Transatlanticism

Martin Kettle again

But this time, for good reasons. Mr. Kettle has an interesting piece on the Lib Dems prospects, a window through which a post-Blair LD Party can squeeze through with a combination of a continuation of Blairite economic policies and liberal social and cultural policy. The trick is to get the europhile Tories while keeping the urban liberals on board while also attracting the burgeoning, under 40 middle classes (especially women, disillusioned by the Blairites as well as the "nasty party") without strong political affiliation, a task I think is by no means impossible and does not require the kind of economic leftism (even to keep on board many of the folks who voted Lib Dem in Hornsey/Wood Green and Birmingham Yardley) of their last election manifesto.

Anyway, Kettle's piece suggests a strategy along exactly these lines. Here's the key passage(s):

Now the big question is whether that damage is the shape of things to come or merely a one-off. Here the argument becomes political rather electoral. Were those million or so new votes for the Lib Dems from ex-Labour voters a protest or are the proverbial tectonic plates on the move? The Lib Dems cannot afford to get the answer to this question wrong. Indeed, it goes to the heart of their dilemma.

Liberal Democrats often wince when this language is used, but the question comes down to whether they now attack Labour from the left or the right. In 2005 they did the former, detaching a significant part of Labour's support. But the Lib Dems are not a natural party of the traditional left, especially in class terms. They would be mad to go further in that direction. They would lose much more than they would win. . . .

Kennedy needs to steer more to the centre than he did in the election. His early moves since May 5 suggest he recognises the truth of this. Last week he announced a policy review that presages a much wider clear-out of health, education and local government policies than he has publicly acknowledged. Yesterday he reshuffled his frontbench team to bring in new spokesmen on all these subjects. These are decisive acts of leadership from a man with something to prove. Kennedy knows his party has to become a lean, mean, winning machine.

Some Liberal Democrats may wince at this language too, but they need to position themselves as plausible inheritors of the Blairite coalition. Yet their long-term interest is surely as a party of the European liberal-left, offering a Blairite programme of economic efficiency and social justice, along with liberal policies on individual freedom and international affairs. Kennedy seems to agree.

His cabinet reshuffle is interesting in this regard, although it probably does not lend itself to definitive conclusions about the party's ideological trajectory (just yet, at least).

Meaders, at the Sharpener, has more, (as part of a post explaining why it was foolish to expect the Lib Dems to offer a "real" "left alternative" and how the LDs turn back toward the center only serves to enhance Respect's - yes, he's a Respect man - chance: "For the first time in generations the potential is there to build a mass party of the radical Left in Britain, in opposition to an enfeebld New Labour and all the other parties of neoliberalism." well, whatever gets you through the day . . . but I digress . . . )

Vince Cable, on the same page in the printed edition, concurs. Cable is one of the few senior Lib Dems with a degree of ideological clarity about the direction the party should take - which is, as far as he and the Orange Book crew are concerned, still further over to the right. It is possible to imagine a coalescence of socially liberal but economically conservative votes around such a programme: roughly, gay rights plus the free market. As the newly elected MP for Sheffield Hallam, Nick Clegg, wrote of his free-market comrades, “Other strands of liberalism might place greater emphasis on social reform, on radical constitutional reform, on the abolition of inherited privilege.” But not his, and not Cable’s, and not a whole crowd born-again Thatcherites. An alliance, explicit or otherwise, with socially liberal Tories would make perfect sense, over and above the habitual opportunism that has delivered Lib Dem-Tory coalitions in cities up and down the country. On Europe, a key issue for British politics in coming years, the alliance already exists in the blind support for the EU that left Tories and all Lib Dems espouse. Charles Kennedy, days after the result, drew this conclusion, and precisely the opposite to that hoped for by tens of thousands of Lib Dem voters: drop the “high tax” image so disagreeable to Tories of any stripe, question the party’s opposition to nuclear power, and align the Lib Dems still more explicitly with a perceived business interest.

