|
Sprinkler Systems
Uhaul move
Lawn care
Roses and trees
Ford Parts
Chrysler Parts
Lake Powell
New IPod Touch Apps
New IPhone Apps
IPhone Apps
IPad Information
IPad Apps
Android APPS
Android Games APPS
Android Systems
Android Tablets APPS and Beyond
Smartphone Apps
Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools
Tablet PC
Car Sharing Car Leasing
Tabler Pc
Fly Fishing
Toyota Cars
Vacation Rentals
Stock market
NYSE
SSE Stock
Freight & Shipping News
Gluten
Lactose
Gout
My Coupon Life
Campgrounds Check
Outdoor
Kitchen Design and Redoo
Bath Remodeling
Palm Springs
Las Vegas Vacation Tipps
Lake Powell Boating
Homes for lease
Electric and green Car Blog
Pearls and diamonds
Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App
Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
|
Fantasy » alt.fan.tolkien » OT UK General Election
| OT UK General Election [message #30768] |
Fr, 06 Mai 2005 00:32 |
|
I'm going to stick my neck out and make a prediction about the result of
the UK General Election for 2005. Like 1992, I think people have been
lying to the pollsters and not admitting how they have voted. I think
there has been a massive swing to the Liberal Democrats, and the Tories
will make huge inroads into the Labour majority. Possible even a hung
parliament. But I'll go for a Labour majority of 20-30.
Time: 11.30pm (90 minutes after the polls closed and the exit polls
predicted a reduced Labour majority of 66)
Christopher
--
---
Reply clue: Saruman welcomes you to Spamgard
|
|
|
| Re: OT UK General Election [message #30770 ] |
Fr, 06 Mai 2005 03:01 |
|
Christopher Kreuzer <spamgard [at] blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> I'm going to stick my neck out and make a prediction about the result
> of the UK General Election for 2005. Like 1992, I think people have
> been lying to the pollsters and not admitting how they have voted. I
> think there has been a massive swing to the Liberal Democrats, and
> the Tories will make huge inroads into the Labour majority. Possible
> even a hung parliament. But I'll go for a Labour majority of 20-30.
>
> Time: 11.30pm (90 minutes after the polls closed and the exit polls
> predicted a reduced Labour majority of 66)
Well, I'm not going to make any more predictions, but at 2am I think
I've realised I forgot the 'Midlands' effect. Labour holding on in the
North, Conservatives predicted to make gains in the South, but Labour
also holding on in the Midlands. :-(
Maybe I'll keep watching for another hour or so...
Christopher
--
---
Reply clue: Saruman welcomes you to Spamgard
|
|
|
| Re: OT UK General Election [message #30775 ] |
Fr, 06 Mai 2005 06:13 |
|
> Well, I'm not going to make any more predictions, but at 2am I think
> I've realised I forgot the 'Midlands' effect. Labour holding on in the
> North, Conservatives predicted to make gains in the South, but Labour
> also holding on in the Midlands. :-(
> Maybe I'll keep watching for another hour or so...
The amusing event of the night... George Galloways victory speech, other =
than that a dull night all round.
Graeme
|
|
|
| Re: OT UK General Election [message #30787 ] |
Fr, 06 Mai 2005 20:42 |
|
Wes šu Christopher Kreuzer hal!
> Well, I'm not going to make any more predictions, but at 2am I think
> I've realised I forgot the 'Midlands' effect. Labour holding on in the
> North, Conservatives predicted to make gains in the South, but Labour
> also holding on in the Midlands. :-(
Two things, though:
- Labour got only around 36% of the vote nationwide. So despite the
relatively large majority of 66, this government is coming to power with
the lowest percentage of the popular vote seen in a while.
- The Tories have actually won the popular vote in England - they ended
up getting more votes overall in England than Labour. Given that a
large portion of Parliament's time is now taken up with England-only
issues, this does quite seriously affect Labour's legitimacy to make
fundamental England-only changes of the sort they did last time (NHS
reform being a case in point).
And don't forget that more Blairites lost their seats than backbenchers,
so Labour backbenchers are proportionately larger than they were in the
last Parliament.
--
Arvind
Atheism is a non-prophet organization.
|
|
|
| Re: OT UK General Election [message #30808 ] |
Sa, 07 Mai 2005 22:00 |
|
So were the exit polls exactly right?
"TT Arvind" <ttarvind [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ce5cae789dc726f989f1c [at] news.individual.net...
> Wes šu Christopher Kreuzer hal!
>> Well, I'm not going to make any more predictions, but at 2am I think
>> I've realised I forgot the 'Midlands' effect. Labour holding on in the
>> North, Conservatives predicted to make gains in the South, but Labour
>> also holding on in the Midlands. :-(
>
> Two things, though:
>
> - Labour got only around 36% of the vote nationwide. So despite the
> relatively large majority of 66, this government is coming to power with
> the lowest percentage of the popular vote seen in a while.
>
> - The Tories have actually won the popular vote in England - they ended
> up getting more votes overall in England than Labour. Given that a
> large portion of Parliament's time is now taken up with England-only
> issues, this does quite seriously affect Labour's legitimacy to make
> fundamental England-only changes of the sort they did last time (NHS
> reform being a case in point).
>
> And don't forget that more Blairites lost their seats than backbenchers,
> so Labour backbenchers are proportionately larger than they were in the
> last Parliament.
>
> --
> Arvind
>
> Atheism is a non-prophet organization.
|
|
|
| Re: OT UK General Election [message #30816 ] |
So, 08 Mai 2005 12:39 |
|
Wes šu Jason Madison hal!
> So were the exit polls exactly right?
Pretty close in terms of percentages of the vote, but off a bit in terms
of actual numbers of seats.
--
Arvind
|
|
|
| Re: OT UK General Election [message #30819 ] |
So, 08 Mai 2005 13:32 |
|
Christopher Kreuzer wrote:
> I'm going to stick my neck out and make a prediction about the result of
> the UK General Election for 2005. Like 1992, I think people have been
> lying to the pollsters and not admitting how they have voted. I think
> there has been a massive swing to the Liberal Democrats, and the Tories
> will make huge inroads into the Labour majority. Possible even a hung
> parliament. But I'll go for a Labour majority of 20-30.
