Nothing Lasts Forever

Ed Kilgore describes the Labour Party's drubbing in recent local elections, combined with terrible national poll numbers, as "Bad News From Across the Pond." And certainly for anyone affiliated with the Labour Party the news is bad.

But then again, they've been in office for about eleven years now in a system with few checks and balances so on some level the fact that the Tories look positioned to win just seems like a two party system working the way it's supposed to -- having been beaten several times in a row, Labour repositioned itself, then won a bunch of elections in a row, and now the Tories have repositioned themselves and are poised for victory.

Comments

Livingstone believed his own loopy ideas, specifically the congestion tax and other carbo-phobic policies. Those are policies Democrats would love to put into practice over here.

Posted by wellbasically | May 3, 2008 2:44 PM

This is bad news for Democrats.

Posted by TomT | May 3, 2008 2:49 PM

One wonders how Britain manages to have two approximately equally powerful political parties, neither of which regards the other as pure evil...

Posted by Mr. Noah | May 3, 2008 2:57 PM

Livingstone's policies were pretty popular (even the Economist has a grudging respect for what he's accomplished, especially the success of the congestion tax, which his conservative successor has vowed to keep), but he was consistently an embarassment in terms of his statements.

Labor's been in power a long time, and while they'd still be my preferred party, Cameron seems like a pretty decent guy. If a Tory has to take power, let it be him.

Also, wellbasically, the only American mayor who I've heard of considering a congestion charge is Bloomberg.

And TomT, I can't tell if that's snark or not, but let me add either way that its also great news for Rudy Guiliani!

Posted by JoshA | May 3, 2008 3:03 PM

As an American Democrat living in Britain, I hardly see the Tory victories as bad news. Labour is incredibly stale, lifeless, boring, etc. They seem to have no principles except the perpetuation of their own power. People recognize this, and the decline in popularity owes little to a rejection of liberal ideas. Labour hasn't been great from the viewpoint of liberalism, and the Tories are more dynamic. Go Boris!

Posted by Robert | May 3, 2008 3:08 PM

"Nothing Lasts Forever" - True, but hopefully Gordon Brown goes out (if he does) in much better circumstances than Francis Urquhart did in The Final Cut.

Posted by ScottC | May 3, 2008 3:09 PM

Maybe if we luck out the Tories will only get a plurality and be forced to form a coalition with the Lib Dems.

Posted by Ray | May 3, 2008 3:10 PM

What about the Liberal Democrats? Aren’t they a third party?

Posted by jason | May 3, 2008 3:11 PM

Stinky Labour helped give us Iraq, so the hell with them. Labour is the Party of war, and even if Conservatives will be no different on war at least Labour will be punished.

Posted by Jennifer | May 3, 2008 3:14 PM

Yes, all things must end and all that.

But if one believes, as Matt does, that the solutions the left offers to the problems facing an increasingly globalized world are the best solutions available, and that the Democrats will prevail in the US because of that, then why doesn't that translate to the UK?

My take is that there aren't any easy answers, and that the reasons Labour is unpopular are pretty much the same reasons that the Republicans are unpopular here. Fatigue used to be the word used to describe the voters' take on a party that had run its course in power; exhaustion seems to be the better word now, but not so much with a party as with the world.

Posted by Thomas | May 3, 2008 3:17 PM

I just want to note that a good rule we had for being able to tell when a guy didn't know what he was talking about was that when you asked him for an explanation about a point he was making, he began his answer with, "Well, basically...."

Posted by Tyro | May 3, 2008 3:43 PM

So almost all of the major European nations have capitulated to the right. Why, pray tell?

Posted by Xanthippas | May 3, 2008 3:53 PM

"One wonders how Britain manages to have two approximately equally powerful political parties, neither of which regards the other as pure evil..."

It's an extraordinary important question and one answer goes like this: the US political system allows pretty much unmediated mobilisation by very narrow interest groups which have a strong incentive to adopt very extreme policy preferences even if - in the checks and balances way of the US constitution - they often end up beating their extreme views against a brick wall for decades. Whereas the British political system where politics is about two very very aggregated political parties which are both extremely centralised and you can only pursue particular policies if you are willing to be a permanent 'team player' in the way that no US member of congress or Senator can ever be, produces a broad blanket of moderation which covers almost everyone in the formal political system, at least compared with elsewhere.

Posted by otto | May 3, 2008 3:54 PM

What kind of American Democrat would support Boris Johnson? The man represents everything I would believe that Democrats would be against.

Posted by Keven | May 3, 2008 4:02 PM

"But if one believes, as Matt does, that the solutions the left offers to the problems facing an increasingly globalized world are the best solutions available, and that the Democrats will prevail in the US because of that, then why doesn't that translate to the UK?"

