Recent Elections
I have heard that the UK recently had some elections. Apparently, the results were not all that Tony Blair and the Labour Party would have wished. I have heard that the Conservatives picked up seats at Labour's expense.
As an outsider, this leads me to ask the following questions. Does this mean that the British people have begun to be fed up with socialism and are secretly longing for a George Bushish leader? I see that there have been shakeups in the government. Does this mean that T&F has lost or is in danger of losing his job? Has Tony finally tumbled to the fact that T&F is a Conservative mole bent on distroying his government? What is the connection between Yahwe's joining the labour force and the fall of labour's fortunes? What is going on? |
Re: Recent Elections
ok the recent elections were for local not national government. And not for all local goverment seats either.
the only reason there were job changes after it is that the ruling labour party feared the effect of getting rid of people beforehand on their control of local councils |
Re: Recent Elections
Quote:
The recent elections are a sign that the Labour Party are less popular, but it's not clear that there is any genuine shift to the right. The Tories made significant gains, but a lot of that is protest voting, i.e. voting against the government. In a small pocket in East London the shift was from Labour Party to the Respect Party (i.e. left-wing anti-war party). In other areas (e.g. Lewisham in South East London) the shift was to the Green Party (who are to the left of Labour on almost every conceivable issue). In other areas the right-wing BNP did reasonably well. In all cases votes were probably against rather than for. The Conservatives do not actually have any major policy where they stand significantly to the right of the government (or at least not one they publically debate very often), and in fact on ID cards they are promising a slightly more libertarian approach. In every other major policy, the Tories seem unwilling to break the consensus that has been in place for a few years now. The only real story was how dismal our third party (the Liberal Democrats) did, in comparison to the Tories. Quote:
Quote:
British politics main issues over the last couple of months (according to a cursory glance at the media) : - Crime (both parties broadly promise more vengeance, especially against foriegners) - Economy (both parties promise to do nothing at all) - ID Cards (there is some difference here, our government seem to be intent on pushing forward) - Immigration (some vague talk about "getting tough" but the broad realisation that outside of BNP fantasies about repatriation, nothing much will change) - Europe (some differences here although it's not discussed much recently) - Running of public services, especially health (both parties promise better public services but don't really want to discuss how they're going to pay for it. Both are for internal market mechanisms which will apparently reduce costs and increase choice) - Local taxes ('council' taxes which everyone pays, per household are considered too high and as they reflect property values they will get much higher. Both parties want to reform them, although it's not clear how). - Housing (both parties promise to look at housing supply while doing very little to deal with the issue. Both give broad support to low cost home ownership iniatives - e.g. shared ownership, key worker accomodation, etc) There's other stuff but you get the idea. It's all pretty much the same. The major parties will all have some sort of gimmick (who knows, maybe the Tories will push a flat rate tax) but it makes very little difference. |
Re: Recent Elections
Labour are socialist in the generic popular sense of that word, which means something like 'highly left wing', even if they arent socialist by the more technical definition which is only really used by marxists anyway (I doubt Tony Blair is actually in favour of a dictatorship of the proletariat for example, but then I doubt most normal people who self-identify as having 'socialist leanings' really want full-blown socialism either).
|
Re: Recent Elections
Quote:
How are they "highly left wing"? I mean, if they are (because of their policies on welfare benefits / public services) then how the Tories or Lib Dems not? edit : Dictatorship of the proletariat is a Leninist thing anyway. I'd base "socialism" more on how they viewed private ownership vs public ownership etc. |
Re: Recent Elections
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Recent Elections
Quote:
And again, you've got to remember that you're using left/right in the sense of statist vs non-statist, whereas most people don't (I would imagine). Quote:
|
Re: Recent Elections
Quote:
|
Re: Recent Elections
All of this terminological disagreement is obscuring the fact that dda seems to believe that having a "George Bushish leader" is the only alternative to socialism.
|
Re: Recent Elections
Recently I've discovered my political leanings are somewhere to the right of Genghis Khan in the sense that I don't really object to asiatic hordes sweeping across the countryside marauding and pillaging as they go. After all it's the little things that count.
|
Re: Recent Elections
All of this terminological disagreement is obscuring the fact that dda seems to believe that Tony Blair isn't George Bushish. :(
|
Re: Recent Elections
The real problem at the moment is that there's no replacement for the current Labour Party. The Conservatives are still widely disliked by swathes of the country as a result of their poor performance during the early 1990s - and Blair's 1997 landslide wasn't dissimilar to the Democrats' collapse in 1994.
