This op-ed appeared in the Washington Post on June 8, 2001

Yesterday, the Conservative Party in Britain suffered its second landslide defeat in four years -- unequaled since the mid-19th century. Because the Tories were routed, nearly all the explanations in the international press are clearly true. The Conservatives were "depleted and fractious" and "devoid of ideas"; William Hague proved to be a hapless leader, a "young fogey" who grated on the public's patience. The Wall Street Journal suggested that "[Tony] Blair and his team . . . invite the Bank of England around for a champagne celebration." Their new authority to set interest rates had brought sustained growth.

But the abundance of reasons ends up obscuring the primary explanation for the Conservative crash: tax cuts and Thatcherism.

William Hague threw down the tax-cut gauntlet on the first day of the formal campaign and devoted the first week to the issue. Hague declared, "We want to give back to the people who have been hit by Labor stealth taxes some of the money that has been taken from them." The Conservative manifesto set out 8 billion pounds of tax cuts, led by cuts in gasoline and savings taxes, which quickly grew to 20 billion under Labor and press scrutiny.

Hague launched his campaign with a faith that Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan were still a powerful but hidden presence. After all, look at what had just happened in the United States. At his news conference, Hague described himself as a "great admirer of President Bush and I certainly agree with him about the importance of reducing taxes," and, "I feel we are being quite radical with our tax proposals."

The media almost universally praised Hague for his strong campaign launch. The British public reacted differently.

In this day and age, large tax cuts mean irresponsible budget and economic policies, broken promises, "sums that don't add up" and above all, a lack of commitment to improved public services. For the public, this meant a return to Thatcherism, and voters moved sharply away from Hague.

New Labor was uniquely positioned to pose the choice suggested by this conclusion. Labor is a party renewed -- independent from the trade unions, no longer stirred by the "loony left," trusted now on managing the economy and keeping spending and taxes under control, ready to reform government. Being New Labor was a precondition both in 1997 and 2001 for getting a broad public hearing.

But the biggest reason for electing Labor, according to our surveys, was the pledge to improve the public services, above all the schools and hospitals. In 1997, Labor committed to reduce hospital waiting lists by 100,000 and to cut class size in schools to fewer than 30 for 5- to 7-year-olds, while not raising taxes and maintaining Conservative spending caps for two years. In government, Labor maintained the public's confidence for more than two years, but something snapped when the National Health Service seemed unable to handle the winter flu and patients searched for beds. The privatized trains began to crash. The public questioned whether Labor was keeping its promises on public spending and whether it was sufficiently in touch with people. In July, Labor announced a three-year program of accelerated public spending increases -- more than 6 percent a year in real terms for hospitals, schools and transport.

So when respondents were asked before this election whether they favored Labor or the Conservatives, the Conservatives lost the argument by more than 48 points (71 percent to 23 percent).

Labor ran its final lap under the new banner, "schools and hospitals first." It pledged to add 10,000 teachers, 20,000 nurses and 10,000 doctors. And Blair stumped the country and called on people to go vote and forever take the country "beyond Thatcherism" -- "to say clearly and unequivocally that no party should ever again attempt to lead this country by proposing to cut Britain's schools, Britain's hospitals and Britain's public services."

The Conservative mantra on tax cuts and Thatcher provided Hague with little protection against the storm. Hague thought that at least the winds blowing from across the Atlantic would give him greater standing. But Hague, as it turned out, had misread the U.S. elections and the U.S. mood, as had George W. Bush. He had won no mandate on tax cuts, just as he had won no popular majority. Little wonder that voters today, according to an ABC-Washington Post poll, prefer by nearly 2 to 1 more spending on education, health care and Social Security to President Bush's $ 1.35 billion tax-cut plan.

For voters here and in Britain, massive tax cuts are symbolic of a kind of social irresponsibility at a time when people believe there is a need for community and higher quality public services. Hague's ignominious defeat was an even bigger one for his ideas.

The writer is polling adviser to the Labor Party in Britain, and was pollster for Al Gore's 2000 and Bill Clinton's 1992 presidential campaigns.

First appeared in the Washington Post on June 8, 2001.

back