It’s one thing to accept, intellectually, that Labour is capable of winning itself a fourth term. It’s quite another to worry that they might.
Which brings me to today. For the first time I had that same sorry sinking feeling I had when it became obvious that Bush might secure himself a second term.
It’s about imagining the television coverage of the election as the seats come in and the BBC saying, “Well, if Labour are going to win then this seat is exactly the sort of seat they need to hold onto isn’t it?” and the reporter on location says, “Indeed. There’s going to be some smiling faces in Millbank tonight. This seat was crucial for them, and… yes… the Tories are looking very glum here, John.”
In 2004 you had the macho man-with-a-plan Bush junior versus the effete well-its-complicated-really Kerry. Despite the strength of feeling against Bush, the Democratic Party found itself unable to ‘leverage’ it – Kerry was a profoundly charmless character. He was an empty vessel on which to hang anti-Bush sentiment. It’s hard to believe there was a doubt about how that election would turn out – hindsight is a wonderful and terrible thing.
No two elections are alike, of course, and American politics cannot be compared with British politics in any serious way – but I’m starting to wonder just how many people want Cameron? Is there a chance that he could be the Kerry of British Politics – utterly failing to capitalise on an utterly hated incumbent?
My preference for a Tory Government over a 4th Labour terms is a reluctant one – but it’s inspired by the idea that if Labour are rewarded for all they’ve done with another term, they’ll have no hesitation in giving us more of the same – and, in fact, be emboldened to go further.
It’s the little things, of course – the attempts to subvert the Data Protection act, the attempts to rig in the internet in favour of the movie studios, the 90 days detention… but most people don’t give a toss about any of that.
Then there’s the economy – an enormous enlargement of the public sector and regulation on the private sector at the same time as a huge enlargement of debt. No-one seems able to explain convincingly why Britain will avoid the same fate as Japan – who, having hit zero percent interest rates engaged in massive public works with borrowed money… and then spend the next decade without growth because of the burden of that debt.
But most people don’t give a toss about that either. They just want to see the bankers spanked.
And that’s the people who care, obviously, the ones who care enough to have gone looking for answers to the question, “what’s wrong with this country?” – and often fallen foul of theatrical misdirection, showmanship and propaganda. The problem is Global Warming! The problem is dirty businessmen! It’s all the fault of immigrants! Hey man, look at the shiny. See the shiny thing? Look at the shiny thing. Look at it. You want the shiny thing, don’t you? Follow the shiny… follow it… that’s right, follow the shiny…. and you didn’t notice I just stole your watch, did you? No? Wonderful.
And the Tories? Well their answer to the problem, “what’s wrong with this country?” is to point over the benches at Labour. Labour is the problem.
Technically it’s probably true – but guys… seriously? It’s not good enough. It’s like saying ‘the management’ is what’s wrong with a company. Sure, it might be true, but not helpful in figuring out what needs to be done.
The closer to a General Election we get without any serious or interesting policies from the Tories, the more Brown’s accusations that Cameron is a vapid, empty shell begins to stick. They’ve been saying it for years now and, I think, people are starting to believe it. Some will believe anything if you say it often enough. Hell, maybe Brown really is just getting on with the job?
Away from the exciting and interesting world of online Grassroots Tory activism there’s a party facing the public that seems to be determined to feel like having dinner round Nana’s place. Tory Totty and Cameron Cuties ain’t going to win you an election. Not this election.
Quiet_Man said...
9 Dec 09 at 2:59 am
It all started to unravel for Cameron when he reneged on his cast iron promise on the Lisbon Treaty. Yes I know offering a referendum post Lisbon would have been silly, however what he did offer instead was weak and unworkable. Cameron said all future treaties would be put to a public vote as he outlined his new European policy. However, Lisbon is self amending there’s sod all Cameron will be able to do about any new additions to it.
He also promised a sovereignty bill if the Tories win the next election to ensure the supremacy of UK laws. However, you can’t get sovereignty back unless all 26 other members agree to it, trust me it isn’t going to happen unless we give something else in return and we’ve gone too far in that direction anyway.
Cameron also said to Andrew Marr on the Andrew Marr Show that “I don’t want an ‘in or out’ referendum because I don’t think ‘out’ is in Britain’s interests.”
In other words Cameron thinks if we held a referendum on in or out the answer would be out, he’s quite right, but it would be nice to be asked. This is what part of the problem is, Cameron has been seen to be weak and out of touch with public feelings, his policies are virtually unknown and seen in a negative light. So far he hasn’t managed to seal the deal so to speak and he’s running out of time.
Dave B said...
9 Dec 09 at 3:05 am
I often hear this ‘the Tories have not policies’ line. I don’t agree with it. While detail is lacking, surely that’s what the consultation/debate part of legislating is for? The basic blueprint of Conservatives policies is publically available from their website.
Devolution. The Conservatives’ policy is to abolish regional government, and give local gov’t autonomy over how they spend their budgets.
