Election night 2005 - Brits, what's the score?

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Last night was British election night.

So it looks like Tony Blair is back (no suprise), but his Labour party may have suffered substantial loses in seats. What does this mean for the future political career of Mr. Blair?

Those of you on the other side of the pond...how do you expect this election night to play out?


mrC

[fredster]

Bush and Howard and Blair  WIN

Just more proof of how mariginalized the opposition is.

[markb]

Firstly a very quick explanation of how our Government works for those who don't know:-
The country is divided into approx 640 seats each one defining a certain geographical location, for which there is an election at each one. The government is formed by the Party that collects the most seats, the aim is therefore to get more than 320 seats and have a majority (over 320 seats) which means the winner can literally dictate policy to the other parties.
Labour's majority at the last election was 160 seats wich meant that even if they had an unpopular policy they could still afford a large number of their own party to vote against it and still push it through (this happened often) Now with a majority of around 60 seats it means that a swing of only 30 Labours MP's (members of parliament) can negate some of the more unpopular Labour Party ideas which undoubtedly will happen.

Personally  think the cut in the Labour Party majority is a good thing as they will be unable to push through a lot of upcoming bills without taking the sting out of them to appease members of their own party, things such as the European Union, ID cards etc

As for Tony Blair, well who would have said that Margaret Thatcher would have went when she did commanding a majority in parliament? so who knows?

[ChadTower]

And the US media has been cramming down our throats for months how supposedly unhappy England is with Blair and how his days are completely numbered.   

I don't particularly like the direction of the world right now either, but damn, they shouldn't be lying so constantly.

[JCL]

And the US media has been cramming down our throats for months how supposedly unhappy England is with Blair and how his days are completely numbered.

[markb]

Actually Laabour only lost 50 seats which meant a "Swing" of 100 seats in parliament.
A majority of 60 plus seats is more than  Margaret Thatcher had for her 1st term in 1979 and she pretty much did what she wanted.

[ChadTower]

Did any big media outlet predict a Blair loss? I didn't see it. I saw many of them predicting exactly what happened. So where's the lie? And does an Iraq war supporter really want to call others liars?

You might be saying "Shut up, my guy won!" like so many, but this is bad news for the next war that Bush wants allies in. Blairs ability to do unpopular things. What countries will go along with the next idiotic decision of Bush's? Our allies in Iraq are dropping away one by one.

Blair is far from "my guy", actually.  I just hate media agenda.  I hate it when they show bias towards conservatives and I hate it when they show bias towards liberals.  Traditional journalism is long dead... all we have now is advocacy journalism at best and outright propaganda at times.

It's going to get far, far, far worse before it gets any better.

[JCL]

Did any big media outlet predict a Blair loss? I didn't see it. I saw many of them predicting exactly what happened. So where's the lie? And does an Iraq war supporter really want to call others liars?

You might be saying "Shut up, my guy won!" like so many, but this is bad news for the next war that Bush wants allies in. Blairs ability to do unpopular things. What countries will go along with the next idiotic decision of Bush's? Our allies in Iraq are dropping away one by one.

Blair is far from "my guy", actually.

[ChadTower]

Please show me where the some big media predicted a Blair loss. They all predicted a win with a much smaller majority. And that is what happened! How can you possibly call that a lie?

You have a very low standard of the word lie for the people you don't like, apparently.

And unbiased media is a recent idea that was never a reality.

The 'lies' I'm referring to are over the past two years, not the past two weeks.  They've been telling us over and over again how Blair is dead in British politics, that a change is imminent, that England is nearly united against  him now and that he is the least popular PM in recent memory.  It's not about the overt prediction, it's about the pounding of the perception over a long period of time. 

And yes, the media WAS less biased 50 years ago.  Journalism was about the story then.  Now, it's all about the reporter, and the outlet, and who broke first, and who gets credit, and who gets what book deal a year later... the media is no longer reports the news, it creates it most of the time and makes itself more of the story than the subjects.  It all started, IMO, with Watergate (which was a great work of jounalism), when the media saw the type of wealthy star a reporter can become with a big enough story.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

The 'lies' I'm referring to are over the past two years, not the past two weeks.  They've been telling us over and over again how Blair is dead in British politics, that a change is imminent, that England is nearly united against  him now and that he is the least popular PM in recent memory.

Chad,

I'm on board with you regarding the uselessness of our media here in the States. But you don't have a case on this one.  As JCL has pointed out, this is not a real "victory" for Blair, just his Labour Party...and barely at that. He lost a tremendous amount of seats and there is the remote possibility that his party may show him the door because of that.

