of the campaign was when Buckingham leaked allegations of Kennedy's drinking problem to major tabloid papers.the Daily Telegraph ran with the headline “Honest Charlie lies about hitting the bottle.”

“The Telegraph's gutter journalism and Blair's scheming robbed this country of having a truly good and honest man as President. If it was up to me we’d never deal with that paper again." - Blogger Alix Mortimer writing in “Liberal Democrat Voice” (2009)

It is at this point Micheal Howard began to pull ahead.He had professionalised his campaign compared to the Hague campaign, adopting a slick image. Howard allowed other members of his campaign to aggressively attack Blair and Kennedy, but personally kept above the fray. Howard was an experienced campaigner and emphasised Blair’s failings on crime and the NHS.

The Howard Campaign made strong use of photo opportunities. Howard joined Kent Police on a drug raid in Canterbury. (2004)

The Conservative's “Britain First” narrative also found itself popular. Whereas the Blair and Yes to the Euro campaign kept each other at an arm's length Howard wrapped himself in the popular anti-euro campaign. Howard’s message of an elite Blair prioritising an American war and European migration laws proved popular with voters. As the campaign entered its middle stage Howard began to take a small lead in the polls.

"It's about time someone said something about immigration and that Blair’s grin is irritating. I’m not going to vote for Labour, I might vote for Howard, I might stay at home” - Saatchi and Saatchi Focus Group (2004)

Polling showed Blair was falling increasingly out of the British's public's favour. Being seen as arrogant and aloof. (2004)

Kennedy too began to slip in polls. Rumours about his personal life and the disapproval of Lib Dem elites started to take its toll on the campaign. Kennedy’s slip began to take a snowball effect. As Kennedy became less and less viable to his voters they began to return to the traditional parties out of fear of Howard/Blair. Whilst Kennedy saw an uptick in University Cities due to his opposition to the Iraq War and tuition fees, he saw a large loss of support in rural Lib Dem areas like Eastleigh.

With just two weeks to go until polling day all major parties seemed under a cloud. The Labour campaign’s leaking of Charles Kennedy’s personal information only served to heighten Blair’s “dishonest” perception amongst voters, with Livingstone taking to the airways to denounce Blair, and Gordon Brown seemingly disappearing, the Labour Party was hopelessly divided . The allegations had tanked the Kennedy campaign with some in the Liberal Democrats whispering of a quick switch to put Menzies Campbell at the top of the ticket. As this was all going on Howard’s small polling lead began to tick further and further up, his dull but competent campaign leaving him the last man standing. Going into the Presidential Debates and home stretch of the election all sides knew Howard had to be stopped.

“The Blair campaign settled on one single goal for the debate: undermine Michael Howard by stressing his negatives. By doing so they could rob the Howard campaign of the momentum and deflate Conservative activists’ delicate morale.” - David Butler “British Politics and the Presidential Election of 2004”

Conservative ad campaign emphasised the divisions in the Labour Party. (2004)

"Labour's leaking of Charles Kennedy's drinking problem to the press was the most significant moment in the 2004 Presidential Election, Discuss" - A Level History Exam (2019)

 

[powerab]

Similar to the rest of the country the Scottish Senate election took place in the shadow of the Iraq War and the declining popularity of the Blair Presidency.

Young rising star of the Labour right Jim Murphy was seeking a second term as President of the Scottish Senate. Despite the war's strong unpopularity in Scotland Murphy often took to television and radio to be Scottish Labour's main salesman of the war. This strategy failed to capture the mood of the country and Labour lost nearly 10% of the vote from 1999.

The Liberal Democrats served as the junior partner in the Scottish Government and unlike their national counterparts did not leave the Scottish coalition. The Liberal Democrats claimed credit for the cutting of Scottish tuition fees and the delivery of free personal care for the elderly. The party made moderate gains due to its national opposition to the Iraq War. But due to the coalition it did not make as strong gains as other parts of the country.

With it's biggest name Alex Salmond in Westminster the SNP failed to make much of an impact on a national level. It still struggled to respond to the devolution of power and was unable to offer a convincing reasons for moderate nationalists to vote for them.

As for third parties the Conservatives trod water, failing to capitalise on the unpopularity of the Blair Government and the Iraq war as Mundell had supported the war. The Greens and Scottish Socialists both managed to fully capture the anti-war mood. The Scottish Socialists managed to take advantage of the Socialist Labour Party to unite the Scottish radical left and have the strongest gains on the night.

