Blair was honest. I’ve heard it all now.

Flame!

Not really. Good article, and I can see the dilemma. It’s similar to the “Tories should have lost in 92″ argument.

@2 Claudius, that’s not really in the spirit of the exercise. Now post again, but this time be careful to call me a cryptofascist twat.

Thinking about this further, I think Labour scraping in again would be nightmare as well. It’d just take longer for the party to rebuild itself. Plus the generation of voters who’d never vote Labour because of Blair/Brown – and sadly there is one, just as people born in the 70s/early 80s have an aversion to the Tories – will be bigger.

Nadine is not anti-abortion, she is pro the rights of the unborn child, and therefore a hate figure of every left-minded progressive.

I’m not going to flame you, but I simply don’t understand what you are talking about. If Cameron moves rightwards, but with a slim majority, he will lose parliamentary votes over contentious legislation. Slim majorities drive governments towards the centre.

Meanwhile, if Cameron gets a big majority then even if his centrism is genuine, there is still a massive threat. Cameron is on the fringes of his own party, which is far more right-leaning than he is (or appears to be). He is already sometimes forced to give the right what it wants (see, e.g., EPP withdrawal). With a large majority, Cameron would quickly find that he is sitting on a rump of rightwingers who will make regular demands on him, or threaten to cause trouble. Liberals who claim that the best thing for the left now is to stand aside for a huge Conservative victory needs their heads examined.

You deserve to be flamed for this.

About the only thing that can reliably be said for large majorities is that they make it more likely the party in power will win the next election too.

People suggested a Labour majority of 60 was good because it’d give more power to MPs like McDonnell. It didn’t happen.

In actual fact the Tories are likely to be more right-wing the bigger their majority – the less winnable seats will be the ones where old-fashioned Tories not on the Cameron A-list have got selected. If the stakes weren’t so high, it’d be entertaining to watch a large Tory majority tear itself apart over Europe etc in a way smaller majorities might not.

Why not go the whole hog, join up and get out there delivering those Ashcroft-funded glossy leaflets that will make real the Cameron landslide we so need, you cryptofascist twat?

Will this do?

Seriously, what Cameron would actually do with carte blanche is an interesting hypothetical question.

His Steve Bell characterisation is as a transparent jellyfish – it is completely transparent that he is of no substance, has no compass, has no purpose other than to get there and chalk his name up on the OE honours board.

I suppose what this means is we’ll get a series of random decisions, most strongly influenced by the City types who provide his money and have his ear, mostly aimed at trying desperately to reflate the bubble and recreate the happy economic days of pre-crunch 2007.

Trouble is, the size of his majority is somewhat immaterial as the controlling factor on his freedom of movement is the deficit. It’s going to be interesting to see what he does when he/Osborne’s default mode of slash spending to balance the budget is confronted by papers coming up saying “and here is the depression you will trigger”.

A prediction: what might surprise could be the utter incompetence, the extent to which he & the gang are out of their depth. This has been the lesson of Boris. Won’t be as bad as Dubya, I suppose.

Would the left benefit from a Tory landslide?

Yes.

Firstly it would ram home that the NuLab project is dead, finished and that in itself would be worth it.

Secondly, it could mean that there really is a left opposition in waiting.

Thirdly, the country is going to hurt – personally I believe more with the Tories in power, but if by a small miracle NuLab return – they are going to make the country hurt, too. Though those who will hurt most will be the poor bastards at the bottom of the pile. As always.

Lastly, I do believe that if the country hurts enough it will finally wake the fuck up! People will see that Tory policy (going into a 5th year of Tory government should they win a landslide) 35 years of that policy has brought the country to where it is now and then that left in waiting will have a serious chance of winning.

That is if the left get their arses into gear and dump those who are, in fact, Thatcherite’s in the Labour Party – or just get a new Left party, which won’t be tainted by Blair, Brown, Mandleson and Purnell – plus many others.

I still think it’s the SNP the left should worry about. 1 nation Tory ….oh, you say Labour would never win again? Hokely dokely – 2 nation Tory it is then. If the Salmond gets his referendum and disgust at Westminster is of a decent level – then that’s game over.

I imagine John Rentoul might be glad to have another ‘Questions to which the answer is no’ post.

