Can someone explain to this confused American what the hell is going on i the UK
Why is Labour getting their ass kicked in every election. I did notice when you add Labour with Liberal Dem votes they still outnumber the Conservatives. Is it time for Gordon Brown to exit. Maybe Labour and the Liberal Dems can form some informal coalition to keep the Tories out. Just my thoughts I am no expert on the UK political system Your elections seem more honest and practical then ours This is strange.
The New York Times
Printer Friendly Format Sponsored By
May 24, 2008
Tory Wins a Bastion of Labor
By JOHN F. BURNS
CREWE, England — Voters in this old railway town in Britain’s industrial Midlands have sent a powerful message to Prime Minister Gordon Brown and the governing Labor Party, electing a Conservative candidate by a wide margin in a parliamentary constituency that had been a Labor bastion for decades.
Overturning a Labor majority that had been more than 7,000 votes at the general election in 2005, the Conservative candidate, Edward Timpson, inflicted a heavy defeat on the Labor candidate, Tamsin Dunwoody. In the results of the by-election, which were announced in the early hours of Friday, the Conservative majority over Labor was more than 7,800 votes, representing an 18 percent increase in the Conservative vote in the constituency three years ago.
A turnout of nearly 60 percent in the constituency, Crewe and Nantwich, yielded the first Conservative gain from Labor in a by-election since 1978, when a Conservative victory in the Ilford constituency east of London foreshadowed Margaret Thatcher’s landslide general election win the following year.
In Thursday’s vote, Mr. Timpson won 49 percent to Ms. Dunwoody’s 30 percent, with Britain’s third major party, the Liberal Democrats, taking 14 percent. The final tally gave Mr. Timpson 20,539 votes compared to 12,679 for Ms. Dunwoody and 6,040 for the Liberal Democrats.
In Britain, as in many other countries, by-elections can produce results that prove poor predictors of the voting patterns in general elections, and pundits here were cautious in projecting what Thursday’s result might portend for the next general election, which must be held by May 2010. But the scale of Labor’s defeat, and the fact that the vote became a virtual referendum on the performance of Mr. Brown, who leads the Labor Party, appeared ominous for the prime minister and his party.
For Mr. Brown, who has led the government for less than 11 months since taking over from Tony Blair, the result was a severe embarrassment and seemed certain to provoke new restlessness within Labor ranks, if not a push for his resignation. Both Conservative and Labor committed the full force of their national political organizations here, and officials of the two parties said that Mr. Brown’s uncertain performance as prime minister was the burning issue on voters’ doorsteps.
The vote was the second this month in which Labor has taken a severe pummeling. Three weeks ago, the job of London’s mayor was won by Boris Johnson, the Conservative candidate, by a 140,000-vote margin over the Labor incumbent, Ken Livingstone. In that campaign, too, the widespread unpopularity of Labor and of Mr. Brown appeared to have been a decisive factor, prompting a growing sense that Britain’s electorate is growing tired of Labor, which has ruled the country for the past 11 years. In local elections across other parts of Britain on the day of the London vote, Labor picked up only 24 percent of the total vote, against 45 percent for the Conservatives, and lost more than 300 council seats.
A large part of Labor’s problem has been the accelerating economic slowdown in Britain after more than a decade of unparalleled prosperity. The credit crunch that began in the United States reached Britain in full force over the winter, leading to falling housing prices, rising inflation and widespread job losses, particularly in the financial sector. The rapid rise in oil prices has added to the gloom, with the price of a gallon of gasoline at British pumps now at more than $10 a gallon, about 70 percent of which goes to the government in taxes.
Mr. Brown, 57, was bound to pay a political price for the economic problems, particularly since he served 10 years under Mr. Blair as chancellor of the Exchequer, Britain’s finance minister, and often boasted of his success in the years of prosperity, just as he has been saying lately that he is the man to guide Britain out of its current problems. But opinion polls have shown a sharp turn in the public mood against him personally, in ways that appear linked in part to the issue of personality and in part to a series of government blunders.
Mr. Blair, now traveling the world making handsomely compensated speeches, serving as a special Middle East envoy and earning millions as a consultant to banks and investment houses, continues to throw his own shadow over his successor. Although Britons tired of Mr. Blair over the Iraq war, effectively forcing his resignation after three successive election victories, he is remembered now as a debonair, intellectually agile figure who seemed in tune with a country in the process of rapid social and economic change.
Mr. Brown, whose relentless efforts to push Mr. Blair into handing over the prime minister’s job have been richly chronicled in a recent spate of memoirs by Labor insiders, including one by Cherie Blair, the former prime minister’s wife, has cut a contrasting figure since taking over as head of the government last June. Earnest but dour, hard-working but humorless, always laden with statistics-laden chronicles of Labor achievements, he has seemed dull and cumbersome in comparison to Mr. Blair, in the view of many Britons.