Until the electorate is willing to accept that the Conservatives have changed they'll never be elected. This is unfortunate, since they've got an excellent leader at the moment attempting to push the party away from the kneejerk populist right-wing and towards a more libertarian stand-point (pro-civil liberties, generally pro-business). We won't ever elect someone like George Bush for two main reasons. First, faith isn't a big issue in this country except for when the low-brow tabloid trash blame Islam for 'our boys' being killed in Iraq. We're also pretty wary of those with evangelical faiths. In recent polls over 35% of all people claimed to be agnostic or atheist, and this will steadily rise as the older generations pass away. The census figure is 25% (for those who look it up), but I remember at the time that my parents refused to let me put on our family's form that I was atheist. Nevertheless, religion just isn't a big thing here. Most of those who claim to be Christian only pay lip-service to it, or just attend church at Christmas and Easter - it's not part of peoples' daily lives. Secondly, the issues relied on by the social conservatives in America aren't important here. Abortion divides the USA in a way hardly contemplated here (although there may be some small changes to the limits on it due to scientific progress). Gun ownership is a non-issue because we don't own any guns. The shake-ups in the Government are radical but essentially standard. A Prime Minister usually reshuffles his cabinet two or three times per five year term. The principle here is to inject new thinking into various departments of the civil service, since our civil service is traditionally (small c) conservative - it doesn't like change. However, these shake-ups are now usually prompted by ministerial failures. Sacking one minister means that others can move to new departments or assume new responsibilities. It can be very tactical at times, although this latest re-shuffle hasn't been. I doubt much will change for as long as Blair remains leader. |
Re: Recent Elections
Quote:
|
Re: Recent Elections
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The most positive thing that came out of her leadership was that we didn't end up like France, paralysed by the trade unions. It was messy getting to that point, but at least the country doesn't shut down every time a group of workers wants extra pay. Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Recent Elections
Quote:
|
Re: Recent Elections
Quote:
|
Re: Recent Elections
"Look I'm not exactly a big fan of black people so why don't we put them all in camps when they come over until we figure out what to do with them?"
It's funny because someone really said it :( PS Personally I always liked the french for their use of strikes. It shows an understanding of real democracy and power relations that people all too frequently overlook. |
Re: Recent Elections
Quote:
Quote:
There was nothing in my post that was anti-George Bush. He provides a crutch for about a third of Americans to lean on in their times of need. He reassures them about their own moral views. He has one of the greatest 'fanbases' of any American president of the 20th century (while in office), and this fact is only muted by the number of people equally hostile to him. I don't bash George Bush, even if I object to most of his views. Quote:
Quote:
Furthermore, federalism in America has been a failure because of the three issues which you identified. Quote:
|
Re: Recent Elections
Blair is a cock. nuff said.
|
Re: Recent Elections
While i feel Cameron is likeable and looks to be the first tory in a while to have Labour on the run, I feel there's a massive trust issue with him and I'm quite uncomfortable simply because he is vague and pulls off "stunts". It's why i voted for him as wanker of the month. And while that's a problem, I feel the "keep out the tories" mentality will always keep labour support motivated and the floating voters away from the tories when it comes to the crunch in a general election. Labour will really need to get a lot more hate at them to be kicked out.
|
Re: Recent Elections
Quote:
|
Re: Recent Elections
Quote:
|
Re: Recent Elections
Cameron offers (or appears to offer, which is the important thing as far as the electorate are concerned) a distinct alternative because it's the best thing for him to do in the situation. Well, perhaps he isn't but him and his party both knew that by the next election they could very well be in a position to run the country if they had a leader that appealed to the masses. Which he certainly does.