On the whole, I think the scenario outlined is exactly wrong in terms of the likely consequences of different possible results.

* Narrow Tory victory/hung parliament, etc
- Despite economy, Labour unpopularity, etc remained close-run thing, so limited ‘mandate’
- demonstrating continued need for deeper Cameron project, deeper uncertainties about the party, perhaps a sense that Cameron was more popular than the party; to some extent, the Cameron readings of the Tory defeats of 2005 and 2001 remains relevant, that “say it louder” Tory right-wing will lose.
- Narrow elections may usually see more party discipline not less (though the theological aspect of Eurosceptic opposition to Major meant that did not apply).

* Large victory
- Sense that the centre-left dominance of last decade ended: that small state, less spending, low tax agenda is back.
- pressure on Cameron to ditch ‘heir to Blair’ accomodation. Cameronism not necessary if the right can win on whatever platform it prefers. It prefers a Thatcherite to a centrist agenda, as ConHome polls of candidates show.
- Feeling that Tory party has two terms (at least), and should push ahead to be more radical in first term and especially if re-elected

There are some significant differences here between Cameron and Blair 1995-97

(i) Blair benefitted from a large victory because he was unambigously New Labour in his public argument. By contrast, Cameron has not really tried to challenge or confront his own party, and since 2007 there has been a “rebalanced” modernising project where the right feels it is winning many of the policy arguments – eg ditching Lab spending plans; leaving EPP; Thatcherite response to recession)

(ii) The spectre which New Labour was running against in its caricature of ‘Old Labour’ (folk memory of the 1983 Foot/Benn leftist manfiesto, and of the winter of discontent) was itself outside the mainstream of Labour history, and most of the Old Labour record of previous centre-left governments, eg Attlee, Wilson, etc. The problem Cameronism has is that it is tacitly challenging Thatcherism, which is the central golden age of the current Tory party.

(iii) related to this, there was a considerable shift in the pre-New Labour argument on the broad centre-left. The moderate Labour centre-left felt it was substantively necessary to rethink a modern Labour social democracy – Kinnock modernisation, IPPR social justice, Fabian Southern Discomfort work, John Monks at the Unions, Will Hutton stakeholding, etc – and that explains the breadth of support for (versions of) New Labour within the centre left pre-1997 (when it was a broader coalition than it was after 2003).

Now, that was perhaps often different to how New Labour turned out. But it was an intellectual and political as well as tactical and electoral conversion, in terms of what the centre-left should think about the market and the state, and other key policy questions.

Is there any real sense that there is any significant constituency on the right which is doing much more than tactical/electoral presentation?

This is why it currently seems more likely that the Tory party will shift rightwards over time, than develop a substantive centrist agenda, and on the whole if it were to win by a significant margin this might well settle that internal debate.

WillRhodes@8

that was a very popula argument around 1978/79 on the left.

11 – Sunder

Which led to and gave us the 35 years of Tory policy we have seen?

Still need a left party no matter how much NuLab want to cling to power.

Wouldn’t the Fabians be looking toward a leftward party?

atropos:

“Nadine is not anti-abortion, she is pro the rights of the unborn child, and therefore a hate figure of every left-minded progressive.”

Are you having a laugh? If so, good stuff, if not, you’re a terrible, terrible old ham.

‘I still think it’s the SNP the left should worry about.’

Only if the Scots are massing at the border.

Hey, maybe after Cameron wins the election he’ll resign a month in and Dan Hannan could be placed into Number 10. 5 years of glorious Hannanism, with nothing Labour could do about it.

Maybe Labour supporters can think about how they’d react if that happened, then consider quite why it is that Conservative supporters are so angry with Brown.

The problem is that Tony Blair had big business and middle England to “reassure”, so to speak (even though, I’ve said it a million times, even a Labour Party led by my dog -who’s ace by the way- would have won in 1997).

David Cameron’s task is not so huge. In the sense that big business are not gonna doubt his loyalty for a second. Cameron only has to confirm his posturing that he’s leading a no longer homophobic Widdecombite sort of party, as the country as a whole has indeed moved on. Basically, just walking around with an open shirt would do.

