Election 2005 [Archive]

John Self

26th Apr 2005, 13:01

Excellent comment piece by Mark Mardell on the BBC Election Weblog (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/blog/default.stm):

I'm struggling with boredom. I'm horrified that large amounts of newspaper space are being wasted arguing about how boring the election is.

It's a Mardell rule of thumb that reporters who claim that something is either boring or incomprehensible should be taken outside and beaten.

In the first case they should be arguing with their editor that it's not a story. In the second they should give the job to someone who can comprehend it.

It's true, John Prescott hasn't hit anyone (yet) but what do people want from an election campaign? I'm not one to decry the soap opera and fun elements of politics but there's always enough of that.

We have a PM used to being the golden boy, tarnished by an unpopular war, used to treating his party with disdain, finding he needs them and making a deal with his rival.

We have an opposition party still struggling to find its way back to power, energised by a new and clever campaign making immigration an election issue for the first time in 20 years.

We have a third party taking votes from the ruling party, threatening uncertain results all over the country.

The political situation isn't boring. And while I'm not one of those who thinks the electorate will be enthused if you go over housing policy in great detail, there are enough policy difference to capture interest. What's boring?

ono no komachi

26th Apr 2005, 13:36

Prescott may not have hit anyone yet, but he has resorted to playground tactics, as transcribed here (http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,,1465709,00.html/):

The reporter's perspective on it is here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1466086,00.html/):

Whenever I start to get the feeling that I actually might quite respect John Prescott, he does something ridiculous and disgraceful.

And I don't know how sad this makes me, but I am actually fairly gripped by all the election stuff. Go figure, as our American cousins might say.

John Self

26th Apr 2005, 13:51

I too am gripped by it. And sad.

Peter Oborne had an excellent programme on C4 last night in the Election Unspun series, entitled Why Politician's Can't Tell the Truth. For a Tory (but not a party member as far as I know) he seems a decent sort, closer to Boris Johnson or Ken Clarke (when KC isn't selling cigarettes to third world children) than Howard or Thatch. His point was that the present election is profoundly undemocratic, since all the parties are doing is presenting policies that are targetted at the 800,000 or so floating voters who will decide the outcome of the election - and sod the other 40-odd million of us. Blair talks about making hard choices but doesn't really want to address really hard choices, like how do we fund the health service in the coming decades, when spending on it will have to double or treble to cater for an ageing population? Or what he - the great anti-global warming campaigner - is going to do about the proliferation of air travel, which in 50 years' time will account for 75% of all greenhouse gases coming from the UK. His response is that "in the real world", ie when votes are needed, you can't harm the economy by reducing demand for flights by putting up prices (which is achievable by cutting out the apparently ridiculous tax breaks airlines enjoy). The Tories, of course, are no better, with Liam Fox saying in response to the same question that you have to draw a balance between ensuring economic growth and "the pitfalls," by which he presumably meant the destruction of the planet.

Wavid

26th Apr 2005, 14:18

I have been quite entertained by the election, to be honest. Despite some of the regrettable issues being discussed (immigration etc) the debate seems to be being held at a quite lofty, almost intellectual level. The parties are all very close, but at least some discussion about ideas is taking place. As John says - not necessarily the right ideas, and the difficult things are being touched, but it's better than name calling and overly personalised politics, such as Howard was attempting yesterday.

One of the more interesting things was the new style Labour manifesto, which I was tempted to buy in Smiths the other day simply because it looked quite interesting. It's easy to mock, but here at least is a party trying to do something new and innovative to set the agenda and get people involved.

I would be very interested to learn from our cousins across the pond how the election is being covered in the States, given the constant coverage of the Presidential election in the UK. Are you guys as bothered about us as we were about you?!

youjustmightlikeit

26th Apr 2005, 20:18

Something like this i imagine:

'Britain who? Election! What election? We've had our election.'