In the Crewe by-election, all this was compounded by widespread anger, especially among traditional Labor voters, over what has come to be seen as the worst of the government’s miscues, a decision by Mr. Brown, while still finance minister last year, to eliminate the 10 percent income tax bracket for Britain’s poorest-paid workers. As a cavalcade of Labor ministers returned to London from campaigning in Crewe this month with word of the disdain for Labor among its own past voters, Mr. Brown sought to limit the political damage by announcing a tax cut for 22 million taxpayers, amounting to $5.3 billion.
But the move appeared to backfire in Crewe, with many voters describing it as a political bribe. Notably, Mr. Brown made no campaign appearances in Crewe, prompting David Cameron, 41, the Conservative leader, to accuse Mr. Brown of hunkering down in his Downing Street “bunker.”
Labor’s loss in Crewe was also attributed, among some of the party’s own officials, to a badly mismanaged local campaign that seemed a throwback to the party’s reflexes before Mr. Blair led the reform movement that became known as New Labor. With advice from Mr. Brown’s political advisers, Ms. Dunwoody, the Labor candidate, accused Mr. Timpson, the Conservative, who is heir to Britain’s largest chain of shoe-repair and key-cutting shops, of being a “toff,” a British term for an upper-class dandy. The intention was to make Mr. Timpson a surrogate for Mr. Cameron, the Eton- and Oxford-educated Conservative leader, who has been accused by Labor of being out of touch with ordinary Britons.
If this seemed a far cry from Mr. Blair’s approach, which was characterized by his declaration after taking office in 1997 that “the class war is over,” it was enthusiastically supported by Labor’s old left-wing, unionist base. But the approach appeared to backfire, with the Conservatives depicting Ms. Dunwoody, whose grandmother was Labor’s general secretary, as Labor “aristocracy” and as a practitioner of “hereditary” politics, since she was seeking to win the parliamentary seat that had been held for 34 years by her mother, Gwyneth Dunwoody, whose death last month led to the by-election.
The Conservatives also took advantage of the discovery that one of the leading registers of British aristocracy, Burke’s Peerage, includes Ms. Dunwoody among its entries, for her family’s long history in the Labor movement, but not Mr. Timpson.
Full Version: Labour In Free Fall
Well jamesleo, you could do worse than starting here 
QUOTE
The result looks less like an old-fashioned protest vote against clueless candidates or an increasingly incompetent ruling party, and more like an expression of exhaustion with the political class.
QUOTE(jamesleo @ May 23 2008, 04:39 PM) 
Can someone explain to this confused American what the hell is going on i the UK
Why is Labour getting their ass kicked in every election. I did notice when you add Labour with Liberal Dem votes they still outnumber the Conservatives. Is it time for Gordon Brown to exit. Maybe Labour and the Liberal Dems can form some informal coalition to keep the Tories out. Just my thoughts I am no expert on the UK political system Your elections seem more honest and practical then ours This is strange.
The New York Times
Printer Friendly Format Sponsored By
May 24, 2008
Tory Wins a Bastion of Labor
By JOHN F. BURNS
CREWE, England — Voters in this old railway town in Britain’s industrial Midlands have sent a powerful message to Prime Minister Gordon Brown and the governing Labor Party, electing a Conservative candidate by a wide margin in a parliamentary constituency that had been a Labor bastion for decades.
Overturning a Labor majority that had been more than 7,000 votes at the general election in 2005, the Conservative candidate, Edward Timpson, inflicted a heavy defeat on the Labor candidate, Tamsin Dunwoody. In the results of the by-election, which were announced in the early hours of Friday, the Conservative majority over Labor was more than 7,800 votes, representing an 18 percent increase in the Conservative vote in the constituency three years ago.
A turnout of nearly 60 percent in the constituency, Crewe and Nantwich, yielded the first Conservative gain from Labor in a by-election since 1978, when a Conservative victory in the Ilford constituency east of London foreshadowed Margaret Thatcher’s landslide general election win the following year.
In Thursday’s vote, Mr. Timpson won 49 percent to Ms. Dunwoody’s 30 percent, with Britain’s third major party, the Liberal Democrats, taking 14 percent. The final tally gave Mr. Timpson 20,539 votes compared to 12,679 for Ms. Dunwoody and 6,040 for the Liberal Democrats.
In Britain, as in many other countries, by-elections can produce results that prove poor predictors of the voting patterns in general elections, and pundits here were cautious in projecting what Thursday’s result might portend for the next general election, which must be held by May 2010. But the scale of Labor’s defeat, and the fact that the vote became a virtual referendum on the performance of Mr. Brown, who leads the Labor Party, appeared ominous for the prime minister and his party.
