Election Day in UK
-
Who Shot Sam?
- Posts: 7097
- Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 5:05 pm
- Location: Somewhere in the distance
- Contact:
-
Jackson Monk
- Posts: 1919
- Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2003 4:33 pm
- Location: At the other end of the telescope
God, it is so depressing 
Blair or Howard or the ginger bloke with an alcohol problem.
Even if Howard wasn 't a tory I'd hate him. His voice and the smarmy barristererial tones. His economic manifecto is riduculous and smacks of electioneering without substance. The fact that he spent a week of his campaign waffling on about travellers having too many rights sums him up. A pathetic rate of illiteracy in 11 year olds, crisis in the NHS dental service, big brother and speed cameras on every corner, taxes on everything except the boil on my arse (watch this space) and crime going through the roof. These are not issues for Micky boy. He's too busy moaning about an Irish gypsy parking his caravan on a posh bloke's land in Surrey.
Blair just cannot be trusted. He is a proven liar and self-publicist. He is also married to an alien (which worries me) and is good mates with an illiterate mad man from Texas. New Labour has had too big a majority for too long and have abused their power apallingly in relation to civil liberties. I feel as if I have to get government approval to take a dump. Then of course there is Iraq, the Millennium Dome and the pothole in my road that never gets repaired.
Ginger bloke is about as convincing as Geri Halliwell playing Mother Teresa of Calcutta in a biopic. He looks and sounds as if he should be teaching geography in a sub-standard Secondary School in Chipping Ongar (or some other anonymous place).
Overall it's not very inspiring is it? Tactical voting for me. Blair will get back in, but I'll play my part in ensuring that the majority is reduced so that he finds it harder to get his many draconion bills pushed through without opposition.
Now....I'm off to vandalise a few speed cameras.....
Blair or Howard or the ginger bloke with an alcohol problem.
Even if Howard wasn 't a tory I'd hate him. His voice and the smarmy barristererial tones. His economic manifecto is riduculous and smacks of electioneering without substance. The fact that he spent a week of his campaign waffling on about travellers having too many rights sums him up. A pathetic rate of illiteracy in 11 year olds, crisis in the NHS dental service, big brother and speed cameras on every corner, taxes on everything except the boil on my arse (watch this space) and crime going through the roof. These are not issues for Micky boy. He's too busy moaning about an Irish gypsy parking his caravan on a posh bloke's land in Surrey.
Blair just cannot be trusted. He is a proven liar and self-publicist. He is also married to an alien (which worries me) and is good mates with an illiterate mad man from Texas. New Labour has had too big a majority for too long and have abused their power apallingly in relation to civil liberties. I feel as if I have to get government approval to take a dump. Then of course there is Iraq, the Millennium Dome and the pothole in my road that never gets repaired.
Ginger bloke is about as convincing as Geri Halliwell playing Mother Teresa of Calcutta in a biopic. He looks and sounds as if he should be teaching geography in a sub-standard Secondary School in Chipping Ongar (or some other anonymous place).
Overall it's not very inspiring is it? Tactical voting for me. Blair will get back in, but I'll play my part in ensuring that the majority is reduced so that he finds it harder to get his many draconion bills pushed through without opposition.
Now....I'm off to vandalise a few speed cameras.....
corruptio optimi pessima
-
laughingcrow
- Posts: 2476
- Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2003 8:35 am
Anyone read Billy Bragg's article in the Independent this week?
Billy Bragg: You can help the Lib Dems by voting Labour
To anti-war friends, I say: if you want a left-of-centre goverment, then vote tactically
02 May 2005
I have a number of friends who are telling me that they won't be voting in the coming election. Natural Labour supporters, they cannot bring themselves to vote for a government that took us to war. While I share their opposition to the invasion of Iraq, I strongly disagree with their decision not to vote.
The arguments we have sound a lot like the dialogue between Little Britain's Lou and Andy:
"What do you want from this election?"
"Want to punish New Labour."
"But that means they'll lose lots of seats to the Tories."
"Yeah, I know."
"But you don't like the Tories."
"Yeah, I know."
"You're against the war. The Tories voted for the war and you want to reward them."
"Yeah, I know."
I just hope that, the morning after the election, my friends are not looking at a victorious Conservative Party and glumly saying: "Don't want that one. Want that one."
Because there is just no way of "punishing" New Labour without rewarding the Tories. Of the 77 seats the Government has to retain to stay in power, only a handful are vulnerable to the Liberal Democrats. The rest, if they fall, will go to Michael Howard.