As far as the nature of the next prime minister goes, I think it's reasonably safe to assume it's going to be Cameron (although, who knows, this statement could become the next "Kinnock will be the next pm" of the early 90s) will be the next Prime Minister. His nature however, seems more or less to be crafted on the model of Blair '94-99' or something, before the sheen was rubbed away. We're just going to end up with another Blair. I know I'm not actually referring to any policies in my post, but that's because, as plenty of people have already said the policies are almost exactly the same for the two (almost three, but I think the LD's are different enough to actually change the situation slightly, although I'm not suggesting they would cure the ills of society or anything) major parties. All that's left is image, and the Conservatives are streaks ahead of everyone else on that at this point. edit: I forgot to mention that the fact that the only difference in a policy that actually matters between the Conservatives and Labour is Europe. Which could end up having disastrous consequences for us if the Conservatives get in Government and start being rude to everyone again. The problem is, even though it's the most important issue on which there is actual schism between Labour and Conservative, most people don't consider it when voting. |
Re: Recent Elections
I don't like Cameron's Europe policy so far, especially with his attempt to disaffiliate Conservative MEPs from the EPP in the European Parliament. However, he hasn't outlined a view on the EU itself yet, so I still have hope.
For those wondering, my position is that we're fine in the EU as we are, we shouldn't leave - but we don't need to integrate any further either. We need to sort out the CAP, but that'll never happen for as long as France has any sort of power. |
Re: Recent Elections
There's actually a deadline for CAP reform (or at least looking at it); 2012 or something. It will probably be unsustainable (to an even greater degree) by then anyway.
|
Re: Recent Elections
the only reason I'd like to see the Conservatives in power is because then we might see a decent opposition party.
I'm pretty sure a lot of Conservatives are really confused what to do when the Labour party are putting forward Tory policies and won't vote against them. The Labour backbenchers (a lot of whom are very decent people) will then be free to vote against the stupid tory policies. |
Re: Recent Elections
Quote:
|
Re: Recent Elections
Just as an aside, i noted in the media today that Jack Straw got the sack with regards to the Foreign Secretary - i find that very strange indeed, as at least in Australia he comes across as a very knowledgeable and respectable man who for all outwards appearances is competent. Clearly, this type of person is rare in a Ministry, and thus why on earth would someone "Demote" him to the Speaker of the House of Commons?
What did he do? (or not do)? |
Re: Recent Elections
Quote:
|
Re: Recent Elections
I do have to agree with the point that Blair comes across as quite genuine. He gets out of almighty messes almost scathe free, and while he supports his cabinet they usually end up taking the fall. I think Blair is hanging on as long as possible because he thinks that Brown is no way near as good in terms of people / publicity skills (which, to be honest, Brown isn't) and Labour would be in a lot more trouble, not because of policies but because of what is said, when Blair leaves.
Getting Brown in might actually lead to a few more left wing policies, but that's really not the major issue. TBH, he really needs to step down in the next 6 months - 1 year, so Brown has enough time to establish himself before the next general election, but I think he wants to leave it as late as possible. I have to say that a lot of the senior figures in the cabinet now probably don't have too much of the public's confidence, but most of the Conservatives aren't very well known and so tbh can't take a huge amount of advantage. A lot of things need to be sorted out (imo), although they always do, but there's so many layers between the top ranks and the "front line" that it takes quite a while to implement any changes and make the public aware of them, and any changes that are made have to be pretty well informed anyway. Education and the NHS have changed so much in the last 10 or so years that it's really not easy to sort everything out. Of course, sorting out things like the fact that younger kids these days seem to be less controllable isn't a simple issue. |
Re: Recent Elections
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