John Self

26th Apr 2005, 22:51

Can we presume that it's all over bar the name-calling? The BBC's poll tracker (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/vote2005/polltracker/html/polltracker.stm) consistently shows an average lead for Labour of about 6 points. This, according to the BBC's equally thrilling Seat Calculator (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/vote2005/seatcalculator/html/default.stm), would give Labour a majority of 144 seats.

Wavid

27th Apr 2005, 9:25

I think a majority of 144 is too large, I can't see that happening. If it does, it will be remarkable.

I think the chances of a low Labour voting turnout could well impact on things.

amner

27th Apr 2005, 10:37

Only, they won't, will they? OK, OK, let's take a guess at the result. My prediction: Labour, maj. 101

Colyngbourne

27th Apr 2005, 10:58

Only, they won't, will they? OK, OK, let's take a guess at the result. My prediction: Labour, maj. 101

Like Room 101 :wink:

John Self

27th Apr 2005, 11:04

Labour: maj. 68

gil

27th Apr 2005, 11:17

I listen to Today in the morning on the way to work. It is my experience that every time a politician gets the chance to be interviewed, after a few moments when I am irritated by the interviewers interrupting the chap, I become irritated to an inordinate extent (without party bias) by them repeating mantras like "strong and stable economy" or "Tony Blair's lies" or whatever other one-liner the politico is wanting to push today, and the fact that none of them ever answer the question properly but just drone on with their own agenda, pretending they are answering. I found myself screaming at Mr Milburn today to "Shut UP!" (only I wasn't quite so polite).

In my opinion, New Labour are unelectable because they are simply detestable, Conservatives don't deserve to be elected, because they are beneath contempt, and LibDem are a few dozen nice felows with some jolly ideas but no chance of forming a Government.

The best we can do is reduce Tony's majority. It's pathetic. A strong Government needs a strong opposition to keep it honest, and we ain't got it.

27th Apr 2005, 11:25

Spot on, Gil. The whole sorry mess in a nutshell.

ono no komachi

27th Apr 2005, 11:58

LibDem are a few dozen nice felows with some jolly ideas but no chance of forming a Government.

Yes, they probably have no chance of forming a government because people are dismissive of them in this 'oh that Kennedy chap seems like a very nice man, but he'll never make a strong/blolshy/up-his-own-arse enough prime minister'.

They have the most socially responsible policies of all the main parties, and are the only ones to have the guts to say potentially unpopular things about environmental issues.

One of the things I detest most about the campaigns at the moment is the New Labour stance of 'ooh, don't vote Lib Dem, you'll get a Tory government.' Shouldn't we all be voting for the party whose policies we believe in? Isn't that what democracy is?

Wavid

27th Apr 2005, 15:03

My comments above could hardly have been more poorly timed, the moment I hit submit, Howard embarks on his 'Blair is a Liar' rant.

The Tories are presenting a particularly feeble opposition, and they simply don't seem to have the personnel to be able to fill the key positions.

The Lib Dems do provide a more solid alternative to Blair and Labour, but I am not convinced that what they are offering will really work - they seem to be providing an awful lot off the back of that higher top rate of tax. But at least they do provide some opposition.

John Self

27th Apr 2005, 15:23

On the subject of Tory personnel, the difficulty is that the only members of the party who are remotely likeable - eg Oliver Letwin and Boris Johnson - are likeable because they have a vaguely incompetent and daffy air (whether assumed or not), which aren't the sort of credentials the population wants in its government.

We hear much talk about the bright young things of the Tory party, and David Cameron and George Osborne are frequently spoken of as future PM/chancellor, but have you ever seen such a pair of slappably-faced wet-lipped Tory Boys?

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y126/paradorlounge/upld-page3photo.jpg
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y126/paradorlounge/DavidinWitneyatButtercross.jpg

bakunin_the_cat

27th Apr 2005, 15:27

...but at least they're honest enough to tell you that they need to raise taxes to provide better services, which seems pretty fair to me. Labour pretend they're not going to raise tax and then do the old National Insurance trick. The Tories pretend they can do it all with cutting 'red tape'. What they'll almost certainly do, is just end up cutting useful services, and part-privatise.

