While the outcome of the general election may be in doubt, the insubstantial nature of the political frenzy preceding it is entirely predictable. The ping-pong of buzzwords and soundbites, the hunt for gaffes, the formulaic promises to 'listen', the gurgle of briefings and punditry: the dismal spectacle has become familiar.
For all its democratic claims, the election campaign serves mainly to obscure the truths about our unequal, unsustainable society. Its salient feature is the absence of real choice. Everything else flows from that.
On perpetuating the war in Afghanistan and the need for cuts in public spending - arguably the two major issues facing the country - the major parties are as one. And whatever the election's outcome, the next government, like the last one, will pursue a foreign policy of junior partnership with the US, with its concomitant support for Israel and belligerence towards Iran.
It will intensify attempts to discipline the poor (through welfare 'reform') and undermine rights at work. It will extend privatisation. It will do nothing for people in social housing. It will not make a significant investment in green jobs. It will bring no relief to asylum seekers and immigrants and do nothing to stem the Islamophobic tide.
Labour's principal appeal is the promise that it will cut less savagely than the Tories. That may prove to be the case, but at this juncture no one can say for sure precisely how Labour cuts would differ from Tory cuts. Both parties are committed to reducing the fiscal deficit by the same total over four years. Both parties pledge to protect the NHS, but the NHS is already feeling the squeeze. Cuts are underway and private sector intrusions grow by the week.
The menace of lesser evilism
It's not that there is no difference between Labour and the Tories. But is there enough of a difference? The lesser evil does have a claim, but lesser evilism is itself a subtle and insidious menace. A lesser evil remains an evil. And in practise lesser evilism moves the centre of gravity ever further to the right. It ends up reinforcing the consensus that denies meaning to the election.
The generation-long transformation of the Labour Party has resulted, as Tony Benn warned it would, in a 'crisis of representation'. Labour's ideology and policies are now significantly to the right of most centre-left parties in Europe. More importantly, its structures and social composition have changed radically, as has the nature of its link with Labour voters.
Similar shifts have been seen in social democratic, socialist and communist parties elsewhere, so the problem goes way beyond Blair and his legacy. Labour campaigners can take all the lessons from Obama's people they like, but they will not and cannot replicate his central appeal - that he offered Americans a major change in governmental direction.
Whatever happens in the coming weeks the left's failure in this election is already an established fact. Although there will be left candidates and groups on the ballot in many constituencies, there will be no single, widely-recognised, nationwide, left alternative. That is a tragedy from which no one can take comfort.
Electoral politics is not an end in itself; to the true democrat it's only part of a lager, multi-faceted process. But it remains an indispensable exercise. In the long run, abstaining from the electoral arena is not an option for anyone serious about effecting radical change. Is it imaginable we'll ever get even close to such change in Britain without the left at some stage demonstrating its strength at the ballot box?
Even in the short run, the left misses out by not being a player. For better or worse, general elections are among the few occasions that large numbers of people consider their political
choices. To the extent that a left-wing alternative is not visible and credible, it's omitted from the ensuing discussion. In addition, we miss out on the discipline
of door-to-door canvassing, a healthy reality check for any political campaigner.
Here you're confronted with popular political consciousness in all its diversity and contradiction. For many years I went out canvassing for the Labour party, and always returned with reasons to hope as well as to despair.
Door-to-door canvassing is increasingly a thing of the past. In the postmodern politics of the era of globalisation, parties are no longer vehicles for participation, electorates are atomised and every part of the process is media-saturated. Increasingly the election becomes about itself. Democracy is hollowed out, and the power of the rich enhanced.
Little case for Labour
There's a case for voting Labour in constituencies where there is a strong left-wing MP or a tight contest between Labour and Tory. But there's little case for voting Labour in constituencies where it is either sure to win or sure to lose, or where there is a significant left-wing alternative. Victories for Salma Yaqoob in Birmingham and Caroline Lucas in Brighton (see page 16) would be invaluable breakthroughs. Besides providing two new radical voices in Parliament, such victories would make the left appear a more credible alternative in future elections.
Programmatically, the Green Party is far superior to its mainstream rivals. But its record in office, and its nature as a party, is mixed. In Leeds its councillors sustained a Tory-Lib Dem coalition - and gave no support to last year's successful bin workers' strike (see Red Pepper, Feb/Mar 2010). On the London Assembly, the Greens' Jenny Jones has acted as an apologist for the Metropolitan Police. The party failed to take a leading role in the anti-war movement and seems to have little interest in mass campaigning of any kind.
Many Green cadres are hostile to the left and the unions, and wedded to their own form of middle-class managerialism. I've seen Green Party leaflets that in their soft soap and political evasiveness are indistinguishable from New Labour's. For this I don't need to turn to a minor party.
The left lacuna in British politics is not mirrored elsewhere in western Europe. In Germany, Portugal, France, Spain, Italy and Ireland the left is a real electoral presence. This is thanks partly to proportional representation and partly to the depth of local socialist and communist traditions. But we have failed where they have succeeded largely because of mistakes of our own. As the experience in Scotland showed, the problem is not just the absence of PR.
There's plenty of blame to go around. With a few important exceptions, trade union leaders prefer the safety of the threadbare Labour link to the risks of a new political initiative. The few serious attempts to build a new electoral vehicle, including the Socialist Alliance in 2000-2003, have been sabotaged by sectarianism. The legacy of distrust is one of the biggest obstacles we now have to overcome.
So is our short-termism: the electoral struggle is an uphill one; it rarely yields quick results. It requires a long-range commitment and a strategy to match. Under any electoral system, in order to progress the left will have to show much greater unity, imagination and determination than it has hitherto.
The post-election landscape, even at this stage, is remarkably clear. There will be struggles against public sector cuts, increasing industrial action, renewed conflict over war and civil liberties. In that context, we will have to engage in a sober assessment of both our weaknesses and strengths, and work to ensure that at the general election after this one, there is a meaningful choice.
'Contending for the Living' is Mike Marqusee's regular column in Red Pepper. For more see www.mikemarqusee.com
Mike Marqusee 1953–2015, wrote a regular column for Red Pepper, 'Contending for the Living', and authored a number of books on the politics of culture, on topics ranging from cricket to Bob Dylan.