Even if Blair wins with a reduced majority, as some hope, Labour abstentions will have helped to create a resurgent Conservative Party who will feel that there is political capital to be gained by pandering to racism.
The truth is that Howard is relying on my anti-war friends staying at home on election day. That's why he is spending the last few days of the campaign attacking the Prime Minister. He knows that many progressives are very angry with Blair and hopes they will think of that on polling day, rather than the possibility of a Conservative government.
Knowing that a low turnout will favour the Tories, Howard has stirred up hatred of immigrants in the hope of bringing his core supporters to the polling station, and is now promoting hatred of Blair to keep Labour supporters away.
Progressive voters, particularly those in seats which only Labour or the Conservatives can win, face hard choices: vote Labour and Blair will see the result as a vindication of his term in office, pushing for more "unremittingly New Labour" policies and greater closeness with George Bush. Cast a protest vote and run the risk that a Tory MP will be elected. Faced with these two outcomes, is it any wonder that some might seek to wash their hands of the whole process by abstaining?
Yet there is a third outcome on offer at this election - one which could help shift the centre of gravity of British politics to the left. The Liberal Democrats are hoping to make big gains at this election. They have a realistic chance of taking 75-plus seats, giving them their biggest-ever total. Yet this would make little difference to the parliamentary arithmetic if the Tories win, say, 200 seats while Labour scrapes home with a workable majority.
It would be a pyrrhic victory for the Liberal Democrats if, having defeated Oliver Letwin in West Dorset, their supporters in seats like neighbouring South Dorset vote in a way that helps the Tories to win that seat back from Labour. Cynics would still claim that a Liberal Democrat vote is a wasted vote.
In order for the Liberal Democrats to come out of this election with the momentum to challenge New Labour, the Tories must not prosper. At the last election, tactical voting kept Tory gains to the absolute minimum - they only took one seat in the whole country.
This time, given the presence of UKIP, tactical voting could result in the Tories losing seats - maybe as many as 30. If that happens, the Conservative Party will go into a tailspin, clearing the way for the Liberal Democrats to become the official opposition.
However, for this third outcome to unfold, Liberal Democrat supporters in seats that only Labour or the Tories are capable of winning will have to act in the long-term interest of their party by voting tactically for the Labour candidate.
I realise that this will not be easy for them - many feel very strongly about Iraq. But look what has happened in Scotland. There, Liberal Democrats have forced New Labour to move to the left on issues such as tuition fees and care for the elderly.
I believe if the Liberal Democrats were to replace the Tories as the official opposition at Westminster, a New Labour administration would be forced to tack left to deal with the perceived threat.
So I say to my anti-war friends: if you want left-of-centre government, then vote tactically by supporting whichever party will defeat the Tories. It is the best way to reward the Liberal Democrats for their principled stance on the war
Billy Bragg: You can help the Lib Dems by voting Labour
To anti-war friends, I say: if you want a left-of-centre goverment, then vote tactically
02 May 2005
I have a number of friends who are telling me that they won't be voting in the coming election. Natural Labour supporters, they cannot bring themselves to vote for a government that took us to war. While I share their opposition to the invasion of Iraq, I strongly disagree with their decision not to vote.
The arguments we have sound a lot like the dialogue between Little Britain's Lou and Andy:
"What do you want from this election?"
"Want to punish New Labour."
"But that means they'll lose lots of seats to the Tories."
"Yeah, I know."
"But you don't like the Tories."
"Yeah, I know."
"You're against the war. The Tories voted for the war and you want to reward them."
"Yeah, I know."
I just hope that, the morning after the election, my friends are not looking at a victorious Conservative Party and glumly saying: "Don't want that one. Want that one."
Because there is just no way of "punishing" New Labour without rewarding the Tories. Of the 77 seats the Government has to retain to stay in power, only a handful are vulnerable to the Liberal Democrats. The rest, if they fall, will go to Michael Howard.
Even if Blair wins with a reduced majority, as some hope, Labour abstentions will have helped to create a resurgent Conservative Party who will feel that there is political capital to be gained by pandering to racism.
The truth is that Howard is relying on my anti-war friends staying at home on election day. That's why he is spending the last few days of the campaign attacking the Prime Minister. He knows that many progressives are very angry with Blair and hopes they will think of that on polling day, rather than the possibility of a Conservative government.