However, in 2004 these issues had been cast to one side. The election was fought on national security, with Kerry attempting to go head-to-head with Bush on this. It was essentially clinched by the 527 group Swift Boat Veterans For Truth destroying Kerry's record, rightly or wrongly. Voters were voting on the personality of the two men, and the continuous attacks on Kerry clinched it for Bush. I think you may be trying to over-complicate things. The soundbite nature of American politics as part of the TV war at election time means that candidates don't have time to outline all of their policies - and instead they fight over only a couple of key issues. The party bases are rallied by core issues, and for the Republicans these are gay marriage, abortion and now immigration. As for your suggestion that I'm simply lifting my words from the mainstream media, I don't think that's anywhere near close to the truth. My own pitiful credentials are A-Level Politics, with a specialism in American politics (especially the Supreme Court). I've kept pretty up-to-date on everything and followed the 2004 election like a hawk. I'll concede that I read the Washington Post because it's got one of the better websites, as well as a focus on American political machinations, but if you can find me somewhere with better analysis then please do so. America's lack of a credible national newspaper is pretty annoying. Quote:
As for reporting of strikes, I'm not going to be able to argue against issues which aren't reported and which I wasn't alive for. As far as I'm concerned you could tell me anything, say that it hasn't been reported as part of an Establishment conspiracy against the working class and I'm not going to have a rejoiner to it, am I? Quote:
Quote:
You said that: Quote:
Quote:
Everyone's always hated insurance companies. No-one's ever really liked their bank. The 1980s housing boom-bust was sadly standard for the times, and credit must go to Clarke, Brown and the Bank of England for ending this cycle (I won't mention Brown's other policies though). The failure of endowment morgages was indeed the fault of lenders, but they're not what I'm talking about. We're a world-leader in investment of stocks and shares with the largest financial centre in Europe - for example, all of the world's big insurers have offices here. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Recent Elections
Quote:
Ah, the cycles of politics. |
Re: Recent Elections
Quote:
|
Re: Recent Elections
Quote:
|
Re: Recent Elections
Quote:
|
Re: Recent Elections
Quote:
|
Re: Recent Elections
to both Dante and Boogster.
As half of the labour party seem to have abandoned their morality when it comes to voting on privatisation, war, tuition fees, health etc etc and simply voted with the government on all these things because Blair did the whole "don't vote with the tories" defence*, I hope that if they were voting on exactly the same conservative policies then they would vote against it. As I see it, the people leading both the conservatives and labour have exactly the same ideologies. (let's call it new labour) The backbenchers for each party are the difference. I identify with the Labour backbenchers more strongly but currently feel they are voting for the New Labour policies because they are afraid of the tories 'winning' (and whatever else the whips office tells them). The conservatives are letting through pretty much all of New Labours policies (as they agree with them too) unless they can say "it doesn't go far enough" or "we agree with all of it except this little bit" etc. So my point is - labour would be more likely to vote down a 'new labour' proposal if it came from the conservatives than if it came from labour. *sorry about the long sentence |
Re: Recent Elections
Quote:
|
Re: Recent Elections
they might complain about it more meaning more media attention...
|
Re: Recent Elections
I don't think I read where nodrog explained why (he thinks) immigration is actually an issue?
|
Re: Recent Elections
Quote:
Quote:
It should be noted, though, that the article also mentioned that the Deputy PM asked to be stripped of his portfoilo after he stripped his secretary, and that Clarke refused the offer of an alternative ministerial post. |
Re: Recent Elections
I haven't pareticipated in the discussion because I know nothing about British politics. However, I am very interested in getting some small grasp on the situation. I have followed the discussion with great interst and would like to thank all of you who have contributed to answering my little question.
(I was very pleased to learn that T&F seems to be bullet proof in his current position.) |
Re: Recent Elections
Quote:
I doubt that Prescott really suggested he should lose his powers - perhaps it was suggested that he suggest it ;) |
Re: Recent Elections
The BNP won 11 seats in Barking. They practically own it ( & Dagenham). In Loughton, which is almost where my school is but I have to pass through to get home, also a VERY racist area, 4 out of the 5 councilors were BNP.
I haven't read through the whole thread but every year they're gaining seats. Here's a good article btw. http://zeemo.blogspot.com/2006/05/bl...eople-bnp.html |
Re: Recent Elections
Quote:
|
Re: Recent Elections
Quote:
|
Re: Recent Elections
Don't mind me, I'm still ****ed :(
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 00:56. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2002 - 2018