THE PRESS TUESDAY, MARCH 31, 1981. Political middle ground

Press, 31 March 1981, Page 16

THE PRESS TUESDAY, MARCH 31, 1981. Political middle ground

Britain s freshly launched Social Democratic Party appears to enjoy a level of support among British voters similar to that which the Social Credit Party continues to enjoy among New Zealand voters. This similarity suggests that the two parties can usefully be compared in terms of the way in which they are reflecting political attitudes in the two countries. In both New Zealand and Britain there is clearly a deep disillusionment in many voters’ minds with the major parties. In both countries parties which claim to offer a middle-of-the-road alternative to the extremes to which the two major parties are now alleged to be committed are profiting. The new parties are attempting to carve out space for themselves in the centre of national politics, hoping to garner votes from former supporters of both the major parties.

To what extent the Social Democratic Party in Britain and the Social Credit League in New Zealand will accelerate a change in allegiance among large numbers of voters is the major political question in each country. Already, it can no longer be claimed that there are only two, large, roughly equal blocks of support for two major parties, and a much smaller number of floating voters in between who, in effect, decide elections. This is simply no longer an accurate picture of the state of the electorates in the two countries. The “soft middle” in the electorates in each country is larger than it has been for many years. Voters with a strong or unshakeable commitment to one party are • down to much smaller numbers. Whether the much larger uncommitted group which appears to incline towards the Social Democrats in Britain and the Social Credit Party in New Zealand will ever coalesce into a solid block of support for those two parties is still far from clear. The group that is reflected in public opinion polls seems to be fluid, and it may still prove- to be a between-election expression of opinion. No astute politician will count on this.

The reluctance of the Social Democratic Party in Britain and the Social Credit Party in New Zealand to come out firmly on matters of policy is a reflection of their awareness that the support they enjoy at the moment is still very soft. In making a pitch for the middle ground, both parties have been careful not yet to stake out too clearly where that ground lies. British voters, alarmed by the inflexibility of Mrs Thatcher’s monetarism and by the alleged Leftward drift of the Labour Party under Mr Foot, cannot yet' be sure what they would be voting for if they decide firmly to vote for the • new party in an election. There is the same fudging and evasion which has marked much of the presentation of the Social Credit case to the New Zealand public. • ’ Britain’s Social Democratic Party has made a firm commitment to the Common Market, to a British nuclear deterrent and to the mixed economy (itself a slippery, malleable concept). Beyond this the new

party has so far been content to make extravagant and vague promises to reconcile the nation and give Britain a renewed purpose and success. It has, of, course, made dire predictions about the country’s fate if it goes down the path of either Labour or Conservative extremism. The description of the new Social Democratic Party as an “all-purpose wish fulfilment machine” is tellingly accurate. There are good reasons for the Social Democratic Party in Britain and the Social Credit Party in New Zealand to avoid being too precise. Once policy has been declared, support is bound to ebb as some of those who have been attracted to the new parties are put off because of what they are not including in their policies. This is the difficult transition which both the Social Democratic and .the Social Credit Parties have yet to make: from having wide but not yet solid support to having a sizeable hard-core of committed voters. In both Britain and New Zealand the two major parties still enjoy such solid support, even if it is dwindling. Unless they can solidify a 20 to 30 per cent share of the electorate behind them, the Social Democrats and the Social Credit Party are likely to prove to have been passing phenomena. They may yet be able to do so, but it will require very careful framing of . believably precise policies which still manage to be reasonably popular. The Social Democrats may find this easier; they work from a fairly cohesive political philosophy. The Social Crediters, though disavowing the so-called extremes of Labour and National Parties, are in fact a combination of extremely Rightist views and, in economic matters, highly centralised, bureaucratic machinery.

Because the electorates in Britain and New Zealand are now seen to be volatile, cementing a solid block of support among voters is not an easy task. Obtaining blocks of between 40 and 50 per cent, which the two major parties in each country enjoyed in the past, is virtually impossible in the short run; both the Social Democrats in Britain and the Social Credit Party in New Zealand are naturally pushing for a system of proportional representation. Such a system may be inevitable should the electorates in each country refuse again to coalesce into two solid groups of supporters for different parties. If Social Credit in New Zealand and the Social Democrats in Britain manage to consolidate their relatively high levels of electoral support and win a significant number of seats, they may become less enthusiastic advocates of proportional representation. If they do not achieve this, the issue of proportional representation is likely to die with them. Either way, the resolution of the present electoral uncertainties in both Britain and New Zealand will depend on whether the Social Democrats and Social Credit manage, in the next few months, to turn the soft support they enjoy at . present into a sufficiently hard base for a convincing bid for at least a share of political power.