Do you really need it explained to you how the left in two different countries can be rather different?

Posted by Reality Man | May 3, 2008 4:11 PM

Matt, is the title of this post a really obscure Kinks reference, or am I reading too much into this?

And Tyro, I think wellbasically might be making an obscure Monty Python reference -- not that it makes that comment any more valid.

Posted by Pesto | May 3, 2008 4:13 PM

What kind of American Democrat would support Boris Johnson? The man represents everything I would believe that Democrats would be against.

Really? I want to avoid the phrase 'trust fund scumbag' but aren't Matt and Boris pretty similar in many ways? Overachieving media youngsters obsessed with politics, each able to carve out much more of an individual niche at an early age, both from elite educational institutions and prosperous backgrounds, both more or less liberal by American standards. Admittedly, Boris is a Hillary supporter (URL below), and is more of a clown and less of a wonk than MY. But Matt and Boris don't seem too far apart to me.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/11/01/do0101.xml

Posted by otto | May 3, 2008 4:20 PM

To refer to the UK as a two-party system when the Lib Dems are actually *polling higher* than Labour strikes me as misguided, to say the least. Especially if they can force a coalition government that will include replacing first-past-the-post with proportional representation.

BTW, can anyone explain to me where they fit ideologically vis-a-vis Labour and the Tories? It's always been a little confusing to me. All I know is that Labour needs to elect better leaders, because Blair and Brown are wankers.

Posted by Hunter H. | May 3, 2008 4:38 PM

Reality Man, no, I don't need that explained.

I gave my reason for connecting the countries, which I"ll expand on now: the common problems of globalization of the economy and the accompanying uncertainty and increased inequality, the rise of energy prices (in part connected to and in response to globalization), the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the threat of Islamic terrorism, the rise of a newly trivialized politics focused on ever shorter soundbites and media controversy, the frustrations with health care and health care financing, the difficulty of formulating environmental solutions on a global rather than national level, and so on.

Labour's solutions to these issues aren't the Republican's solutions. I'd say that they are closer to the Democrats' positions. So why aren't their solutions selling? And why don't you think any of that is relevant?

Posted by Thomas | May 3, 2008 4:41 PM

BTW, can anyone explain to me where they fit ideologically vis-a-vis Labour and the Tories? It's always been a little confusing to me.

A mangled mess of crap that tries to be "centrist" and in practice leads to them having absolutely no ideological consistency. If they secured the dictatorship they would draft David Broder for Supreme Leader.

Posted by Ed Marshall | May 3, 2008 4:58 PM

I gave my reason for connecting the countries, which I"ll expand on now: the common problems of globalization of the economy and the accompanying uncertainty and increased inequality, the rise of energy prices (in part connected to and in response to globalization), the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the threat of Islamic terrorism, the rise of a newly trivialized politics focused on ever shorter soundbites and media controversy, the frustrations with health care and health care financing, the difficulty of formulating environmental solutions on a global rather than national level, and so on.

Labour's solutions to these issues aren't the Republican's solutions. I'd say that they are closer to the Democrats' positions. So why aren't their solutions selling? And why don't you think any of that is relevant?

How can you say that Labor and the Dems offer the same solutions when for one thing the U.K. has a large single payer healthcare system. If you told dems that a President Obama would come into office, transform U.S. domestic policy such that it looked exactly like the U.K's and then would be voted out office, I think we'd all be ecstatic.

Posted by WillieStyle | May 3, 2008 5:03 PM

Hunter H.: the Lib dems may poll higher than Labour but they have no chance of winning the next general election. Labour probably won't win the election but it is by no means possible. When folks say that Britain is a two-party system they are talking about the general election. Every other election is more proportional, including the councils, which are typically multi-party.

Ken's congestion charge is a big success and popular: he got easily re-elected after he introduced it. Ken suffered from his Labour associations and his own arrogance. In good times he would have been re-elected against Boris Johnson, for sure.

Yes, I am a progressive and feel very little sympathy for Labour, especially after the Iraq war. And they are tired and have been in power too long. (Blair had to go, but even so.) We aren't a one-party state and Cameron looks interesting and decent.

Posted by Hunter H. | May 3, 2008 5:22 PM

I wish our conservatives were half as measured and sensible as they are in the UK. Their party, at least, remains a party without much crazy religion or insane spending. Much more live and let live than the right wing is here, fewer public scolds. I'm quite left in the US but Labour, Christ, wtf?

just a side note: having lived a lot in Europe, Jesus fuck do I miss single payer.

