May 10, 2005
THERE'S GOT TO BE ONE PARTY THAT'S NOT STUCK IN THE 20TH CENTURY:
Tony Blair's last hurrah (Michael Barone, May 9, 2005, Townhall)
"People wanted the return of a Labor government, but with a reduced majority," Tony Blair conceded on election night. But a Labor government headed where? Blair talked about "reshaping the welfare state for the 21st century," but the man increasingly likely to be in charge is Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown, whom Blair last year excluded from campaign planning but subsequently summoned to his side when the campaign got going.Brown believes less in market incentives and more in increased taxes and spending and government goals -- but also staunchly supported Blair on Iraq. Blair has promised to retire before the next election, and Brown is the obvious successor. Brown's macroeconomic policies have resulted in low-inflation growth, but that may not last forever.
Tony Blair's "new Labor" accepted the reforms of Margaret Thatcher and made his party the voters' default choice. Gordon Brown seems to be moving his party some distance toward "old Labor" and his country some distance toward the wheezing European welfare states. Will new Labor stay new?
One strategy for an opposition party in prosperous, secular Britain would be to stand for market economics and cultural tolerance. The Liberal Democrats could have done this, but have opted instead for big tax increases and more public spending. They now have 62 seats to Labor's 355, hardly a plausible opposition.
The Conservatives this year won 197 after calling for only small tax cuts and for curbs on immigration. They made major gains in London and seem positioned to move to larger tax cuts and more tolerance. That could make them a plausible alternative to a Gordon Brown Labor Party, as Britain leaves its era of faith in Tony Blair and returns to more ordinary politics.
To the extent that Gordon Brown reverted Labour back towards socialism it would provide an opening for the Tories, but they seem utterly unequipped intellectualy to fill it. Posted by Orrin Judd at May 10, 2005 9:25 AM
Even under Brown, they're hardly likely to revert to anything resembling what used to be called 'socialism'.
On the major axes of left-right politics, Brown is probably to the left of Blair on wealth redistribution and spending public services, but on the axis of Government interference in business, he's as Thatcherite as the rest of them.
There's not a great deal of 'clear blue water' anywhere though, and Brown is no fool.
As I've noted before here, ideology isn't relevant in British politics any more. You have to be right-of-centre, you have to appear competent.
The Lib Dems had their big chance this year on the ideology issues, with Iraq and university top-up fees. But they only gained from Labour in the general third-term dissipation of Labour votes. And they even lost back old Tory seats in traditionally conservative heartlands because, contra 1997, they're now definitely percieved as being left of Labour on pretty much everything. They'll do worse next time around.
The Tories suprised everyone with the effectiveness and competence of their campaign. They've stopped the rot, and they're on the way back (though choosing the right leader is going to be essential).
Posted by: Brit at May 10, 2005 11:07 AMBrit:
What competence?
Their campaign was a collection of whinges.
Posted by: Ali Choudhury at May 10, 2005 11:59 AMBrit;
What's the difference between public spending and government interference in business? It seems that the UK government interferes quite thoroughly in, say, the business of health care.
Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at May 10, 2005 12:12 PMA position in opposition to the immigration of a large terrorist population was a vote-winner for the Tories.
If they were to be anti-EU, pro-sterling and hard on crime besides, then they might have a shot of overtaking Labour, particularly if Labour moves left. Wiping out UKIP's two or three points might help them win more seats.
Brit is correct. Brown seems to be a competent colorless type like the late John Smith, who would also have beaten the chinless wonder, John Major, like a government mule. I don't see him moving to the right, because he's old enough to remember the electoral disaster that were the Two Left Feet. Also, once Iraq is effectively over, what will the Lib Dems use for a campaign issue? That they are loonier than Labour's loony left? They will go back to being the coterie of weirdos seeking to use the political process for therapy that they were before David Steel took the party over.
AOG,
The health care dynamic is different over there. Strange as it may seem to Americans, most Brits like the NHS. I think the reason is that before NHS, which is 60 years old, they had virtually no health care, whereas most Americans at least have something. It has to do with how you look at the glass.
All health care is rationed. In America, that rationing is done by price. In Britain, it is done by bureaucrats. As for me, I prefer rationing by price.
Posted by: bart at May 10, 2005 1:59 PMAOG:
Britons don't see the NHS that way. Whether we should or ever will is a different question, but right now we don't. It's in a category with the Police and the fire service, not with the railways and energy.
To suggest the Tories or any other party can openly talk about radical privatisation and expect to win significant votes, is to misunderstand some fundamental differences between the US and the UK almost as badly as the person on here who recommended that the Tories promote gun ownership and a written constitution.
Relevant factors:
1) Privatisation has been a very mixed bag. Telecoms was successful, the railways a disaster. So there's fear of change there.
2) People are generally satisfied with the NHS.
3) There are plenty of private healthcare options available in the UK, if you want to use them. It's just that you can't get out of paying for the big public one as well.
Posted by: Brit at May 11, 2005 6:56 AM