I'm not too familiar with British politics, but it seems weird
to me to hear all the cries from *Labour* MP's for Blair to
step down at once. It would be like Republican senators and
representatives calling for George W. Bush's resignation
immediately after his re-election. Is this typical over there?
-- FotW
Reality is for those who cannot cope with Middle-earth.
|
|
|
| Re: OT UK General Election [message #30820 ] |
So, 08 Mai 2005 15:13 |
|
TT Arvind <ttarvind [at] hotmail.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1ce7fcc26ec63cfd989f20 [at] news.individual.net:
> Wes šu Jason Madison hal!
>
>> So were the exit polls exactly right?
>
> Pretty close in terms of percentages of the vote, but off a bit in
> terms of actual numbers of seats.
Except for the joint BBC-ITV poll, which predicted a Labour majority of
66 on a vote of 37% (Cons 33%). Actual result: Lab majority of 67 (to
be reduced to 66 when the postponed election is completed in a couple
of weeks' time), 35.2% vs Cons 32.3%.
I wonder what Flame thinks of his theory that Scotland should throw off
the domination of the English. Labour was outpolled in England by the
Tories, yet retains a working majority in Westminster. NB. Westminster
has Scottish MPs, but Holyrood does not have English MPs.
--
Cheers, ymt.
|
|
|
| Re: OT UK General Election [message #30821 ] |
So, 08 Mai 2005 15:26 |
|
Wes šu Yuk Tang hal!
> Except for the joint BBC-ITV poll, which predicted a Labour majority of
> 66 on a vote of 37% (Cons 33%). Actual result: Lab majority of 67 (to
> be reduced to 66 when the postponed election is completed in a couple
> of weeks' time), 35.2% vs Cons 32.3%.
Nope. They were ten seats off on their prediction of the LibDems'
position (prediction: 52, actual result: 62). That's pretty
significant, since they predicted that the LibDems would *lose* seats
when they actually *gained* seats.
> I wonder what Flame thinks of his theory that Scotland should throw off
> the domination of the English. Labour was outpolled in England by the
> Tories, yet retains a working majority in Westminster. NB. Westminster
> has Scottish MPs, but Holyrood does not have English MPs.
Do you want devolution for England, then?
--
Arvind
How many hardware engineers does it take to change a light bulb? None:
"We'll fix it in software."
|
|
|
| Re: OT UK General Election [message #30822 ] |
So, 08 Mai 2005 15:25 |
|
Flame of the West <jsolinas [at] comcast.net> wrote in
news:LYidndMEFIBJZeDfRVn-uw [at] comcast.com:
> Christopher Kreuzer wrote:
>
>> I'm going to stick my neck out and make a prediction about the
>> result of the UK General Election for 2005. Like 1992, I think
>> people have been lying to the pollsters and not admitting how
>> they have voted. I think there has been a massive swing to the
>> Liberal Democrats, and the Tories will make huge inroads into the
>> Labour majority. Possible even a hung parliament. But I'll go for
>> a Labour majority of 20-30.
>
> I'm not too familiar with British politics, but it seems weird
> to me to hear all the cries from *Labour* MP's for Blair to
> step down at once. It would be like Republican senators and
> representatives calling for George W. Bush's resignation
> immediately after his re-election. Is this typical over there?
As I said a while ago, Bush had the support of the British PM on the
issue of Iraq, but not the support of the British people nor the
Labour party. 'Not in our name' said the banners in Feb 2003, and
Blair lent our name to the illegal invasion of a country that neither
threatened us nor demanded urgent humanitarian action. War is
arguably the most radical action one country can take against
another, and he carried it out against our warnings and against our
pleas.
--
Cheers, ymt.
|
|
|
| Re: OT UK General Election [message #30823 ] |
So, 08 Mai 2005 15:30 |
|
TT Arvind <ttarvind [at] hotmail.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1ce823f1d1d1a21e989f21 [at] news.individual.net:
> Wes šu Yuk Tang hal!
>
>> Except for the joint BBC-ITV poll, which predicted a Labour
>> majority of 66 on a vote of 37% (Cons 33%). Actual result: Lab
>> majority of 67 (to be reduced to 66 when the postponed election
>> is completed in a couple of weeks' time), 35.2% vs Cons 32.3%.
>
> Nope. They were ten seats off on their prediction of the LibDems'
> position (prediction: 52, actual result: 62). That's pretty
> significant, since they predicted that the LibDems would *lose*
> seats when they actually *gained* seats.
Didn't notice them, since the most significant stat was the size of
Labour's majority. After all, HM's opposition is assumed to vote en
bloc against HM's government, so the precise makeup of the oppo
doesn't get as much of an airing. What is being analysed (by Kennedy
and others) is why the LibDems lost net seats to the Tories when
they'd expected significant gains.
>> I wonder what Flame thinks of his theory that Scotland should
>> throw off the domination of the English. Labour was outpolled in
>> England by the Tories, yet retains a working majority in
>> Westminster. NB. Westminster has Scottish MPs, but Holyrood does
>> not have English MPs.
>
> Do you want devolution for England, then?
Not if it means we'll get a Tory government.
Were you still up for Twigg?
--
Cheers, ymt.
|
|
|
| Re: OT UK General Election [message #30827 ] |
So, 08 Mai 2005 17:54 |
|
Wes šu Yuk Tang hal!
> Didn't notice them, since the most significant stat was the size of
> Labour's majority.
Not if you're a LibDem supporter.
> After all, HM's opposition is assumed to vote en
> bloc against HM's government, so the precise makeup of the oppo
> doesn't get as much of an airing.
Actually, it got a decent bit of airing on the BBC this time round,
although they turned out to have gotten their predictions wrong. Not
that you can blame them for that, though.
> > Do you want devolution for England, then?
>
> Not if it means we'll get a Tory government.
Shouldn't the English be entitled to vote in a Tory government if that's
what they support?
--
Arvind
|
|
|
| Re: OT UK General Election [message #30828 ] |
So, 08 Mai 2005 18:02 |
|
Wes šu Flame of the West hal!
> I'm not too familiar with British politics, but it seems weird
> to me to hear all the cries from *Labour* MP's for Blair to
> step down at once. It would be like Republican senators and
> representatives calling for George W. Bush's resignation
> immediately after his re-election. Is this typical over there?