Posted by Arabella | May 3, 2008 5:31 PM

America is too new, too hetereogeneous, too big, has too much inequality, has too competitive a culture, and has too much populism and religion for the major political parties to do anything other than cast the other as the embodiment of evil in order to win elections on the narrowest of margins. That's why the two parties here in America are so polarized.

Posted by Chuck | May 3, 2008 6:07 PM

the Lib dems may poll higher than Labour but they have no chance of winning the next general election. Labour probably won't win the election but it is by no means [im]possible [sic]. When folks say that Britain is a two-party system they are talking about the general election.

Agreed, Lib Dems will not win the next general election; however, there is a pretty decent chance that they could be determine which party does get to form the next government (they already hold 10% of the seats in the House of Commons). If that's not the definition of a multi-party system, then I don't know what is.

Posted by Hunter H. | May 3, 2008 6:14 PM

Admittedly, there hasn't been a coalition government in the UK in a long time, so historically it is fair to describe the UK as a two-party system. At the moment, though, it strikes me as an inadequate description.

Posted by Hunter H. | May 3, 2008 6:30 PM

Turnover between parties is inevitable in a two-party system. The goal when a political party takes power is not necessarily indefinite, permanent rule, but rather the shifting of the dialog and the "sensible center" over to its side. An example, of course, is that even the new Tory mayor of London now agrees that congestion pricing is a good idea.

Posted by Tyro | May 3, 2008 6:34 PM

Here is the Conservative Party Manifesto for the last general election, in 2005. Unlike the Democrat and GOP party platforms, the manifestos of the two major British political parties are a pretty reliable guide to the kinds of policies they pursue in office. And the centralized nature of British politics gives them much more power.

I don't see much in this document to warm the heart of an American Democrat. Tax cuts, more spending on police and defense, longer prison terms, stricter drug laws, a more authoritarian state (public) school system, stricter limits on immigration, and increased privatization of health care.

Posted by Mixner | May 3, 2008 8:06 PM

I don't think this is a case of simple left/right politics - I think it's more that 2008 is turning out to be a bad year to be the incumbent.

Posted by SimplerDave | May 3, 2008 8:47 PM

Overachieving media youngsters obsessed with politics

That might seem like an apt description, if it weren't for that fact that Boris is 44, his achievements are rather questionable and he's mainly obsessed with himself.

Posted by novakant | May 3, 2008 9:08 PM

I'm glad someone replied to that, novakant. Also, to be frank, I'm finding the references to David Cameron as 'interesting' and 'decent' baffling. The man is completely void of any positive qualities.

Posted by Alexander | May 3, 2008 9:26 PM

Labour's solutions to these issues aren't the Republican's solutions. I'd say that they are closer to the Democrats' positions. So why aren't their solutions selling? And why don't you think any of that is relevant?

Sigh. Thomas, of course the Labour position is closer to the Dems than the Repubs. The point is that the Tory position is also closer to the Dems than the Repubs. Almost every electable political party in the developed world is closer to the Dems than the Repubs.

And Mixner, you might want to look at the current levels of spending and legislation, not just a simplistic more/less formula.

It is indeed a bad year to be an incumbent...if you're an incumbent in a party that sent troops to Iraq.

Posted by nolaboyd | May 3, 2008 10:01 PM

Just for the record, the Parties in the U.S. are polarized because one of the Parties -- that would be the Republicans -- pretty much is pure evil. The screaming is about waking up the numbnutz, who don't seem capable of groking to that even after 7 years of torture, election-stealing, national bankruptcy, corruption, and war-losing as pillars of national policy.

As for the British, it is not a two-Party system -- it is a three-plus Party system, with the Parliamentary dictatorship founded on what we Yanks would call gerrymandering. In the U.S. system, we talk a lot about gerrymandering, but it has very little actual effect because of the local and regional strategic morphing of the two (2 - count 'em) Parties. Representation in the House of Representatives very, very closely matches the national division in voter partisan sentiment and support: if the Democrats get 55% of the national vote, the Democrats will have 55% of the seats in the House.

In Britain, gerrymander combines with the three-plus Parties, to make possible -- even probable -- minority government. Whereas the Democrats in 2008 will have to get 50.1% (or very close) to elect a President, and will have to get a majority to retain their majority in the House, in Britain, the Parties have a much lower target.

New Labour won in 1997 with 43.2% of the vote; in 2001, with 41% (on a turnout of less than 60%, which means that Labour was elected by less than a quarter of eligible voters!) and in 2005, with an amazing 35.3% of the vote.

35.3%! Ain't democracy grand, indeed!

