Good analysis. But any look at the wider pool of tory ppcs shows a larger europhobe contingent than you want to admit. People like boles and clarke are the last of a dying breed of conservative and certainly conservative voter – with the libDems (the only europe party) picking up the lion’s share of those left behind.

@ 2

Er, i do remember it being under the John Major government that Michael Howard took away the crucial right to remain silent – a bulwark against self-incrimination – and that was before we had things like the EU Human Rights Act and the Freedom of Information Act.

Its’ a more complicated story than you are telling.

Which is not to defend New Labour’s largely attrocious story on civil liberties. But it is to point out that it’s more complicated than you seem to think.

@2 and @3

Yes, I remember the massive concern the Tories had for civil liberties last time when they passed the CJB and Clause 28.

Oh, and I seem to recall they tried to bring in ID cards – but they were ok when applied to working class men going to sporting events.

Interesting analysis. A Conservative landslide would clearly give more breathing space at the 2015 election in terms of stuttering popularity, but a small majority would perhaps make it easier to keep the party towing the official line knowing that any large scale revolt could cost them power – not that any issues could really tear the conservatives apart over the next five years….

*cough*EU*cough*

belonging to the neo-conservative/libertarian wing

He must be pretty confused then.

Landslides cannot always guarantee successive victories. Because landslides represent the peak of popularity, failure to resolve the pressing issue that voters gave the party a mandate to fix could result in heavy losses at the next election

I don’t think that the evidence backs this up. Blair got a landslide in 1997 then proceeded to get another one in 2001 and Labour are still in power 12 years after the original landslide. Thatcher originally got in with a modest majority, won a landslide in ‘83 and still managed a 100+ majority in ‘87, with the Tories remaining in power a further decade (14 years after the peak).

The idea that a landslide victory represents the peak of popularity for a government is a truism, but the fall from the peak still takes a very long time. In the post-war period, only one government has gone from landslide (100+ majority) to defeat at the next election – the Tories in 1964. Wilson won a majority of 96 in 1966 which turned into a Conservative majority of 31 four years later, but in the subsequent 40 years landslide majorities have been a lot ’stickier’.

6. Too true, and it makes logical sense too surely? If you have chosen to elect another party by a landslide, unless they completely screw things up, why would you elect the other party back in only 4-5 years later? It takes this amount of time for people to realise that their snap change of allegiance that was meant to bring so much better to the country hasn’t worked out.

The shame is they tend to answer that failure by simply trying it again with the opposite party again. Madness.

Uuurrghh – bad form I know but I don’t want a landslide either. In fact, i’m starting to try and get people focussed on what happens after we win which is proving bloody hard. Tempting fate, hubris, complacency etc are all bloody fine for Cameron & his team to avoid but some git has to think about July. In fact, they’re starting to piss me off a bit – instead of swanning about talking bollox to people, get some bloody work done. I phoned CCHQ 3 times last week asking perfectly reasonable questions and all three times I got some gimp saying ‘err…that’s a good question but I don’t know, will get back to you!’ – bloody useless, chinless, part time, acne ridden, public school, fit for fuck all wankers. Err..but other than that – yeah, a landslide would be err..great!

Considering that the Conservatives already have to win a record number of seats (200ish I think) to secure a victory, a landslide is unlikely. Would be nice to see Labour totally wiped out into third place or worse but that’s just wishful thinking.

Your premise re: Europe is wrong. Nick Boles’s wing of the Conservatives are firmly Atlanticist and quite Eurosceptic. They might favour the existence of the EU from a strategic point of view but they definitely aren’t integrationist.

The reality is that there is no significant pro-European faction in the modern Conservative Party. If there are to be ’splits’ over Europe it will be regarding the extent of Euroscepticism and how far it is put into practice – more of a pragmatism/dogmatism split than a genuinely ideological one.

This idea was mentioned by Cohen in a standpoint article. Obviously it is policy exchange chit chat which breaks up conversations about nasty brown people and getting rid of the NHS.
Cohen is such a right wing d***
Mr Tyke
Why ?
You hate lefties why publish your thoughts on left of centre site.
Bored with Harry’s Place or Guidos
Wishing to look for conflict shows severe psychological problems.
Goes for the rest of the right wing loons who post on the site.

This idea was mentioned by Cohen in a standpoint article. Obviously it is policy exchange chit chat which breaks up conversations about nasty brown people and getting rid of the NHS.
Cohen is such a right wing d***
Mr Tyke
Why ?
You hate lefties, why publish your thoughts on left of centre site.
Bored with Harry’s Place or Guidos
Wishing to look for conflict shows severe psychological problems.
Goes for the rest of the right wing loons who post on the site.

Ryan, I don’t hate lefties. Pity is probably closer. I disagree with the message, not the messenger. As to why I post here; in general the level of debate is of a reasonably high standard, notwithstanding bigoted assumptions that everyone who believes in Free-Market economics is automatically racist and wants to close down the NHS. Further, I see no point in debating with people I already agree with. Taking the argument across the political divide is a more interesting intellectual challenge and allows me to test my assumptions and see things from a different viewpoint. Indeed, to truly be able to argue one’s point of view, one must at least understand one’s opponent’s viewpoint, fears and weaknesses.

Taking the argument across the political divide is a more interesting intellectual challenge and allows me to test my assumptions and see things from a different viewpoint.
Good point but the you do look for conflict and an argument and that does show
a need for non violent but self harming conflict and perhaps a lack of confidence in your own point of view.
Pythons’ looking for an argument is not only a comic masterpiece but a look at the social condition.
PS. Looking at your posts I think you do despise the messenger