No, it's quite unusual. But this was a very narrow victory for Labour,
and many Labour MPs feel that they won in spite of Blair not because of
him. So they see him as a liability, and think they stand a much better
chance in upcoming elections if someone else takes charge as soon as
possible.
Plus getting rid of Blair means that Labour MPs get to choose the next
PM, which is obviously a nice position to be in (unlike the US, where
Congress won't have much say in picking Bush's successor if he were to
step down).
--
Arvind
|
|
|
| Re: OT UK General Election [message #30830 ] |
So, 08 Mai 2005 18:35 |
|
In article <Xns965094618CCA5jimlaker2yahoocom [at] 81.174.12.30>, jim.laker2
[at] yahoo.com says...
> Didn't notice them, since the most significant stat was the size of
> Labour's majority. After all, HM's opposition is assumed to vote en
> bloc against HM's government, so the precise makeup of the oppo
> doesn't get as much of an airing. What is being analysed (by Kennedy
> and others) is why the LibDems lost net seats to the Tories when
> they'd expected significant gains.
>
I have been wondering about this. Perhaps Labour's brilliant 'vote Lib
Dem, get Tory' campaign worked sufficiently on Labour voters in the Tory
marginals to the extent that what actually happened was they voted
Labour and got ... a Tory MP.
> >> I wonder what Flame thinks of his theory that Scotland should
> >> throw off the domination of the English. Labour was outpolled in
> >> England by the Tories, yet retains a working majority in
> >> Westminster. NB. Westminster has Scottish MPs, but Holyrood does
> >> not have English MPs.
> >
English MPs only:
Labour - 286
Tory - 194 (assuming the postponed election goes to the Tories)
Lib Dem - 48
Ind. - 2
Westminster Parliament minus Welsh and Scottish MPs: 548, leaving a
Labour majority of 24 over all other parties (42 if NI MPs are also
excluded).
> > Do you want devolution for England, then?
>
> Not if it means we'll get a Tory government.
>
No Tory Government even without Wales and Scotland. Tories did get more
votes than Labour in England though.
It's still shocking (and an indictment of our electoral system) that a
party can poll as little as 35% of votes cast - a shade over 20% of all
eligible electors - and still get what is historically a very healthy
majority in the Commons which will enable it to push through pretty well
any legislation it wants to. For info there were just under 27,000 votes
cast for every Labour MP; 44,500 for every Tory MP; and 96,500 for every
Lib Dem MP.
Strange that PR is OK for Scotland, Wales and local government, but not
good enough for Wesminster, despite reform being promised is Labour's
1997 manifesto.
Was anyone else shocked by the instant return of the vile Blunkett to
the cabinet? Just five months after being forced to resign for abusing
his office as a minister to do favours for his mistress. Astonishing,
and a sign I think that despite Blair's saying on Friday morning 'I have
listened and learned', by Friday evening he had already forgotten and
gone straight back into his old arrogant ways. It bespeaks a level of
contempt for the electorate that I find quite unpleasant (but all too
typical of the Labour party, I'm afraid).
--
Pete Gray
Say No to ID Cards <http://www.no2id.net>
<http://www.redbadge.co.uk/no2idcards/>
|
|
|
| Re: OT UK General Election [message #30831 ] |
So, 08 Mai 2005 19:05 |
|
In article <LYidndMEFIBJZeDfRVn-uw [at] comcast.com>, jsolinas [at] comcast.net
says...
> I'm not too familiar with British politics, but it seems weird
> to me to hear all the cries from *Labour* MP's for Blair to
> step down at once. It would be like Republican senators and
> representatives calling for George W. Bush's resignation
> immediately after his re-election. Is this typical over there?
>
Blair himself was a huge negative factor for the Labour Party. It was
quite amazing that, despite his being Prime Minister and leader of the
party, their election literature avoided as far as possible any mention
of him, both at a national, and especially at a local level (for example
our local Labour candidate's literature only mentioned Gordon Brown).
The fact is that Labour won _despite_ Blair, not because of him.
Remember 65% of those who voted (only 62% of those eligible) did _not_
want Blair or Labour (and many of those who voted Labour didn't want
Blair).
The electoral system here is quite unlike that in the US. Nobody votes
for the Prime Minister. You have to imagine that rather than being
directly elected, the President was merely the leader of the party with
the greatest representation in Congress.
To try to put it in a US context: suppose that a first-term President
were to be extremely unpopular with the electorate to the extent that
his party suffer losses in the mid-term elections, but still retain
control of Congress. Party leaders would be unlikely to want such a
president to run for a second term with further losses in prospect. Of
course the selection process of primaries and so on would make his being
able to run unlikely.
I've just realised how much more energetic US politicans are -- ours
stand for Parliament, but yours run for office.
--
Pete Gray
Say No to ID Cards <http://www.no2id.net>
<http://www.redbadge.co.uk/no2idcards/>
|
|
|
| Re: OT UK General Election [message #30837 ] |
So, 08 Mai 2005 20:08 |
|
TT Arvind <ttarvind [at] hotmail.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1ce844c94a267b21989f23 [at] news.individual.net:
> Wes šu Yuk Tang hal!
>
>> Didn't notice them, since the most significant stat was the size
>> of Labour's majority.
>
> Not if you're a LibDem supporter.
I suppose so.
>> After all, HM's opposition is assumed to vote en
>> bloc against HM's government, so the precise makeup of the oppo
>> doesn't get as much of an airing.
>
> Actually, it got a decent bit of airing on the BBC this time
> round, although they turned out to have gotten their predictions
> wrong. Not that you can blame them for that, though.
>
>> > Do you want devolution for England, then?
>>
>> Not if it means we'll get a Tory government.
>
> Shouldn't the English be entitled to vote in a Tory government if
> that's what they support?
They should be entitled to it. It doesn't mean that I want it.
--
Cheers, ymt.
|
|
|
| Re: OT UK General Election [message #30838 ] |
So, 08 Mai 2005 20:21 |
|
Pete Gray <news [at] redbadge.co.uk> wrote in
news:MPG.1ce85040f85ba2f99896b0 [at] news.zen.co.uk:
> In article <Xns965094618CCA5jimlaker2yahoocom [at] 81.174.12.30>,
> jim.laker2 [at] yahoo.com says...
