A good election to lose?

[T_i_B]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/mar/09/election-labour-lose-gordon-brown

For anyone of a progressive bent, the prospect of the Tories returning to power is profoundly depressing. However sick of Gordon Brown people might be, David Cameron is hardly an appealing alternative. So at one level it is cheering to see the Conservatives' poll lead melt away with the winter snow. While a narrow Tory victory remains likely, according to political betting markets, it is not in the bag. But while keeping the Tories out would be heartening in the short term, Gordon Brown's re-election would most likely be disastrous for Labour in the longer term.

Some election victories are a poisoned chalice. With hindsight, it was fortunate for Labour and catastrophic for the Conservatives that John Major won in 1992. Sterling's ejection from the ERM shredded the Tories' reputation for economic competence, and five years of in-fighting, blunders and scandal consigned the Conservatives to the political wilderness after 1997. It seemed for a while as if the party might never win office again. The Tories would surely have bounced back more quickly if they had lost in 1992. Conversely, a Labour victory in 1992 could have been fatal. Had the pound plunged within months of Labour taking office, the party's chances of re-election would have been remote. The Labour government would have marked a brief progressive interregnum between long periods of Conservative dominance.

While we do not have the benefit of hindsight, 2010 feels a lot like 1992. Most people are fed up with the government but unconvinced by the opposition. The ruling party has become too comfortable with power and often seems bereft of purpose. The prime minister is at best uninspiring, more often dismal. Most importantly, the economic outlook is unpromising – and there is a growing chance that a run on the pound will wreak havoc with the recovery and the government's plans. Even if catastrophe is avoided, running Britain in an age of austerity will be a thankless task, especially for politicians who believe in active government.

Tax hikes, spending cuts, curbing public-sector pay, cutting public-sector jobs – does Labour really have the stomach for it? Do Labour politicians want to spend the next five years undoing a lot of what they have achieved over the past 13? Do they honestly think voters will look kindly on them next time around if their sales pitch is that their cuts were "kinder" and more reluctant than the hypothetical cuts voters might have suffered under a Tory government? Even if the economy stages a phoenix-like recovery, will voters thank Labour for it? If Labour scrapes through in 2010, there is a good chance it would face a 1997-style electoral oblivion in 2015. To put it another way, if the choice for Labour is between either an unrewarding extra term in office followed by several terms on the margins or a narrow defeat, a period of renewal and a good chance of returning to government within five years, surely the latter is preferable? Surely only those whose political lifespan is nearing its end, those who depend on Gordon Brown for their advancement, and those who cling to the trappings of office would prefer the former?

[muriel_volestrangler]

1. I'm hardly ever convinced by "good elections to lose" arguments

and I'm not by this one. When the possible troubles are known beforehand, that means an incoming party has the chance to credibly say "we inherited a mess". So if the Tories win this election, it's not really equivalent to 1992 - then, the problems were clearly the Tories' fault (it was a British problem, not a worldwide one, and the Tories had been in charge all the time), and that was what doomed them. If Labour win (get the most seats, anyway), then they do stand more of a chance of taking all the blame - but they can genuinely say it was a worldwide problem this time.

So it's by no means clear that whoever wins this election will lose the next one. In fact, that is never really clear before the term. Hindsight can say "which ever party won, events would have meant they lost the next one", but that depends on the events. It's possible that things won't go horribly wrong as well. In that case, either party could conceivably win the next one too.

Overall, you can't say winning this election has such a significant negative effect on the elections after that the net effect of winning this time is bad; and in the mean time, whoever wins this election gets to put some of their policies into action. Which is better than being in opposition.

[craigmatic]

2. Most of the problem is Brown

He limits their options. Any good old school Labour politician would be moving further to the left and frame this election as a class conflict. Brown is passing a golden opportunity by simply by not calling attention to cameron's poshness.

[T_i_B]

3. I think the problems go deeper then Gordon Brown

The rot took hold long before he became Labour leader, but I can't see anyone else at the top of the Labour party who looks like they could turn things around for them.

And here is the issue that worries me, that Labour loses the next election and keeps on trying the same old Blairite stuff as before, failing to learn from previous mistakes. I find that more likely then the likes of David Miliband and Alan Johnson suddenly rediscovering progressive principles.

[LeftishBrit]

4. Sounds like pretty much the same argument used by the fox about the grapes...

And here the grapes might turn out *not* to be out of reach.

'if the choice for Labour is between either an unrewarding extra term in office followed by several terms on the margins or a narrow defeat, a period of renewal and a good chance of returning to government within five years, surely the latter is preferable? Surely only those whose political lifespan is nearing its end, those who depend on Gordon Brown for their advancement, and those who cling to the trappings of office would prefer the former?'

Others who prefer the former might be those who are poor, elderly, disabled, dependent on the NHS, in the education system, working-class, on the margins due to the recession, unemployed or at risk of becoming so, those who have children, those who have elderly relatives, etc. Just about anyone who isn't rich and secure in remaining so; and/or in no need of public servicesFive years of a Tory government would be a bad idea at any time; during an economic crisis it may mean DISASTER to lots of people.

It isn't only the Labour politicians themselves who would suffer as the result of a defeat, as the writer seems to imply. Many people would suffer from a Tory government! For some politicians, there may be 'good elections to lose'. For Britain, there are IMO no 'good elections for the Tories to win'.

[miscsoc]

5. .

That's right. I depend on the welfare state to keep body and soul together, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. It's mental illness, so I'll be among the first in line to be flung on the streets as a malingering "scrounger" if (when) the tories get in.

In theory, and possibly in practice, the labour movement may be rejuvenated by a spell in opposition, but in the meanwhile, lives will be ruined. Lives will be ended. The government is wretched, but the tories will be much worse than people think. Today's Conservative party is much more rapacious, capitalistic, and amoral than that of the 80s or early 90s. Cameron promotes AMERICA as a model for reforming our welfare state!

[Anarcho-Socialist]

6. A Labour victory in 1992 might have spared us the more hideous aspects

of New Labour, and the idea of out-Torying the Tories.

[dipsydoodle]

7. Sounds about right

Maybe we need a facebook group to "bring back old Labour".

[T_i_B]

8. Such a group already exists

http://www.facebook.com/#!/group.php?gid=2225188230&ref=search&sid=545583372.3215942269..1

Personally I spend my Facebook time on this group instead

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2225188230&ref=search&sid=545583372.3215942269..1#!/group.php?gid=59306991210