In the UK elections, there were two big winners -- the Tories and the Scottish Nationalists. The losers were the pollsters, who believed that there would be another hung parliament, along with Labour and the Liberal Democrats. For their part, the pollsters claimed that the reason they were so far off was because voters told them one thing when being polled and voted another way at the ballot box.
We can't blame this one on lazy voters unwilling to get to the polls -- turnout in the UK was higher this time around. But we can look at the human factor for what went wrong. Throughout the campaign, Labour leader Ed Miliband took a stand in support of the austerity program of the Tory government. Quotes below the fold.
ED Miliband would “cut spending” if he wins the next election and he has issued a stark warning describing continued austerity under a Labour government.
Mr Miliband said Labour will have to show it “can do more with less” as he delivered a keynote speech setting out the party’s plans for the public finances.
However, he suggested that his party would not radically depart from the Tory-led government’s austerity programme that has seen billions of pounds of cuts, as well as restrictions on public sector pay.
The Labour leader said spending cuts made the need for major reforms in the public and private sectors all the more important.
He said: “Clearly the next Labour government will face massive fiscal challenges. Including having to cut spending.
“And show we can do more with less. Including by doing things in a new way.”
By contrast, the Scottish National Party took a clear stand against the Bipartisan Consensus (TM) that Thou Shalt Not Oppose Austerity. For that stand, they increased their numbers in parliament from 6 seats to 56 seats. They have been portrayed by both the Blair and Cameron administrations as radical out of control extremists who would tear apart the ties that bind the UK. However, despite the defeat of the Scottish Independence Referendum last year, that only served to increase the standing of the SNP in the eyes of the voters. Since they came to power in Scotland, they have shown that they are capable of governing, which proves that they are anything but extremist. Even if they do not get their way on independence, they are still a force to be reckoned with in British politics.
The Green Party also improved their share of the vote in the UK. Their overall share of the vote increased from 1.0% to 3.8% and their leader, Caroline Lucas, increased her majority in Brighton Pavilion. They also took a stand against the Bipartisan Consensus (TM) of austerity.
On the other hand, the Liberal Democrats are having to cope with questions about their survival as a party. Last decade, they were able to differentiate from the two other main parties by taking a clear stand against the Iraq War under the leadership of Charles Kennedy. For that, they were able to increase their share of the vote to 23% in the 2010 election. However, in an effort to "prove" that they could govern, they went into coalition with David Cameron, which amounted to a major sellout in the eyes of most of its voters. Consequently, they lost nearly all their seats in Parliament. That would be the equivalent of the Democrats here in the US deciding to eliminate food stamps and privatize Social Security in the name of "Bipartisan Consensus." They were in coalition with Cameron; therefore, they are morally accountable for his austerity policies which have created a jobless recovery in the UK which has left millions out.
Austerity, as promoted by the neoliberal "Bipartisan Consensus (TM)," is a nice ivory tower theory for how governments can balance budgets. However, it ignores the human factor. Economists like Krugman and Piketty, who take into account the human factor, are much more reputable voices when it comes to economics. And when we take into account the human factor, austerity kills. The tragic death of a Missouri farmer last year when a bridge collapsed along with an even greater tragedy that was narrowly averted in Kansas City when a bridge nearly collapsed during rush hour shows the moral bankruptcy of our austerity policies.
We all agree that there should be accountability in all our government agencies. That means that there should be a continuous process of transparency, accountability, and involvement from people at all levels. That way, all of our roads and bridges can be properly funded. The same goes for Social Security, Food Stamps, the next farm bill, and so on. Instead, what we are getting is politicians cutting for the sake of cutting instead of investing in our children and grandchildren to create a safer planet for all of us. How many more dead bodies do we need before we realize that austerity kills?
So, in answer to the question on why the pollsters were so wrong, I submit that the voters are smarter than many of us give them credit for. I submit that many voters stayed home because they saw Labour and the Tories as one and the same. I submit that people don't always vote the way pollsters think they will; for instance, some people didn't vote for Jimmy Carter in 1980 because he deregulated the railroads (most notably through the Staggers Rail Act), leading to the closure of a lot of rail lines and economic catastrophe in a lot of rural areas. My mother wouldn't vote for Bob Dole because of his acrimonious divorce from his first wife, which she still remembered.
The lesson from the UK elections is a blueprint on how Democrats can lose elections. The first is that being the party of "Me, too!" loses elections, as many of the Democrats who lost in 2010 and 2014 were corporate Democrats. The second is that preaching at people who don't vote, like many did in 2014, doesn't work either; voters are smarter than we give them credit for. Preaching at people didn't work for alcoholics during the days leading up to Prohibition and it doesn't get people to the polls given the popularity of "no-call" lists. And as we saw in 2015, increased voter turnout did not guarantee a Labour victory in the UK. The third is that voters frequently vote for the person instead of the party. The fact that the Liberal Democrats did so poorly in the UK elections this time could have been because people saw them as willing to sell out core principles and say or do anything to get elected given their coalition with Cameron and their adoption of austerity. Voters are likely to forgive personal failures such as Bill Clinton's. However, they are much less likely to forgive the misuse of taxpayer dollars or a willingness to say or do anything to get elected.