"If Tony Blair can't hear our voices from Glasgow then he will hear them in Buckingham." - Senator Tommy Sheridan speaking at an anti-war march in Glasgow (2003)

 

[powerab]

Mandelson smiles at journalists as he enters the studio in Newcastle

With three weeks to go until voters went to the polls the first debate of the 2004 cycle took place. Not for President but for the Euro referendum. Before an audience of nearly nine-million views the chairs of both campaigns would go head to head. The novelty of three members of both parties going ahead to ahead was appealing to pundits and the media was salivating at the prospect of inter-party sparks flying. Chaired by veteran Question Time host David Dimbleby the debate began...

First to speak was Peter Mandelson from the pro-Euro campaign. Throughout the debate Mandelson emphasised the economic argument. Saying the investment his Government had made in schools and hospitals would not be possible if Britain was left out of the Euro “A door is slowly slamming in Britain's face. Once it closes it will not reopen. Our country has just three weeks to get this decision right. If this door closes we will not see the investment we have seen over the last decade. We will not see the low taxes and strong public services this Government has brought about. Instead our country will be left behind. Future Governments will be forced to make hard economic decisions. Decisions that could leave your child without a school place, or your Grandmother without a hospital bed. You can stop it closing, by voting yes on the 10th of June.” Polling showed Mandelson’s plea worked well on “Brain over heart” voters but over the course of the debate no campaigners argued he was fear mongering.

Mandelson leant into his "Prince of Darkness" image to give dire warnings of a future Britain outside the Euro

Surprisingly the no campaign gave Senator Paul Keetch the opening statement. Why this decision was made has been hotly debated by political historians. Maybe the no campaign wanted to appeal to some of the 20-25% of Liberal Democrat voters who might vote no.Maybe it was to give the party an anti-establishment flare. Maybe it was to appeal to the rural southern towns Keetch came from. Whatever the reason Keetch gave a strong anti-authoritarian opening emphasising the democratic deficit in the EU. “I am a Liberal. There are millions of Liberals throughout this country. But what do Liberals believe? We believe power should be held as close as possible to the individual. That those who wield power should be held accountable. Why would any good Liberal support a currency that takes power away from local people and gives it to an unelected and unaccountable EU bureaucracy. We Liberals want to see power returned to you, the people. The only way we can do that is if you vote “no.” Keetch’s opening statement was strong, the campaign knew it needed Liberal Democrats to vote no to maintain its polling lead and polling showed Liberal Democrat’s found Keetch’s message particularly persuasive.

Paul Keetch's strong opening for the no campaign was the main soundbite of the night

At this point the sparks began to fly. The first half of the debate was on economics, kicked off Dimbleby asking “Can Britain say no to the Euro and still be a credible home for investors?” Answering for the no campaign was former Chief Secretary to the Treasury Micheal Portillo. Who made an argument for the economic risks of the Euro. “Of course we can, as we have been for years and years and years. In fact for investors the pound is the safe choice. The Euro is just five years old, five. If we adopt the euro we can never go back. Investors famously like to wait and see, when this experiment goes wrong, which it will, Britain will be in a perfect position to capitalise on it.”

In the first example of inter-party conflict, Portillo's main adversary came from Senator Ken Clarke. Clarke turned the Howard campaign’s message on it’s head and accused Portillo of a lack of responsibility and patriotism. “I’m sorry to interrupt Micheal but our job as Conservatives is to put Britain and British interests first. We don’t believe in giving up, we don’t believe in walking away or leaving a chair empty. We are all about responsibility aren’t we? Well to say no the euro would be an incredible act of irresponsibility. It will be wilfully harming this country.”

The next round of the debate was on sovereignty. Jack Straw, who had remained fairly quiet and withdrawn came to life in this round of the debate. Straw had always been uncomfortable with the Conservative anti-euro arguments on investors and deregulation and much preferred to make an argument on democracy and political power. “When I walk around the North West, what I very often hear is what this or that investment banker thinks doesn’t matter, what matters is what the person in the street says. That’s sovereignty, if the British voter speaks the Government must act. If we join the Euro that sovereignty is gone. Forever. The voice of the man from the North West no longer matters.”

Straw was visibly uncomfortable on stage with his campaign partners and was fairly quiet and subdued for most the debate.

Straw’s argument for political sovereignty was rebuffed by fellow regional politician and economist Vince Cable. “Do you know what they say in my town of Richmond. It's not political sovereignty this country is lacking, its economic sovereignty. Big companies can play with currency, dodge tax and there is no economic force strong enough to stop them. The pound protects financial engineers and tax-evaders from a strong pan-European response. The biggest threat to our sovereignty isn’t Romano Prodi, it’s Henry Paulson.”

