Hang Time

By Freddy Gray • May 7, 2010, 10:29 AM

Dan’s has it exactly right — all three major parties have managed to lose the UK election. British democracy isn’t making a lot of sense. Thus we hear more and more rash talk about overhauling the political system and introducing proportional representation.

Here in Westminster, London, David Cameron’s failure to secure a winning majority has prompted lots of grumbling in the Conservative ranks. The righter-than-thous are all saying ‘we told you so’. And some Tories who gladly bought into the modernising Cameron project are now claiming they knew that DC was wrong all along.

For his part, Cameron seems incapable of ‘hanging tough’ with his small majority. He has already made very generous-sounding overtures to Nick Clegg about forming a governing coalition. But, as everybody keeps asking, wouldn’t it better for the Tories to wait, let the Liberals and Labour form a ‘progressive’ coalition with a debt-ravaged economy, then come back triumphant in two years time when it falls apart — which it almost certainly would? But that would mean conceding defeat, something the PR obsessed Tory machine would find anathema.

Who knows? For now, British conservatism seems to be a complete shambles. For all the American Right’s problems, it is in better shape now than its older cousin across the Atlantic. It would be serious, if it weren’t so funny.

Another tidbit: the ridiculous BNP – whose idea of canvassing goes a little something like this — have failed. Nevertheless, their small gains in various seats may well have cost the Tories in some tightly-contested seats.

Posted in Uncategorized.

7 Responses to Hang Time

Randal says:

May 7, 2010 at 10:53 am

I hear what you’re saying – I find it difficult to see the sense in taking the blame for the next few months hardships without much chance of seeing the other side of them and getting any credit.

I suppose Cameron and his team might have decided the risk of Labour buying up the nationalists and doing a deal with the LibDems that involved bringing in PR in short order, was just too great.

Or it could just be that his personal arrogance got the better of him.

Anyway, surely another election in a few months, after some suitable expression of horror at how much worse Labour has left the books than even they suspected, must be the plan? Mustn’t it? Surely Cameron can’t really expect to steer a minority government dependent upon Lib Dem acquiescence, at the least, through the next couple of years of austerity and out the other side? Can he?
Sean Scallon says:

May 7, 2010 at 10:57 am

I’ll be a little more fair to the Tories. For one thing the problem was their expectations were way too high. They should have tamped them down. As someone pointed out on the BBC last night, they started the election with fewer seats than Michael Foote started with in the 1983 election with and gaining an outright majority would have required an electoral tidal wave equivalent to 1997. That election reflected the cultural change in the nation in the aftermath of Thatcher, a huge wave towards Labour. There was no such wave towards the Tories, only against Labour.

Still, that wave did not go to the Liberal Dems, which could have easily happened and many expected to happen, which in that case the Tories would have been left for dead and criticisms towards Cameron quite valid. That it did not, and that fact that a party that was damn near extinction in early part of the last decade has recovered to gain over 90 seats and 37 percent of the vote I don’t think is a small feat. Even Labour wasn’t as far gone as the Tories were in their times of trouble. If not Cameron or Red Toryism, then who or what? Nothing else and no one else can say they could have done equally well or better and I was impressed with the way the Tories chose their candidate with an emphasis on localism. The Tories have simply not made the sell to the working class yet as Phillip Blond pointed out this morning and the only way they can do so is by governing and showing they can be effective.

Although, it is tempting to think that Labour would be so stupid as to build a Lib-Lab coalition with Gordon Brown as PM. That would be as damaging to both parties as the Tories dumping of Thatcher was. Perhaps a Con-Celtic coalition that would include the Ulster Unionists, the Scottish and Welsh Nats, the Alliance and Independent Unionists in Northern Ireland would be stable enough for strong minority government that in two to three years could go to the polls for a majority if it involved more devolution, hence more localism. I once argued after the 2005 election the Tories would be better off as an English nationalist party. Given its clear majority across England, it may come to that.
Randal says:

May 7, 2010 at 12:20 pm

“For one thing the problem was their expectations were way too high.”