>
>> Didn't notice them, since the most significant stat was the size
>> of Labour's majority. After all, HM's opposition is assumed to
>> vote en bloc against HM's government, so the precise makeup of
>> the oppo doesn't get as much of an airing. What is being
>> analysed (by Kennedy and others) is why the LibDems lost net
>> seats to the Tories when they'd expected significant gains.
>
> I have been wondering about this. Perhaps Labour's brilliant 'vote
> Lib Dem, get Tory' campaign worked sufficiently on Labour voters
> in the Tory marginals to the extent that what actually happened
> was they voted Labour and got ... a Tory MP.
Hence analysis. I rather doubt that the LibDem vote went to Labour,
considering most of the country's loathing for Blair. The current
theory is that their attempts to outflank Labour on the left had left
them vulnerable on the right. Great in university towns, less so in
more traditionally conservative areas. Compare the results of
Norwich north and south.
>> >> I wonder what Flame thinks of his theory that Scotland should
>> >> throw off the domination of the English. Labour was outpolled
>> >> in England by the Tories, yet retains a working majority in
>> >> Westminster. NB. Westminster has Scottish MPs, but Holyrood
>> >> does not have English MPs.
>
> English MPs only:
> Labour - 286
> Tory - 194 (assuming the postponed election goes to the Tories)
> Lib Dem - 48
> Ind. - 2
>
> Westminster Parliament minus Welsh and Scottish MPs: 548, leaving
> a Labour majority of 24 over all other parties (42 if NI MPs are
> also excluded).
Hard though it may be to believe, the committees responsible for
redrawing constituency boundaries are all-party. I'm not sure what
the change has been to favour Labour in recent years, but I remember
the numbers skewing radically in the Tories' favour at the start of
the 1990s.
>> > Do you want devolution for England, then?
>>
>> Not if it means we'll get a Tory government.
>
> No Tory Government even without Wales and Scotland. Tories did get
> more votes than Labour in England though.
Which is a disgrace in theory, but I can't help but smirk at this
reversal in fortunes.
> It's still shocking (and an indictment of our electoral system)
> that a party can poll as little as 35% of votes cast - a shade
> over 20% of all eligible electors - and still get what is
> historically a very healthy majority in the Commons which will
> enable it to push through pretty well any legislation it wants to.
> For info there were just under 27,000 votes cast for every Labour
> MP; 44,500 for every Tory MP; and 96,500 for every Lib Dem MP.
>
> Strange that PR is OK for Scotland, Wales and local government,
> but not good enough for Wesminster, despite reform being promised
> is Labour's 1997 manifesto.
I discussed this situation with someone a while ago, about the
fairness of proportional representation versus the benefits of 1 MP
per constituency. Pure PR, as seen in Iraq, is asking for
corruption: bribes can be directly linked to how high up in the list
one is. At least constituency representation can lead to voters
targeting specific MPs (eg. Enfield Southgate 97+05, Tatton 97,
Bethnal Green 05), foiling attempts by central parties to guarantee
their favourites a place in government.
> Was anyone else shocked by the instant return of the vile Blunkett
> to the cabinet? Just five months after being forced to resign for
> abusing his office as a minister to do favours for his mistress.
> Astonishing, and a sign I think that despite Blair's saying on
> Friday morning 'I have listened and learned', by Friday evening he
> had already forgotten and gone straight back into his old arrogant
> ways. It bespeaks a level of contempt for the electorate that I
> find quite unpleasant (but all too typical of the Labour party,
> I'm afraid).
Ack.
For Russ and co: George Galloway, the chap alleged to have taken
bribes from Saddam (according to the Telegraph), was elected on a
huge swing from Labour. His manifesto? To 'hound Blair out'.
--
Cheers, ymt.
|
|
|
| Re: OT UK General Election [message #30839 ] |
So, 08 Mai 2005 20:26 |
|
TT Arvind wrote:
> Do you want devolution for England, then?
Were he alive today, Tolkien probably would. He says in
Letter 53 that he loves England but not Great Britain,
let alone the Commonwealth. I wonder what he would
have thought of the EU.
-- FotW
Reality is for those who cannot cope with Middle-earth.
|
|
|
| Re: OT UK General Election [message #30840 ] |
So, 08 Mai 2005 20:56 |
|
Wes šu Yuk Tang hal!
> I discussed this situation with someone a while ago, about the
> fairness of proportional representation versus the benefits of 1 MP
> per constituency. Pure PR, as seen in Iraq, is asking for
> corruption: bribes can be directly linked to how high up in the list
> one is.
In the forms of proportional representation used in some Scandinavian
elections, you can cross out names on the list or write in new ones,
which would certainly fix this problem.
--
Arvind
Osteopornosis: A degenerate disease.
|
|
|
| Re: OT UK General Election [message #30848 ] |
So, 08 Mai 2005 21:55 |
|
Jason Madison <donotreply.jason.madison [at] btinternet.com> wrote:
> So were the exit polls exactly right?
Sort of. They predicted about the right majority for Labour, but I don't
think the exit polls predicted (or were capable of predicting) the wide
regional and seat-to-seat variations that occurred. That is why it
looked like being moderately exciting once Putney fell to the
Conservatives. But it was a false dawn. The overall situation in UK
politics now looks complicated. The next election could be _really_
unpredictable. One scenario is that those that switched to the Liberal
Democrats as a protest vote over the Iraq war, switch back to Labour.
The other scenario is that Brown succeeds Blair and presides over an
economy falling to pieces (due to his policies as Chancellor), and the
Conservatives (under a new and popular leader) sweep back into power
(after losing power in 1997, having been in power for about 18 years
from 1979-1997).
The main conclusions I've taken from this election is that the Labour
vote is very changeable (or 'flaky' as the pundits say), and that Blair
has become a liability to his own party. Which is prettty much what
happened to Thatcher. The question is whether Brown will be able to do a
"John Major" and get a fourth term in government for Labour.
18 years of Conservative government, followed by (if the next general
election is in 2010) 13 years of Labour government. Thatcherism followed
by Blairism (soon to be renamed Brownism). I wonder what the verdict of
history will be?
