A respected left-of-centre commentator suggests the Tories could win

[non sociopath skin]

The Guardian's Martin Kettle is getting jittery. I know what he means about it not "feeling" the same. I remain worried that the deserved swing away from Blair may turn out to be a swing further right unless the left gets its tactics sorted out.

Are you thinking what I'm thinking about the election?

Thanks to tactical voting and electoral apathy the Tories could win it

Martin Kettle
Tuesday March 8, 2005
The Guardian

In the Hertfordshire town where I live there have been no real signs of the impending general election so far. Until this weekend, that is.
Driving out of the Sainsbury's car park with the weekly groceries, you now pass a large and prominent political billboard. "Are you thinking what we're thinking?" it asks. Then it explains: "It's not racist to impose limits on immigration."

It is only a single Conservative poster. And the election is probably still 58 days away. A lot can happen between now and then. But that billboard makes me uncomfortable. What is this country really thinking? It forces you to ask yourself this: can the Tories win? And there is something about the knowing confidence of that message that makes you think the answer is: yes, they really can.

Now I know all the reasons why this is not a reasoned view. That Labour has a far better record than it is given credit for. That it is consistently ahead in the polls. That the electoral system is stacked in Labour's favour. That the Tories need to be three points ahead in the popular vote to deprive Labour of a majority, and perhaps nine points ahead to win outright themselves.

Reason, therefore, says that Labour will win again. But instinct, notoriously fallible, increasingly warns otherwise. It says that, at least in Hertfordshire, this no longer feels like a Labour country, certainly not in the way it felt in 1997 or even 2001. Instead it feels like a part of the world that has lost interest in the choices it made in those years. It feels, in fact, a bit like it felt in 1970.

Full article at:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1432661,00.html

The Skin

[trumad]

1. Blair better shine the Diebold Bat Signal.

and quick.

[The Backlash Cometh]

2. Why didn't Blair step aside for the good of the party?

And let a real Labour leader run? Blair was more a centrist, than a Labour party member, wasn't he?

[muriel_volestrangler]

3. Since when has Blair been concerned about the Labour party?

He wants to run the country the way he wants to. He doesn't give a toss for anything else.

Kettle's fear are baseless. Consider the votes in the 1966 and 1970 elections: basically, the Tories increased their vote by 5%, and Labour lost 5%. Apply this at Electoral Calculus to the 2001 vote, and you get: Tory 240 seats, Labour 332 - ie Labour still has an absolute majority. It will take a bigger swing than occurred after "the Government performed badly in local elections, by-elections (Labour lost 16 seats between 1966-1970) and opinion polls" just to get rid of the Labour majority. And personally I want the Labour majority gone. I want Labour to be forced to ditch Blair, and come up with a real Labour politician as their leader, who will then introduce proportional preresentation to get some Lib Dem support. It will take the biggest swing in electoral history just to get the Tories as the largest party in the Commons - at a time of electoral apathy, and with Labout leading the Tories by 7% in a poll in today's Times, that just isn't going to happen. It will be a miracle if we can get rid of Blair within a year.

Tony, Tony, Tony - out, out, out!

[tjwmason]

4. Yes and no

It's definitely true that the only concern of Blair, is Blair; and I agree that the chances of a Tory majority are miniscule (though this part of the country is very 'true blue').

However, there is a good chance that Blair will be removed. For much of the Labour Party he has been a necessary evil, swapping principles for power; if he is seen as an electoral liability he may be kicked out by the party. There is a good chance of a large fall in the Labour majority, especially if there's a strong Lib.Dem. showing in close races.

This could be worse for the Labour Party than loosing overall. Think about the division and strife which the Tory party had 1992-'97 because of their small majority. The Tory Party traditionally is well disciplined, the Labour Party is not and many Labour 'rebels' are starting to find their feet.

[Vladimir]

6. Division and strife?

if only we could have a bit of that! A year or so of a hung parliament (with the occasional unpredictable vote) might actually get people vaguely interested in politics again...

[Vladimir]

5. Word

well, I agree with the sentiment at least, if not necessarily the details. :P

[Briar]

14. Hear Hear

But are there any real Labour politicians of appropriate age and experience left in the party? Hm...

[PROGRESSIVE1]

29. With all of his flaws, I'd still take Blair over the Tories.

Blair better pull a "Diebold" or else.

[tjwmason]

30. Sorry, but it's all hand-counted paper ballots over here

The only potential place for decent scale fraud is in postal voting. ;-)

[D-Notice]

31. Do you think that's why

in the local elections last year Blair ignored the warnings of the Electoral Commission who said we should only have postal votes in 2 areas of England & not to have them in the north-west?

Who was suprised that Poodle decided that we had to have them in 4 areas (inc. the north-west) which resulted in people not getting their ballots in time & investigations of fraud?

[Anarcho-Socialist]

7. I'm stuck between 3 choices...

1. voting with my conscience: Green Party
2. voting against Blair: Liberal Democrats
3. voting against the Tories: Labour Party

If things get 'iffy' close to Election Day, then I may not afford the luxury of the first two choices.

[Vladimir]

9. Are you in a marginal then? n/t

[Anarcho-Socialist]

10. It's a traditional Labour seat, but there is major disenchantment here

A lot of people I know here are not voting, so I'm afraid it may be susceptible to the Tories as the core Labour vote stays home.

[Vladimir]

15. Well I guess it depends on your local polling

near to the election... but you can be sure the 'Spin Machine' will be doing its best to scare the shit out of you as that approaches.

[T_i_B]

23. A lot of what is influencing us in our voting

is indeed the local situation where we live. Perhaps we need a who's your MP? thread on here for all that pallaver?