For Mr. Brown, who has led the government for less than 11 months since taking over from Tony Blair, the result was a severe embarrassment and seemed certain to provoke new restlessness within Labor ranks, if not a push for his resignation. Both Conservative and Labor committed the full force of their national political organizations here, and officials of the two parties said that Mr. Brown’s uncertain performance as prime minister was the burning issue on voters’ doorsteps.
The vote was the second this month in which Labor has taken a severe pummeling. Three weeks ago, the job of London’s mayor was won by Boris Johnson, the Conservative candidate, by a 140,000-vote margin over the Labor incumbent, Ken Livingstone. In that campaign, too, the widespread unpopularity of Labor and of Mr. Brown appeared to have been a decisive factor, prompting a growing sense that Britain’s electorate is growing tired of Labor, which has ruled the country for the past 11 years. In local elections across other parts of Britain on the day of the London vote, Labor picked up only 24 percent of the total vote, against 45 percent for the Conservatives, and lost more than 300 council seats.
A large part of Labor’s problem has been the accelerating economic slowdown in Britain after more than a decade of unparalleled prosperity. The credit crunch that began in the United States reached Britain in full force over the winter, leading to falling housing prices, rising inflation and widespread job losses, particularly in the financial sector. The rapid rise in oil prices has added to the gloom, with the price of a gallon of gasoline at British pumps now at more than $10 a gallon, about 70 percent of which goes to the government in taxes.
Mr. Brown, 57, was bound to pay a political price for the economic problems, particularly since he served 10 years under Mr. Blair as chancellor of the Exchequer, Britain’s finance minister, and often boasted of his success in the years of prosperity, just as he has been saying lately that he is the man to guide Britain out of its current problems. But opinion polls have shown a sharp turn in the public mood against him personally, in ways that appear linked in part to the issue of personality and in part to a series of government blunders.
Mr. Blair, now traveling the world making handsomely compensated speeches, serving as a special Middle East envoy and earning millions as a consultant to banks and investment houses, continues to throw his own shadow over his successor. Although Britons tired of Mr. Blair over the Iraq war, effectively forcing his resignation after three successive election victories, he is remembered now as a debonair, intellectually agile figure who seemed in tune with a country in the process of rapid social and economic change.
Mr. Brown, whose relentless efforts to push Mr. Blair into handing over the prime minister’s job have been richly chronicled in a recent spate of memoirs by Labor insiders, including one by Cherie Blair, the former prime minister’s wife, has cut a contrasting figure since taking over as head of the government last June. Earnest but dour, hard-working but humorless, always laden with statistics-laden chronicles of Labor achievements, he has seemed dull and cumbersome in comparison to Mr. Blair, in the view of many Britons.
In the Crewe by-election, all this was compounded by widespread anger, especially among traditional Labor voters, over what has come to be seen as the worst of the government’s miscues, a decision by Mr. Brown, while still finance minister last year, to eliminate the 10 percent income tax bracket for Britain’s poorest-paid workers. As a cavalcade of Labor ministers returned to London from campaigning in Crewe this month with word of the disdain for Labor among its own past voters, Mr. Brown sought to limit the political damage by announcing a tax cut for 22 million taxpayers, amounting to $5.3 billion.
But the move appeared to backfire in Crewe, with many voters describing it as a political bribe. Notably, Mr. Brown made no campaign appearances in Crewe, prompting David Cameron, 41, the Conservative leader, to accuse Mr. Brown of hunkering down in his Downing Street “bunker.”
Labor’s loss in Crewe was also attributed, among some of the party’s own officials, to a badly mismanaged local campaign that seemed a throwback to the party’s reflexes before Mr. Blair led the reform movement that became known as New Labor. With advice from Mr. Brown’s political advisers, Ms. Dunwoody, the Labor candidate, accused Mr. Timpson, the Conservative, who is heir to Britain’s largest chain of shoe-repair and key-cutting shops, of being a “toff,” a British term for an upper-class dandy. The intention was to make Mr. Timpson a surrogate for Mr. Cameron, the Eton- and Oxford-educated Conservative leader, who has been accused by Labor of being out of touch with ordinary Britons.
If this seemed a far cry from Mr. Blair’s approach, which was characterized by his declaration after taking office in 1997 that “the class war is over,” it was enthusiastically supported by Labor’s old left-wing, unionist base. But the approach appeared to backfire, with the Conservatives depicting Ms. Dunwoody, whose grandmother was Labor’s general secretary, as Labor “aristocracy” and as a practitioner of “hereditary” politics, since she was seeking to win the parliamentary seat that had been held for 34 years by her mother, Gwyneth Dunwoody, whose death last month led to the by-election.
The Conservatives also took advantage of the discovery that one of the leading registers of British aristocracy, Burke’s Peerage, includes Ms. Dunwoody among its entries, for her family’s long history in the Labor movement, but not Mr. Timpson.
First, it was inevitable that people would get bored, tired and disillusioned with the government; there comes a point when people start to vote for change for its own sake.
