Boris Johnson

If you read the accounts--well, the analysis of the accounts--of last week's vote in Britain, in which Labour was trounced in local council elections and lost the mayoralty of London, you may wonder if you had heard it before.

"Last week's results," writes the Wall Street Journal, "...may foreshadow a political and generational realignment in Britain." Really? It does sound familiar--and as well it should, since almost exactly the same things were said a little less than a dozen years ago (1997). Except that after that year's general election, which tossed out John Major and swept in Tony Blair, the apocalyptic thoughts were directed toward the Tories, not Labour. The 1997 debacle was the worst Tory defeat in a century, it was an unprecedented repudiation of a governing party, it called into question the long-range future of the Conservatives.

All more or less true--and, in retrospect, all deceptive to some degree.

Indeed, 1997 was an historic defeat for the Tories, whose three subsequent parliamentary leaders (William Hague, Ian Duncan-Smith, Michael Howard) were either humiliated by Blair at the polls (Hague, Howard) or retired by their own colleagues (Duncan-Smith). And last week's elections were very bad news for Labour: "Red" Ken Livingstone was ousted as mayor of London after two terms by Tory gadfly Boris Johnson, and Labour's percentage of the vote in council elections in England and Wales was actually lower than the third-party Liberal Democrats. As the Journal points out, if this had been a general election, the Tories would have swept into power with a commanding majority in Parliament.

But while local results often presage national elections--as happened when Tory councils were trounced in 1995--this was not a national election, Labour remains in control of the House of Commons, and Gordon Brown is prime minister. As another Labour prime minister (Harold Wilson) once said, a week is a very long time in politics, and while last week's results are encouraging for Tories and discouraging to Labour, there may not be another general election until 2010.

Having said that, however, allow me to make two observations. One is that, while true-blue conservatives, especially here, seem to have mixed feelings about the Tory leader David Cameron--too malleable, not sufficiently Thatcherite, too PR-minded, too green, etc.--he strikes me as being exactly what the Conservative party requires as Britain grows increasingly weary of Labour. And he is manifestly an able, energetic, attractive, and (above all) effective political leader with the requisite charm and hyperactive temperament to succeed. I don't know who the next prime minister will be, since left-wing Labour backbenchers may yet bring down Brown; but Cameron will be Britain's next Conservative prime minister.

And Boris Johnson, whose plummy accent, blond moptop and self-deprecating manner is almost entirely a phenomenon of charm, proved to be a smart, disciplined, and appealing candidate in what had appeared to be a hopelessly quixotic venture just a few months ago. Being mayor is almost entirely a public relations venture, and while Johnson probably has no future in national politics, his tenure in London will do the Tories nothing but good between now and the next general election.

A political realignment, yes; but 'generational' seems a bit overstated.