True, and in that they seem to have been, like the LibDems, somewhat the victims of the polls. Through 2008-9 they were polling mostly in the 40s – enough to seriously plan for an outright majority. In the end, it appears a lot of those were LibDem voters who ultimately couldn’t bring themselves to vote Conservative.

Much like a lot of the Clegg Lib-Dem poll boom – which seems to have consisted of dissatisfied Labour voters who ultimately went back to their tribe when it came to it.

“the Tories would have been left for dead and criticisms towards Cameron quite valid. That it did not, and that fact that a party that was damn near extinction in early part of the last decade has recovered to gain over 90 seats and 37 percent of the vote I don’t think is a small feat. Even Labour wasn’t as far gone as the Tories were in their times of trouble. If not Cameron or Red Toryism, then who or what? Nothing else and no one else can say they could have done equally well or better and I was impressed with the way the Tories chose their candidate with an emphasis on localism. ”

Is it really to do with the leaders and the policies? Or is it more to do with a long slow recovery from 18 years in power in the face of the profound hostility of the chattering classes? Were Hague, IDS and Howard really as poor leaders as they were made out to be? Is Cameron as good as his boosters make out or as poor as his detractors claim? Or is it a case of making up explanations after the fact for results that were broadly inevitable?

Personally, I suspect that if you could swap Hague and the 2001 manifesto for Cameron and the 2010 manifesto you’d get broadly the same results in both elections, give or take a point or so.

Politicians naturally overrate their own importance. We don’t need to help them do it.

“Although, it is tempting to think that Labour would be so stupid as to build a Lib-Lab coalition with Gordon Brown as PM. That would be as damaging to both parties as the Tories dumping of Thatcher was.”

But that wouldn’t help the Tories if they were to find themselves facing the next election under a rigged PR system in a few months time. You know the media classes would love the idea.

“I once argued after the 2005 election the Tories would be better off as an English nationalist party. Given its clear majority across England, it may come to that.”

Apart from a bit of a recovery in Wales they are pretty much already there, aren’t they? Anyway, there must be mileage in the West Lothian question.
Thomas O. Meehan says:

May 7, 2010 at 1:57 pm

One benefit to a Labor/Lib Dem partnership would be the inevitable traducing of the Lib Dems. Labor apparachics would have them for lunch. I can’t but believe that the Lib Dems would collapse at being outmaneuvered in their first taste of power. The resulting election would carry the Conservatives back into power with the help of disaffected Lib Dem votes.
Jeremiah Whitmoore says:

May 7, 2010 at 2:31 pm

“Another tidbit: the ridiculous BNP – whose idea of canvassing goes a little something like this — have failed. Nevertheless, their small gains in various seats may well have cost the Tories in some tightly-contested seats.”

I wonder why anyone would vote for the ridiculous BNP? It’s not like there’s a bunch of street thugs attacking candidates for the parliament or anything like that.
Filmer says:

May 7, 2010 at 3:16 pm

“Another tidbit: the ridiculous BNP … have failed.”

The inexplicable TAC vendetta against the BNP continues. Do you honestly think there will EVER be conservative governance in Britain again if it becomes majority minority? As far as I can tell the BNP is the only party trying to prevent Britain from ceasing to be British. I know the BNP is not an American style limited government paleocon party, but at least they aren’t a bunch of self-loathing whites who have thrown up their hands in the face of catastrophic demographic dissolution.
AndrewH says:

May 8, 2010 at 11:34 am

whose idea of canvassing goes a little something like this

How dare he fight back against his attackers!

Nevertheless, their small gains in various seats may well have cost the Tories in some tightly-contested seats.

Uh, no. Most BNP votes come from ex-Labour voters. It was Ukip that cost the Tories a number of seats.