It’s neck and neck

If he weren’t a Tory you might be inclined to feel a bit sorry for David Cameron. On becoming party leader he immediately flew to the Arctic Circle to have his photo taken with some huskies and then he got a primary school child to design the new oak tree party logo. For a while…

Liam

March 5, 2010

2–3 minutes

Recent events just go to show that a few cuddly photos and a crayon drawing can’t really change a party’s social base. Michael Ashcroft may be a perfectly legitimate tax dodging billionaire and who wouldn’t be a bit economical with the truth if it got you that once in a lifetime opportunity to wear a big red cape and upgrade from “Mr” to “Lord”? Cameron’s problem is that it does tend to remind people of the, probably grossly unfair, stereotype that to get ahead in the Tories you have to be a slightly corrupt, conniving pauper hater.

Not just that. By chucking millions of pounds at marginal seats Ashcroft and the Tories seemed to operate on the assumption that there is nothing in the slightest bit dubious about one billionaire tying to influence the result of a general election. Apparently he likes to play up his Dr Evil persona but at least Austin Powers’ nemesis was only in it for the money. Ashcroft’s motivation is probably ideological – making the world a better place for tax avoiding billionaires is a cause worth fighting for. Yet such is his disregard for any sort of democratic accountability that he didn’t even come clean with Cameron or William Hague. Perhaps he just didn’t want to add to their stress at this busy time.

In that alternative reality where Daily Mail writers dwell they think that all this hoo-ha is down to “the politics of envy”. What remains of the Labour supporting press is playing the issue up to incite tax payers making £18 000, £25 000 or £30 000 a year feel cross that a man who could, if he wanted to have given the £5.1 million to the Inland Revenue instead of the Tories. It’s a theory.

Unsavoury billionaires apart the other thing that seems to be doing some damage to the Tories is their “we want to nuke the public sector” message. For some reason that almost defied logic it had gained some traction. It doesn’t seem so popular anymore and Labour’s limited expansionist policy towards the economy has at least limited the damage to their electoral challenges.

So it’s going to be an interesting couple of months. It’s hard to pick up any surge of enthusiasm for Labour but they may not go down to the humiliating defeat that seemed inevitable fairly recently. It would be nice to see the Tories humiliated though.

Footnote – speaking at a meeting last week George Galloway speculated on what Respect would do if it had three MPs in a hung parliament. If memory serves he offered full support for a Labour government if it withdrew from Iraq and Afghanistan and didn’t make public spending cuts. Failing that they would vote for each piece of legislation on a case by case basis.

9 responses to “It’s neck and neck”

Alex Snowdon

March 5, 2010 at 2:30 pm

I’m fascinated by how completely the Conservatives’ lead has collapsed. It’s not long ago that a large Tory majority looked almost inevitable, with a possible landslide. We’re now contemplating the serious possibility of not only a hung parliament, but one that could have Labour taking slightly more seats.

The reason is remarkably simple: the Tories have positioned themselves distinctively to the right of the Labour government. That’s not a popular place to be – it simply isn’t going to win over people who are not traditionally Tory voters. Most people oppose public sector cuts, so championing cuts is electorally a very poor choice. They pursue such policies, despite this, because they are absolutely committed to them as a response to the crisis.

LikeLike

Reply
RobM

March 5, 2010 at 3:07 pm

Most people may be opposed to cuts- or at least very fearful of them- but this opposition is quite passive still (just 150 people protesting in Brum where 2,000 jobs are under immediate threat and 5, 000 more may follow).
This is understandable as there is still huge uncertainty and and a bit of disbelief about the scale of the cuts proposed. The opposition might only really harden up post-election when groups of workers are forced to take action in defence of jobs and services.
So, opposition to cuts- when all three main parties are proposing them, is not likely to feed decisively into this election.
Labour could, of course, open up a huge lead by saying they won’t implement cuts. However, to be credible they would have to outline an alternative which would amount to an absolutely massive shift to the left. Taxing the rich until their eyeballs pop, nationalising the top 3 million monopolies, that sort of thing. I can’t really see the party of Blair, Brown and Mandelslime doing that.
So, ironically, the Tories could still win a landslide over Labour simply because Labour, being in power and closer to implementing cuts rather than just talking about them, is melting its own base.

