Honestly, why would Labour want to win this election?

[liberalpragmatist]

I realize this may not be the most popular comment to make, and I suppose as an American, I may have too soft a view of the Tories from afar.

But I can't help but feel that if Labour *were* to somehow pull a rabbit out of a hat and win, the next four years would be an absolute disaster for them. As it is, they're exhausted, bereft of new ideas, and stuck with an unpopular leader. If that lot were extended for another parliament, it would be a repeat of John Major's second government only for Labour. And as bad as the results next Thursday may be, they could face something even more disastrous if the pendulum swing is delayed another four-five years.

Not to mention, of course, that the next government will be in a position of having to make hugely unpopular cuts and austerity measures. I can understand wanting Labour in power so that the cuts don't fall on the most vulnerable, as they may do under the Tories. But *if* Cameron can at least be held to a minority government, then it shouldn't be that bad, similar to how Stephen Harper's Tories are restrained by the opposition.

Frankly, I think a spell in opposition would be good for Labour. It would enable them to figure out what they actually are for, post-New Labour, while allowing them to avert blame for some of the pain over the next few years. And if all the Tories have is a minority or a small majority, that would leave Labour relatively well placed to return to power in four or five years (perhaps in coalition with the Lib Dems) if the Tories prove unpopular.

[craigmatic]

1. Very good points. At least in opposition they can get rid of Brown.

The winners of this election will be royally screwed when it comes to governing. Cameron if he wins, will be done in four years. On the other hand maybe making cuts will help the governing party by demonstrating restraint to the public and the ability to make tough decisions.

[LeftishBrit]

3. I hope not!

'maybe making cuts will help the governing party by demonstrating ...the ability to make tough decisions.'

I hope the British will not repeat their toughness-worship under Thatcher - but there is a distinct masochistic streak in the British population ('if the medicine tastes nasty, it must be good for us'), so who knows.

'We must make tough decisions' is one of my most disliked phrases from people in power (I think my first post on DU was about that!), though not as bad as 'We must start thinking the unthinkable'! It generally means decisions that are not remotely tough on the people who make them, but screw the vulnerable.

Labour *have*, especially under Blair, wasted a lot of money on bureaucracy and glossy new 'initiatives' (and most of all, on unnecessary wars!); but Tory cuts (and perhaps Labour cuts but to a much lesser extent) would be in genuine public services, help to the poor, not to mention more and more and more privatization.

[LeftishBrit]

2. Why would any party want to right now?

As the old farmer said to the traveller seeking directions, "I wouldn't start from here", with the present economic crisis.

But I disagree with the view that Labour are 'exhausted and bereft of new ideas'. I think that there is a crucial point, which Labour cannot bring up, and the others won't: Labour have not been in office for 13 years; they have been in office for three. They didn't defeat the Tories in 1997 but in 2007. Blair was a Tory. Pure and simple. Brown is very much on the right wing of the Labour Party, but he is still within the boundaries of what might be called Labour, or at least isn't Tory. And, despite the global recession, I have seen significant improvements in both the NHS and education since Brown got in.

I have heard people say here that 'it might be a good thing for the Tories to get in because they would mess up so badly that they would never get in again'. But I also remember the same being said of Thatcher.

A spell in opposition might possibly be good for Labour; a spell under the Tories would not be good for Britain! They would indeed let cuts and austerity fall on the most vulnerable; they would also cause increased unemployment and greater economic dependence on the banking and financial sector which created the recession in the first place. Cameron himself is probably not very right-wing (or very anything, except keen to get elected); but he would either become a puppet for the right-wingers, or they would replace him with someone more to their taste.

There are also the LibDems in the equation. I am voting for them, not from a strong ideological preference for them to Labour, but because we have a very good LibDem MP in my constituency, and his main opposition is a Tory. They will probably do better than usual, which makes the results quite unpredictable. I am hoping for a hung parliament with a Labour minority government supported by the LibDems; but even a Tory minority government would be better than a Tory government with a solid majority.

[liberalpragmatist]

6. Do you feel Brown gets a bad rap?

I think he deserves plenty of blame for his own situation, but, at least from afar, it doesn't seem like he's been that bad. He's obviously intelligent, he acted very decisively - and well - during the financial crisis, he seems to have decent policies on health and education, as you point out, and he's been notably less hysterical/messianic about terrorism and the Middle East than Blair.

He does seem to suffer from having inherited a poisoned chalice. Nobody heading a fag-end administration is going to look very good. And the Tory media clearly hates him. Granted, his lack of charisma is a huge hindrance too, but it does seem like he gets a bum rap.

[LeftishBrit]

7. Yes, I do

He is, by politicians' standards, a bit aloof and socially awkward- but I'd rather have that combined with competence than all-charm-and-smarm-but-no-substance, like Blair or Cameron. Also, on many issues Blair sowed the wind and Brown is reaping the whirlwind.

He's more right-wing than I care for, but not a thinly-disguised Tory like Blair.

[Jeneral2885]

4. to continue giving aid without C&B

such as aid to India and China despite them being the fastest growing developing countries.

[Harry Perkins MP]

5. Agreed

The whole strength of the right of the party has been based on the fact that it was an electoral winning machine. If, as it comes to pass, it gets a lower vote than the so called 'suicide note' election of 1983, then it gives a fantastic opportunity for the left of the party to go on the offensive. Someone like John McDonnell, had he got on the ballot in 2007, would probably have taken about 30% of the vote. This despite the apparent strength of Gordon Brown's position at that time. Ordinary members and trade unionists hate New Labour far more than is realised. This is why they were so keen for the last leadership election to not go to a member/union ballot. This time they won't be able to stop him!

[Prophet 451]

8. But...

In the four to five years of a Tory government, people like me (unemployed, disabled) could very well die through having our benefits stopped. As an American, you have far too kind a view of the Tories. Imagine Dick Cheney's policies with all the blindness of lifelong priveledge and you're on the right lines.

[mwooldri]

9. Only would be true if it were a true Tory majority.

If it's a Tory Minority government, they certainly will NOT be able to put through all of their agenda, and all it would take is a majority of MPs to call "no confidence" in the government and off to the polls we go again.

Labour may not want to win so they can blame the lack of an economic recovery and the fiscal hurt on the Tories and have that "nuclear option" of the "no confidence" whenever it suits them.

The Lib Dems however may have an extremely strong showing and throw a wonderful spanner in the works... and they might hold the balance of power with the Conservatives getting some support from Labour, some from Lib Dem for their policies were they to form a minority government.

Though a friend of mine has a wacky suggestion: Labour/Lib-Dem coalition, with Nick Clegg as PM.

Mark.

[Prophet 451]

11. That's probably the best outcome we can hope for

While I'd love to see an outright LibDem victory, I can't see it happening so any way of preventing the Tories from gutting the welfare state would be welcome.

[LSdemocrat]

10. Could have said the same thing in the 1979 election

Britain had pretty bad economic prospects back then as well.

Don't assume that any sort of reevaluation process by Labour is going to be orderly. If it gets ugly, the Tories could romp to a 1983 style landslide in the face of divided opposition. The Lib Dems, who really are pretty centrist economically, would be in a pretty good position to become the official opposition at the next election. At that point it could take another generation, if not more, for a real left of center alternative to emerge.