Schools. Breaking the state monopoly on running schools, freeing new schools from the centrally dictated national curriculum.
Immigration. A numerical cap on immigration. A points based system for those applying to immigrate to the UK.
Police. Locally elected police commissioners.
etc.
Dave B said...
9 Dec 09 at 3:21 am
@Quiet man
The Sovereignty Bill. I believe Germany asserts that German law overrides EU law, so I don’t see that a similar bill for the UK parliament is meaningless.
Bill Cash has an article in Standpoint on this. As he says, it can work, or it can be window dressing. Make sure your MP knows your preference!
subrosa said...
9 Dec 09 at 4:21 am
David Cameron has missed so many golden opportunities this year that I too began to wonder if he would make much impact on the electorate. Well said Charlotte. Many tories would agree with you. He’s just not cutting the mustard.
Is it because he’s juggling too many balls or is he indecisive? Only time will tell.
Dave B said...
9 Dec 09 at 6:46 am
My third(!) comment (sorry)
Browsing Standpoint’s website, I came across an October 2009 article from Oliver Letwin, called The Tories Have No Lack of Policies. Clearly a must read for this thread
Charlotte Gore said...
9 Dec 09 at 8:29 am
I think it’s a question of what gets through to the news and what doesn’t. I’ve not gone out of my way to find out what Tory policies are – I just read newspapers and listen to the radio… the only Tory policies I know are £20 for married couples and the sovereignty bill. I don’t know the details of the IHT cut.
Usually with the Lib Dems I find that most of their policy announcements make me want to swallow my fist though..
.. and now I think of it I have no idea what Labour’s policies are at all either. Hmm.
Constantly Furious said...
9 Dec 09 at 9:15 am
Policies are, like, so last decade, dude.
These days we just do like the Americans, and rubbish the other parties instead. So much easier, and makes better copy for the media too.
Lawrence Aggleton said...
9 Dec 09 at 9:23 am
My biggest fear with Cameron is that he saw Hugh Grant in Love Actually and thought, ‘Oooh, that could be me!’
On the off chance that they do have actual policies, I can understand their reluctance to state them until the election is called. Labour have a lot of form for co-opting policies if they’re getting any popular traction and it’s not like there’s any ideals left in either party.
Cameron isn’t exactly helped either when people like Rod Liddle spout their racist guff in The Spectator and remind everyone that the ‘Nasty Tories’ aren’t that long gone…
Dave B said...
9 Dec 09 at 9:51 am
@Lawrence Aggleton
Mr Brown’s recent decision to ‘name and shame’ public sector fat cats sounded very familiar.
Stu said...
9 Dec 09 at 10:06 am
I agree with Dave B, Cameron has been a lot more forthcoming on policy than most people give him credit for; and he’s also been bitten, several times, releasing a policy only to have a bastardised version of the same policy announced by Labour within a few months. Cf. Inheritance tax.
That’s the worst of all worlds for Cameron – the Government gets to take credit for implementing a popular policy, gets to blame the Tories (or point out that they would have gone further) if it doesn’t work out, and then gets to say that the Tories have no policies, or at least none which are distinct from the policies Labour has already implemented.
There is a very real possibility that Labour could win a fourth term. That does seem pretty scary until you consider that if they didn’t have a hope, Cameron wouldn’t have to even try. I think things will change a lot in the six weeks running up to an election, the question is whether Cameron’s going to play it right or not – and he needs to play a blinder.
P.S. Lawrence Aggleton’s comment about Rod Liddle is particularly interesting, seeing as Liddle worked for the Labour Party and had to resign from the Today programme due to his pro-Labour bias. Admittedly his article was in the Speccie, but it does speak to the fact that people seem to hear ‘racist’ and assume ‘Tory’. I don’t think the Conservative Party has a monopoly on bigots.
Lawrence Aggleton said...
9 Dec 09 at 10:52 am
Fair point Stu, I guess I don’t really think of Liddle as having any principles (political or otherwise). Come to think of it, that’s very Labour, isn’t it? KABLAMMO!?!11!!
Aaaaanyway, the point is that the Tories still have an underlying image problem. Any talk on Europe or immigration is only gonna hurt them as they get crunched on both sides by Labour/LibDems and UKIP. Dave needs to tread very carefully around that.
Dave B said...
9 Dec 09 at 11:06 am
@Stu
I just can’t see Labour winning the next election.
They won the 2005 election with 36% of the vote, on a low turnout (61%). They weren’t a popular government then, they’re an unpopular government now.
There’s a poster @politicalbetting called Patrick who’s pet theory is that the next election will see turnout rise to 70-75%, mostly Tory voters. I think he’s right.
This is the first election since 1997 when the parliamentary Conservative Party have looked not-mad, and it coincides with the Labour Gov’t having cocked up as badly as they possibly could have.
David Davis_libertarian Alliance said...
9 Dec 09 at 2:53 pm
Surely…
…we can simply tear up all the EU treaties, and leave.
Who will come after us, and with what?
