This says it all:
The Globe and Mail Thursday, May 1, 1997
Lead editorial:
WHY BRITAIN IS VOTING LABOUR
On the face of it, John Major and the Conservatives should win today's
election in Great Britain. If the economy were the measure of performance,
his government would do well. If personality were the measure of
performance, Mr. Major would do well. The trouble is that neither the
economy nor personality seems decisive in how Britons are judging this
government, which is why it is likely to lose.
>From this perspective, Mr. Major has reason to think his compatriots
ungrateful. It recalls the fate of Winston Churchill in 1945. Mr. Churchill
had led Briton for five tumultuous years. He had rallied the nation, retooled
the economy, won the war. For his Herculean labours he was summarily
returned to opposition.
It isn't that Britons disliked Sir Winston; they simply decided that he wasn't
up to the socio-economic challenges of the new era. As they saw it then, he
was more suited for war than for peace (even though they brought him back
the next time).
Mr. Major is no Mr. Churchill, but there is some of that logic in his
diminishing prospects. After all, it is largely because of the Conservatives
that Britain is prosperous. With unemployment around 6 per cent, Britain's
level is half that of France and Germany, both of which are now
contemplating some of the measures -- budget-cutting, privatization and
deregulation -- that Britain adopted under Margaret Thatcher and Mr.
Major.
Britain now draws about 40 per cent of the new investment in the European
Union. It has fuelled the revival of London, which has again become a
centre of design, fashion, pop music, even cuisine, recalling the spirit of a
generation ago.
Then there is Mr. Major himself. While his party trails badly in the polls,
his personal popularity remains high. It is hard to dislike the man, however
one might disagree with him. He has humility and modesty. He has pluck
and determination, so much so that had he refused to step aside when
challenged for the leadership two years ago, he would have spared himself
all this anguish.
So what is it, then, which is propelling the Labour Party to victory? If it
isn't a stagnant economy or an unpopular prime minister, is it the appeal of
the opposition and its leader? Here, too, the answer is probably no. Labour
is not demonstrably different on the main issues, and Tony Blair, the prime
minister-in-waiting, offers competence more than charisma.
Our guess is that this election is more about ennui than anger. Britons have
had 18 years of the Conservatives, and now they have had enough. They are
simply bored with the Tories, tired of their divisions and scandals. They
want something new, even if it is less a matter of substance than style.
Labour, or "New Labour" as it shrewdly calls itself, understands that. By
adopting the government's economic policies, and raising sufficient
skepticism about embracing Europe, it offers wary Britons a way to vote
Labour and elect the Conservatives. With a no-risk solution that will change
the players but keep the policies, they are free to vote Labour without fear.
Yes, there are differences between the parties, but they are limited. On the
constitutional questions -- home rule for Scotland and Wales, a freedom of
information act, the abolition of hereditary peers -- Labour is more daring.
But this is fussing on the fringes.
At root, what makes the Labourites attractive is that they are conservatives
without being Conservatives. This kind of imitation is supremely flattering
to Mr. Major, but it is unlikely to be enough to save his weary government.