Second, the Conservatives are starting to look more electable than they have for fifteen years, whilst Labour are missing Blair's political skills.
Third, there have been a succession of 'events' beyond the government's control (the credit crunch, loss of data et cetera) that have damaged Labour unfairly.
However, fourth, the abolition of the 10p tax rate was a stupid blunder and the attempts to rectify it have been hamfisted.
Fifth, there is a feeling that Labour's investment in public services has failed to deliver results (which is partly true).
Sixth, traditional Labour voters increasingly feel that the leadership of the Party is out of touch over things like the smoking ban, the EU referendum, the tax issue and so on - and this is exacerbated by the way it presents itself; like him or loathe him, Prezza did genuinely represent a core constituency within the Party that no longer has a voice.
Seventh and most important, traditional Labour voters are starting to feel that the good times in economic terms didn't actually benefit them (and they are right, actually).
Finally, the 'toff-bashing' element of the campaign looked desperate, childish and pathetic; moreover, given that just a few weeks ago a Labour minister was telling us to 'celebrate wealth' it looked hypocritical.
Thank you for that insight. What is interesting is that the same occurrances are happenning to the GOP here as they are loosing in Louisiana and Mississippi traditional GOP strongholds Oh GOP = Grand Old Party.
According to David Cameron, leader of the UK Conservative Party, the result of the Crewe and Nantwich by-election signals ‘the end of New Labour’ and the beginnings of a ‘Tory revival’. Well, he’s half right. In fact, the most striking thing about the Crewe election is how negative it was. The huge vote for Cameron’s Conservatives was not a positive endorsement of his hollow, principle-free party, but rather an angry, tired rejection of the failed Labour project, and of the political elite itself. Crewe and Nantwich signals something rather more historic than a ‘Tory revival’: it shows that there is no mainstream party in Britain that voters can feel positive about today.
According to David Cameron, leader of the UK Conservative Party, the result of the Crewe and Nantwich by-election signals ‘the end of New Labour’ and the beginnings of a ‘Tory revival’. Well, he’s half right. In fact, the most striking thing about the Crewe election is how negative it was. The huge vote for Cameron’s Conservatives was not a positive endorsement of his hollow, principle-free party, but rather an angry, tired rejection of the failed Labour project, and of the political elite itself. Crewe and Nantwich signals something rather more historic than a ‘Tory revival’: it shows that there is no mainstream party in Britain that voters can feel positive about today.
QUOTE(damon @ May 23 2008, 05:29 PM)
Well jamesleo, you could do worse than starting here
QUOTE
The result looks less like an old-fashioned protest vote against clueless candidates or an increasingly incompetent ruling party, and more like an expression of exhaustion with the political class.
Except, of course, that turn-out was only marginally down on the General Election; and nearly 60% of the electorate were sufficiently engaged to conquer their 'exhaustion' and vote....
I shall await 'Spiked's' efforts to 'breathe life back into British politics' with interest.
QUOTE(jamesleo @ May 23 2008, 05:46 PM)
Thank you for that insight. What is interesting is that the same occurrances are happenning to the GOP here as they are loosing in Louisiana and Mississippi traditional GOP strongholds Oh GOP = Grand Old Party.
According to David Cameron, leader of the UK Conservative Party, the result of the Crewe and Nantwich by-election signals ‘the end of New Labour’ and the beginnings of a ‘Tory revival’. Well, he’s half right. In fact, the most striking thing about the Crewe election is how negative it was. The huge vote for Cameron’s Conservatives was not a positive endorsement of his hollow, principle-free party, but rather an angry, tired rejection of the failed Labour project, and of the political elite itself. Crewe and Nantwich signals something rather more historic than a ‘Tory revival’: it shows that there is no mainstream party in Britain that voters can feel positive about today.
I'm not sure that the Tories are 'principle-free' - I just think that they are taking their time about making it clear what exactly they stand for (and strategically, if not morally, that's probably sensible).
Two other points: one is that the really important fact over the last decade is that the Tory vote has tended to stay at home or shift. The key to electoral success is not so much to win opponents over, but to persuade the vaguely sympathetic to actually vote for you.
And also, as with the London mayoral election, the collapse of the Lib Dems is actually quite startling; most of their supporters have been natural Tories and they are now drifting back to the Conservatives. We might have seen the beginning of the end of New Labour, but what I think we have definitely seen is the beginning of a return to Two-Party politics....