Posted by Bruce Wilder | May 3, 2008 10:06 PM

Just for the record, the Parties in the U.S. are polarized because one of the Parties -- that would be the Republicans -- pretty much is pure evil. The screaming is about waking up the numbnutz, who don't seem capable of groking to that even after 7 years of torture, election-stealing, national bankruptcy, corruption, and war-losing as pillars of national policy.

As for the British, it is not a two-Party system -- it is a three-plus Party system, with the Parliamentary dictatorship founded on what we Yanks would call gerrymandering. In the U.S. system, we talk a lot about gerrymandering, but it has very little actual effect because of the local and regional strategic morphing of the two (2 - count 'em) Parties. Representation in the House of Representatives very, very closely matches the national division in voter partisan sentiment and support: if the Democrats get 55% of the national vote, the Democrats will have 55% of the seats in the House.

In Britain, gerrymander combines with the three-plus Parties, to make possible -- even probable -- minority government. Whereas the Democrats in 2008 will have to get 50.1% (or very close) to elect a President, and will have to get a majority to retain their majority in the House, in Britain, the Parties have a much lower target.

New Labour won in 1997 with 43.2% of the vote; in 2001, with 41% (on a turnout of less than 60%, which means that Labour was elected by less than a quarter of eligible voters!) and in 2005, with an amazing 35.3% of the vote.

35.3%! Ain't democracy grand, indeed!

Posted by Bruce Wilder | May 3, 2008 10:09 PM

Just for the record, the Parties in the U.S. are polarized because one of the Parties -- that would be the Republicans -- pretty much is pure evil. The screaming is about waking up the numbnutz, who don't seem capable of groking to that even after 7 years of torture, election-stealing, national bankruptcy, corruption, and war-losing as pillars of national policy.

As for the British, it is not a two-Party system -- it is a three-plus Party system, with the Parliamentary dictatorship founded on what we Yanks would call gerrymandering. In the U.S. system, we talk a lot about gerrymandering, but it has very little actual effect because of the local and regional strategic morphing of the two (2 - count 'em) Parties. Representation in the House of Representatives very, very closely matches the national division in voter partisan sentiment and support: if the Democrats get 55% of the national vote, the Democrats will have 55% of the seats in the House.

In Britain, gerrymander combines with the three-plus Parties, to make possible -- even probable -- minority government. Whereas the Democrats in 2008 will have to get 50.1% (or very close) to elect a President, and will have to get a majority to retain their majority in the House, in Britain, the Parties have a much lower target.

New Labour won in 1997 with 43.2% of the vote; in 2001, with 41% (on a turnout of less than 60%, which means that Labour was elected by less than a quarter of eligible voters!) and in 2005, with an amazing 35.3% of the vote.

35.3%! Ain't democracy grand, indeed!

Posted by Bruce Wilder | May 3, 2008 10:12 PM

In good times he would have been re-elected against Boris Johnson, for sure.

In a sense, he's a victim of 'good times': an undoubted proportion of Boris's million votes came from Londoners who picked him for entertainment value.

In Britain, gerrymander combines with the three-plus Parties, to make possible -- even probable -- minority government.

There's no gerrymander: constituency boundaries are determined independent of party influence. What you're talking about is first-past-the-post voting, in which a bare plurality can win parliamentary seats. That's something obviously that needs changing, and the use of proportional representation in other elections should make the argument easier.

Here is the Conservative Party Manifesto for the last general election, in 2005.

Which they still lost, then dumped their leader and replaced him with 'Dave' Cameron. The next manifesto will likely be somewhat different in certain respects, given Cameron's personal leanings. A genuine libertarian, as opposed to a silly glibertarian boy, might know that.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 3, 2008 10:34 PM

Assuming that a Labour loss in Britain means trouble for the Democrats in the U.S. is a pretty big leap. We're talking about very different systems with very different political cultures.

On both sides of the pond, however, the major problems for the incumbent parties include (a) association with the Iraq debacle; (b) a badly slumping economy; and (c) a seemingly endless parade of scandals. Public dissatisfaction is not so much about ideology as it is with the perception that the party in power is corrupt and inept.

Posted by greylocks | May 4, 2008 1:00 AM

That might seem like an apt description, if it weren't for that fact that Boris is 44, his achievements are rather questionable and he's mainly obsessed with himself.

Of course, Boris is older now - well spotted. But if Boris was Matt's age, he'd almost certainly be a blogger; and if Matt had been born in the same year as Boris, he would have been trying to be the editor of TNR or such like in his 30s, just as Boris was editor of the Spectator. And achievements-wise, Boris has done rather more than most in politics and the media, even before getting elected mayor of London this week.

