David Cameron says 2010 should be 'year for change'

[fedsron2us]

Conservative leader David Cameron has said the UK needs a change of direction and new leadership in 2010.

"We can't go on in these difficult times with a weak prime minister and a divided government," he insisted in a speech at Woodstock, Oxfordshire.

He said a Tory government would invite main opposition leaders to regularly attend "war cabinet" meetings.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8437645.stm

The press predictably have seen this as a starting gun for the election campaign with Cameron trying to set the agenda.

The reality is his position is far less strong than the opinion polls suggest.

First, the date of the election is to some degree in the Prime Minister's control which measn that he effectively can decide when campaigning begins in earnest.

Second, Brown's government is far from being as weak and divided as the Tories claim,. For a start he has a very healthy majority of 62 MPs in the House of Commons which means that it is very hard for small groups of Labour troublemakers to disrupt the governments agenda.

http://www.parliament.uk/mpslordsandoffices/mps_and_lords/stateparties.cfm

To put this in perspective it is worth looking at past General Elections to see what sort of task Cameron faces in winning outright control of the House of Commons. The figures make interesting reading since it is clear that in order to win an overall power the Conservatives have to overturn a government majority greater than any than any opposition has achieved since the second world war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_elections

I have seen quite a few postings on various forums by people who assume that the next election is going to be some sort of a rerun of the Thatcher's triumph in 1979. What they tend to forget is that the Callaghan Labour government of that era did not command a majority in the House of Commons so beating it at the polls was not exactly a difficult task. Indeed, it is worth noting that Thatchers 1979 majority was a mere 43 seats which is only about 2/3 of what Brown has now. Similarly when Blair won his 1997 Landslide Major's Conservatives had lost so many by-elections that his original Parliamentrary majority of 21 seats had slumped to nothing. To me this suggests that the result of the election is far from a foregone conclusion and that it is quite possible that the UK will end up with a hung Parliament. Given this scenario Camerons suggestion of some sort of power sharing starts to make much more sense. If he wins outright he can always back track. However, should he fail to get a majority he might still have a shout at getting that call from Buckingham Place to try to form a government. Whatever happens it is likely that this years election may be closer to those of 1974 than 1979 so people ought to fasten their seat belts as things may start to get a bit bumpy.

[LeftishBrit]

1. I would certainly expect a Cameron government to be weak and divided..

as well as all the other things that would be wrong with it.

Firstly, I don't think his majority would be *huge* (hope not, anyway; and the way he's been sucking up to the Lib Dems, he seems not to think so either). Secondly, there are huge divisions between the moderates and far-right in the party.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

2. I agree with your post

The various Tory factions are aching for a fight but are willing to keep quiet until after the next General Election.

If the Tories return a majority with less than 40, they will find it difficult to deal with backbench rebellions whether it's from the libertarian or nationalist wings of the party.

I do wonder how a minority Tory government could work with the Lib Dems. While there is enough of a neoliberal trend within the latter for the former to work with, there's going to be a major gap in social policy between these two potential coalition partners.

Other options that the Tories have if they're just short of a majority:
*An unholy alliance with SNP. Perhaps the provision of confidence votes in return for a bigger block grant, or perhaps an acquiescence with an independence agenda (and the many Scottish Labour MPs it would take out of Westminster)
*An even unholier alliance with the DUP.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

3. you can bank on the Tories to privatise everything

the best thing would be a Lab/Lib coalition.

We've had a diluted Tory party under the leadership of Blair and Brown. It is time to get back to being real Labour.

[non sociopath skin]

5. I don't think that a Lib-Lab coalition would do anything to facilitate that.

Nick Clegg and Vince Cable have much more in common with the Blairites than with what little remains of the Labour left, surely?

The Skin

[T_i_B]

4. "The press predictably have seen this as a starting gun for the election campaign"

I'm already fed up with electioneering. :-(

[dipsydoodle]

6. I doubt the Tories will have an overall majority

but anticipate New Labour commencing their decline into a complete disappearing act.

[non sociopath skin]

7. Doesn't seem so very long since people were saying exactly the same thing about the Tories ...

... and about "Old" Labour before that.

I sometimes think we underestimate political parties' will to live.

The Skin