Appearing on BBC's Newsnight "debate recap special" Cable was accused of spending more time defending Charles Kennedy than the Euro

After 90 minutes the debate was over. Snap polling showed most voters neck and neck, with a slight edge given to the yes campaign. Most commentators agreed Keetch put in the strongest performance, unrestrained by the party whip he gave a rousing populist performance. Focus groups agreed with 21% of voters saying Keetch was the most persuasive on the panel, followed by fellow Lib Dem Vince Cable on 20%, Peter Mandelson on 15%, Micheal Portillo on 13%, Ken Clarke on 5% and Jack Straw on 4%.

However winning the debate gave little solace to the yes campaign. With just a few weeks to go the no campaign still led by 20 points at 57% to no and 37% to yes. However the strong performance of both Lib Dems may have saved the Kennedy Campaign, both used their platform to exalt a future Lib Dem Government and both managed to slip in passionate defences of Charles Kennedy. The referendum was almost certainly lost but maybe the Presidency could be saved.

Assess the above quotes from the 2004 Euro Debate. Which of these sources do you think is the most convincing on Britain’s relationship with Europe? (30 marks) - A Level History Exam (2019)

 

[EYates]

I don’t know if it is just me but if any European treaty got put to a vote or the euro hit put to a vote the U.K. would reject it.

 

[powerab]

I don’t know if it is just me but if any European treaty got put to a vote or the euro hit put to a vote the U.K. would reject it.

A no to Euro vote is leading by 20 points in the polls so it seems the people of the Commonwealth agree with you

 

[powerab]

The debate took place at the recently expanded University of Hull

A week after the Euro debate Presidential debate expectations were high. Over 11 million people tuned in for a historic Commonwealth event, the first time in British politics where the leader of the four largest parties went head to head. As the eyes of the Commonwealth converged on the University of Hull the stakes were high. Micheal Howard had come from behind to take a slight polling lead, incumbent Blair was dangerously close to losing second place to his former Chancellor, Charles Kennedy. British Punditry were expecting an aggressive debate and even a British “October surprise.” The BBC were glad to facilitate appointing Jeremy Paxman, known for his forthright and abrasive interviewing style, as the debates moderator.

Paxman's facial expressions became a feature of the night

Pulled by a lot for the historic debate, first to speak was UKIP senator Roger Knapman. Knapman's opening remarks were of little surprise to anyone, calling on voters to stop the growth of the European Union. “On June the 10th I ask you to lend me your vote in order to stop our country taking one step closer to the European Union. Britain is the world's fourth largest economy. We can make it on our own, we will make it on our own. British people don’t want uncontrolled immigration, they don’t want the Euro and they certainly don’t want a United States of Europe. There is only one way to say NO, and this is to vote for Knapman.” Knapman’s opening hardly blew the roof off but it was clear, firm and most importantly first. Putting his name in the history books.

Next to speak was Charles Kennedy. Kennedy emphasised himself as an anti-war outsider in his opening remarks. “Here’s what I believe, no nods, no winks, no spin. I believe in a Liberal Democracy. If you vote me as your President I will work every day to enhance democracy in this country. Unlike some on this stage I will work with all parties and all peoples, but I won’t surrender my independence. On this stage there are three Conservative parties, they may wear different colours but they all want to cut tax for the very wealthy. They all voted for tuition fees, and yes they all voted for the Iraq War. You have to make a choice. More of the same, or a new way. Freedom. Fairness and Trust, or bombs, taxes and fees. What do you stand for?” Kennedy’s opening got heavy applause in the audience, but would it be enough to break through?

Third up was incumbent President Tony Blair. Blair chose not to mention Iraq or the Euro and emphasise his domestic achievements. “A stronger, fairer, more prosperous nation. That is what we have achieved over the last seven years. We change Britain for the better. We have given the opportunity to succeed for every man, woman and child in our Commonwealth. Where hard working families who play by the rules are not going to see their opportunities blighted by those that don't.Where if any of our citizens, no matter how poor, is in sickness or need, they get the best care available without any regard to their wealth. Power, wealth and opportunity in the hands of the many not the few. Not our hands. But theirs. That’s worth fighting for. I’m asking you to keep fighting, to keep demanding better, to vote Labour on the 10th of June.” Compared to the “tough Tony” of most the campaign It was a rousing and hopeful speech, Blair was on good form.