Who will buy all the frantically-peddled EU goods with English instructions all over the packs, and with what? China? India? Japan? Brazil? Bankrupt Obama?
Let’s just go.
Cameron’s missed his chance to say so, and to clean up. Too bad. But we can go.
First Class posts on Wednesday | Letters From A Tory said...
9 Dec 09 at 10:10 pm
[...] Charlotte Gore decides that Tory Totty and Cameron Cuties ain’t going to win an [...]
Tim Almond said...
10 Dec 09 at 10:52 am
That’s a pretty wide definition of “cuties”.
I said at the time that they elected the lightweight that they could be picking the wrong leader for the wrong times.
When times are booming, you can talk about spending money on luxuries like looking after the polar bears. Come the bad times, people don’t care. They’re more worried about keeping a roof over their heads.
All that work de-toxifying the brand has left the Conservatives with a leader who looks like he’s following the times rather than being prepared for them. So keen were they to establish themselves as pro- public spending that attempts to now paint themselves as being a prudent party look like just another form of rebranding (while at the same time trying to hang on to some bits of IDS’ pseudo-socialism).
That said, Brown is such a disaster that Cameron will win, and get a majority. But it won’t be that big and I wouldn’t be surprised if he only gets 1 term.
Dave B said...
10 Dec 09 at 12:24 pm
@Tim Almond
Cameron the wrong leader?
Before Mr Cameron became leader of the Conservative Party, they’d been flat-lining for a decade. Now they’re favourites to win the next election.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/voting-intention
I’ve no idea how you’ve managed to perceive IDS as a socialist. Do tell.
Devil's Kitchen said...
10 Dec 09 at 1:45 pm
Charlotte,
You see? You’ve made a basic mistake here. Bush wasn’t utterly hated—he was utterly hated by a certain sort of American (mainly the despicable lefty arseholes that we’d never side with in a million years), but many Americans—the majority, in fact—liked him. Which is why he got a second term.
I don’t think that anyone (sane) likes Brown, do they? Anyone at all…?
DK
Tim Almond said...
10 Dec 09 at 2:00 pm
Dave B,
The Conservatives were around 37% at the end of 2005 when Labour were still looking like they were doing quite well (low unemployment, housing still booming). The Conservatives are now on about 38%. They’ve gained very little from Labour’s loss in the polls.
My point is that they might not have seen the immediate recovery that Cameron gave them, but a more solid Conservative who seemed like a man for a crisis might now be in a stronger position.
Roger Thornhill said...
10 Dec 09 at 2:44 pm
A very perceptive post.
Cameron is not likeable unless you are the kind who “cleaves to power”, i.e. you follow whomsoever gives you the impression of winning.
Alas, there are plenty who have that idea of “nice”.
Tazia Doll said...
10 Dec 09 at 5:33 pm
” Kerry was a profoundly charmless character. He was an empty vessel on which to hang anti-Bush sentiment. It’s hard to believe there was a doubt about how that election would turn out – hindsight is a wonderful and terrible thing.”
Unemployed whites in Ohio were told to vote for somebody who wasn’t going to give them a job, and they did. It can be amazing the difference a church roll makes.
“It’s hard to believe there was a doubt about how that election would turn out – hindsight is a wonderful and terrible thing.”
We had doubts, the people working for the campaign, we were often torn,
but we scraped together everything we could, in the places that mattered, and we got thru. The democrats are the monolithic money-engine, one has to fight against them on a targeted grass roots basis.
Democrats are good at brutal hand to hand campaigning.
Tazia
Dave B said...
11 Dec 09 at 7:54 am
@Tim Almond.
Looking at the recent election results
1997 – Labour 43%, Conservatives 30%, LD 17% (Turnout 71%)
2001 – Labour 41%, Conservatives 32%, LD 18% (Turnout 59%)
2005 – Labour 35%, Conservatives 32%, LD 22% (Turnout 61%)
You can see New Labour losing support from 1997 on, both in vote share, and turnout. They have not been a popular government for a very long time. But Labour’s loss of support did not produce an increase in support for the Conservatives, until Mr Cameron became leader.
Cameron has succeeded where Major, Hague, IDS, and Howard all failed.
Ed West has a short piece on the Telegraph’s website about the rivalry between social and liberal conservatives, is this perhaps what you meant by your description of IDS as a socialist?
Iain Martin suggested that Mr Cameron’s success, is attributable to his fusion of these two wings of Conservatism:
Jack Hughes said...
14 Dec 09 at 10:25 am
Cameron is pitching for the Guardian vote. Their policy looks just like the daily potboiler typed up by Pollyanna Toynbee herself.
I read this bit on their climate change and energy [sic] page
“we have the natural resources to generate wind and wave power,”
At first I thought they were planning to generate power from wind and waves – but then I read it more carefully and this is what hey really mean:
“we have the natural resources to generate wind” and also
“we have the natural resources to wave power”
so they are going to generate wind and also then wave power around….