Tony's Tories (The unbearable futility of being a British Conservative)

The Wall Street Journal ^ | May 4, 2005 | Geoffrey Wheatcroft

[quidnunc]

What will Britain's Conservatives do after getting trounced again tomorrow?

Bath, England – From 1874, when Benjamin Disraeli won a decisive election victory, to 1997, when John Major lost a calamitous defeat, the Conservative Party — the Tories, as their convenient older name goes — held office for 84 out of 123 years. They dominated British politics; they demolished the idea that the 20th century inevitably belonged to the left; they were the most electorally successful party in history, in any country.

Now the Tories have already lost two successive elections for the first time in more than 30 years, and short of an astonishing upset at the polls tomorrow they are about to lose a third straight for the first time in more than 90 years. The Tories will soon have been out of power for longer than at any time since the 18th century, which suggests that, even if the party is not quite dead, it is very sickly and the prognosis is not good.

Where do they go from here if they are to recover? Just as much to the point, how did they get to here? As the progenitor of intelligent conservatism once remarked, when things go wrong there is always a temptation to enquire "not how we got into this difficulty, but how we are to get out of it," or "to consult our invention, and to reject our experience."

-snip-

[quidnunc]

I don't know why the Brits are bothering to have an election at all since everybody already knows the outcome.

The Labour Party will be returned to power with a reduced majority and Tony Blair will continue as prime minister for a while, eventually to be replaced by Gordon Brown.

But, I suppose they have to go through the motions for the sake of appearences.

[The Iguana]

This analysis loses much of its punch once you realize its infected with the Journal's standard open-borders fixation.

The Tories immigration stance is not why they're polling poorly.

[Constantine XIII]

Things started going down hill when they threw out Margaret Thatcher.

Yep. That's pretty much what did it.

[kpp_kpp]

>
> The unbearable futility of being a British Conservative
>

we figured that out back in the late 1700's

[Rate_Determining_Step]

Although I don't know the intricacies of British politics, I would think Blair's ascension is somewhat of a perfect storm deal. He's adept on the world stage and that seems like a (justly) important deal with Brits.

Once Labor puts forth some dolt like Neil Kinnock again, the Tories will be back in power in short order!

Helps to have a charismatic and confident candidate.

[Clemenza]

I have a feeling that when Gordon Brown succeeds Blair, that he will not last long. Smart man, popular in his own party, but lacks the "public" poltical skills necessary to survive a national election.

[goldstategop]

The Tories jettisoned Margaret Thatcher and her small government legacy. They've become a me-too Labour Party. Why bother voting Conservative when you can vote for the real article? I'm expecting Blair to lead Labour to another landslide victory on Thursday.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[David Hunter]

I have a feeling that when Gordon Brown succeeds Blair, that he will not last long. Smart man, popular in his own party, but lacks the "public" poltical skills necessary to survive a national election.

Actually, if Blair had stepped aside for Brown before this election then Labour would probably maintain their current huge parliamentary majority and they would be guaranteed to win the election. Brown is currently far more popular with the British electorate than Blair. However, Brown lacks Blair's "killer instinct" and is an old fashioned Labourite which explains why Blair beat him to become Labour leader after John Smith died, (even though Brown was widely regarded as the leader in waiting).