Knowing that a low turnout will favour the Tories, Howard has stirred up hatred of immigrants in the hope of bringing his core supporters to the polling station, and is now promoting hatred of Blair to keep Labour supporters away.
Progressive voters, particularly those in seats which only Labour or the Conservatives can win, face hard choices: vote Labour and Blair will see the result as a vindication of his term in office, pushing for more "unremittingly New Labour" policies and greater closeness with George Bush. Cast a protest vote and run the risk that a Tory MP will be elected. Faced with these two outcomes, is it any wonder that some might seek to wash their hands of the whole process by abstaining?
Yet there is a third outcome on offer at this election - one which could help shift the centre of gravity of British politics to the left. The Liberal Democrats are hoping to make big gains at this election. They have a realistic chance of taking 75-plus seats, giving them their biggest-ever total. Yet this would make little difference to the parliamentary arithmetic if the Tories win, say, 200 seats while Labour scrapes home with a workable majority.
It would be a pyrrhic victory for the Liberal Democrats if, having defeated Oliver Letwin in West Dorset, their supporters in seats like neighbouring South Dorset vote in a way that helps the Tories to win that seat back from Labour. Cynics would still claim that a Liberal Democrat vote is a wasted vote.
In order for the Liberal Democrats to come out of this election with the momentum to challenge New Labour, the Tories must not prosper. At the last election, tactical voting kept Tory gains to the absolute minimum - they only took one seat in the whole country.
This time, given the presence of UKIP, tactical voting could result in the Tories losing seats - maybe as many as 30. If that happens, the Conservative Party will go into a tailspin, clearing the way for the Liberal Democrats to become the official opposition.
However, for this third outcome to unfold, Liberal Democrat supporters in seats that only Labour or the Tories are capable of winning will have to act in the long-term interest of their party by voting tactically for the Labour candidate.
I realise that this will not be easy for them - many feel very strongly about Iraq. But look what has happened in Scotland. There, Liberal Democrats have forced New Labour to move to the left on issues such as tuition fees and care for the elderly.
I believe if the Liberal Democrats were to replace the Tories as the official opposition at Westminster, a New Labour administration would be forced to tack left to deal with the perceived threat.
So I say to my anti-war friends: if you want left-of-centre government, then vote tactically by supporting whichever party will defeat the Tories. It is the best way to reward the Liberal Democrats for their principled stance on the war
I have to hand it to my friends across the pond, when you decide its election time you don't f*&% around. The elections were announced something like five weeks ago and here you go. So much better than these 18 month campaigns we hold in the U.S. Everyone knows the differences as you are voting more for parties and less for people (or so it seems to me).
I remember being so excited when Labour took over from the Major/Thatcher axis. Still, his closeness to Bush has let me down. I think if the UK had played tough with the U.S. like France and Germany did, there would have been more of a chance that things would have gone down differently.
How do our UK friends and ex-pats on the board view Blair other than on the Iraq war?
I remember being so excited when Labour took over from the Major/Thatcher axis. Still, his closeness to Bush has let me down. I think if the UK had played tough with the U.S. like France and Germany did, there would have been more of a chance that things would have gone down differently.
How do our UK friends and ex-pats on the board view Blair other than on the Iraq war?
-
laughingcrow
- Posts: 2476
- Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2003 8:35 am
-
PlaythingOrPet
- Posts: 959
- Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2003 9:42 am
What Doofster said.Jackson Monk wrote:Overall it's not very inspiring is it? Tactical voting for me. Blair will get back in, but I'll play my part in ensuring that the majority is reduced so that he finds it harder to get his many draconion bills pushed through without opposition.
I'm currently your friendly Hammersmith & Fulham poll clerk. Up since four this morning, now I'm having my break, then it's back until at least 11.30 tonight. Not the best idea I've ever had.
-
Who Shot Sam?
- Posts: 7097
- Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 5:05 pm
- Location: Somewhere in the distance
- Contact:
It's all senior citizens where I live. We used to vote at the Admiral Halsey Senior Village - depressing as hell.PlaythingOrPet wrote:I'm currently your friendly Hammersmith & Fulham poll clerk. Up since four this morning, now I'm having my break, then it's back until at least 11.30 tonight. Not the best idea I've ever had.
Mother, Moose-Hunter, Maverick
Not sure how much you are hearing international, but we are finding ourselves in a comparable situation here in Canada.
Like the UK, the Canadian government can basically call an election whenever. Our current PM, Paul Martin (of the Liberal Party) found his party in a bit of a scandal involving secret spending of tax payers dollars on advertising during the last Prime Minister's last term.