Hence a massive Tory majority would be an absolute nightmare. Because they’ll have no-one to reassure. A wafer-thin majority may have to rely on some Labour or Lib Dem MPs for vital support.

Anyway, this is just speculation. I think until serious electoral reform is carried out (which, may be a benefit of a hung parliament by the way, especially if the Lib Dems…etc etc…) this country is politically doomed.

Nope..I think you’re wrong.

Other than the two day orgasmic schadenfreude rush from seeing the slimy Nulabour bastard clones take the kicking they so thoroughly deserve, not much good would come of this. Day three would probably see Thatcher paraded up Downing Street to wish Cameron all the best and give her personal seal of approval…and that would simultaneously turn my blood cold and boil my piss.

Cameron’s a Tory…end of.

#What he wants, he says, is a more liberal stance on civil liberties, prioritising spending on schools and healthcare, a more serious approach to climate change…#

Yeah?..fuck me..we should get together some time and have a game a poker…bring along the deeds to your house…Oh.. and, as it happens.. I represent a guy who’s selling off Tower Bridge real cheap if you’re interested.

This is a dangerous place to say such things, but they’re worth bringing up. The left helps no-one by keeping its head in the sand and hoping 2010 doesn’t come, rather than planning for what to do next.

@17: “Cameron’s a Tory…end of.” Wow, thanks man. My copy of “Liberal Elite Weekly” had me thinking he was an anarcho-syndicalist.

In terms of consequences up here in Scotchland, a workable (say more than 40) Cameron majority is, I reckon, exactly what plump Eck’s counting on. The independence referendum bill couldn’t make it through the Scottish parliament at present, but with the (inevitably hostile) Tories in power in London, he’d be quite happy to have it voted down, because it would stir things up nicely for the next Scottish parliamentary elections, giving a stronger chance of an absolute SNP majority government.

Of course, even if we Scots *did* vote for independence, it would take a bloody long time thrashing everything out, so the devastating effect of losing the Scottish Labour numpty drones at Westminster most likely wouldn’t be felt until after the Cameroonies are long gone – and I don’t get the impression Dave’s really thinking about what might be handy for his party in 20 (or more) years’ time..?

Also,however much of an advantage it could hand them, I can’t see “Call Me..?” wanting to go down in history as the guy who split up the Unionists’ beloved…er….’union’.

Of course, Cameron’s mob in power for the forseeable would be a very high price to pay for eventual independence.

Ho hum.

Bullet-biting-time ahoy…

Monkeyfish – when Thatch finally shuffles off, are you up for an eightsome reel on the grave? Something I’ve been looking forward to for a long time…

“My copy of “Liberal Elite Weekly” had me thinking he was an anarcho-syndicalist.”

Glad to be of service then. Maybe you need to delve into some hardcore political periodicals…according to my Mail on Sunday magazine…he’s a fun-lovin, eco-conscious, regular guy with a social conscience and a public service vocation which my post-structuralist, textural studies training renders as: a Jimmy Goldsmith clone masquerading as a moisturised turd….

Oh yeah..and the Telegraph’s women’s pages tell me the Bullingdon club’s been taken over by a cabal of social constructivist/ feminist epistemologists. Apparently the next Tory government’s in danger of bankrupting the nation with it’s welfare reforms. We may have to call in the IMF if they are to meet their pledge to provide every single mum with a full-time Latvian au pair and a 42″ plasma monitor to make full use of their free broadband.

How else are these gal’s meant to keep up with their heady social whirl of binge drinking and public fornication? Thank fuck those stingy, moralising NuLab Presbyterian kill joys are getting the boot. Bring on the Tories…let the good times roll.

#19

“when Thatch finally shuffles off, are you up for an eightsome reel on the grave?” Yeah, I’d go for that but if things go to plan I’ll be way to drunk to dance.

‘A Cameron landslide (this is where I get flamed) might actually be better than a close-run thing.’

Is the reason you knew you were going to get flamed for this the fact that you actually know it doesn’t make a lick of sense?

Or do you need further explanation on the basic logic as to what a bigger majority of more right wing politicians (all the thrusting young Conservative types who put themselves forward for seats considered unwinnable) is actually likely to do?