Indeed, a left Tory/Lib Dem alliance is what this Respect voters spits at, but it is exactly the path I think the Libs need to take. While, on the surface the LDs position does not seem especially promising (despite their recent gains), the (what I perceive to be) the current ideological fluidity of the British political landscape potentially offers a much more promising - if tenuous - opportunity to Charlie's gang than meets the eye.

Of course, this "window" will not remain open forever - indeed, it might not open in the first place. As Kettle concludes,

But the Lib Dems will not have this territory to themselves. Gordon Brown clearly knows that his success depends upon regrouping the Labour vote of 1997 and 2001, while the next Tory leader may not be as rightwing as the last. The great political question of the age is the future of the Blair coalition after Blair. For the next four years, this is where the political battle will be. And Lib Dems know enough of their own history to know that they must always march towards the sound of the gunfire.

I'd say the prospect of Brown kissing and making up with the electorate is probably more likely than the Tories getting the right man (woman!?) for the job, but Gordon's charm might not be enough if the economy turns sour enough and Brown just proves to be an ultra-Blairite with less charisma and leadership skills. Kettle is right to point out that both of the above continencies not happening is probably unlikely, but nevertheless, by no means beyond the realm of possiblity. The key, then, is for Charlie and co to play their cards right: and it seems, so far, that they are doing so.

The State They're In

Excellent article from the British version of the Economist on why the election, in some sense, represented a loss for all three parties. Many of their basic conclusions are one's I've traced, but I'll quickly summarize them:

1) That the New Labour electoral majority is crumbling: on both its right and left

2) But neither the Liberal Democrats or the Conservatives seem to have come up with a demographic formula to replace it

3) The Conservatives basically didn't gain any new voters this election, and are still miles from power because they aren't competitive outside the South of England. In the North and Midlands (to say nothing of Scotland and Wales), they in many ways did worse than in 2001. To illustrate this point, the Liberal Democrats are now the second party in many of these seats, which is probably not so much an indicator of the Liberal Democrats imminence, but rather of the Tories distance from imminence.

4) The Liberal Democrats made some gains at the expense of Labour particularly, but by positioning themselves to Labour's left this election, they hurt their ability to simultaneously attack the Tories. As is patently clear, the Lib Dems have to decide what they want to be: a left alternative to Labour, or a more centrist party, competing directly for the votes of (whatever this means) Middle England (albeit with a different appeal to voters than Labour - ie social and cultural liberalism, fiscal conservatism, as opposed to Labour authoritarian nanny-statism)

The Economist also uses public spending vs. taxation vis-a-vis regional disparities as part of its explanation (reminiscent of the whole red state/blue state discussion, except that in Britain, the parts of the nation that receive a raw deal at the hands of the state vote for the right wing alternative - but then again, since I don't think the US Republican Party is conservative, maybe there is more to this than meets the eye: paging Sterling Newberry) All in all, a very good piece. Go check it out.

Big Up the New Labour Massive

I don't normally like Steve Bell's cartoons, but this is pretty damn funny:

In case you don't know, this is in reference to Blair's "wholehearted" endorsement of a Kent mall's decision to ban the wearing of baseball hats and "hoodies."

Political Quiz Time

Maybe I'm a bit late on the draw here - seeing as the election actually happened last week, and these surveys are usually only in vogue during a run-up to an election - but I figured I'd post my results on one of those "what's your ideology"-type surveys. Now normally, I think these things are rather useless. However, the one pollsters YouGuv run is a different story, primarily for two reasons. First, that your answers are measured against the answers provided by real people (from Britain's most accurate pollster). Secondly, YouGuv gives you a wonderful visual "map" of where you fall in terms of British public opinion (as measured by YouGuv), along two axis: one spanning from an "internationalist/rehabilitationist" left to a "eurosceptic/hanging and flogging" poll on the right. Then, a second axis, ranging from a "socialist/antiwar" poll on the bottom to a "free market/prowar" axis at the top. Interestingly (and perhaps not surprisingly considering the many years I have spent in the US), I rank well to the left of the general population in terms of internationalism/rehabilitationism (basically, social and cultural liberalism) and substantially to the right in terms of the free market vs. socialism axis (perhaps a lesson for Mr. Blair and his band of ultras). But, whats more, the YouGuv folks define the first civil libertarian/authoritarian axis as being the primary determinant of how one votes and how one positions themself politically. Anyway, here a my results from the three quizzes I took over about a three week period (blue dots represent Conservative voters from YouGuv's survey; red dots, Labour voters; yellow dots, Lib Dem voters; grey dots, other parties (UKIP, the Greens, etc.):

