Now, now, Mr. Judd. If Blair indeed moved Labour to the right, it should at least be somewhat difficult for the Tories to win. Handed on a silver platter indeed.

Much of the Tory success came from the Lib Dems eating at Labour's left flank. They did take more off the Lib Dems than the Lib Dems took off them; possibly the lurch to the left by the Lib Dems hurt them in some Lib-Con marginals.

There's a series of conservative issues on which the Tories could run that have supermajority support in the country, from the death penalty to anti-EU. Add them to a fierce criticism of the conduct of the war and they win easily.

I imagine this was inevitable after losing. Here you go:

Howard to stand down as leader

--Of course, the message is that the Tories can't even win an election if you hand it to them on a silver platter.--

Boy, does that sound familiar.

EU Referendum is starting to dissect the numbers.

I'm an admirer of Blair, but the voters basically handed Howard the head of Tony Blair on a platter, and he took one look at it and asked: "Did I order that?"

The Lib Dem lurch to the left has pretty much eliminated all of their long-term credibility. If you are a left-wing voter in Britain, whom are you going to believe some trade unionist who talks class struggle with a working-class accent or some womyn or sexual deviant out to pursue his/her/its personal agenda, who treats politics as a means of personal validation.

IDS seemed like a credible serious person and deserved a shot at running a campaign. The Tories need to sort out their positions on Europe, crime and immigration, stake out one position, hold to it and use it to run a campaign. If the brie-and-chablis crowd don't like it, that's just tough.

The problem once again is the class basis of British politics. Too many of the Conservative apparat come from the lower reaches of the aristocracy, the country gentry and the civil service. It is most definitely not the party of 'hope, growth, and opportunity.' It is the party of preserving everything in amber. They surrendered the entrepreneurial class to Blair for 3 straight elections and show no signs of changing.

bart:

Furthermore, if your positions are dependent on what the "brie-and-chablis crowd" thinks, why call yourself a conservative party in the first place?

Matt,

That is precisely the problem with a class-based culture. Brits are obsessed with what the 'better class' thinks about things. They worry about appearances far more than results. They prefer the stylish but failed amateur to the trained but colorless professional. Whether things work or not is a secondary consideration.

Their upper classes have been essentially gelded for so many generations now that they really have no clue as to the kind of daring or occasional brutality it took to create the Empire in the first place. You go there and you really wonder where the Francis Drakes and James Cooks, the Clives and the Everests came from.

The closest they come today is Richard Branson and that is really scary.

bart:

Which is precisely why I find it amusing to be lectured to by, say, Guardianistas about the awful brutality of the American class system. I'm pretty sure I have a higher opinion of Britain, on the whole, than you do. But for their lefties to lecture us on class differences is hysterically surreal.

Matt,

It's like getting lectured by the French on American race relations.

Michael Caine tells a story that when he was first successful, he went to buy a Rolls-Royce at a London dealership. As you probably know, Caine has a strong lower class Londoner accent. The salespeople refused to sell him a car, saying that there was no way he could afford it despite the fact that he was paying cash, solely on the basis of the way he spoke.

The poor quality of British public education is strictly the result of the intense class bias.