DAVID LIPSEY
133
The new party, it might be thought, had glittering prospects. Its
leadership inclu.ded Shirley Williams, the most popular of British
politicians; Roy Jenkins, one of the most respected; and David
Owen, an energetic if occasionally demonic figure. It faced a deeply
unpopular government, held responsible for the creation of three
million unemployed, and an even more unpopular opposition,
whose social base had been steadily eroded. And it got a fair wind
from the British media and establishment, who despised Mrs.
Thatcher for her blatant materialism at least as much as it despised a
Labor Party that threatened their own wealth. Moreover, by allying
with the existing British Liberal Party-a party that had for years
retained the allegiance of ten to twenty percent of the electorate-it
established an immediate electoral base. At first, it seemed that this
promise would rapidly be fulfllied. The first opinion polls showed
the new party to be a stunning success, rising (in one poll) to gain
the support of fifty-one per.cent of the electorate. At parliamentary
bielections in Croydon, Crosby and Glasgow, and Hillhead, candi–
dates of the existing parties were swept aside by the new alliance.
But those not carried away by euphoria could point to solid rea–
sons to suspect this success. First, the trends that underlay the Labor
Party's decline were neither sudden nor sharp. There still remains a
substantial working-class vote. And its political habits are notori–
ously slow to break. Moreover, Labor has also succeeded in tapping
a new constituency. In common with all industrialized countries,
Britain experienced a strong surge in public expenditure through the
sixties and seventies. It grew from 33.2 percent of GDP (gross
domestic product) in 1960 to 41.3 percent in 1979. On its back grew
up what was almost a new class. Social workers, teachers-what are
called the "caring professions"-worked outside the market econ–
omy. They were motivated by strong ideals and frequently felt that
their efforts were hampered only by the failure of others to vote them
the funds they needed. Such people were drawn to Labor as a party
that was antimarket and pro-public service.
Moreover, the British electoral system is heavily weighted
against the new party. In Britain, in both national and local elec–
tions, voting is on the first-past-the-post system. There are no pri–
maries, so the vote is divided up among however many candidates
run. The result is that candidates can easily be elected with as little
as a third of the popular vote.
That much was clear. What was less readily understood was