Here's the first one:

Here's the second one:

And here's the third:

Seems like I'm detecting a pattern. Go take this quiz for yourself.

But, conservatism in 21st century Britain is . . .

an entirely different thing than it is the States. Or should I say Blair's New Conservative Party would be one I would vote for in a heartbeat if the alternative were, say, the GOP. Or perhaps more to the point, a British Conservative Party led by, say, Melanie Phillips. And John Howard's Conservative Party was too close to the latter for mine - and I suspect most Britons - comforts.

As poster Third Avenue points out at what is quickly becoming a must read of mine - The Sharpener - the Conservative Party is cut so far adrift not only because it has to compete with a new version of itself, but because it has an unreconstructed core that simply can't accept that 80% of the country think a post-imperial, secular Britain is pretty damn cool place to be these days - which is something the Labour Party understands and embraces, hence its ability to be a "New Conservative Party for a New Britain." This is ultimately the Conservative Party's biggest problem - that a good chunk of its followers seem to prefer the cultural climate of, say, Tulsa, Oklahoma, to that of London's - and as a result, they are constantly dumping on Britain, calling it a hellhole, a place in terminal decline, etc.. Thing is, the vast majority of the population thinks otherwise. And thank God for that - it gives me somewhere I'd like to move back to when I finish my Ph.D..

Rightward, March!

So the "revolution" continues a pace, as Tony Blair shows no signs of stopping until he has completed his plan to turn Labour into the New Conservative Party. Forget New Labour, what about the New Conservatives! Blimpie (the token Tory) over at the Sharpener has got a new name for "Blairism": Majorism with marketing. Now Blimpie wrote that on April 27, but can there really be much question any more what Tony "is thinking"? (well, I guess it'll do since we never quite figured out what the Tories "were thinking" after all).

Truly, the increasingly Orwellian attempts to spin Blair's attempt to create a new Conservative Party as being in the best tradition of the Labour Party is getting ridiculous. Highlights from today's press conference:

1) More privatization (not necessarily a bad idea, but from a Labour Party? Is this what the electorates of all those northern constituencies in Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, Leeds, etc. that enable the Labour Party there disproportionate majority really want?)

2) Crackdown on yobs (not a bad idea, but endorsing a Kent mall's ban against wearing baseball caps? Of course Tony explains how this really is "progressive," so its all right)

3) New noises about Iran (now this is a bad idea - does Blair really think this is a bridge he can cross? I saw 7% support for an American-led invasion of Iran in a poll a month or two ago)

4) Firmly opposing his own party's (not some Brussells directive) choice in the European Parliament to end Britain's exemption from Europe's work week limit. Again, let me emphasize that this occurred only because Blair's own party members chose it to be so. But never fear, I'm sure Tony can explain how this is keeping with the best of the Labour Party's tradition

Tony's "listened" to the electorate, and he's decided what they want is what he wants after all. See more on Blair's logic, via the Sharpener (plus the bonus of being a hit piece on the silly Kettle article I smacked down below).

Well, at least David Blunkett's back in the cabinet . . . we know he'll be a counterweigh to Blair via Johann Hari <snark>

Parsing the Economist, II

Of course, The Economist is a maddening read. On the one hand, its editors can't quite help themselves, letting their editorial "slip" show from underneath their chosen image of "sober journal of record for the sophisticated businessman." But, nevertheless, the magazine contains a lot of damn good reporting, like this week's piece examining Tony Blair's political career.

Basically, their proposition is that of Tony the Red Tory, or that Blair isn't really a man of the left in any significant way--or to use Lord Callaghan's words upon meeting Mr. Blair for the first time, "I don't know what that young man is, but he's not Labour." No, he's not "Labour" as Callaghan understood it, thats for sure. But is he just a 21st century one nation Tory? (a proposition I have certainly entertained)

Anyway, here's part of the Economist's view on the matter:

In 1998 this newspaper called Mr Blair “the strangest Tory ever sold” (see article). The years since then have done nothing to render that judgment incorrect. Mr Blair is no Thatcherite: be clear about that. But he is nonetheless a Tory, of the old-fashioned, pre-Thatcher, one-nation sort, superbly repackaged for the modern era. The fact that he presides over an electorally successful and substantially reconstructed Labour Party, a movement that still in its heart despises every species of Tory, is one of the things that make Mr Blair such a strange and fascinating politician. . . .

This was not merely a dusted-down and smartened-up Labour Party, this was New Labour—to all intents and purposes, another party altogether. Shibboleths such as clause four (the party's absurd yet cherished commitment to take the whole economy into public ownership) were ritually torn down. These were fights Mr Blair chose to pick; he won every one. The changes were not superficial. They ripped the party up by its roots, and that was the idea. The trade unions, formerly the party's paymasters and the font of its old ideology, were appalled. Mr Blair loved it that they were appalled: what could be more pleasing to voters at large? His mission was to steal the party from its previous owners, and have it understood that that was what he had done. He succeeded.

OK, so far the standard left wing (and right wing) critique of Blair. Blair as sell-out of the left on the oned hand, Blair as usurper of the Tory's natural "role," on the other. Indeed, I think there is much to this analysis. But Blair's "modernization" project is not ultimately my problem. Rather I simply don't think the Labour Party needed Blair and "Blairism" as much as many in the media (rather conveniently) think they did(most notably, and perhaps not surprisingly, the right leaning media, such as the Economist). Blairism is great for folks like those at the Economist and media moguls like the Sun: if the Tories are a mess, make sure the opposition is instinctively right wing as well. Not simply non-socialist: but instinctively pro all that is dear to the hearts of the City and of right wing Fleet Street.

Now don't misunderstand me. Certainly, Labour needed modernization and to become reconciled to capitalism in a way they weren't before Thatcher, but did they need "Blairism" to do it? To me, new Labour was clearly, but was New Labour™? Perhaps Murdoch and the Economist needed a capitalized "n", but I don't think the British public needed it. The Tories had been in power for far too long by '97, even if they hadn't discredited themselves through ERM and the poll tax and all that.

Could Kinnock have won in 1997? Now that might be streching it. But I have no doubt that John Smith or Gordon Brown would have (as would any other number of leaders). Now would they have achieved the smashing victory Blair did? Maybe not, but the victory would have been convincing. Would this alternative Labour path been re-elected in 2001? Probably yes, as long as they didn't try to roll back Thatcher's reforms. A conservative (in the dictionary sense of the word) caretaker with the social democratic instincts - as I have suggested below - could easily have governed Britain, and easily - although probably never as emphatically - won the elections Blair has won.

Here, though, we come to the crux of the matter. Is Blair's "radicalism," his desire to have a "legacy," for there to be a "Blairism" for future generations to discuss really a necessary part of Labour being a governing party? I don't think it ever was. But whatever the case, its this instinct - new Labour with a capital "n" if you will - has become a liability. I think this, ultimately, is what drives people's disaffection with Blair, with the New Labour™ project. And this, ultimately, is what the Iraq War was about. It was Tony's war, Tony's "vision" that drove Britain to join what was arguably a mistaken undertaking, or at the very least, an undertaking that was not fundamentally in the British nation's interest. Ultimately, Blair pushed so strongly for a war that had no real constituency in Britain, except for a cadre of New Labourites and their intellectual backers. In this way, it became the perfect paradigm for what has "gone wrong," a more generalized sense that the New Labour's "betrayal." While the war and the debate about its morality and its relationship to broader geopolitical concerns was important, ultimately, "the issue wasn't the issue," but the perfect example of a more fundamental disconnect.

I'll leave the Economist with the last words here:

the main awkward truth that needed to be brushed over was that New Labour was largely consolidating, albeit softening, the reforms of previous Tory administrations. Again, that policy was not wrong. It was most likely in Britain's best interests, and for New Labour it was anyway politically necessary. But for a man of Mr Blair's ambition and vanity, it was also embarrassing. He wanted to be regarded as a radical in his own right—a transformer of the country, in the mould of Margaret Thatcher, not merely of his own party. This inclined Mr Blair and his circle to a perpetual state of making a great fuss over nothing. What New Labour lacked in substance, it could make up for in public relations. And, to be sure, the team for that was in place. . . .

At the smaller scale, New Labour's hyper-energetic public-relations machine ensured that every fluctuation in policy was elaborately packaged and repackaged, launched and repeatedly relaunched, each time as an entirely new policy more radical than any previously conceived. Initiatives and their supporting documentation poured forth in a torrent. The method soon descended into self-parody. At some point, diminishing returns, so far as the public's perception was concerned, set in. Worse than generating mere boredom, the strategy of permanent policy revolution bred weariness and cynicism. Politically, it became counter-productive: often the government now finds itself getting less credit than it deserves for its innovations, such as they are.

Parsing the Economist

Just finished two very interesting pieces in the Economist, one particularly so.

First, Bagehot's April 28 hit piece on the Liberal Democrats, Not As Nice As They Look. When I first read it, I was more inclined to give the piece more credit than I now think it deserves. Thinking about it, it is a much more polemic piece than The Economist's normal fare, showing that perhaps pulling back the curtains a bit on its paymasters (is this the right word? Probably not) Basically, it adopts Murdoch/tabloid talking points on the party, accusing it of being purely opportunistic, fiscally and socially "irresponsiblity," and anti-American (!) Here's some of the key grafs:

Mr Sedgemore appears delighted to be joining a party that is well to the left of Labour. And in some ways it is. The Lib Dems' affection for high marginal rates of taxation, unreformed public services controlled by producer interest groups and a foreign policy with a strongly anti-American edge all sit comfortably with Mr Sedgemore's world view.

Where the Lib Dems fail to qualify as a party of the left is in their lack of interest in reducing poverty and inequality. The money raised by higher taxes is to be spent saving the middle classes from having to fork out for their children's university education and their elderly parents' long-term nursing care. As with the Lib Dems' policy to abolish council tax because of its impact on pensioners who own expensive houses, what seems to matter most to the Lib Dems is allowing people to keep windfall gains from high house prices and inheritance.

That reflects well on neither Mr Kennedy nor his latest recruit, the old socialist, Mr Sedgemore. But then being angry about Iraq takes a lot less effort than developing a coherent programme for making life better at home.

Ah, so Brian Sedgemore now represents the "real" face of the Libs?

The first paragraph is pure unsubstantiated polemic at best, slander at worst. Basically, because the Lib Dems don't play ball with transnational capital (as in a way the WSJ/Economist types like) and doesn't seem committed enough to the "special relationship", they aren't worthy of support--anti-American if you will. Just like Democrats hate Christians. Can Bagehot show us anything from the Liberal Democratic platform or from Charlie Kennedy's campaign appearances that suggest as such? No. The real problem is that Kennedy does not distinctly lean to the US does, unlike the Blairites. This is the key consideration for the Economist, as it is Murdoch. But at least the Sun has topless women and 10 pages of football coverage.

The second paragraph is more fair. Indeed, one of my criticisms of the Lib Dems is that there decision to hike top marginal rates to 50% as well as replace counsel property taxes with income tax is that it seemed to be doing so for no especially compelling reason. To me, it just seems like a short term opportunism, a decision to occupy some of the left flank Blair left exposed. But the "unreformed public services" jibe is more slander: because they oppose "top up fees"? Not to say that "top-up fees" are necessarily a bad thing: but opposition to them doesn't exactly make one a "Bennite" (unless, I supposed, you are at base a Thatcherite, as "Bagehot" surely is)

Indeed, I think if the Libs want to move forward as a party, they can't afford to propose the kinds economic policies they put forth in this election. Basically, they should stand on Blairist economic policies (which will make more sense after Blair resigns), cultural and socialism liberalism, and (a measured) pro-Europeanism: this would be a party I could support wholeheartedly. Yet while the Lib Dems surely need to do so policy rethinking (as they seem to realizeBagehot's criticism is unserious.

The "Martin Kettle syndrome"

Now, I don't want to pick on Martin too much, because I do enjoy reading his columns and basically think the guy is a top-notch political journalist. But looking backwards at the series of op-eds he wrote throughout the course of the campaign, I'm starting to see that his strident defense of Blairism from today's Guardian reveals a pattern I'll term "Martin Kettle syndrome." Martin Kettle syndrome is a bit like its American relative, Nicholas Kristof syndrome, although even stranger in origin. Like Kristof syndrome, Kettle syndrome derives from traumatic political defeats experienced during youth, in which the right is always supposed to win, has all the best ideas. Kettle (Kristof) syndrome also assumes that the vast majority of the public are right wing, and that any victories a non-right wing party or candidate has are bound to be temporary. What distinguishes Kettle syndrome from Kristof syndrome, however, is that Kristof syndrome still has a plausible base in reality.

For a classic example of what I'm talking about, check Martin Kettle's April 12 Guardian piece, "Howard Knows Voters Want a Leader to Share Their Values: The Right is Better Than the Left at Framing the Language of Politics." The following paragraphs are especially indicative:

Nevertheless, even making all the allowances that need to be made, it is clear from the Tory campaign that they understand how to frame the debate here. That is why British progressives err if they think that the main thing about Michael Howard's focus on immigration is that it is racist or that it is mischievous with the facts, even if it is both.

The main thing is that Howard is using the manifesto to frame a bigger argument about fear and failure. A modern manifesto is a frame not a programme. Howard has put his frame at the heart of this election. He is telling the voters that Labour government does not work. Unless Labour can reframe the election in terms of its own values, Howard will go on winning the argument.

From the vantage point of May 10, this all looks a bit silly. But Kettle is not phased. Hence today's hit job on Blair's critics.

But if the Conservative Party - according to Kettle - has so expertly won the political debate, it seems like many of their own members have failed to get the message. I quote again from Nick Gibb and Gary Streeter's Times piece

We have to see ourselves as others see us. There should be no more braying at our opponents in the House of Commons like pinstriped pubescents from a bygone age. We must eschew cynicism and when we agree with our opponents we should say so. We must not allow the thrill of joining Labour leftwingers in an attempt to defeat the Government to get in the way of what we believe. But it is not just our behaviour that must change. We must also address fundamental intellectual inconsistencies in our policymaking: for example, where catch-all theories on devolved decision-making or the internal market actually prevent us from taking a view as to how police are deployed or children taught to read.

To begin with, the party has to come to terms with, and be comfortable with, the fact that health and education, just like the police and the Army, are in the state sector to stay. This is a political fact. Since 1997, terrified of our opponents’ accusations that we would privatise everything, our approach has been to develop a few headline-grabbing polices — bringing back matron or giving head teachers the power to exclude disruptive pupils — in order to “neutralise ” health and education as issues so that we could talk about more “natural” Tory issues such as law and order and immigration.

Hmm. That doesn't sound like the same Conservative Party Martin Kettle's April 12 op-ed describes.

Really, I think Kettle's rather skewed perspective comes from two things: 1) as I noted above, the experience of coming of age in Labour Party circles during the 1970s and 1980s - when the left was losing the debate in Britain; and 2) a tendency to assume that British politics and the British public are similar to their American counterparts. In particular, I think people in Britain need to get the second idea out of their head. From experience, I can tell you that America is considerably more right wing a country, for a number of reasons. (and I've got the polling data to back it up, but thats for another post) Still, I think this is a major problem with Blair and his strongest backers: an assumption that right wing assumptions govern the British political debate and that the British public is naturall right wing. Strangely, I also think it is this assumption that is (or has) prevented the Conservatives from taking a realistic look at their own situation. Hence, their immediate willingess to interpret the election results as representing danger from the right when if anything, just the opposite was true.

"Rightward Edge"

Continuing on from some of themes I struck in the early part of today's debate, partially as a result of another opinion piece in today's Times, this from Conservative MPs Nick Gibb and Gary Street

Already since the election a number of Conservatives have called for fundamental change to show that we are in touch and comfortable with the modern, diverse Britain that voted last week. They are right. We do have to change the way that we speak and act if we are to win over the millions who did not even contemplate voting for us. We do have to offer a positive vision if we are to connect to young people, among whom we are now neck and neck with the Liberal Democrats.

Yep. I've been saying this for a while now. The Tories are simply, lets just say, an old party. Gibb and Street go on. The next bit is in many ways much more interesting:

To begin with, the party has to come to terms with, and be comfortable with, the fact that health and education, just like the police and the Army, are in the state sector to stay. This is a political fact. Since 1997, terrified of our opponents’ accusations that we would privatise everything, our approach has been to develop a few headline-grabbing polices — bringing back matron or giving head teachers the power to exclude disruptive pupils — in order to “neutralise ” health and education as issues so that we could talk about more “natural” Tory issues such as law and order and immigration.

But being comfortable talking about public services is only the start. The Conservative Party needs a new agenda for the State. In the 1990s — after the huge transforming success of privatisation of state-owned industries — the Conservative Party sought to apply market disciplines to the public services by adopting an internal market philosophy. The theory was that by opening up public services to choice and internal competition they would be forced to adopt best practice and provide high-quality services. The trouble with the theory is that schools and hospitals within the state sector cannot go bankrupt and there are no shareholders to force out poor-quality leaders. In the internal market, a comprehensive school head teacher who peddles 1960s education ideology hated by local parents will face falling rolls but will simply trim his staff numbers and soldier on.

The choice and competition approach has allowed us to develop policies that enable the middle class to escape public sector provision altogether. But it has also meant that the Tories have not been able to speak convincingly to the millions who have no choice but to wait impatiently on hospital waiting lists or see their children failing to reach their true potential in the local comprehensive.

If I'm reading this right, these two are essentially suggesting a Tory position that one could legitimately interpret as being to the left of Blair and his inner circle. And ultimately, this is what is so maddening and bewildering about the current situation. A fair number of Conservatives - probably not approaching a majority, but a good number nonetheless - have essentially ceded that the British public has shifted leftward since Thatcher's years. And I think this is more or less true, as the polling data for voters under 50 suggests. But at this very moment, the traditional party of the left (Labour) is led by a man whose instinct is to continue pushing further right. Blair's (and his people's) public rationale for this rightward instinct is that the inherent conservatism of the British people demands nothing less, that as soon as the Conservative yell "boo" on immigration or asylum, "middle England" will come running back. Either the Blairites remain completely traumatized by their formative political years (which I think is certainly the case for a number of backers in the media - case in point, Martin Kettle), or they simply think implementing policies to the right of the middle England are the best policies. Well, thats fine if they do, I suppose. I by no means reject the Blairist "reform" agenda out of hand - I don't think the case against tuition fees is by any means self-evident, for example. But the Blairistas need to stop kidding the rest of us that their policies are the "best a progressive government can do" and that they can only do so much because the British public is inherently "too right wing" for anything more. Please. This is probably true of the United States. But, as Blair seems to forget, Britain isn't the United States. At least it wasn't the last time I checked.