Posted by otto | May 4, 2008 2:12 AM

And Mixner, you might want to look at the current levels of spending and legislation, not just a simplistic more/less formula.

You make about as much sense as pseudolimey. So you support the policies described in the Tory manifesto, do you?

Posted by Mixner | May 4, 2008 2:47 AM

Her sitede TÜRK Bayrağı kampanyasına destek olmak için TÜRK Bayrağı Bandını sitene ekle. Hem kampanyaya destek ol hemde HİT kazan.

Posted by PiriketSeverler | May 4, 2008 3:10 AM

"I wish our conservatives were half as measured and sensible as they are in the UK."

And I wish our Democrats were half as measured and sensible as Australia's new left o' center prime minister. Or even Brazil's Lula, for that matter.

Posted by Fred | May 4, 2008 3:21 AM

Liberals are not against any tax cut, Mixner. They are against tax cuts that 1) more-than-proportionally benefit the wealthy when they have been sold as a way to spur domestic economic growth when giving a greater percentage of the cut would more successfully follow that path and 2) that we cannot pay for and will only put us deeper in debt, especially in war time. When was the last time you saw a mainstream liberal propose we raise taxes up to 1950's levels with any realistic chance of getting that enacted?

Also, part of the reason Cameron came to the position of leader of the Tories was because that the previous electoral platform was so toxic that they couldn't beat a lame duck like Blair. Cameron was brought into the leadership to make the Tories more modern, open and progressive, basically making them more libertarian with an openness to other races and immigrants.

The Liberal Democrats would stand a chance of getting any power whatsoever if they would just focus on key areas where they could win seats. Britain's first-past-the-post method of deciding electoral winners in Parliamentary districts means that a party that polls around 30% nationwide but can't get a majority in any single district won't get any seats. I don't know if they have or haven't decided focus on particular locales to carve out a geographic base of support, but if they haven't they have been wasting their time since at least the early Thatcher years.

Posted by Reality Man | May 4, 2008 4:31 AM

The Liberal Democrats would stand a chance of getting any power whatsoever if they would just focus on key areas where they could win seats. Britain's first-past-the-post method of deciding electoral winners in Parliamentary districts means that a party that polls around 30% nationwide but can't get a majority in any single district won't get any seats. I don't know if they have or haven't decided focus on particular locales to carve out a geographic base of support, but if they haven't they have been wasting their time since at least the early Thatcher years.

This is exactly what they've done in the last three general election cycles, which is why they hold 63 seats in the House of Commons now, rather than the 23, 22, and 20 they won in 1983, 1987, and 1992 with roughly the same percentage of the vote. They don't have a geographic base, but they have been specifically targeting marginal districts. If they can hold the balance of power in a hung parliament, they've stated that they require changing first-past-the-post to proportional representation to be part of a coalition government. That seems entirely plausible under current circumstances.

Posted by Hunter H. | May 4, 2008 12:07 PM

If they can hold the balance of power in a hung parliament, they've stated that they require changing first-past-the-post to proportional representation to be part of a coalition government.

That said, there's a genuine question on whether the strategy that's proved successful for the LibDems in the past -- take seats from the two big parties by appealing to tactical voters in areas that aren't traditional Con vs. Lab territory -- makes it harder to maintain a consistent party identity across, say, LibDems in the rural south-west of England with LibDems in the urban north-west. That was certainly on show during the recent leadership election.

That is: when you've got a smaller parliamentary party, and have greater strength in local government, it's easier to project yourself as one thing in one region and another thing in another.

There's also the flip-side of the mid-90s discussions about a hung parliament: the LibDems will find it hard to maintain an official impartiality on becoming a coalition partner or supporting a minority government, and the idea that they might keep Labour in power would surely cost them votes in areas where they're competing with the Tories.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 4, 2008 3:07 PM

Plus the fact that the Lib Dems have squandered much of the last three years engaging in internal squabbling rather than setting out an agenda that connects with voters. They're on their fourth leader since the election, a freshman MP named Nick Clegg who looks good on TV, but has no discernable leadership skills. In his first major test as leader, the Commons vote on whether to hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, he ordered his party to abstain on some irrelevant technicality. It's an open question whether Clegg will even lead his party into the 2009/2010 election before getting knifed in the back by his Shadow Chancellor, Vince Cable.

Posted by Another Chris | May 4, 2008 5:15 PM

nolaboyd, what makes you think the local council elections in the UK were really about Iraq? And why would they be, since Blair is long gone?

greylocks, why is the UK economy slumping? They have more government there than we do; why isnt' that enough?

Posted by Thomasj | May 4, 2008 9:00 PM