Blair purposefully avoided the topic of Iraq and Bush in his opening remarks, however his opponents wouldn't let him forget

Finally there was the front-runner, Micheal Howard. Howard emphasised his humble beginnings in a patriotic speech. “Everything I have, everything I am, I owe to this country. I was born in July 1941, whilst I was being born many lost their lives in the concentration camps set up by one of the cruellest tyrannies the world has ever known. If it hadn't been for Winston Churchill, and if it hadn't been for Britain, I would have been one of them too. My father told me Britain was the best country in the world. I think it was.I think it still is. But I know we could be doing so much better. And it's because I think I can help make things better that I am standing before you today. Put simply, I'm here so I can give back to Britain a tiny fraction of what Britain has given to me.” Howard's opening speech was emotional and personable. Howard’s team knew he had to humanise himself, to present a story to the British people and with those opening lines he achieved just that.

The section of the debate was on foreign affairs, a controversial area and the parties clashed on everything from Iraq to the Euro. Knapman attacked both Howard and Blair over the Iraq War. “What caused this war in Iraq is the cosy consensus amongst the international establishment, both in Brussels and Westminster, the Tories prop up the Liberal Democrats in the Senate, and the Liberal Democrats prop up Labour in Parliament, any of the three other people on this stage could have brought the Government crashing to halt, but they didn’t and they won’t because they’re all from the same club, all except me.”

Whilst expectations were low for the unknown Roger Knapman by the end of the debate he became a household name

Kennedy used the unpopularity of the Iraq war to argue for a more Liberal, anti-authoritarian Britain. "I don’t just want to stop this illegal war, I want to stop all future illegal wars. We have a President who shrouds himself in secrecy, who walks over all opposition in Parliament, all opposition from his Prime Minister and yes, even his Chancellor. This small clique needs to be broken up, that’s why when I’m President I will surrender the President's power to authorise war and instead demand a three-fifths majority in Parliament before we attack another country ever again.”

In a divisive debate about the Euro Tony Blair emphasised his reformist European positions. “We have been a leader in Europe, no one has done more to prevent business as usual in Europe than me. I know Europe’s imperfections. I have fought to send back some of the unnecessary regulation, peel back some of the bureaucracy. Britain can become a champion of a global, outward-looking, competitive Europe, but only if we chose to be.”

Howard too spoke about reforming Europe, he aggressively attacked other candidates on the stage for their positions on Europe. “On this issue there is one candidate who isn’t blinded by ideology on this and that's me. Mr Knapman wants to destroy Europe, burn it down and salt the earth. That is irresponsible. Mr Blair and Mr Kennedy are so enamoured with Europe they want to push through an experimental new currency against the will of the British people. That is irresponsible. Only a Howard Government will give this country a sensible approach to Europe.

As the first section of the debate concluded and the cameras cut to break pollsters were busy collecting snap data from viewers. Knapman had the advantage from going first and had succeeded (low) expectations, Blair had put in a strong performance, foreign policy was expected to be the hardest part of the debate for him, he appeared Presidential and avoided saying anything controversial. Kennedy did about as well as expect, although many lib dems were counting on a strong debate performance that hadn’t come. Focusing on constitutional reform may have played well with pundits but many were disappointed Kennedy didn’t go for the jugular on Iraq. From a strong start Howard’s performance had been disappointing. He couldn’t attack Blair in Iraq as he had voted for it, and in Europe he found himself trapped on the fence between the Europhille Blair and Kennedy and the radical Knapman. Knapman had nothing to lose and was able to say virtually whatever he wanted. His aggressive approach to the debate landed several solid hits. On a snap BBC poll over the break Blair topped the pack with 39% saying he was the most impressive debater, followed by Kennedy (36%), Howard (24%) and Knapman (10%).

Cool, collected and smiling, snap polling showed Blair as the winner of the first round of the debate

"Blair’s strong performance in the first half of the 2004 Presidential Debate had little impact on the election result”, discuss (30 marks) - A Level History Exam (2019)

 

[powerab]

According to Paxman's memoirs, Brown approached him to tell him he "greatly enjoyed" the debate

Going into the next section of the debate the main issue was political. Paxman raised the issue of Gordon Brown with the candidates on the stage. “Whoever wins this election, Gordon Brown will lead the largest cohort in Parliament, even President Blair has had well documented disagreements with the Prime Minister. If you win this election will you give Gordon Brown the sack?”

Micheal Howard tried to pivot the question away from personal relationships and towards his leadership style. “When I win and when the British people give me that mandate then I will of course try to find a new Prime Minister because it is important that a President and PM can work together, as the last few years have demonstrated. However if I was unable I would ask Mr Brown to stay on. But I would be a President who listened to his Prime Minister, who acted as a figurehead rather than a tyrant. I would bring Parliament together, rather than trying to bulldoze through it.”

