	Generational Dynamics
	Forecasting America's Destiny ... and the World's

\| HOME \| WEB LOG \| COUNTRY WIKI \| COMMENT \| FORUM \| DOWNLOADS \| ABOUT \|

Generational Dynamics Web Log for 02-May-05
UK election follows same pattern as American and Australian elections

Web Log - May, 2005

UK election follows same pattern as American and Australian elections

The Iraq issue is causing bitter divisiveness, but not enough to affect Blair's lead.

All the major players of the 2004 American Presidential election are present in UK election scheduled for Thursday, May 5:

Charles Kennedy, Liberal Democrat party (Source: BBC)

Charles Kennedy, Liberal Democrat party (Source: BBC)

Michael Howard, Conservative Party (Source: BBC)

Michael Howard, Conservative Party (Source: BBC)

Tony Blair, Labour Party (Source: BBC)

Tony Blair, Labour Party (Source: BBC)

The Liberal Democrats were opposed to the Iraq war from day one, and are opposed to the Iraq war today. Party leader Charles Kennedy says that Tony Blair's authority has been "seriously undermined" by his errors in judgment. The Liberal Democrats are in third place, polling at 24%. The corresponding American candidate was Howard Dean, who was opposed to the Iraq war from the beginning, but burned out quickly.

The Conservatives supported the war from the beginning, and support it today. There is absolutely no policy difference between the Conservatives and Labour over Iraq. However, party leader Michael Howard has bitterly attacked Tony Blair, accusing him of lying to the British people about the reasons for going to war, and even lying to his own Cabinet. The Conservatives are in second place, polling at 33%. The corresponding American candidate was John Kerry, who supported the war from the beginning, and who had absolutely no policy difference with George Bush over Iraq.

The Labour Party is a bit split over the war, but is still strongly supporting their party leader. They're polling at 36%, though other polls have shown an even greater lead.

There are a couple of important differences between the UK and American elections.

First, the Brits vote for a party, and the party chooses a leader. Thus, a Brit who wanted the Labour Party to win in the House of Commons would have to, in effect, vote for Tony Blair. In America, of course, someone could have voted for John Kerry for President, and still vote for any party for Congress.

Second, in America Bush was the conservative candidate, and Kerry was the liberal candidate, so the political philosophies of the respective candidates are opposed. So, in the War against Terror, the liberal Tony Blair is allied with the conservative George Bush.

This is another reversal - in World War II, the conservative Winston Churchill was allied with the liberal Franklin Roosevelt.

From the point of view of Generational Dynamics, this reversal isn't surprising. Last year, we explained that the Republicans were historically favored in the 2004 election, because favored parties tend to alternate from crisis period to crisis period, and the Democrats were favored by the last crisis period, in World War II. For the same reason, the Labour Party is historically favored in this election, since the Conservatives were favored during the World War II crisis period.

A similar kind of transition has occurred in Australia, where Liberal Party Prime Minister John Howard won a reelection battle decisively last October, after a bitter election fought over Howard's support of the Iraqi war. The Liberal Party was formed at the end of World War II from dissidents of the Labor Party, which had been the winning party during that war. Thus, the Liberal Party was historically favored during this crisis period for the same reasons we've been discussing.

George Bush, Britain's Tony Blair, and Australia's John Howard were the three major leaders in the world in launching the Iraq war in 2003. Unless there's a big surprise in the UK, all three will have won their respective elections, after bitter election battles in all three countries.

From the point of view of Generational Dynamics, this is the expected result. America, Britain and Australian are all in a "generational crisis" period. During such a period, a nation's citizens tend to reject bitter political battles and unite around a leader that they trust, rather than risk someone new.

The kind of political reversal we're seeing in all three countries is not a historical certainty, of course, but the fact that it's happening in all three countries is an interesting confirmation of one of the major principles of Generational Dynamics: That during a generation crisis periods, all political parties undergo massive transformations and a new majority political consensus emerges, with one party representing that consensus; but when the next generational crisis period comes around, the old consensus collapses, to the disadvantage of the party that represented that consensus, and a new consensus, represented by a different political party, takes hold.

This transformation is extremely brutal and divisive, however, and the political divisiveness we've seen so far is almost nothing compared to what we're going to see in the next few years. (02-May-05) Permanent Link
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail
Donate to Generational Dynamics via PayPal

Web Log Pages

Current Web Log

Generational Dynamics Web Log for 02-May-05 UK election follows same pattern as American and Australian elections

Web Log Pages

Generational Dynamics Web Log for 02-May-05
UK election follows same pattern as American and Australian elections