In my case I'm down in deepest darkest tory Essex, but I fear I will be revealing all about that on the thread about the tabloids and pikey-bashing.

[Vladimir]

24. I agree!

we should definitely start a 'Who's your MP' thread, and update it with news etc. about the individual memebers as the election draws near...

[tjwmason]

25. My M.P. is the shadow Attourney General

Which means I have actually been agreeing with him when he appears on the news attacking the 'anti-terror' legislation.

He's safe, the proverbial 'donkey with a blue rossette' would win round here. '01 result:

Cons. 22,233 (52.8%)
Lab. 9,168 (21.8%)
L.D. 9,117 (21.6%)
UKIP 1,626 (3.9%)

We are also famous for having given Blair his first (and only) electoral kicking. He stood here in a by-election in 1982, and got only 3,886 votes.

[Vladimir]

26. So which way are you voting?

seems like a seat where you can do what you like and it won't matter one bit...

[tjwmason]

27. I'm waiting to hear from the candidates.

In general I do not have a high opinion of Liberal Democrats at all, especially as I have seen them when they start fighting dirty.

Can't say that I'm terribly impressed with NewLabour either.

I'm also resigned to the fact that any vote which I cast in any direction will mean nothing; even voting Tory would make no difference :shrug:

[Vladimir]

28. Well then you might consider

wiping your arse with the ballott paper, to make a statement about democracy in Britain. :P

[Wat_Tyler]

8. Hmm. What are Kettle's links to Labour?

Is he being a good soldier by attempting to rally the troops?

[Anarcho-Socialist]

11. I don't know about Kettle, but the Guardian is generally

friendly to New Labour, despite it's philosophy being closer to the LibDems. When it comes down to it, the Guardian will prefer a Labour win over the Tories.

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. Nothing formal, I think

A good starting point for the politics of Guardian writers is to assume they are Labour supporters, and then to work out if they've been disillusioned by the Iraq invasion.

Maybe some of the titles of his articles over the past year will give us a clue:

Why Labour's visceral hatred of the judges persists
There's no need for Labour to panic over immigration
Blair must listen to those he despises
Who am I to tell you what to think about politics?
Progressives could be braver
Labour will be elected again under Blair
Labour now needs a prosaic Blair
With the Tories off the map, the centre is up for grabs
Socialism is dead. Long live liberalism and social justice
Kennedy is in danger of missing his perfect storm
The Tories could win it

which I thinks proves that he has to find something to write about each week, and doesn't mind too much about consistency.

[Briar]

13. I wouldn't call Kettle left of centre

like most of the Guardian staff, he's Blairite.

[non sociopath skin]

16. There is a difference between being "Blairite" and seeing Bliar ...

... as the least worst feasible option. If the Tories continue to gain ground, many on the left may feel it necessary to do what the French left were forced to do in the last round of the French Presidential, having split their "protest" votes in the first round, and vote for the least Right of the Right-wing candidates.

BTW many of the Guardian Leader Writers, as opposed the editorial staff, are far from Bliarite - Gary Younge or George Monbiot, to name but two.

My suspicion is that the Guardian will take a Vote-LibDem-or-Labour-but-not-Tory line, come the real election.

The Skin

[D-Notice]

17. I'm interested to see

who the Independent will favour

It comes across as being as left-wing as the Grauniad, if not more so

[muriel_volestrangler]

18. Almost definitely Lib Dem

since it was very anti-war, though it might say "look for Labour candidates who opposed the war". Here's a summary of what the positions were in the last election:

In contrast to previous elections, this time the partisanship of the British press swung, following the lead of their readers in the polls, towards Labour (see Figure 1). Among the redtops, the faithful Mirror was joined by The Sun, Daily Express, Daily Star and Daily Record in telling readers to vote Labour. The Guardian backed Blair, while The Independent remained agnostic. The Financial Times gave its unequivocal vote to the Labour party, as it had in the previous two elections. The FT also broke the story that the Conservatives were planning a £20 million tax cut, not £8 million as initially announced, sowing confusion and disarray as the Tory camp tried to defend its budget plans during the first week of the campaign. And The Times, for the first time in its history, also gave an endorsement to Labour, albeit grudgingly. Among the Sundays, Labour was supported by The Observer and the Sunday Mirror (enthusiastically), the Sunday People, the Sunday Express, The News of the World, The Sunday Times (as ‘the least worst party’), while The Independent on Sunday (‘vote tactically’) remained just that, and only The Sunday Telegraph and The Mail on Sunday came out in the Conservative corner.

http://ksghome.harvard.edu/~pnorris/acrobat/All%20Spin.pdf

I never realised that the Financial Times had recommended voting for Labour in 1992 (if this article has got it right).

[non sociopath skin]

19. That's right, Mu ... I distinctly remember the FT surprising folk ....

... by supporting Labour in '92. I think that the FT leading light was Samuel Brittan who was a Blairite before the term was invented.

You may well be right about the Indie going for a "vote for the most anti-war candidate" line. There seems to be a growing body of opinion on this with which I have a some sympathy. Still concerned it's a high-risk strategy, though.

The Skin

[sonicx]

20. Perhaps Blair should stop sucking so much?

"Lesser of 2 evils" is not a good slogan. :P

[non sociopath skin]

21. I cannot but agree, sonicx...

... But I fear that, as in France, that's what we may be faced with.

The Skin

[RogueTrooper]

22. It could happen

(and if it does thank f**k I moved to Ireland).

Blair will not be the first centrist progressive politician to be ousted because of closeness to Bush; there are a fair few US Senators to keep him company.