Christopher
--
---
Reply clue: Saruman welcomes you to Spamgard
|
|
|
| Re: OT UK General Election [message #30849 ] |
So, 08 Mai 2005 22:09 |
|
Flame of the West <jsolinas [at] comcast.net> wrote:
> Christopher Kreuzer wrote:
>
>> I'm going to stick my neck out and make a prediction about the
>> result of the UK General Election for 2005. Like 1992, I think
>> people have been lying to the pollsters and not admitting how they
>> have voted. I think there has been a massive swing to the Liberal
>> Democrats, and the Tories will make huge inroads into the Labour
>> majority. Possible even a hung parliament. But I'll go for a Labour
>> majority of 20-30.
>
> I'm not too familiar with British politics, but it seems weird
> to me to hear all the cries from *Labour* MP's for Blair to
> step down at once. It would be like Republican senators and
> representatives calling for George W. Bush's resignation
> immediately after his re-election. Is this typical over there?
You need to understand the history of the Labour Party. There is Old
Labour and New Labour. Not the most exciting labels, but Old Labour is
the trade unionists and left-wing socialists. New Labour (as personified
by Tony Blair) was a (successful) attempt to make the Labour Party
electable. Blair and his colleagues seized the central ground of British
Politics, even straying over to the right (Conservative territory). This
garnered them a lot of votes (they are said to appeal to Middle
England). But this was, and still is, seen as a betrayal by Old Labour.
I read somewhere that Margaret Thatcher had a love/hate relationship
with her parliamentary colleagues and party (Conservative MPs and the
activists making up the wider party). But Blair's relationship with his
MPs and the party members (trade unionists and others) was described as
veering between grudging acceptance (because he made the party electable
again) and outright revulsion (for betraying the principles of
socialism).
This is why so many Labour MPs rebel and vote against the government
line. They are usually sticking to their socialist principles and
rejecting the policies of New Labour. And this is why a majority of
about 60 will be dificcult for Blair. It only needs 30 MPs to rebel and
his reforms get shot down in flames.
And some are suggesting that the House of Lords will be emboldened to
also reject lots of Bills (legislation) on the basis that Labour lost
the popular vote in England.
Christopher
--
---
Reply clue: Saruman welcomes you to Spamgard
|
|
|
| Re: OT UK General Election [message #30850 ] |
So, 08 Mai 2005 22:22 |
|
In article <MPG.1ce87141acff3aba989f25 [at] news.individual.net>,=20
ttarvind [at] hotmail.com says...
> Wes =F0u Yuk Tang hal!
> > I discussed this situation with someone a while ago, about the=20
> > fairness of proportional representation versus the benefits of 1 MP=20
> > per constituency. Pure PR, as seen in Iraq, is asking for=20
> > corruption: bribes can be directly linked to how high up in the list=20
> > one is. =20
>=20
The only suggested PR systems for the UK retain a constituency link. In=20
a sense multi-member constituencies would put us back to the early=20
nineteenth century, when the counties returned 2 members and the=20
boroughs returned 2 each. Single-member constituencies date from 1885.
> In the forms of proportional representation used in some Scandinavian=20
> elections, you can cross out names on the list or write in new ones,=20
> which would certainly fix this problem.
Elections to the Scottish Parliament use the 'Additional Member' system=20
of FPTP constituencies plus regional lists -- you vote twice, once for=20
your direct MSP, then again on the party ballot. Local elections next=20
time will be in multi-member wards using STV:=20
<http://www.eastlothian.gov.uk/content/0,1094,3323,00.html>
The Electoral Reform Society (and the Jenkins Commission that Blair set=20
up when he was still talking about reform) recommended AV+ a sort of=20
combo-STV/AMS:
< http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/publications/leaflets/avp lus.htm>
--=20
Pete Gray
Say No to ID Cards <http://www.no2id.net>
<http://www.redbadge.co.uk/no2idcards/>
|
|
|
| Re: OT UK General Election [message #30851 ] |
Mo, 09 Mai 2005 00:12 |
|
"Christopher Kreuzer" <spamgard [at] blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in
news:ylufe.27879$G8.5710 [at] text.news.blueyonder.co.uk:
>
> This is why so many Labour MPs rebel and vote against the
> government line. They are usually sticking to their socialist
> principles and rejecting the policies of New Labour. And this is
> why a majority of about 60 will be dificcult for Blair. It only
> needs 30 MPs to rebel and his reforms get shot down in flames.
>
> And some are suggesting that the House of Lords will be emboldened
> to also reject lots of Bills (legislation) on the basis that
> Labour lost the popular vote in England.
Is the Parliament Act set in action by the PM, or does it involve a
vote in the Commons? If the latter, would Labour rebels sabotage any
attempt by Blair to blitz through the Lords if they do decide to block
manifesto legislation?
--
Cheers, ymt.
|
|
|
| Re: OT UK General Election [message #30852 ] |
Mo, 09 Mai 2005 00:44 |
|
Pete Gray <news [at] redbadge.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <Xns965094618CCA5jimlaker2yahoocom [at] 81.174.12.30>,
> jim.laker2 [at] yahoo.com says...
>
>> Didn't notice them, since the most significant stat was the size of
>> Labour's majority. After all, HM's opposition is assumed to vote en
>> bloc against HM's government, so the precise makeup of the oppo
>> doesn't get as much of an airing. What is being analysed (by Kennedy
>> and others) is why the LibDems lost net seats to the Tories when
>> they'd expected significant gains.
>
> I have been wondering about this. Perhaps Labour's brilliant 'vote Lib
> Dem, get Tory' campaign worked sufficiently on Labour voters in the
> Tory marginals to the extent that what actually happened was they
> voted Labour and got ... a Tory MP.
But that advice was only aimed at Labour voters in the Labour-Tory
marginals, rather than the Labour voters in the Lib Dem-Tory marginals.