I'am confused! We have been hearing that life and the standard of living in the UK is rising to the point that the average Brit is wealthier than the average American. We have thongs of folks coming here, taking advantage of our weak dollar, buying everything that isn't nailed down. Whats the problem
QUOTE(jamesleo @ May 23 2008, 06:43 PM)
I'am confused! We have been hearing that life and the standard of living in the UK is rising to the point that the average Brit is wealthier than the average American. We have thongs of folks coming here, taking advantage of our weak dollar, buying everything that isn't nailed down. Whats the problem
The benefits of the economic growth over the last decade or so have been very unevenly spread: the rich have got much, much richer. The reasonably affluent have done OK and so have some of the poor. But many of the poor have not benefited at all (New Labour have done quite a lot to reduce poverty for families with children, but single people on low pay have done very badly, for example). And the low paid have suffered from job insecurity and are, of course, more susceptible to inflation in the price of essentials (such as food and energy). Upward social mobility has actually declined in recent years - regardless of ethnic background. So kids born to low paid or unemployed parents have less chance of improving their position relative to their parents. And although employment is high, so is unemployment (because many of the 'new' jobs are so badly paid that they're only attractive to immigrant workers who don't have the expectations of workers born in the UK).
Over the last few months, inflation, job insecurity and the credit crunch have combined to make things worse for those who were doing reasonably well (though not very well) over the last ten years.
It comes down to the old point about 'average' statistics not giving a true picture.
QUOTE
Over the last few months, inflation, job insecurity and the credit crunch have combined to make things worse for those who were doing reasonably well (though not very well) over the last ten years.
Agree. People aren't just feeling poorer they are poorer. At over 7% Inflation on essential items like food and fuel is far higher than the underlying inflation rate of approx. 3%.
QUOTE
We have throngs of folks coming here, taking advantage of our weak dollar, buying everything that isn't nailed down.
Every item of clothing I'm currently wearing and more than half my wardrobe was purchased in the U.S. A pair of Levi's here would cost you at least £50 or roughly $100.
QUOTE
Maybe Labour and the Liberal Dems can form some informal coalition to keep the Tories out.
and that coalition will happen when hell freezes over and monkeys fly.
QUOTE(keri @ May 23 2008, 08:10 PM)
QUOTE
Maybe Labour and the Liberal Dems can form some informal coalition to keep the Tories out.
and that coalition will happen when hell freezes over and monkeys fly.
I tend to agree. The Lib Dems are dead in the water at the moment but you never can tell.
What confuses me is the effect of the Iraq War, It is my understanding the Iraq War/Occupation is very unpopular in the UK much more than in the US. if that is a fact, then the Liberal Democrats would benefit form voter anger not the Tories. How did that happen or has the war ceased to be an issue?
The people in australia stood up at the polls and now our troops are coming home in june..WooooooHooooo.
(how we lost only one up to the death of kovco should be questioned..three years and we only lost one soldier pretty amazing ..maybe its god looking after us..more like the war is fully controlled..my picture perfect dreams confirm this i dream the deaths before they occur but my dreams are picture perfect.)
We should never have been there in the first place but thats the difference between our liberal and labour goverment.. the whole world should pull out and let those people sort it out themselves..what right has any other country to tell another how to live...war has never solved anything..it just shows how uncivilised we all still are.
As for the rich getting richer and poor poorer its true the gap is getting bigger by the minute..while we struggle to afford morgatges, groceries ,petrol,the cost of bringing up our children..the fat cats are still lining there pockets..they really piss me off....greed its a sin..or it should be.
I must admit i think theaustralian people have chosen well..Kevin Rudd there is something i really like about the prime minister..Hope i never have to swallow those words.
(how we lost only one up to the death of kovco should be questioned..three years and we only lost one soldier pretty amazing ..maybe its god looking after us..more like the war is fully controlled..my picture perfect dreams confirm this i dream the deaths before they occur but my dreams are picture perfect.)
We should never have been there in the first place but thats the difference between our liberal and labour goverment.. the whole world should pull out and let those people sort it out themselves..what right has any other country to tell another how to live...war has never solved anything..it just shows how uncivilised we all still are.
As for the rich getting richer and poor poorer its true the gap is getting bigger by the minute..while we struggle to afford morgatges, groceries ,petrol,the cost of bringing up our children..the fat cats are still lining there pockets..they really piss me off....greed its a sin..or it should be.
I must admit i think theaustralian people have chosen well..Kevin Rudd there is something i really like about the prime minister..Hope i never have to swallow those words.
hello james 
how's things ?
i have no argument with any of the opinions expressed above (well i don't actually know what damond's opinion is
). )
goodness knows what the 'toff' thing was about
and as a commentator said, didn't they notice that london has just voted for the toff who is boris 
of course they may have thought that an ''old railway town in Britain’s industrial Midlands'' would have voted for their working class roots but they should have thought of that when new labour ditched the workers to court the middle classes and embraced capitalism with an enthusiasm that even maggie couldn't muster!
Tony Blair's generation were amongst the most upwardly mobile ever in UK history so the 'middle classes' may well have been brought up on old labour principals.
The Labour Party has long been seen as a party that had principals but couldn't actually run a country. Now they are seen as having no principals and can't run a country either. Who will vote for them now?? Not me, that's for sure.