They've been telling us over and over again how Blair is dead in British politics, that a change is imminent, that England is nearly united against  him now and that he is the least popular PM in recent memory.

From the Guardian: "For the first time, a majority government in Britain has been elected by fewer people than those who could not be bothered to vote. Labour's 36% share of the vote was lower than the 39% of the electorate who didn't make it to the polling station."



mrC

[ChadTower]

So they hate him so much they couldn't be bothered to vote against him.  Nice.

[JCL]

Please show me where the some big media predicted a Blair loss. They all predicted a win with a much smaller majority. And that is what happened! How can you possibly call that a lie?

You have a very low standard of the word lie for the people you don't like, apparently.

And unbiased media is a recent idea that was never a reality.

The 'lies' I'm referring to are over the past two years, not the past two weeks.

[ChadTower]

Nyeh, they're out there, but I don't have enough time to search.  I concede.

[Dexter]

It wasn't that Blair was liked, it was more that Howard was liked LESS. From the word go he was seen as unelectable and thats what happened.

Blairs re-election is not a thumbs up for his foreign or domestic policies, he was the leader of labour, and people couldn't stomach the idea of the conservaties led by Howard being in Power. Thats why blairs back.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Bush and Howard and Blair  WIN

Just more proof of how mariginalized the opposition is.

Fredster,

What are you talking about? Your mundane triumphalism makes no sense. Maybe it would if we were talking about pee-wee league baseball, instead of politics. Which opposition are you talking about exactly? The opposition to the Conservatives in Britain? (Since they lost the election) Opposition to Blair? His "Party" is popular, not him. In Britain you are basically voting for a party, who then appoints a "head" (ie: Prime Minister) [link]. Given the dismal results the majority Labour party has faced, with a significant loss of seats, it's possible they will appoint a new PM (Brown?).

So, then, are you talking about opposition to Bush?

Bush's job approval rating is the lowest in U.S. history for a two-term president (48.3%). A majority of the American public now disapproves of how Bush's Republican run Congress is running things (55.3%). His pinnacle second-term issue, Social Security Privatization, has been roundly rejected by a vast majority of the American public [figure 1], as well as a significant majority of Congress. A majority of people (54%)  disapprove of the way President George W. Bush is handling the situation in Iraq.

Couple that with the "Kick in the Ballots" suffered by Blair in yesterdays UK election and you'd see that your statement really doesn't make much sense.

In other words, marginalized my @ss. It just simply isn't over when your guy "wins." You, my friend, are the minority now. You, it seems, have been marginalized.


mrC

[ChadTower]

mundane triumphalism

[Dartful Dodger]

BUSH WINS AGAIN!!!!

[ChadTower]

So I looked it up... damn if trimphalism isn't an actual word.  That sounds SO MUCH like a made up buzzword... 

[mr.Curmudgeon]

So they hate him so much they couldn't be bothered to vote against him.  Nice.

Exactly, given that there is no perceived option in the Conservative party and/or LibDems.

Would *you* vote for a bad Democratic candidate just to vote against what you thought was a horrible Republican one? I doubt it.

[fredster]

MrC,

Go bang your drum in a corner okay?

It should be clear that a "Historic" 3rd win for a Prime Minister is proof enough that the Iraq war isn't the "quagmire" it was made out to be.

It should also be obvious by now that people want answers, solid, concrete answers to terrorists.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

So I looked it up... damn if trimphalism isn't an actual word.  That sounds SO MUCH like a made up buzzword... 

  /I'm doing a little dance of trimphalism right now.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

You have yet to prove I'm the minority.  I think where I'm at, I'm the majority. You are in MA, this it TN.  Live here a while and see what real red state is all about. 

Finally you'd admit that you're not part of the whole United States? Now your position makes so much more sense.

It should also be obvious by now that people want answers, solid, concrete answers to terrorists.  They want people with a plan, not people who just don't like plans.

You haven't been listening. You, like most Bush supporters, are just too stubborn to acknowledge the "other sides" ideas.


mrC

[ChadTower]

Would *you* vote for a bad Democratic candidate just to vote against what you thought was a horrible Republican one? I doubt it.

