Labour forever?
Niall Ferguson writes a column in the Sunday Telegraph in which I think he was told to 'think big', and by-and-large he succeeds. Today he suggests that the Labour party may be in power for a generation.He first notes that around the world one-party rule for decades is not uncommon, classically Japan, but also Germany, Sweden, Israel, Italy and even for periods in the US (Congress was Democrat for most of post-war era) and the UK.
Obviously there are many counter-examples, and you can take or leave the data really. More interesting to me was his suggestions why it may be so for Labour in Britain. He gives four reasons, the first three specific to Britain:
1. The end of the cold war means defence is less of an issue.
2. Increasingly liberal social behaviour
3. Increasingly urbanisation.
All three are debatable, in the extent they matter and whether they really benefit Labour. The fourth point however is more general, and that's to do with the economy. Since 1990 economic volatility in all western countries has declined, at least in terms of GDP growth or employment. Furthermore people are more inclined to blame external factors, of the Bank of England, than the government, when things go wrong.
In other words governments really have to muck up to lose power. It's a good argument, though again clearly you can argue with some of the points. For instance we don't really know if people will blame the Bank of England for a recession, as there's not been one since it was made independent. Economic variability was just as low in the 1950s and 1960s (though it is true there was a long period of one-party rule).
Finally, I remember arguments that the Tory party would be in power for a generation in 1992.
posted by Matthew @ 10/09/2005 03:25:00 PM
Comments: 0