One of the principals of old labour was a fairer voting system ... until they had such a huge majority that they didn't need it. Or they thought they didn't.
actually it isn't funny at all because now we ar stuck with the fuckin' tories for possibly a generation and there is no viable socialist alternative. 
As for the war, they ignored 1 million people out on the streets. Silly move. Many people may vote Liberal, james, but because of our voting system they are not going to get enough MPs to form a governmemt and neither main party will go into a coalition with them (or try to) unless they concede that they can't win outright.
how's things ?i have no argument with any of the opinions expressed above (well i don't actually know what damond's opinion is
). )goodness knows what the 'toff' thing was about
and as a commentator said, didn't they notice that london has just voted for the toff who is boris of course they may have thought that an ''old railway town in Britain’s industrial Midlands'' would have voted for their working class roots but they should have thought of that when new labour ditched the workers to court the middle classes and embraced capitalism with an enthusiasm that even maggie couldn't muster!
Tony Blair's generation were amongst the most upwardly mobile ever in UK history so the 'middle classes' may well have been brought up on old labour principals.
The Labour Party has long been seen as a party that had principals but couldn't actually run a country. Now they are seen as having no principals and can't run a country either. Who will vote for them now?? Not me, that's for sure.
One of the principals of old labour was a fairer voting system ... until they had such a huge majority that they didn't need it. Or they thought they didn't.
actually it isn't funny at all because now we ar stuck with the fuckin' tories for possibly a generation and there is no viable socialist alternative. As for the war, they ignored 1 million people out on the streets. Silly move. Many people may vote Liberal, james, but because of our voting system they are not going to get enough MPs to form a governmemt and neither main party will go into a coalition with them (or try to) unless they concede that they can't win outright.
New Labour were popular with the middle classes for as long as house prices were rising.
Now they are falling they are fucked. The New Labour economic miracle was an illusion based on massive borrowing.
The dark times cometh.
Now they are falling they are fucked. The New Labour economic miracle was an illusion based on massive borrowing.
The dark times cometh.
QUOTE(barmyrob @ May 24 2008, 11:30 AM)
New Labour were popular with the middle classes for as long as house prices were rising.
Now they are falling they are fucked. The New Labour economic miracle was an illusion based on massive borrowing.
The dark times cometh.
Methinks they may be here already!
QUOTE(jamesleo @ May 23 2008, 10:53 PM)
What confuses me is the effect of the Iraq War, It is my understanding the Iraq War/Occupation is very unpopular in the UK much more than in the US. if that is a fact, then the Liberal Democrats would benefit form voter anger not the Tories. How did that happen or has the war ceased to be an issue?
Opposition to the Iraq war had much less impact on voting patterns than might have been predicted; Labour's majority was reduced in 2005 but that was inevitable given the landslides in the two previous elections. You have to remember that an awful lot of the people who opposed the war would have been disillusioned with Blair even if it had not happened. And there have always been a substantial number of people who won't vote Lib Dem because it's never very clear what they stand for.
QUOTE(JBoyd @ May 24 2008, 08:30 PM)
there have always been a substantial number of people who won't vote Lib Dem because it's never very clear what they stand for.
same applies to labour now, of course!
i think Jboyd is probably right that the war didn't necessarily affect the elections but it does affect support for the party by it's own members. If you haven't got members you haven't got people to go out and work for you in the constituencies during an election campaign.
QUOTE(Beryl the Peril @ May 24 2008, 08:47 AM)
of course they may have thought that an ''old railway town in Britain’s industrial Midlands'' would have voted for their working class roots but they should have thought of that when new labour ditched the workers to court the middle classes and embraced capitalism with an enthusiasm that even maggie couldn't muster!
Agreed.
QUOTE
Tony Blair's generation were amongst the most upwardly mobile ever in UK history so the 'middle classes' may well have been brought up on old labour principals.
That's true, too, though it depends what you mean by 'Old Labour' - Michael Foot or Denis Healey?
QUOTE
One of the principals of old labour was a fairer voting system ... until they had such a huge majority that they didn't need it. Or they thought they didn't.
actually it isn't funny at all because now we ar stuck with the fuckin' tories for possibly a generation and there is no viable socialist alternative. I don't think that support for Electoral Reform has ever been strong in the Labour Party, because every form of 'fair voting', in normal circumstances, actually stacks the odds in favour of any moderately competent centre party (and before anyone mentions the London Mayoral election, it was both rather unusual and notably without a realistic centre party candidate). Most of us would say that whilst PR might have prevented the Thatcher years, it would also have made the Attlee government impossible.
QUOTE
As for the war, they ignored 1 million people out on the streets. Silly move. Many people may vote Liberal, james, but because of our voting system they are not going to get enough MPs to form a governmemt and neither main party will go into a coalition with them (or try to) unless they concede that they can't win outright.