The problem with them is, as it has always been, that people see the 20% in the polls and think they don't have a hope. What they should do is just go with their hearts. Even if they don't get in, if they get a substantial minority of the votes, the other two Big parties may get worried enough to move back towards them and maybe pick up on some of their ideas.

John Self

27th Apr 2005, 15:41

The Lib Dems did their favourite trick yesterday which was to take out ads in the national press showing a country full of yellow constituencies and the statistic that 39% of people would vote Lib Dem if they thought they could win, against 31% Labour and 20-something% for Tories. No doubt it's true but it won't upset the self-fulfilling prophecy of them losing again because people think they will lose again.

With Proportional Representation, of course, the Lib Dems would have 130-odd seats against 200 for the Tories and 280 for Labour. Of course with no overall majority the governing party would never get any of its legislation through, and might have to work with other parties instead of riding over them.

NottyImp

27th Apr 2005, 15:43

Labour majority 87.

Listening to Jack straw evquivocate when questioned by Humphries on Today recently was moderately entertaining.

I'm so far away from the mainstream political spectrum that I doubt I can add anything of use. I don't vote, for starters, and don't really agree with the "one 'x' on a limited ballot every four years" is democracy mantra. It seems more like a form of licensed party dictatorship as far as I can see.

Digger

28th Apr 2005, 11:35

I would be very interested to learn from our cousins across the pond how the election is being covered in the States, given the constant coverage of the Presidential election in the UK. Are you guys as bothered about us as we were about you?!

Thank goodness for the Today programme then. They tried to reverse the Guardian's 'Clarke County' project where they wrote to the population of the marginal Clarke County, Florida trying to persuade them to vote Kerry in last year's US fiasco. Quite understandably they all got a bit irate and told the G where to stick it.

Sending out a Today Programme reporter to Clarke County to ask whether the average man on the street would like to make suggestions to us over how we should vote he had some of the following responses...

... when showed pictures of all main party candidates.... 'nope, I don't recognise any of them... that guy looks ok' - pointing to Tony.

... no I'm not interested in that....

... 'oh, there's an election?'

on interviewing the local mayor - or similar political representative, he shockingly replied that he didn't feel that we had a democratic system over here, and that we needed to revise our govermental systems ( I may be wrong abou this bit, reception going in my car!). :shock:

So, hardly any people approached knew we were having an election, still fewer cared, and as far as I could make out the US news services (if they're watched) arn't giving us anywhere near as much attention as we gave them. However, twas ever thus! :?

ono no komachi

28th Apr 2005, 12:04

I'm particularly unimpressed by the Labour PEB that I saw last night after the channel 4 news. Blatantly targeting 'school-gate mums' (whoever came up with that hideous expression?) it insultingly implied that all women were interested in was education and the Health Service. Oh yes, and family tax credit.

This quote from the Guardian today might imply that their assumptions may not be correct:

A young mother pushing a buggy towards St John's Church of England junior school in Colne Valley hisses that she'll never vote Labour again after Iraq.

NottyImp

28th Apr 2005, 13:21

Ah yes, "School-gate mums". The targetted demographics of political cynicism.

youjustmightlikeit

28th Apr 2005, 13:23

Told ya Digger.

Digger

28th Apr 2005, 16:03

Yes indeed you did! :)

Maggie

28th Apr 2005, 16:51

:oops:

Let me say this about my country. We know very little of what goes on in the rest of the world. Unless of course it directly affects our pocket books. As children we are spoon fed a watered down, one sided view of history. We are brought up to feel that this great nation was founded on superior moral grounds (that would be superior to any other nation, country or land mass)

I hate to sound like one of those "I hate my country" Americans because I don't hate America....I just have an issue with how a lot of Americans act. Until we, as a country, start to look past our own noses, we are not going to be able to change the attitude of entitlement that seems to dominate all of our actions, world wide.