Surely you aren't suggesting that the Labour voters in the Lib Dem-Tory
marginals got the wrong end of the stick? :-)
<snip>
> Was anyone else shocked by the instant return of the vile Blunkett to
> the cabinet? Just five months after being forced to resign for abusing
> his office as a minister to do favours for his mistress. Astonishing,
> and a sign I think that despite Blair's saying on Friday morning 'I
> have listened and learned', by Friday evening he had already
> forgotten and gone straight back into his old arrogant ways. It
> bespeaks a level of contempt for the electorate that I find quite
> unpleasant (but all too typical of the Labour party, I'm afraid).
I'm not entirely sure we ever found out what happened in the Blunkett
scandel, but I agree that bringing him back so soon does send mixed
signals. As for Blair's speech about having listened and learned, I
think the exact quote was something like "we have listened and learned
and will respond sensibly and wisely", which translates as "we have
listened, we think we have learned, and we will carry on doing what we
think is best, rather than what people say they want, I mean do you
really want us to listen to you?"
Christopher
--
---
Reply clue: Saruman welcomes you to Spamgard
|
|
|
| Re: OT UK General Election [message #30853 ] |
Mo, 09 Mai 2005 00:48 |
|
Pete Gray <news [at] redbadge.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
> Blair himself was a huge negative factor for the Labour Party. It was
> quite amazing that, despite his being Prime Minister and leader of the
> party, their election literature avoided as far as possible any
> mention of him, both at a national, and especially at a local level
There was a hilarious moment in the House of Commons debating chamber
just before the election, when Michael Howard asked an unexpected
question of the Labour MPs on the opposite benches: "How many of you
have photos of Tony Blair in your election leaflets?"
The Conservative benches erupted in laughter as about 10 of the 360+ MPs
put up their hands to admit to using a photo of Tony Blair. A bit
juvenile, but a classic moment.
Christopher
--
---
Reply clue: Saruman welcomes you to Spamgard
|
|
|
| Re: OT UK General Election [message #30856 ] |
Mo, 09 Mai 2005 01:10 |
|
Yuk Tang <jim.laker2 [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>
> For Russ and co: George Galloway, the chap alleged to have taken
> bribes from Saddam (according to the Telegraph), was elected on a
> huge swing from Labour. His manifesto? To 'hound Blair out'.
And his latest speeches saying things like: "I will make it my mission
to see Blair brought to the Hague court and put behind bars" (for crimes
against humanity, presumably). Galloway was elected in the constituency
of Bethnal Green and Bow (East London) where there is a large proportion
of Muslim voters. Jack Straw (Foreign Secretary) faced a similar
challenge in Blackburn, but survived (I think he even increased his
majority). Straw's election night speech mentioned how outside
organisations (from outside the constituency) had bussed people and
protesters in, and he also mentioned intimidation and threats. But that
is nothing compared to the Galloway-King battle, where they both
regularly insulted each other with some very strong language.
But for me, the defining 'Iraq' moment of the election was when Reginald
Keys (the father of a military policeman who died in Iraq) made a speech
after gaining 10% of the vote when he stood against Tony Blair. Keys'
speech started out in a dignified manner, though his tone got more
strident towards the end with direct attacks on Blair, when the BBC
suddenly (for some reason) cut back to the studio. The riveting part of
it was that the TV cameras were trained resolutely on Blair's face, and
didn't he just know it. Blair somehow managed to stay impassive, with
just an occassional swallow of the throat. Others say that Cherie Blair
(his wife) was less able to prevent her (angry) feelings being shown by
her expression, but I didn't see that personally.
I can't wait to see how the above incidents and the whole 'Iraq' issue
is covered in Tony Blair's biography. Do PMs always do a biography after
they leave office?
Christopher
--
---
Reply clue: Saruman welcomes you to Spamgard
|
|
|
| Re: OT UK General Election [message #32162 ] |
Mo, 09 Mai 2005 19:06 |
|
"TT Arvind" <ttarvind [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ce823f1d1d1a21e989f21 [at] news.individual.net...
> Wes šu Yuk Tang hal!
>
>> Except for the joint BBC-ITV poll, which predicted a Labour majority of
>> 66 on a vote of 37% (Cons 33%). Actual result: Lab majority of 67 (to
>> be reduced to 66 when the postponed election is completed in a couple
>> of weeks' time), 35.2% vs Cons 32.3%.
>
> Nope. They were ten seats off on their prediction of the LibDems'
> position (prediction: 52, actual result: 62). That's pretty
> significant, since they predicted that the LibDems would *lose* seats
> when they actually *gained* seats.
>
>> I wonder what Flame thinks of his theory that Scotland should throw off
>> the domination of the English. Labour was outpolled in England by the
>> Tories, yet retains a working majority in Westminster. NB. Westminster
>> has Scottish MPs, but Holyrood does not have English MPs.
>
> Do you want devolution for England, then?
Yes! The populace of the Celtic fringe are not the only ones to question the
point of the 'shackles'. Within the glorious project that is the EU, why do
we need a UK government? The inevitable inbalance of any UK 'federation'
suggests to me that even English devolution might not, in time, prove to be
sufficient.
Also, it would give England the chance to rethink it's identity, which has
been long obscured by the (obscure) concept of 'Britishness', and where it
has existed it has sadly often been associated with the right wing,
hooliganism and general brigandry. Personally, I am English and European,
perhaps in equal measure.
I keep quiet about my Welsh grandmother.
Arkady
|
|
|
| Re: OT UK General Election [message #32167 ] |
Mo, 09 Mai 2005 20:12 |
|
In article <iDwfe.28045$G8.11709 [at] text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
spamgard [at] blueyonder.co.uk says...
> Pete Gray <news [at] redbadge.co.uk> wrote:
> > In article <Xns965094618CCA5jimlaker2yahoocom [at] 81.174.12.30>,
> > jim.laker2 [at] yahoo.com says...
> >
> >> Didn't notice them, since the most significant stat was the size of
> >> Labour's majority. After all, HM's opposition is assumed to vote en
> >> bloc against HM's government, so the precise makeup of the oppo
> >> doesn't get as much of an airing. What is being analysed (by Kennedy
> >> and others) is why the LibDems lost net seats to the Tories when
> >> they'd expected significant gains.
> >
> > I have been wondering about this. Perhaps Labour's brilliant 'vote Lib
> > Dem, get Tory' campaign worked sufficiently on Labour voters in the
> > Tory marginals to the extent that what actually happened was they
> > voted Labour and got ... a Tory MP.