The Lib Dems are likely to lose as much as Labour (and possibly more in proportional terms) if Cameron can sustain the Tory revival. And anyway, given that Clegg is a member of the 'Orange Book' faction, they are likely to be closer to Thatcherism than the Conservatives for the foreseeable future, at least in terms of economic policy.
QUOTE(JBoyd @ May 24 2008, 08:43 PM)
I don't think that support for Electoral Reform has ever been strong in the Labour Party,
to be honest i am not sure where the labour party has stood on this for the last few years.. although we still seem to be on this mailing list
Blair has done such a good job of trashing/transforming Labour that I can't recall what Kinnock did - other than fall into the sea 
I was thinking along these lines the other day, Dawn PrimaRollover used to be a cracking MP in the part of Bristol that I lived in that I'd have no problem voting for her - these days I wouldn't even if I still lived there.
I don't know the MP for the borogh that I'm now in but would find it hard to vote Labour again, not even as protest or tactical vote. It worries me to think that the only possible way that Labour could 'reform' itself into a party that people could get confidence in was if a Tory government came into power for a spell, at least they'd make Labour seem like a half decent alternative, which at the moment they don't.
Should I vote Red for my class or Green for my kittens?
I was thinking along these lines the other day, Dawn PrimaRollover used to be a cracking MP in the part of Bristol that I lived in that I'd have no problem voting for her - these days I wouldn't even if I still lived there.
I don't know the MP for the borogh that I'm now in but would find it hard to vote Labour again, not even as protest or tactical vote. It worries me to think that the only possible way that Labour could 'reform' itself into a party that people could get confidence in was if a Tory government came into power for a spell, at least they'd make Labour seem like a half decent alternative, which at the moment they don't.
Should I vote Red for my class or Green for my kittens?
QUOTE(Jon @ May 25 2008, 08:43 AM)
Should I vote Red for my class or Green for my kittens?
probably green for your kittens because ther new 'reds' would sell your granny
QUOTE(barmyrob @ May 24 2008, 04:30 PM)
New Labour were popular with the middle classes for as long as house prices were rising.
Now they are falling they are fucked. The New Labour economic miracle was an illusion based on massive borrowing.
The dark times cometh.
It's worse than that (for Labour). House prices are the only prices that are falling; everything else is rising - the official inflation rate of 3% is just a joke.
Petrol up by 50%, Gas and Electricity prices up 30-40 % in 18 months with more to come, food prices up 20 % already this year, mortgage rates up despite interest rate cuts. The pound's worth one and a quarter Euros, effectively a 20% increase in prices when on holiday for the majority. Overall people will be either tightening their metaphorical belts or getting into unaffordable debt. Most people, regardless of income, have little "slack" in their budget and will be experiencing the "feelbad factor".
The era of cheap imported goods, cheap holidays and travel have gone. Those who took on mortgages, loans, credit cards etc when interest rates were low are going to be feeling the pain.
All of this affects people more directly in their day to day lives than solving child poverty or any other noble cause. And they will blame the government - whether it is Labour or Tory. They took the credit when things were good so surely they deserve the blame when things are bad?
Add to this, as BtP say, they alienated many of their supporters with their actions, particularly, but not only, the Iraq war.
Blair's long goodbye ensured that Brown was fucked before he even started, as I am sure they both knew.
It's the same here.
Everything is going through the roof price wise, the housing market has collapsed or is about to do so and gas, as the Americans so quaintly describe the petrol they put into their cars, is now at 4 bucks a gallon and rising. Should be 5 bucks a gallon by the mid summer.
It was fractionally under 2.60 a gallon when I moved here two years ago.
Needless to say the oil companies continue, completely unashamedly, to publish their massive record profits each quarter.
And the Shrub and the dark lord, Cheney, have royally shafted the country with the war and in so many other ways that Barak Obama will inherit such an unholy mess that even two terms in the White House won't be enough to make things even remotely half right.
Of course if McCain wins the Chinese and the Russian leaders will literally not be fully able to grasp the magnitude of just how stupid so many Americans are and how the country got to be so great in the first place.
On topic: I didn't vote for Bliar in the last general election. I voted Lib Dem. It was the first time I had not voted for the Labour party in my entire adult voting life. Looking at the BBC news pages I can see no evidence that the leading MPs in Browns cabinet or elswhere are any better than those surrounding Bliar. In fact they seem even more out of touch and incompetent than ever. Especially the education secretary who made such an impression on the Headteachers at their last conference. Idiot.
Everything is going through the roof price wise, the housing market has collapsed or is about to do so and gas, as the Americans so quaintly describe the petrol they put into their cars, is now at 4 bucks a gallon and rising. Should be 5 bucks a gallon by the mid summer.
It was fractionally under 2.60 a gallon when I moved here two years ago.