So in answer to Wavid's speculation, regarding our exposure to your elections : Absolutely none! Don't know the issues, the candidates or for that matter, much of anything going on in any other country besides Iraq (and I'm sure we don't know what is REALLY happening there either)

We are hearing a lot about how concerned Mr. Bush is with the "energy crisis" He wants to look at "Coal initiatives"(for God's sake) and more nuclear plants. Perfect example of how forward thinking this country is !!

End of mini-rant !

Maggie (who does read all of your posts regarding your election and frequently watches the BBC channel)

Digger

28th Apr 2005, 16:54

You know Maggie, you can come over here any time you like, we'll welcome you with open arms! (unless Mr Howard gets in with his tighter immigration controls...)

As a half American citizen, passport and all, I am glad my mom moved here to follow my dad, although I love visiting, I couldn't live there, even though my sisters are both over there.

Maggie

28th Apr 2005, 17:01

Thanks Digger,

I am waiting for the rest of my family to become as disgusted as I am. Leaving my family would be hard........who knows, a couple more years, they may all be willing to join me. We can all make the move :)

Maggie

Jerkass

28th Apr 2005, 18:02

I would be very interested to learn from our cousins across the pond how the election is being covered in the States, given the constant coverage of the Presidential election in the UK. Are you guys as bothered about us as we were about you?!

There's an election on?

Let me put it this way: I'd like to think I'm one of the more interested Americans in the world when it comes to the UK...and I had to have Amner explain how your election process even works, about two weeks ago.

I spent the last week in your country and found the election process fascinating (well...for politics, at least), particularly because you condense the entire process into one month. In the US, of course, we have nearly constant campaigning.

Jerkass

28th Apr 2005, 18:14

Ah yes, "School-gate mums". The targetted demographics of political cynicism.

Sounds like the equivalent of "soccer moms" over here then.

Jerkass

28th Apr 2005, 18:41

My favorite moment in my week's experience of your elections:

I caught a press conference (or more relevantly called "a statement given to six members of the press and sixty empty seats") with the leader of the BNP. One of the tenets of his campaign is to require--not to allow, but to require--all former members of the military to keep guns in their homes. This would be required to help them protect themselves from burglars and such.

Let's try to work our way through the various twists of logic in that statement, shall we?

No, you're right, we shouldn't. Amner and I had a go for about twelve seconds, and our brains started hurting.

John Self

28th Apr 2005, 21:48

Yes, given that these days the armed forces seems to attract mainly those too stupid to get work elsewhere, I'm not sure why the BNP think that will be a big vote winner. Other touched-with-genius policies of theirs include:

British troops should be pulled out of Iraq and used to patrol Dover and the Channel Tunnel to keep out illegal immigrants and asylum seekers (patrol the Channel Tunnel? What, like on top of the trains?)
"firm but voluntary incentives for immigrants and their descendants to return home" (home? bus fares or petrol allowances, you mean?)
BNP leader Nick Griffin also said of the policy Jerkass noted above: "It's there to shoot burglars with if they want, it's there to shoot people who invade this country if they want, and if in the end a tyrannical government wants to usurp the rights and freedoms of the people it is there to use against the government as well," he said. He added that this would disprove the "smear" that his party was totalitarian. Heh heh, whatever...
The "Citizens' Initiative Referendum" whereby anyone with the 'requisite' number of signatures can enforce a national referendum which, if supported by 66% of voters, automatically becomes law. Hm, no room for abuse there by swivel-eyed pressure groups who, say, want all the nasty coloured people to leave Britain, then. The BNP manifesto adds, "this (the 66% rule) is the vital factor which turns the Citizens' Initiative Referendum into a sword for genuine democracy, as opposed to the government-created plebiscite beloved of dictators from Hitler to John Prescott."
"put simply, guns do not kill people, criminals kill people" - ah yes, the argument which has swayed so many observers of the US in recent years
"We would abide by our obligations under the 1951 United Nations Conventions on Refugees [which, incidentally, is more that the Tories will do if elected]. We recognise the existence of legitimate international refugees from persecution and war, but point to the fact that international law requires that such person must be given - and must seek - refuge in the nearest safe country. [Slight half-truth there methinks.] So, unless a flood of refugees from a civil war in France or Denmark [or Ireland - but when would the Irish ever turn on one another??] turns up on our shores, those refugees are simply not Britain's responsibility. This is not a position of callousness..." [Ah, that's all right then!]
"illegal immigrants will be allowed to stay as long as they are benefiting the British economy until such time as we have had time to train British personnel to replace them"
"We would abolish all laws against racial discrimination in employment" [well, you won't need 'em if there's no blacks, will you?]
"From fourteen upwards, every encouragement should be made to encourage those children who have shown musical talent to play for their own and their peers' entertainment" [yes, this is a manifesto pledge. I am not making this up]
"Our time is approaching" [you mean... "Tomorrow Belongs to Me"?]

