Last week, recent spectacular changes in British politics were commented in the BBC programme People and Politics (no longer available for listening on the net).

David Cameron, the recently elected new Tory leader, moved to a position on the National Health Service (NHS) regarded as very close to the Labour position, making it more difficult to tell what distinguishes David Cameron from Tony Blair. See a BBC article and video here.

In People and Politics the move by the Tory leader closer to the Labour standpoint was put in a historical context. It may seem a spectacular turn, but there were similar moves in the early Tory years by Disraeli going against large groups in his own party, moving closer to Liberal ground, and the Churchill government of 1951 that largely accepted changes enacted by the Labour government under Attlee. Even the then record increase in NHS spending under Margaret Thatcher was mentioned.

Indeed, under Disraeli ‘Tory democracy’ the vote was extended to the masses by the electoral Reform Bill of 1867, including the urban workers. Under the years 1874-80, Disraeli legalised trade unions, peaceful pickets, and the right to strike. [P. Viereck, Conservative Thinkers, 1956]

A subsequent Labour MP, Alexander Macdonald stated:

The Conservative party have done more for the working classes in five years than the Liberals have done in fifty.

We are already familiar with these changes of strategy in Sweden by the move of Moderaterna (Liberal/Conservative) by party leader Fredrik Reinfeldt closer to traditional Social Democratic ground. This has left many traditional supporters somewhat confused, but opened up the party to other voters. The opinion polls have shown the potential for success, but recent measurements indicates that a victory in the 2006 elections should not be taken for granted. (Of course, before Moderaterna, the Social Democrats have - grudgingly - moved to the right. Not that you get a feeling of ‘New Labour’.)

Moving to another partisan situation, the logic would then be for the Democratic party in the USA to become less radical, not more. Senator Clinton’s more positive view of the Iraq war, and the unclear position of John Kerry on the same issue, has so far brought little success. They would surely need a Blair-like revolution in their party.