<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xml:base="http://www.liberalreview.com" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
 <title>tory</title>
 <link>http://www.liberalreview.com/issues/tory</link>
 <description>The taxonomy view with a depth of 0.</description>
 <language>en</language>
<item>
 <title>New Tory Labour</title>
 <link>http://www.liberalreview.com/content/2006/09/new-tory-labour</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;With the Labour party conference over and the Tory conference about to begin, the most striking fact about both is the lack of real distinction between the two parties on grounds of policy.  Despite all of the ructions of the last year, Labour&#039;s conference theme was &#039;unity&#039; around an essentially Blairite consensus, with no serious contenders for the leadership calling for any change of direction.  The Tory conference is likely to be similar, with calls for the Conservative party to unite around a similar centrist message.  Both parties talk up their &#039;toughness&#039; in pursuit of terrorists, and their compassion in the cause of ending poverty in Africa.  Both make a nodding observance to the growing reality of climate change.  But both say little more than &#039;just trust us to do a good job&#039; on the major issues of health, education and taxation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Recently, internet PR guru &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bloggerheads.com/&quot;&gt;Tim Ireland&lt;/a&gt; produced an internet movie clip for the Lib Dems, entitled &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.libdems.org.uk/media/campaigns/new_tory_labour/climate_change/&quot;&gt;New Tory Labour&lt;/a&gt;.  It&#039;s an amusing clip which features a Frankensteinian amalgamation of Blair, Cameron and Brown talking about climate change.  Of course, he isn&#039;t the only person to note the ever-increasing similarity in presentation and policy; the BBC Two show &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.timetrumpet.co.uk/&quot;&gt;Time Trumpet&lt;/a&gt; noted the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdo0YurEG1Q&amp;amp;mode=related&amp;amp;search=&quot;&gt;same thing&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;But, joking aside, what does this mean for the Lib Dems?  Conventional wisdom says that the next election is likely to be the most closely-fought since 1992.  Conventional wisdom also says that, in such tight elections, the third party gets squeezed; people who might vote Lib Dem will vote for either Labour or Conservative in order to keep their least-favoured option out.  But is this conventional wisdom correct?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In my opinion, probably not.  As Labour and Conservative converge, the &#039;keep the bastards out&#039; vote diminishes.  Far from being scared back into the Labour fold by the prospect of a Tory government, some voters may feel that, since there is little to choose between Labour and Conservative, they will simply ignore those parties and vote for the party offering a positive agenda.  And as Labour and the Tories chase &#039;floating voters&#039; of the narrow middle ground, they leave vast swathes of the country cold.  For the Liberal Democrats, the Labour/Tory convergence may represent not a threat, but an opportunity.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;br class=&quot;clear&quot; /&gt;</description>
 <comments>http://www.liberalreview.com/content/2006/09/new-tory-labour#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.liberalreview.com/issues/blair">blair</category>
 <category domain="http://www.liberalreview.com/issues/cameron">cameron</category>
 <category domain="http://www.liberalreview.com/issues/labour">labour</category>
 <category domain="http://www.liberalreview.com/issues/politics">politics</category>
 <category domain="http://www.liberalreview.com/issues/tory">tory</category>
 <pubDate>Fri, 29 Sep 2006 15:27:41 +0100</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Rob Knight</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">557 at http://www.liberalreview.com</guid>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