10. Excellent post. From your point of view, a Conservative landslide is what you have to fear most.

@10 ‘Questions to which the answer is no’

John Rentoul?

I am sorry I do not completely understand; are you saying that Tony Blair reigned over a PM-ship that one should aspire to?

wow…

Food for thought. Really liked #10′s analysis too.
It’s interesting that the difference between now and 1997 is that the economic debate has moved on. Even the LibDems (Cable on Newsnight tonight) and Labour (Mandelson) seem to be in agreement that the state is too big. Or at least too expensive.
Underlying this is a sense that the drivers of economic growth have to change. The economic and financial crisis has changed our view on what we want the economy to look like: recent Tory and Labour governments have both supported the City, but it seems increasingly that that it’s no longer a priority, and more of a drag than a driver.
Until now it’s all been about debt and public spending, on which the political consensus is that they need to come down.
But the future looks more about being green.
And possibly the state as enabler rather than financer, stimulating investment, making sure that markets and demand are in the right place (e.g. causing scarcity of pollution rights, leading international cooperation etc.)
So doesn’t all that mean that the centre of the debate is itself moving to the right? Not the laissez-faire/ market-will-dictate right, but the working with markets to create the right incentives to build a better economy and society… hold on, wasn’t that the Giddens Third Way principle?

Rubbish. How would the left benefit from the right doing evertything they want.

This is warped logic.

Boibby, are you a spammer trying to sell flats in Kensington?

Daniel Hoffmann-Gill No I am not. Are you a spammer trying to sell flats in New York what a bizare question?

The link in your name links to apartments in kensington, any reason for that? Whereas mine links to my blog.

So are you a spammer?

The thing is, though, for every friend on the right he gains, he loses one on the left. With a small majority, he’ll have to trade one against the other.

There are 63 lib dems at the moment, for a start – which is currently a third of Conservative numbers. Generally, they tend to be left of centre or centrist in outlook, and would certainly pitch themselves against a ‘Hannanist’ movement. Tores seem to be gaining votes from Labour, rather than the Libs – whose support is largely unchanged since the expenses scandal. The posh and farmers vote has gone to UKIP, whereas the all flame no heat attention of the (non)working man has gone to Griffin’s knuckle draggers. I’ve yet to see any indication of safe lib dem seats being targetted, unless the turnout can be dramatically increased.

Daniel Hoffmann-Gill You are a spammer. You are spamming your blog. I am spamming my blog too. You must be exterminated.

The Tories seem to be gaining votes from Labour, rather than the Libs – whose support is largely unchanged since the expenses scandal.

Maybe, but still down on the 2005 result. Electoral calculus currently puts them at 44 seats after the next election. Plus, look at the south west results in the local elections: everything is not rosy in the Lib Dem garden…

If we look at the last share of vote in the local elections, the Lib dems gained 3% share. They lost two councillors, and control of one council. They still have 484 local councillors; twice as much as labour.

Conservatives gained Devon and Somerset because they are rural communities with heavy farming interests. The local elections co-inciding with European elections, a lot of talk about Brussels was being whipped up. As UKIP – who weren’t standing for local councils – are gaining a great deal of support in the South West for their ant-Euro platform, the right wing momentum carried into Conservative support.

Indeed, in Bristol, a council election, the lib dems gained control at the expense of Labour.

Oh, and YouGov is currently showing these figures.

CON 40%(-1) LAB 24%(nc) LD 21%(+3)

In a PR world that would make 136 seats. But, obviously, we don’t live in a PR world.

Comres, however, has released figures for England and Wales which predicts a minimum of 95 seats.

CON 45 LAB 25 LD 18

It’s all on politicalbetting.com

Without meaning that flame myself, I’m not sure how convinced I am of my own argument on this one – I suspect that those who say that a massive Tory majority would mean a more aggressive right-wing agenda

I think it’s an interesting thought experiment and debate, though. I do genuinely think that – in the event of a close run thing – the pressure will be to move to the right, not the centre. The Tories may not have Labour’s tribalism, but they’re also a lot less self-critical; and the spending crunch will mean pressure to move rightwards anyway.

Maybe the least bad option is a medium sized Tory majority – 40 seats, perhaps – beatable, but not so small that the nutters get any power.