The Conservative party is so riled up that they are ready to call an election immediately (which they can, since we are currently operating under a minority government).
We'll be stuck in a similar situation as the one in England right now.. do we vote for the Conservative Stephen Harper, who essentially agrees with everything about Dubya, the lying Liberal Paul Martin, or the New Democratic Party leader Jack Layton, who has forward thinking policies but doesn't have a chance in hell
Like the UK, the Canadian government can basically call an election whenever. Our current PM, Paul Martin (of the Liberal Party) found his party in a bit of a scandal involving secret spending of tax payers dollars on advertising during the last Prime Minister's last term.
The Conservative party is so riled up that they are ready to call an election immediately (which they can, since we are currently operating under a minority government).
We'll be stuck in a similar situation as the one in England right now.. do we vote for the Conservative Stephen Harper, who essentially agrees with everything about Dubya, the lying Liberal Paul Martin, or the New Democratic Party leader Jack Layton, who has forward thinking policies but doesn't have a chance in hell
This morning you've got time for a hot, home-cooked breakfast! Delicious and piping hot in only 3 microwave minutes.
-
noiseradio
- Posts: 2295
- Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 12:04 pm
- Location: Dallas, TX
- Contact:
-
Who Shot Sam?
- Posts: 7097
- Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 5:05 pm
- Location: Somewhere in the distance
- Contact:
-
so lacklustre
- Posts: 3183
- Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 2:36 pm
- Location: half way to bliss
Apart from I-rack, Blair hasn't done a bad job (the economy is stronger and more stable than at any point in my lifetime and the other things I care about - Education/NHS/transport are safer in Labour's hands than the Tories, even though Blair hasn't exactly delivered as much as I had hoped). You can't really trust him but which of the power hungry egomaniacal party leaders can you trust? Imo the oohkays support of shubbery made little effect (sp?) on events in I-rack. I thought about voting tactically but couldn't bring myself to vote for the Liberal Democrats (who are likely to be second behind the Tories in my constituency, which has been blue for 80 years) despite agreeing with a lot of their policies. The nightmare is for the Tories to win it on apathy/protest votes. We'd be in major trouble if Howard comes to power.
signed with love and vicious kisses
-
Otis Westinghouse
- Posts: 8856
- Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 3:32 pm
- Location: The theatre of dreams
Agree with this apart from not voting tactically in your area, and with Bragg. In the heat of the moment, I vowed I would never vote Labour, or rather Blair, again. I'm hoping a vote for them = a vote for Brown as PM at some point during the third term. He has more integrity than Blair, and is smarter. Their campaign love-in has been a laugh. In Britain you definitely need to vote tactically to avoid the worst outcome. Where I live is a Labour stronghold, 8,000 or so majority last time, and though that might decline somewhat from the anti-war student vote, they'll still get in for sure. If I lived in a constituency where it was genuinely between Tories and Lib Dem, I wouldn't dream of voting Labour.
There's more to life than books, you know, but not much more
-
miss buenos aires
- Posts: 2055
- Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2003 7:15 am
- Location: jcnj
- Contact:
I found this tidbit in a British gossip email newsletter to which I subscribe:
>> Gorgeous George <<
Are you thinking what he's thinking?
We'd be getting more excited about the election
if the leading MPs were more like George Brown,
the deputy leader of the Labour Party during the
1960s. A noted drunk, George's finest hour came
at a London diplomatic reception. As the band
struck up the first number, he approached a
potential conquest in a long, red velvet dress
and asked, "Beautiful lady in scarlet, may I have
the next dance?"
"Certainly not!" came the reply.
"Why not?" asked George.
"In the first place you are drunk. "In the
second, this is not actually a waltz but the
Hungarian national anthem; and, thirdly, I am not
a beautiful lady in scarlet, I am, in fact,
the papal nuncio Archbishop Mancini."
I'm all for tactical voting...or anything that give us plebs any power whatsoever. It never seems to work here in the U.S....but it appears that the UK has the best possible outcome from a progressive prospective. Labour's in but, according to what I'm seeing, Blair may be out in not too long.
It's nice to see that someone, somewhere, is paying a price...here, we give our pre-war liars (and possibly far more mendacious ones than Blair) medals.
It's nice to see that someone, somewhere, is paying a price...here, we give our pre-war liars (and possibly far more mendacious ones than Blair) medals.
http://www.forwardtoyesterday.com -- Where "hopelessly dated" is a compliment!