>
> But that advice was only aimed at Labour voters in the Labour-Tory
> marginals, rather than the Labour voters in the Lib Dem-Tory marginals.
> Surely you aren't suggesting that the Labour voters in the Lib Dem-Tory
> marginals got the wrong end of the stick? :-)
>
No, I was just being facetious. As you guessed ;-)
[Blunkett returns]
> I'm not entirely sure we ever found out what happened in the Blunkett
> scandel, but I agree that bringing him back so soon does send mixed
He arranged for officals to 'fast track' a visa application. But par for
the course for the man who kept re-appointing Peter Mandelson, no matter
how many times he blotted his copybook. Of course Blair, Mandelson and
Blunkett do represent essentially 'Old Labour' areas, where the local
council and MPs have been Labour for generations, and are effectively
steeped in corruption. So maybe they really can't see what's wrong. It
just seems at times as if the whole Blair Project (there's a joke in
here waiting to be formed I suspect) has no _moral_ foundation, and that
for them 'Do what is expedient shall be the whole of the law'.
> signals. As for Blair's speech about having listened and learned, I
> think the exact quote was something like "we have listened and learned
> and will respond sensibly and wisely", which translates as "we have
> listened, we think we have learned, and we will carry on doing what we
> think is best, rather than what people say they want, I mean do you
> really want us to listen to you?"
Indeed. Tony and his cronies _know_ what is right. To quote CS Lewis:
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may
be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons
than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may
sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those
who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do
so with the approval of their consciences."
And to quote my dad:
"His mind's made up. Don't confuse him with the facts."
--
Pete Gray
Say No to ID Cards <http://www.no2id.net>
<http://www.redbadge.co.uk/no2idcards/>
|
|
|
| Re: OT UK General Election [message #32169 ] |
Mo, 09 Mai 2005 20:46 |
|
>>> > Do you want devolution for England, then?
>>>
>>> Not if it means we'll get a Tory government.
>>
>> Shouldn't the English be entitled to vote in a Tory government if
>> that's what they support?
>
> They should be entitled to it. It doesn't mean that I want it.
LOL! I couldn't agree more. But then, with a sensible PR system in place,
even in England the government would likely be a 'Lib-Lab' (is it just me,
or does that sound a bit naughty?) coalition, at least in the short term. I
guess we could predict the emergence of other small parties such as the
Greens over time...
Arky
|
|
|
| Re: OT UK General Election [message #32170 ] |
Mo, 09 Mai 2005 20:47 |
|
> Didn't notice them, since the most significant stat was the size of
> Labour's majority. After all, HM's opposition is assumed to vote en
> bloc against HM's government, so the precise makeup of the oppo
> doesn't get as much of an airing. What is being analysed (by Kennedy
> and others) is why the LibDems lost net seats to the Tories when
> they'd expected significant gains.
I'm not sure it matters. It's Labour seats they need to take to increase in
size. Interestingly they are now usually the second party in the Labour
heartland, and often very close. See the Lib Dem takovers in University
towns (nearly even Durham!), their control of Liverpool council, etc.
Another consequence of this is that it become harder for the Tories to form
a majority, which is nice.
>>> I wonder what Flame thinks of his theory that Scotland should
>>> throw off the domination of the English. Labour was outpolled in
>>> England by the Tories, yet retains a working majority in
>>> Westminster. NB. Westminster has Scottish MPs, but Holyrood does
>>> not have English MPs.
>>
>> Do you want devolution for England, then?
>
> Not if it means we'll get a Tory government.
>
> Were you still up for Twigg?
Aye, poor bastard didn't look happy. I won't miss him though, even if he did
unseat Portillo.
Arky
|
|
|
| Re: OT UK General Election [message #32171 ] |
Mo, 09 Mai 2005 21:07 |
|
In article <X%wfe.28075$G8.13759 [at] text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
spamgard [at] blueyonder.co.uk says...
> Yuk Tang <jim.laker2 [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > For Russ and co: George Galloway, the chap alleged to have taken
> > bribes from Saddam (according to the Telegraph), was elected on a
> > huge swing from Labour. His manifesto? To 'hound Blair out'.
>
How hard can it be to hound out of office someone who has already said
they will be resigning before the next election?
> And his latest speeches saying things like: "I will make it my mission
> to see Blair brought to the Hague court and put behind bars" (for crimes
> against humanity, presumably). Galloway was elected in the constituency
I'd always thought of Galloway as merely a pompous, publicity-seeking
windbag. I was wrong. I see now that he is a self-regarding, rude,
stupid, pompous, publicity-seeking windbag. Presumably he only sucks up
to really brutal dictators?
> of Bethnal Green and Bow (East London) where there is a large proportion
> of Muslim voters. Jack Straw (Foreign Secretary) faced a similar
> challenge in Blackburn, but survived (I think he even increased his
> majority). Straw's election night speech mentioned how outside
His majority fell by 1240, but there was also a fall in the Tory vote by
8.3% (BNP <spit> gained 5.4% and saved their deposit; an independent
scored 5%). Straw's share of the vote fell by 12.1%, so he suffered an
Iraq effect too but the opposition vote was split between LibDem (up by
12.5%) and Tories.
> organisations (from outside the constituency) had bussed people and
> protesters in, and he also mentioned intimidation and threats. But that
I have to say that, in my experience, old Labour in strongholds like
Blackburn are past masters at intimidation and threats. Of course Straw
is a leading member of the New Labour pseudocracy.
> is nothing compared to the Galloway-King battle, where they both
> regularly insulted each other with some very strong language.
>
> But for me, the defining 'Iraq' moment of the election was when Reginald
> Keys (the father of a military policeman who died in Iraq) made a speech
> after gaining 10% of the vote when he stood against Tony Blair. Keys'
> speech started out in a dignified manner, though his tone got more
> strident towards the end with direct attacks on Blair, when the BBC
> suddenly (for some reason) cut back to the studio. The riveting part of
Still running scared of Alistair Campbell, I guess.
> it was that the TV cameras were trained resolutely on Blair's face, and
> didn't he just know it. Blair somehow managed to stay impassive, with
I thought he looked really uncomfortable throughout, rather than
impassive.