Ah. Sensible policies for a happier Britain, I'm sure you'll agree.

Incidentally, apropos the comments re Sean Wright's appearance in another thread, Griffin (described in a Guardian piece yesterday as "squid-eyed BNP leader Nick Griffin") is surely the epitome of the rule that ugly thoughts eventually show on the face:

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y126/paradorlounge/_41067745_griffin203.jpg

Digger

29th Apr 2005, 8:13

Might I suggest that we recommend the BNP put large numbers of their party members into actively patrolling the actual tunnel,

on the tracks,

wearing black clothes,

at peak travel times...

Only a suggestion!

ono no komachi

3rd May 2005, 11:48

It turns out that I live in one of those constituencies where the last election resulted in a relatively narrow victory for Labour over the Tories (a majority of approx. 2000) with the Lib Dems way behind, so in theory, former labour votes going to Lib Dems could help the Tories.

But I feel like I have to vote according to my beliefs. I'd have been in a serious quandary if our current MP weren't retiring at this election - whilst I dislike the government, I had an impression that she is a principled woman who had done some positive things in her office as our MP. But I feel no such pull to vote for her successor.

I'm mostly hoping that the Tories will have done themselves so much damage in the intervening years that their share will be vastly reduced.

I suppose I may be kidding myself if I think the Lib Dems could come from a poor third to win this seat. But I must cast my vote for the way I want things to be, not the way I think they will be.

Colyngbourne

3rd May 2005, 11:56

My quandary has been that I feel I should vote as to what I want to happen in the future, rather than on what has happened in the past. I think Labour still could provide a lot of the good things that we want to happen, but I can't get past Iraq and the change of rationale for the war; nor the two-day-sitting civil rights legislation that has not been mentioned in all the election fever. I need a PM with a bit more humility than Blair. Mine is a Labour seat, with a retiring MP, like ono's, but I'm voting Lib Dem.

John Self

3rd May 2005, 12:15

If I were in Britain I would vote Lib Dem. As it is all I can do is vote for their spiritual cousins, the Alliance Party (http://www.allianceparty.org/), which is the only 'major' party (though that's a bit of a joke as they don't have any MPs) which doesn't align itself to unionism or nationalism. Depressing really that politics are so polarised here: nobody campaigns on their reaction to the war in Iraq, the health service or the environment, just on whether they will better represent "your side" in power-sharing negotiations.

My sitting MP, the egregious Peter Robinson, is with the DUP - that's Paisley's motley crew for those of you (and who can blame you?) who don't know your People's Front of Ulster from your Ulster People's Front. I could tactically vote for the Ulster Unionists to try to oust him, but I know the anti-Robinson vote will be split between the Alliance and the UUP as it always is, and he'll sail back as ever. The depressing thing is that in 1979, he won the seat by a whisker, about 15,000 votes to (say) 14,000 each for the Alliance and the UUP. However in the last couple of elections, although his vote hasn't gone up, now the combined vote of the Alliance and UUP is only just enough to equal him (they got 7,000-odd each in 2001). So it is pretty hopeless.