Needless to say the oil companies continue, completely unashamedly, to publish their massive record profits each quarter.
And the Shrub and the dark lord, Cheney, have royally shafted the country with the war and in so many other ways that Barak Obama will inherit such an unholy mess that even two terms in the White House won't be enough to make things even remotely half right.
Of course if McCain wins the Chinese and the Russian leaders will literally not be fully able to grasp the magnitude of just how stupid so many Americans are and how the country got to be so great in the first place.
On topic: I didn't vote for Bliar in the last general election. I voted Lib Dem. It was the first time I had not voted for the Labour party in my entire adult voting life. Looking at the BBC news pages I can see no evidence that the leading MPs in Browns cabinet or elswhere are any better than those surrounding Bliar. In fact they seem even more out of touch and incompetent than ever. Especially the education secretary who made such an impression on the Headteachers at their last conference. Idiot.
from yesterday's Times:
UK in the shoite
And:
So, having given the BoE its independence and given it a narrow remit (taking plenty of plaudits at the time) Gordy now finds himself hoist with his own petard.
It's the economy, stupid.
UK in the shoite
QUOTE
The UK’s economic woes are rooted in the same twin shocks that befell the US, of course – a financial market crunch and a sudden acceleration of global commodity prices. If the causes are similar, the symptoms on opposite sides of the Atlantic are nearly identical: banks are tightening credit and house prices are falling; the price of every other good and service is increasing
And:
QUOTE
The US Federal Reserve has cut short-term interest rates aggressively since last summer, a factor that surely has eased the pain. For a long while there has been an assumption that the Bank of England will be similarly aggressive.
However, the Bank faces constraints that the Fed does not. Its remit is different, being inflation-focused. More important, the US central bank simply has to take account of much broader economic circumstances in setting policy. It knows that failure to deliver a short-term recovery would have much larger consequences for the world. The Bank has to focus on getting its inflation fighting strategy in the UK right and so cannot risk rate cuts on the same scale.
However, the Bank faces constraints that the Fed does not. Its remit is different, being inflation-focused. More important, the US central bank simply has to take account of much broader economic circumstances in setting policy. It knows that failure to deliver a short-term recovery would have much larger consequences for the world. The Bank has to focus on getting its inflation fighting strategy in the UK right and so cannot risk rate cuts on the same scale.
So, having given the BoE its independence and given it a narrow remit (taking plenty of plaudits at the time) Gordy now finds himself hoist with his own petard.
It's the economy, stupid.
as a member of the GMB and former activist in the CWU, this interested me particularly ..
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/may/29/labour
The Co-operative bank, whose £2.61m loan is due to be repaid on June 30, has told the party it wants its money back, even though it is getting 7% interest. The bank has asked the unions to offer loans to Labour so the party can pay its debt, but some are refusing to do this. Paul Kenny, the GMB's general secretary, has told the Co-operative bank it will refuse to help unless the bank withdraws its de-recognition of the union, which represents staff at Co-operative Funeral Services.
the GMB has stopped the co-op getting a stall at tolpuddle over the Funeral Service issue.
and
Three of the biggest unions, Unison, the Communications Workers Union and the GMB have tabled motions at their annual conferences next month calling for members to disaffiliate from Labour.
the 'new' labour party are fucked.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/may/29/labour
The Co-operative bank, whose £2.61m loan is due to be repaid on June 30, has told the party it wants its money back, even though it is getting 7% interest. The bank has asked the unions to offer loans to Labour so the party can pay its debt, but some are refusing to do this. Paul Kenny, the GMB's general secretary, has told the Co-operative bank it will refuse to help unless the bank withdraws its de-recognition of the union, which represents staff at Co-operative Funeral Services.
the GMB has stopped the co-op getting a stall at tolpuddle over the Funeral Service issue.
and
Three of the biggest unions, Unison, the Communications Workers Union and the GMB have tabled motions at their annual conferences next month calling for members to disaffiliate from Labour.
the 'new' labour party are fucked.
QUOTE(Twopints @ May 28 2008, 04:22 PM)
It's the economy, stupid.
Indeed.
And it gets worse
QUOTE
LONDON (Reuters) - House prices fell a record 2.5 percent in May, the Nationwide Building Society said on Thursday, raising fears the property market downturn could soon turn into a crash that hits the whole economy.
But central bank policymakers look unable to offer any succour as inflation is already running a full point above the central bank's target and is set to climb further.
Retailers raised prices at their sharpest rate in more than a quarter of a century in May and more increases are expected over the summer, according to a Confederation of British Industry survey out on Thursday.
But central bank policymakers look unable to offer any succour as inflation is already running a full point above the central bank's target and is set to climb further.
Retailers raised prices at their sharpest rate in more than a quarter of a century in May and more increases are expected over the summer, according to a Confederation of British Industry survey out on Thursday.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.