BRITAIN

Britain’s Conservative Party is the Western world’s most successful political machine. Despite their aristocratic origins, the Tories’ brand of nationalist pragmatism--think Winston Churchill--topped with the occasional dose of right-wing radicalism--e.g. Margaret Thatcher--has cleverly reached out to Britons of all classes, enabling the party to hold power for 68 years this century. Now with Britain’s economy looking its strongest in 30 years, you might expect the Conservatives to be optimistic about chalking up a fifth consecutive victory on May 1. Yet nowadays, the only vaguely happy Tory MPs are those retiring from the House of Commons voluntarily. Asked how he feels about leaving the mother of parliaments for the private sector, one Tory replies, with a mixture of sadness and relief: “It is a bit like having to put down an old dog.”

His depressed mood has a lot to do with Tony Blair, a young, photogenic, Oxford-educated lawyer who is the leader of the opposition Labor Party. Polls give Blair a huge 15%-20% lead (suggesting a majority of at least 80 seats) over John Major, the famously gray Conservative prime minister. Conservative strategists still insist that Major, who is curiously similar to Pete Wilson, could imitate the California governor’s achievement in 1994--coming from behind to beat a superficially more glamorous challenger.

In Britain’s last election, in 1992, Major did indeed defy the pollsters who had predicted a four-point Labor victory by winning by that margin himself. This time, however, even a hung Parliament (where no party had an overall majority) would be hailed as a comeback of Lazarus proportions. Already, there is talk of a Labor landslide of 100 seats or more.

A defeat on this scale, when the British economy is outperforming its peers in Europe, would suggest this is one of those rare “sea changes” in public opinion. The last time such a revolution occurred in Britain was when Thatcher swept to power in 1979. Interestingly, she was soon followed by another right-wing radical in America, Ronald Reagan. Then came George Bush and Major--both preaching a kinder, gentler conservatism. Now Blair--to his fans at least--seems to represent the better side of what President Bill Clinton once stood for: a new baby-boomer, left-of-center politics.

This sort of politics, which Clinton called New Democrat and Blair now calls New Labor, accepts most market reforms of the Reagan-Thatcher era; it also believes in free trade and getting on well with big business (Blair looks at home in a City of London dealing room). Yet, it also claims, unlike its right-wing foes, that there is “a role for government,” certainly in creating a more just society.

From this perspective, Blair looks far more revolutionary than Clinton. To begin with, he does not come laden with Clintonesque scandals. Blair has also proved his mettle by already pushing the Labor Party much farther right than Clinton has moved the Democrats. In particular, Blair has convinced a party, in which about a quarter of the MPs would count as communists in the United States, to commit to not raising income taxes, not renationalizing any companies the Tories privatized and not changing most of Thatcher’s anti-union laws.

These renouncements have made Labor electable--if not innocuous. One of the strangest things about the election is the non-panic among London’s elite: Pop stars are not slinking away into tax exile; stately homes are not surrounded by trust-creating accountants. The gap between Labor and Tory is so small that the Sun, the tabloid that was Thatcher’s pet Rottweiler, now supports Blair.

However, a leader best known for the things he has promised not to do hardly looks revolutionary. The ever-smiling Blair has a desperate desire to be all things to all people. Even nonpoliticians have noticed. “He doesn’t say very much, does he,” Princess Diana has grumbled; the country’s other favorite female role model, the chart-topping Spice Girls, have said Thatcher is more of a man in their eyes. The prevailing feeling in Britain is of boredom with the election, rather than excitement over Blair.

This underscores a simple point: Even if Blair romps home Thursday, he will not have won the election; the Tories will have lost it. In part, this is just a function of being in power too long. In the past five years, the tabloids have caught Conservative MPs committing just about every sexual indiscretion known to man (and quite a few new ones); there have also been financial scandals. The most watched constituency in the election is one where a journalist is running as an anti-sleaze candidate against a former minister who admits to taking bundles of money from the owner of Harrods.

However, the Tories’ real problem is disunity. Any parliamentary government with a small majority is vulnerable to malcontents. Major’s bad luck is to have found an issue--Europe--that splits his party asunder. More than half the Conservatives are “Euroskeptics”: They oppose joining the single European currency and mumble about leaving the European Union. The party’s other wing, led by the chancellor of the exchequer, also dislikes Europe’s federalism, but thinks Britain must remain in Europe--and probably in the single currency. Major has swung from one side to the other.

Whatever the merits of the different positions, the squabbles have not helped the Tories at the polls. One of Blair’s weak spots--that he has committed himself to introducing the European Union’s job-destroying Social Chapter--has only become an issue recently. And the Tories’ way of raising the issue--a poster depicting Germany’s Chancellor Helmut Kohl as a ventriloquist and Blair as his dummy--has sparked off more squabbles.

With the Tories so devoted to ripping each other to shreds and Blair saying virtually anything to get elected, the campaign has been notably dull. However, assuming Blair wins, there are several reasons to expect that the period immediately after the election may be far livelier. On the Tory side, there is the prospect of full-blown civil war. In the past, the Conservatives’ instinct for self-preservation usually ensured that the blood-letting after a defeat was short-lived. This time, the divisions and the hatreds built up over 18 years of government may be too great.

With Blair, the first few months will be crucial. The takeover could well be chaotic, as a party long out of power learns its way around Whitehall. “The poor sods won’t even be able to find the lavatory,” mutters one Tory grandee. Labor’s divisions on Europe could be almost as great as the Conservatives’. And nobody knows exactly how Blair’s party will divide up between Blairite modernizers and traditional “old labor” socialists. His challenge will be to find just enough sops to throw his left-wing without frightening middle England.

But this is a delicate game. Banning fox hunting, for example, could become Blair’s equivalent of Clinton’s allowing gays in the military.

The true victor in all this? Perhaps Thatcher. Should the Tories by some miracle win, they will still be seen as her progeny. If they lose, the party will probably turn toward the Euroskepticism she favors. Meanwhile, if Prime Minister Blair turns out to be a closet left-winger, that will surely pave the way for the return of the Conservatives. Yet, if Blair continues his apparent trek to the right, she will have finally achieved her goal: the defeat of socialism in Britain.

In politics, many people get to change their own party; only a few titans force their opponents to change as well.