HOWARD...BUSH...BLAIR?:

The revenge of the Labour voter: What with Iraq, privatisations, top-up fees, it might be a wrench to vote Labour this year. Are the Lib Dems a real alternative? (John Harris, January 8, 2005, Guardian)

By 1987, in the wake of the election defeat, I had gone to university, failed to renew my membership and was restricting myself to the kind of political activity that involved righteously shouting at my friends in the pub. What remained was a devotion to the party that was hard-wired into my subconscious. I voted Labour. Of course. That was who I was.

For as long as Neil Kinnock was in charge, it wasn't much of a problem. John Smith, similarly, gave me the feeling that, even if I were able to employ the thinking part of my brain, he would instantly get my vote. And although the Clause 4-torching, market-embracing ascent of Tony Blair sowed feelings of disquiet, the dizzying probability of victory was enough to keep me happily on board. Come the 1997 election, even Wilmslow decided that it had had enough: watching Martin Bell win Tatton from Neil Hamilton, I was reduced to tears.

Four years later came the forgotten general election of 2001. Most of the excitement was sucked from the campaign since another Labour landslide was never seriously in doubt. And so it turned out. Blair spoke of a "remarkable and historic victory, a mandate for reform and for investment in the future".

What had actually happened was surely a little more equivocal. For some voters, the first New Labour term contained plenty to worry about: the cutting of single-parent and incapacity benefit, the introduction of student tuition fees, craven joining-in with the American bombing of Iraq in December 1998, Jack Straw's attempts to end the right to trial by jury. Worse still, moves were being made on the public services that, had the Tories enacted them, would have made even the most moderate Labour activist grind their teeth.

And yet, and yet. For all my misgivings, at least some of the government's record gave cause for qualified support. Union recognition, increases in child benefit, the minimum wage, the Working Families Tax Credit, and - most important of all - the beginnings of increased investment in education and health. So, I did it. I voted Labour.

In some respects, it looks as if an election in 2005 might have roughly the same contours as the one that took place in 2001. As far as the Tory-Labour battle is concerned, we seem set for a campaign at least partly based on the bugbears of the tabloid press - immigration, Brussels bureaucrats, allegedly rampant criminals - coupled with an ossified debate about whose "reform" proposals might best improve the public services. If you want a flavour, think back to the summer of 2004 and the strange bidding war focused on whether Oliver Letwin or Gordon Brown would sack the greatest number of civil servants.

There is, however, a new and overwhelming axis of argument - the war in Iraq. If a government gravely screws up, it has to be held to account. Anthony Eden resigned after the Suez crisis, and Thatcher was fatally weakened by the poll tax. James Callaghan was defeated after the winter of discontent; John Major's demise can be traced to his government's bungling of the European exchange rate mechanism.

The prospect of a war-battered Tony Blair leaving Downing Street was often alleged to be imminent through the spring and summer of 2004. By high summer, however, Blair had triumphantly exited the debate on the Butler Report, flown off on a grand tour that would culminate in a stay with Silvio Berlusconi, and served apparent notice of his continued invincibility. Meanwhile there were foundation hospitals, top-up fees and yet more private finance initiative (PFI) projects to take into account.

And so the question presents itself anew: now who do we vote for?

Strange the way conservatives are unable to reconcile themselves to the fact Tony Blair represents them better than the Tories.

Posted by Orrin Judd at January 8, 2005 11:42 AM