6.5.05

BRITISH POLITICS COMMENTARY ROUND-UP:

Norm sees some reason to be optimistic:

"The exit poll says 66, and within no time at all I'm opining, with all my lack of psephological expertise, that the first results make that look too optimistic for Labour. The TV guys are more cautious - and subsequently to be vindicated, thank goodness. Let that be a lesson to me, and all you bloggers. If you sound off on things you're not too clued up about you may come a cropper. Yes, but we'll go on sounding off. It's the public square, it's getting your word in; it's not scientific research. At 1.45 AM, Sky are predicting a majority of 80; at 2.10 the Beeb say 76. I'm feeling better...

From 1979 to 1992 I went to bed on election nights (actually mornings) a lot less happy than I did at 5.30 today..."

Harry is rather less optimistic:

"Its going to be the last chance for a long time unless Gordon Brown can get a grip because watching those southern seats returning to the Tories was a brief glimpse at what might be around the corner. The Tories aren't back yet but they certainly aren't finished as some once claimed.


Blair, as an attractive electoral force is finished though and the Labour Party must do everything in its power to ensure that Gordon Brown (or whoever else might fancy the task) is given plenty of chance to establish his own government before the next election. We will see how grown up Labour is and how much or how little Blair cares for the party by how the transition is handled."

Then, there's what I can only term a really bizarre move, in which Michael Howard resigns as leader of the Conservatives. Says Howard:

"I've said if people didn't deliver they have to go," he said. "And for me, delivering meant winning the general election. I am doing what is best for the party and for the country."

...Which seems odd mostly because the Tories wildly outperformed the electoral expectations of them for most of the last government. Perhaps this is supposed to clear the ground for someone with more political savvy. But presumably such a person would've appeared on the scene sometime in the last eight years or so, so hope springs eternal.

Finally, just for amusement's sake, a suggestion from Matt Yglesias:

"I really should't offer up big ideas about the politics of a foreign country that I don't know all that much about, but just scanning over the math of the British election results it's very hard to escape the conclusion that Labor would do well for itself to form some kind of formal alliance with the Liberal Democrats. The two parties policies don't really seem to be particularly different, especially once you take into account the fact that there's a certain vagueness as to what Lib Dem policies really are and a great deal of internal dispute within Labor. If a single party can accommodate the views of all the different Labor MPs, the it doesn't seem it would take much change at all to accommodate the views of all the Lib Dem MPs as well."

Now, as far as I'm aware, the experience of 1992 convinced Labour and LibDems to vote tactically for each other to keep the Tories out, but I think that agreement collapsed this time around. They also weren't able to get it together in 1983 or 1987, and that was trying to face Thatcher. If they can't even coordinate most of the time on "not the Tories," why on earth would they be able to share a political party?

No comments: