Skip to main content

The definition of Pyrrhic

As the campaign enters its last hours we continue to canvass and leaflet on the ground, slightly oblivious to the air war going on in the media. At the end of each day we have returned home late and absorbed the impact of such news as there is. The Tory press are in overdrive: spinning so wildly for their chosen party that it is almost comic. The latest earth shattering news is that Simon Cowell has- apparently- endorsed the Conservatives.

Hmm... So a perma-tanned multi-millionaire who has built his rather questionable reputation on the most tawdry and manipulative television supports the Tories. I am sure a nation will mourn.

In fact the press has practically become a joke- quite often they no longer even bother with facts. Their stock is not only misinformation- the spreading of half-truths and distortions- but disinformation- complete fabrication. I was once told that politicians complaining about the press is like the rest of us complaining about the weather- I suppose it is true, but I will have sharp words to say to my friends in the media after this election nevertheless. Their profession has, in general, behaved contemptibly.

Is it working? Is the Conservative Party set for power? Well the answer I think is maybe and maybe. However the three Chinese curses are "May you live in interesting times", "May you come to the attention of the authorities" and worst of all "May you obtain what you wish for".

The mathematics of the absurd electoral system we use in the UK makes the prospect of a "majority" on 36% of the vote possible but extremely iffy. It will depend exactly on the precise splits of the vote in any given constituency. Even on the same overall national percentages, the Conservatives could hit a majority of about 15 or be short by over fifty seats. So despite the spinning of the press that Mr. Cameron is on course to be the Prime Minister, it is not- even now- a done deal. The voters have yet to speak, and as has been proven in the past, it is very dangerous to take them for granted.

The Conservatives seem to think that the endorsement of a self-satisfied creep like Cowell gives them momentum. It will carry them over the line and they can then start work on their government programme.

Firstly, I don't think that Sinitta's ex is that popular.

Secondly, with the Conservative vote even down in many places compared to what they gained in 2005, it is laughable for the Tories to speak of victory - it is a terrible result from an awful campaign.

Finally, the people have not yet spoken, and they have a history of punishing arrogance. Even if the Tories can claim some kind of a mandate from the vote tomorrow, it would be a tawdry victory indeed. A Cameron government resting on such a low vote would face a fire storm from the very beginning: its very legitimacy would be in question. It would take a leader with far better skills than Mr. Cameron has so far demonstrated to face the consequences of such a victory.

It would be the antithesis of the Blair victory of 1997- instead of a wave of relief and euphoric
enthusiasm, the mood would be sullen and resentful. Any honeymoon would be measured in days rather than months. As the economic crisis closes in, I think it would not be long before the word "hapless" is used quite freely to describe Mr. Cameron and Mr. Osborne. If the Tories seek to govern alone on such a dubious basis, then they must take the consequences. As the Governor of the Bank of England is said to have remarked: "whichever party wins will be out of power for a whole generation because of how tough the fiscal austerity will have to be".

There must be many leading Tories privately praying to avoid such a Pyrrhic victory.

Comments

Newmania said…
Your point about the utter lack of goodwill for anyone is one that has occured to me.Concieve of the hatred for the Lib Dems if they prop up Labour albeit with a quick change of face at the top.

The Lib Dems , you seem to forget, are stil the least popular Party of the three.
Cicero said…
Newmania: ALL political parties are unpopular minorities: but the Conservatives have not had the humility to accept this. They still think that 35% of the 60-70% who vote is still enough for them to take 100% of the decisions, without the participation or even any reference to the majority of the voters who do not vote for them.

This is not about Brown, Cameron or even Clegg: it is about the fundamental problems of a political system that is too narrow and too unresponsive for the complexities of a 21st century society.
Newmania said…
We had a choice you want to replace it with a consultation by a consolidated centre left Reich.

Its the end of the country but we can bring that out if there is a referendum

Popular posts from this blog

Waiting for the Barbarians

What are we waiting for, assembled in the forum? The barbarians are due here today. Why isn’t anything going on in the senate? Why are the senators sitting there without legislating? Because the barbarians are coming today. What’s the point of senators making laws now? Once the barbarians are here, they’ll do the legislating. Why did our emperor get up so early, and why is he sitting enthroned at the city’s main gate, in state, wearing the crown? Because the barbarians are coming today and the emperor’s waiting to receive their leader. He’s even got a scroll to give him, loaded with titles, with imposing names. Why have our two consuls and praetors come out today wearing their embroidered, their scarlet togas? Why have they put on bracelets with so many amethysts, rings sparkling with magnificent emeralds? Why are they carrying elegant canes beautifully worked in silver and gold? Because the barbarians are coming today and things like that dazzle the barbarians. Why don’t our distingui...

Liberal Democrats v Conservatives: the battle in the blogosphere

It is probably fair to say that the advent of Nick Clegg, the new leader of the Liberal Democrats, has not been greeted with unalloyed joy by our Conservative opponents. Indeed, it would hardly be wrong to say that the past few weeks has seen some "pretty robust" debate between Conservative and Liberal Democrat bloggers. Even the Queen Mum of blogging, the generally genial Iain Dale seems to have been featuring as many stories as he can to try to show Liberal Democrats in as poor a light as possible. Neither, to be fair, has the traffic been all one way: I have "fisked' Mr. Cameron's rather half-baked proposals on health, and attacked several of the Conservative positions that have emerged from the fog of their policy making process. Most Liberal Democrats have attacked the Conservatives probably with more vigour even than the distrusted, discredited Labour government. So what lies behind this sharper debate, this emerging war in the blogosphere? Partly- in my ...

Lib Dem v. Tory (Round 2)

The Liberal Democrats stand for a distinct political ideology. It is an ideology built around both socially and economically liberal precepts. In as far as our ruling Labour government can be said to have an ideology at all, it coincides with Liberalism only incidentally. Labour stands for pragmatism, and where it does not there is still a core of values that are collectivist and not individual. Sometimes people are prepared to claim the moral high ground for policies of social solidarity and redistribution of wealth. Liberals may argue in favour of equality of opportunity, we can not argue in favour- as Socialists do- of "and equal society". The reason is simple: Socialism does not work. If one places equality above freedom, then eventually we get tyranny. This is why, while we may argue in favour of a more equal society as being a stronger society, the tools that we may use to gain -in our view- socially desirable outcomes must rest upon freedom above all else. As PJ O'...