Howard was intimately familiar with Tory MPs and had no shortage of candidates to be his potential Prime Minister

Paxman challenged Howard, pointing out that he had only 170 MPs in Parliament. Howard retorted, “Well like in the Senate I would come to an arrangement with the Liberal Democrats, and then I would present my choice to Parliament and if the 24 UKIP MPs want to vote for Brown over my nominee then they’ll have to explain that to their voters.”
“A deal with UKIP? how do you feel about that Mr Kennedy?” Asked Paxman.
“Very simply, UKP is a stain on our Parliament. The Liberal Democrats will never be involved in any deal that involves UKIP” replied Kennedy.

Knapman ignored Kennedy’s attack, instead criticising Brown on immigration policy. “Of course I would give Brown the sack. This Government has been laughably dysfunctional. Brown cannot avoid the failures of this Government, under Brown’s leadership net migration to this country has quadrupled. I would show Gordon the door and appoint a Prime Minister who will get us out the EU and get immigration under control.”

Charles Kennedy mocked Blair for his relationship with Brown and attacked the Tory party in his answers. Joking about his friendship with Gordon Brown. “Look I’m a realist, as much as I would like a Liberal Democrat Prime Minister the maths in Parliament isn’t there. So I would have a choice, keep Gordon Brown or risk a hard-right Tory Prime Minister. That is not a risk I would take. In fact I think out of the people on this stage I probably get on the best with Gordon, I’m sure I could talk him around to the virtues of Liberalism”

Blair knew he had to squash rumours about his falling out with his Prime Minister and so giving a passionate defence of Gordon Brown. “Look, myself and Gordon have had our difficulties, we’ve had our disagreements, we've had to make lots of difficult decisions. But Gordon Brown is the best Prime Minister this country has ever had. Gordon Brown has put £40 billion pounds into our NHS, but the only way Gordon can keep up his good work is if he has a friend in Buckingham."

Gordon Brown was a central figure in the debate despite not being on stage

The debate then moved over to economics. Paxman raised the issue of the national debt, “The UK’s national debt is now over 10% of GDP, what would you do to fix this?”

Howard was in his element and was the first to respond. “The President has burdened British business with over 15 billion in new taxes, yet the national debt keeps rising. Why? Simple incompetence. Independent commentators say third term tax rises are inevitable under Labour. The ITEM Club - who use the Treasury's own model - say “the public finances continue to deteriorate alarmingly'. The OECD warns of a possible "sizeable structural deficit". The Financial Times says the chancellor should be preparing options for a tax rise after the election. I am the only candidate on this stage to put tackling the debt at the centre of my economic strategy.”

Polls showed Howard excelled in the economy section of the debate

Charles Kennedy spoke up to rebut Howard. “The idea promoted by the Conservatives that you can increase spending on health, education, policing, international development and defence, cut taxes and correct any budget deficit just by removing waste in the public sector is implausible. Cutting waste must be based on tough choices - saying what you would stop the Government doing - not just cutting civil servants and promising 'efficiency' gains. The Liberal Democrats will redirect some £5bn a year of existing Government money from low to high priority areas - cutting back on Whitehall bureaucracy, but also cutting low priority Government programmes such as the scrapping of the Child Trust Fund, the ID Card scheme, and the final stages Eurofighter programme.”

Surprisingly, Knapman took a much more economically populist line than Howard, pledging further borrowing. “I will raise government borrowing to provide £30 billion per year for immediate tax cuts and focused spending. Rather than viewing such increased borrowing in a negative light, we should see it as a short-term investment. It will be repaid when we leave the EU and see significant deregulation and tax reform results in a healthier economy.”

Blair emphasised the Commonwealth's relative success compared to other countries, and the stability his Government provided for investors. “Not so long ago Britain was racked by economic instability. Today inflation, interest rates and unemployment are down at levels not seen in a generation. Our national debt as a proportion of GDP is now the lowest in the developed world. Despite a significant downturn in the world economy, the UK has just recorded 44 quarters of uninterrupted growth - this is the longest expansion since the advent of quarterly records. I know that for businesses large and small, every other issue is secondary to the goal of stability. That stability is now real.”

As the debate wrapped up the candidates began to make their closing statements, and the focus group managers reached for their phones...

A BBC focus group of under 45s in Leicester react to the debate

To what extent do you agree with the following statement? “Gordon Brown is the best Prime Minister this country has ever had” (30 Marks) - A Level History Exam (2019)