I do, however, have some optimism about the willingness of workers and service users to fight back- more in the medium term- and it comes down to one thing, a sense of fairness. No one can put a serious case that it is fair for millionaire bankers to screw the rest of us into the ground whilst remaining super rich. That makes it harder for the gutter press to attack ‘selfish’ strikers and ‘greedy’ workers and ‘scroungers’ on the dole.
The Greens have bagged a damn good slogan in “Fair is worth fighting for”

LikeLike

Reply
daveinstokenewington

March 5, 2010 at 4:15 pm

speaking at a meeting last week George Galloway speculated on what Respect would do if it had three MPs in a hung parliament.

Such a perspective is perhaps a tad optimistic, is it not?

LikeLike

Reply
Liam

March 5, 2010 at 4:21 pm

Tsk! That’s just the sort of demoralised defeatist nonsense we’d expect from an unapologetic left reformist.

(I think that’s the right answer.)

LikeLike

Reply
prianikoff

March 5, 2010 at 5:24 pm

“It’s not long ago that a large Tory majority looked almost inevitable”

I have to point out that I’ve been arguing the opposite was true for some time.
If anything, only the continued presence of Gordon Brown as Labour leader stands in the way of another absolute majority.
But it’s too late to do anything about Brown now, so it’s necessary to be clear about how to vote in the next election;

1) Vote for a Labour government, even if that means having to vote for MPs we would want to remove at a future date.
2) Stand a limited number of credible socialist candidates against Labour right wingers, but don’t split the vote to let in the Tories
3) Vote for Left wing Greens where they stand a better chance of stopping a Tory.

It may be that the electoral arithmetic gives a bloc of left MP’s influence beyond their numbers in a hung parliament.
But it’s very schematic to base a whole strategy on that.

Whether Brown wins or loses his position afterwards is likely to be much less secure.
So there will be more space for promoting alternative policies again.

I don’t buy the argument that the recession is over;
Those who argue this are ignoring the serious contradictions inherent in the QE programme.
The rate of inflation is increasing and property values still have a long way to fall.
Both factors have the potential to devastate living standards.

Whether you can arrive at your destination in time depends on how fast the tyre is leaking and how often you need to get off an pump it up.
I still think the most likely scenario is a double dip recession.

LikeLike

Reply
skidmarx

March 5, 2010 at 5:24 pm

So if describing that perspective as optimistic is demoralised defeatism, can we expect Respect to have many more than three MPs in a hung parliament?

LikeLike

Reply
Alex Snowdon

March 5, 2010 at 6:05 pm

RobM
So, opposition to cuts- when all three main parties are proposing them, is not likely to feed decisively into this election.

I don’t think that’s accurate. Most people perceive – rightly or wrongly – a significant difference between Labour and Tories on the issue of cuts. This is feeding a shift in the polls from Tory to Labour, and is likely to marginally increase the turnout of Labour’s vote (with traditional Labour supporters seeing a reason to vote).

LikeLike

Reply
RobM

March 5, 2010 at 7:36 pm

I do hope that there is growing opposition to cuts in the immediate short term and that it feeds into the election- as that will open up more of a space for the Left.
However, I don’t see it as a necessarily linear process which shifts politics as a whole leftward or saves Brown’s skin- in the absence of absolute clear red water opening up between Labour and Tories.
Despite offering only the most savage cuts, Cameron has the advantage of not having been in office when the banks were bailed out and when the economy went into meltdown…

LikeLike

Reply
shug

March 6, 2010 at 7:55 am

The only fact is,who is voting for Bruiser Brown or Slasher Cameron.Thats the bus stop and its not outside the club or the pension snuff shop.Get our youth to tick the box,and then possibly it wont be in truth, one sided.

LikeLike

Reply