I vote for the person I feel is the best candidate regardless of party.  It just so happens that most of the time that candidate is a Republican, but I would have no problem voting Democrat if the right presidential candidate came along.  I considered voting for Kerry this past election... if he had only come out with any plan that made any kind of sense to anyone, I probably would have.  He had nothing, Bush had something, and I'd rather have the crap I know over nondisclosure any day.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

I considered voting for Kerry this past election... if he had only come out with any plan that made any kind of sense to anyone, I probably would have.  He had nothing, Bush had something, and I'd rather have the crap I know over nondisclosure any day.

I don't want to rehash 2004 all over again, but simply just don't understand these "didn't have a plan" statements at all. It seems like willfull ignorance because maybe you can't justify your support of Bush. Sorry, I'm not buying it. It's just a tired Republican talking point.

I could accept that you "disagreed" with Kerry's plans, thus voted for Bush, but to say he didn't offer them is disingenuous and wrong.

mrC

[fredster]

I don't want to rehash 2004 all over again, but simply just don't understand these "didn't have a plan" statements at all

I'm sure you don't.  The only Plan I've heard from you side is "That won't work".  "This won't work" is not a "Plan".  Is that simple enough?

Finally you'd admit that you're not part of the whole United States? Now your position makes so much more sense.

  I'm afraid you'll never understand the concept of the "left coast" dude.  Middle Americans are more conservative, that's the point. You are surrounded by bad influences, so I forgive you your ignorance.

You haven't been listening. You, like most Bush supporters, are just too stubborn to acknowledge the "other sides" ideas.

  It would be nice if there was an "other side".  But all I hear is why the Plans laid out by the republicans won't work. Is that the other side?

Or is it that we do the same thing with terrorists that Clinton did?

Did that actually work? 

I don't think so.

Tell you what mr. Chucles, let's ignore the election like you want (and if I were the loser there, I'd want to also)

Solve this:

Illegal Immigration

What's your side's plan?  Our side doesn't have one.  What do your people say?

Now is your chance!

[mr.Curmudgeon]

The only Plan I've heard from you side is "That won't work".  "This won't work" is not a "Plan".

I can't argue with you when you generalize so badly, please provide specifics if you really want an answer. What issues are you talking about? If it's Social Security, then Dems *do* have a plan....it's called SOCIAL SECURITY. Your man is the one trying to dismantle is by screaming "crisis"...NO ONE BELIEVES HIM. The friggin' SS "plan" Bush proposed in his last press conference, was one of many plans DRAFTED BY A DEMOCRAT (Pozen). He couldn't even come up with his own. If you're talking about Iraq, the Dems did present a plan in 2004. More troops, increased armor, broadening coalition support, bringing the U.N. into the fold again, and on, and on. If you're talking about deficit spending, Kerry proposed repealing the tax-cut for the rich. If you're talking about record job loss in America under Bush, Kerry had proposed closing the loop-holes for corporate outsourcing. If you are talking about our dependence on foreign oil, Kerry and the Dems proposed increased funding for alternative fuels, and incentives for automakers to create more efficient cars. There a TON of proposals out there, you just REFUSE to listen. Doesn't mean that aren't out there, just means your either being too stubborn or too ignorant to understand them.

Solve this:

Illegal Immigration

What's your side's plan?  Our side doesn't have one.  What do your people say?

Now is your chance!

Here you go again. It doesn't matter to you if the Dems solved the Immigration problem, you'd still vote Republican. You've already said so. So why do you keep acting as if this would change the bearing on your political compass, you're a kool-aid drinker dude. That ain't going to change no matter what the Dems do or say. So give it up and at least try to be honest about your undying love of Bush.

Anyhow, for what's it's worth...'Hillary Clinton Is To The Right Of National Republican Leadership On Immigration' (link) (Hope your head doesn't explode) 

She's voiced support for an ID-card system, increased technology at the border, increased spending on said technology (Advanced radar systems, biometric and other kinds of identification systems). She has also talked about ways to cut down on the employment of illegals and increase patrols at our borders or our ports.

She has been hawkish about North Korea, proposing a tougher stance against the outlaw regime, that has since gone nuclear under the Bush administration.

So, given that 'W' and his party haven't done jack-squat about either issue, I suppose we can count on your vote for Hillary in 2008 then, huh?
 

mrC

[fredster]

Here you go again. It doesn't matter to you if the Dems solved the Immigration problem, you'd still vote Republican.

And that's a plan?  It's a circle back to "BUSH".  How about framing some problems and not using "BUSH" or any reference to the existing adminstration in it? 

Hillary Clinton is a Senator, right now, in an active seat. She says a lot of crap. Let's see the legislation okay? Let's see the actual plan.  Let's see the debates.  What about all the things Kerry had in mind?  Why don't we see him put it into law as a Senator?  Where's the drive?

And what of these so called "concepts" you call "plans". How does this help us solve the problem?  Do you support the ID system based on the right of privacy?  What would it do to help this situation? Is that on the road to some futher solution?  What is "increased techonolgy" exactly?  What ways does she talk about cutting down employment of illegals?  IS there any tangible evidence she has done a single solitary thing as a law to back up the rhetoric? 

Simple answer, no.

Let me tell you this, if a Dem did come out with a plan that sounded reasonable and was well thought out on illegal immigration and healthcare solutions, yep, I'd go blue. No problem here, and most people who voted for Bush would be behind that.

But to just come out with some "concept" without working out the plan will go as far as the "concept" of private accounts in SSI. 

We need more from your side besides "concepts".  We need real solutions to real problems. 


 

[fredster]

And I have to continue.

I'm not "refusing" to listen to anything. You are. You did only 1/2 the research.  Did you find any thing to be against the private accounts or did you limit your late night research to just what was wrong with it? 

If it was such a "bad" plan, then why to you make a big point of saying the "bad plan" came from a democrat???

I like the "concept" but Bush didn't sell me on the details.  If he doesn't sell his base, he can't pass it.  What he did bring out was the problem. Social security isn't fixed. Now we should do something or you and I won't have a retirement income from the government that we paid into.   

Isn't that a problem?  Let's see the first bill, either side, it doesn't matter to me. 

And then this meaningless statement -

She has been hawkish about North Korea, proposing a tougher stance against the outlaw regime, that has since gone nuclear under the Bush administration.

Ok, that means you support us taking aggressive action against a soverign state and changing the regimeme by force?

huh.

What does "tougher stance" mean?  We already have sanctioned them to death and have 5 or 6 countries negotating with them.  What's left there diplomatically dude?
They have starved the people so much the reports I've seen says that there is no animals alive in the wilderness because of the people eating anything that moves.

just means your either being too stubborn or too ignorant to understand them.

Help me get over my "ignorance". Explain me this -. Where's the plan in "we need to take a tougher stance"?

[mr.Curmudgeon]

How about framing some problems and not using "BUSH" or any reference to the existing adminstration in it?

Too bad. He's president...how are the Dems *not* supposed to address him or his plans when coming up with their own? How are they *not* supposed to criticize him or his plans when they are so obviously failures waiting to happen? Sure they could do more to present their ideas in an easy to understand "Fox news" ready packaging, but to suggest that the president is somehow outside the frame of reference is one of the most absurd and scary things I've heard of late.

We need more from your side besides "concepts".  We need real solutions to real problems. 

I agree with this. I'm hoping they continue to refine their message and present more plans. Right now the Dems have an awful lot of fighting to do that's keeping them busy otherwise, (Bolton, Filibuster, stemming the tide of increased hateful religious rhetoric, British Memo leak proving Bush/Blair had the intelligence Doctored to fit their agenda,etc)

Right now the Dems *are* fighting for the integrity of our diplomacy by refusing to let Bolton through, the Dems are fighting for the sanctity of our legislature by fighting to keep the filibuster alive, and they are fighting to keep safe the very essence of our great Democracy by working to preserve the separation of church and state. These things take a tremendous amount of time and resources, across the board. I support their efforts and I look forward to a time when they can address the many other issues that we face in this nation today.


mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Did you find any thing to be against the private accounts or did you limit your late night research to just what was wrong with it?

If it was such a "bad" plan, then why to you make a big point of saying the "bad plan" came from a democrat???

There is a *lot* wrong with "privatization" (the words "private accounts" are just Republican spin, btw). For one, Social Security was developed as a safety net, in lieu of the stock market crash that led to the Great Depression. To basically put SS *back* into the hands of the market, goes against the very essence of the program itself. Do you trust the Enrons of America more than you trust your own government?

It may be astonishing to you, but I can still consider a plan "bad" even if it comes from a Democrat. If it's bad, it's bad. My point was that you expressed the notion that the Dems never have any plans, so I pointed to the fact that the very plan the President proposed involved a internal framework developed by a Democrat.

The Dems have put forth other options to "fix" Social Security. I imagine they'll certainly have the most know how, since the Dems were the ones that created it in the first place under FDR.

Anyhow, I'm done talking about SS for now, there are certainly other, more pressing issues at hand. I can thank all the omniscient deities, that Bush privatization plan is dead in the water. At least SS is safe for the foreseeable future. As soon as the Dems feel Bush has fried himself enough on the "third rail", I'll be gunning for them to get done what needs to be done to fix the program. It's their baby, after all.



mrC

[Stingray]

And this is exactly why I advocated splitting Everything Else into two forums.

-S

[tommy]

I wonder what kind of MAME cab BUSH has?

[fredster]

MrC,

You are jousting at windmills.

So you are telling me there is no problem with Social Security.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

So you are telling me there is no problem with Social Security.  I guess we wait until it's totally broken to try and fix it.

Never said that. It's just not in "crisis". It can be fixed, without Privatization. The reason I'm not sweatin' SS right now is that there are entirely more important issues at hand.

Here's a little something to chew on, from Warren Buffett:

"Well, it's an interesting idea that a deficit of $100 billion
a year, something, 20 years out, seems to terrify the administration.
But the $400 plus billion dollars deficit currently does nothing but
draw yawns. I mean the idea that this terrible specter looms over
us 20 years out which is a small fraction of the deficit we happily
run now seems kind of interesting to me."

Exactly.

One of the BEST things we can do to save Social Security, and just about everything else, is to STOP BUSH FROM SPENDING.

mrC

[fredster]

I thought you were done talking about Social Security ?

I have a lot of respect for Warren Buffett.  I'd like to see what else he said in that statement.

One of the best things the left can do is stop bashing Bush and serve the people that elected them and come up with alternative ideas.  The agenda is set with the best idea. The system will work if the politicians let it.

I'd say term limits are the best way to get to where we want to be.  That way we don't have politicians pandering to each other and trying to do the thing to keep them elected.

[ChadTower]

Nyerg, I slipped into my old habits of not reading the responses.  Now I don't know what was said.  I think I'll have another beer.

[daywane]

I just cant see defending any of them.
they ( the Gov) have been paid to do a job.
job to them seems ... country club.
Dems. Rep. all... Your fired . you suck
I am not kidding. Stop putting the rich , spoon fed , spoiled Cretans on my ballet. I hate taking the less of the 2 evils
I am glad bush won only because the other was more of a dork then the dork we have now

[Grasshopper]

It would be a mistake to conclude that Blair's re-election means the British people endorsed his decision to go to war. Blair's personal popularity rating plummeted after we went to war and has never really recovered.

Even many people who thought getting rid of Saddam was a good idea in principle are disturbed by the way Blair bent the truth to make his case for war, and then rode roughshod over the UN and international law. And the way he kowtows to Bush is frankly embarrassing.

In most other respects I'd have to admit he's been a pretty decent Prime Minister. Far too right wing for my taste but basically competent.

The problem is the main opposition party was even more pro-war that Blair was. So that effectively neutralised the war as an election issue. In fact as so many people in Blair's own party were openly opposed to the war (several cabinet members resigned over the issue) it paradoxically made more sense for anti-war people to vote Labour instead of Conservative.

The third main party (the Liberal Democrats) have consistently opposed the war and they actually did very well in the election. The trouble is because of our retarded electoral system they never had a realistic chance of gaining power.

[Dexter]

The third main party (the Liberal Democrats) have consistently opposed the war and they actually did very well in the election. The trouble is because of our retarded electoral system they never had a realistic chance of gaining power.

plus the fact that Charles Kennedy just isn't charismatic enough. He was deffo the best of the three leaders and I'd vote lib dem myself if I was a UK resident. If the lib dems had a stereotypical baby kissing all-smiling politician for leader, they would have done even better. Shame.

Remembeer Robin Cooks resignation speech in the house of commons?? LOL 

[mr.Curmudgeon]

It would be a mistake to conclude that Blair's re-election means the British people endorsed his decision to go to war. Blair's personal popularity rating plummeted after we went to war and has never really recovered.

Which is the real reason I started this thread. I'm curious as to people in Britain see his political career moving forward? The leaked memo implicates Blair in the manufacture and delivery of outright falsehoods leading up to the War in Iraq...how much of a chance does he have to remain PM? Do you see him ever being asked to step down as head of Labour?
Did they lose enough seats to have the issue forced on them?

We haven't heard squat about the memo in our corporate controlled media here in the U.S., but I know Blair was facing some serious heat about it before the election. I'm curious if the British public will just forget about it as Blair attempts to sweep it under the table?



mrC