> just an occassional swallow of the throat. Others say that Cherie Blair
> (his wife) was less able to prevent her (angry) feelings being shown by
> her expression, but I didn't see that personally.
Nor me.
>
> I can't wait to see how the above incidents and the whole 'Iraq' issue
> is covered in Tony Blair's biography. Do PMs always do a biography after
> they leave office?
Yes, it's part of their pension scheme. The rest of their pension is
paid from the money Gordon Brown stole from your and my pension schemes.
All these political autobiographies tend to be tedious lengthy exercises
in self-justification. Or maybe it will be the '1066 and all that'
version of the Boston Tea Party: "One day when Tony Blair was insane..."
--
Pete Gray
Say No to ID Cards <http://www.no2id.net>
<http://www.redbadge.co.uk/no2idcards/>
|
|
|
| Re: OT UK General Election [message #32172 ] |
Mo, 09 Mai 2005 21:08 |
|
Pete Gray wrote:
> He arranged for officals to 'fast track' a visa application. But par for
> the course for the man who kept re-appointing Peter Mandelson, no matter
> how many times he blotted his copybook. Of course Blair, Mandelson and
> Blunkett do represent essentially 'Old Labour' areas, where the local
> council and MPs have been Labour for generations, and are effectively
> steeped in corruption. So maybe they really can't see what's wrong. It
> just seems at times as if the whole Blair Project (there's a joke in
> here waiting to be formed I suspect) has no _moral_ foundation, and that
> for them 'Do what is expedient shall be the whole of the law'.
Maybe that is just the only way to survive in today's political world.
You can see in the USA, where Democrats have surrendered the monopoly
of political immorality to Republicans who now completely dominate
the entire political field, the results of such 'moral highground'.
It seems that Blair and co have realised what the US Democrats need
to realise as well - taht politics are a war, and you need to do
whatever it takes to win, simply because the consequences of letting
the enemy win are too disastrous to be an acceptable alternative.
Morgil
|
|
|
| Re: OT UK General Election [message #32173 ] |
So, 08 Mai 2005 21:58 |
|
"Christopher Kreuzer" <spamgard [at] blueyonder.co.uk> skrev i en meddelelse
news:G9xee.26112$G8.14855 [at] text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> I'm going to stick my neck out and make a prediction about the result of
> the UK General Election for 2005.
[...]
"Sarge, is a General Election a kind of a major election"?
Hrafn.
|
|
|
| Re: OT UK General Election [message #32180 ] |
Mo, 09 Mai 2005 23:56 |
|
TT Arvind wrote:
> Do you want devolution for England, then?
Apparently some do.
"The Battle for England"
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1052-1604182,00.html
-- FotW
Reality is for those who cannot cope with Middle-earth.
|
|
|
| Re: OT UK General Election [message #32186 ] |
Di, 10 Mai 2005 00:33 |
|
In article <tbPfe.1653$uv6.599 [at] news.get2net.dk>,
jonlennart.beck.god [at] damn.get2net.that.dk.spam says...
> "Christopher Kreuzer" <spamgard [at] blueyonder.co.uk> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:G9xee.26112$G8.14855 [at] text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> > I'm going to stick my neck out and make a prediction about the result of
> > the UK General Election for 2005.
>
> [...]
>
> "Sarge, is a General Election a kind of a major election"?
There is a colonel of truth in your suggestion, which I accept without
ranker. Give me a few private moments to marshall my facts, and I will
explain why lo-cal elections are less fattening.
--
Pete Gray
Say No to ID Cards <http://www.no2id.net>
<http://www.redbadge.co.uk/no2idcards/>
|
|
|
| Re: OT UK General Election [message #32187 ] |
Di, 10 Mai 2005 00:39 |
|
Wes šu Flame of the West hal!
> Apparently some do.
>
> "The Battle for England"
>
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1052-1604182,00.html
Oh yes, there's even a full-fledged "Campaign for an English
Parliament."
http://www.thecep.org.uk/
As an outsider in England, the existence of a distinctive "Englishness"
seems so utterly obvious that I often wonder how people can ever
question it.
--
Arvind
Mosquitos were created to make houseflies look better.
|
|
|
| Re: OT UK General Election [message #32188 ] |
Di, 10 Mai 2005 00:43 |
|
Wes šu Pete Gray hal!
> > "Sarge, is a General Election a kind of a major election"?
>
> There is a colonel of truth in your suggestion, which I accept without
> ranker. Give me a few private moments to marshall my facts, and I will
> explain why lo-cal elections are less fattening.
Are these officerial puns warranted?
--
Arvind
First Law of Socio-Genetics: Celibacy is not hereditary.
|
|
|
| Re: OT UK General Election [message #32189 ] |
Di, 10 Mai 2005 01:35 |
|
Pete Gray wrote:
> Elections to the Scottish Parliament use the 'Additional Member' system
> of FPTP constituencies plus regional lists -- you vote twice, once for
> your direct MSP, then again on the party ballot. Local elections next
> time will be in multi-member wards using STV:
> <http://www.eastlothian.gov.uk/content/0,1094,3323,00.html>
>
> The Electoral Reform Society (and the Jenkins Commission that Blair set
> up when he was still talking about reform) recommended AV+ a sort of
> combo-STV/AMS:
> < http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/publications/leaflets/avp lus.htm>
Jeez, you people sure make voting complicated! All
this AV+/combo-STV/AMS stuff sounds more like audio
formats or something than voting systems.
-- FotW
Reality is for those who cannot cope with Middle-earth.
|
|
|
| Re: OT UK General Election [message #32190 ] |
Di, 10 Mai 2005 01:39 |
|
Arkady wrote:
> Aye, poor bastard didn't look happy. I won't miss him though, even if he did
> unseat Portillo.
Don't be a homophobe.
-- FotW
Reality is for those who cannot cope with Middle-earth.
|
|
|
| Re: OT UK General Election [message #32191 ] |
Di, 10 Mai 2005 01:44 |
|
Raven wrote:
> "Sarge, is a General Election a kind of a major election"?
Enough of your private jokes.
-- FotW
Reality is for those who cannot cope with Middle-earth.
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Sa Mai 26 11:04:46 CEST 2012
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,09061 Sekunden |