The other annoying thing is that it's harder than ever now to brand the DUP a bunch of extremists, since they called the IRA's and Sinn Fein's bluff in negotiations last autumn, only for the IRA to show themselves to still be fully in hock to criminal intent, with the Northern Bank robbery in December and the murder of Robert McCartney in January.

amner

3rd May 2005, 12:40

I was going for heart this time around and throw my vote with non-alternate-alligned-gender-attraction abandon at the Greens, but - sod it - the dozy root-chewing oiks haven't put a candidate up in our constituency. So, it's one of the big three and no little tiddlers at all.

Can't - and this goes against 22 years of belief - vote Labour this time and was even considering a spoilt ballot paper to air my disgust, but I bet I go LibDem.

gil

3rd May 2005, 15:10

I first became a Tory at school. I was about ten, and there were two gangs who fought (in a children's games sort of way, with a bit of harmless wrestling, shoving, showing off and mock shooting and capture-the-castle) at lunchtimes around the school air-raid shelters. The gangs were called Labour and Tory, and I joined the Tories because Labour sounded too much like hard work. And the Labourites, as I remember, were much more serious-minded than we Tories.

We had various mock-elections throughout my time at school, and I always found myself an office bearer in one of the fringe parties, usually with an anarchic utopia as its election platform.

Once in University, I was bemused by the fact that there was a lot of pro-Labour feeling. Some of my colleagues rejoiced at the election of Harold Wilson, and subsequently regretted their enthusiasm as he surrounded himself with cronies and became more and more dictatorial (sound familiar?).

But then a number of my ex-school fellows began to emerge in political clothing - David Steel, whom I'd never really liked; Malcolm Rifkind, a very nice boy; Nicholas Fairbairn - a bit of a caution; and another boy whose name I shall conceal - let's call him Hamish.

Hamish was a quiet boy, much given to wearing kilts, who tried to persuade me to join the Scottish Nationalists. I never did, but I voted for them, and later for Hamish himself. He lost. The next time he stood for Parliament, he was a lady candidate. I began to understand why he had been so keen on wearing kilts.

And so I have stumbled from party to party throughout my life, voting for this and that single-issue party, like the Greens, UKIP, MRLP etc. etc. For example, I'd vote for any party that campaigned to get silencers fitted to small aircraft - they're actually a bigger noise hazard than jets.

But I've NEVER voted Labour, and OFTEN Conservative. There is no party that represents the details of all my views. Basically my clan is not the working class, so I've little alternative. My views are actually to the right of the Tories these days, but Michael Howard has impressed me recently in radio and tv interviews, so I'll vote for him, not so much from conviction as from desperation. It'd be nice to see a third party elected, and Kennedy's a big improvement on his predecessors, but they won't be the Government in my lifetime.

John Self

4th May 2005, 10:47

Notwithstanding gil's support, it's grim news for the Tories today in the latest Times poll - they are on 27%, just four points above the Lib Dems at 23% and fourteen points behind Labour on 41%. This reflects a couple of other recent polls which have put the Tories in the high 20s rather than the low 30s. The notion, put about by both Labour (to frighten their supporters and get the vote out) and Tories - that the marginal constituencies tell a different story and will decide the election - is ridiculous or at least wildly misleading. The idea that a party could win a majority of seats with a 5 - 15% lower share of the overall vote than their main rival is a nonsense.

amner

4th May 2005, 10:56

ono no komachi

4th May 2005, 10:57

And despite having the numbers completely discredited earlier in the week, they still allowed last night's PEB to include the claim that if 1 in 10 former Labour supporters don't vote for Labour or abstain, Britain would end up with a Tory government.

They say this figure is meant to be 'illustrative'. With the actual figure apparently 1 in 4, it doesn't seem very 'illustrative' to me.

ono no komachi

5th May 2005, 10:07

Well, it's done - I have gone and exercised my franchise.

Now that it's done, of course, I find myself plagued by 'what ifs' - what if Blair and Brown were right and we end up with a Tory MP, or worse, a Tory government? What if my vote is effectively wasted?

What's the point of worrying about it now?

John Self

5th May 2005, 10:14

ono no komachi

5th May 2005, 10:28

Nonsense or not, young fella me lad, it will still make fascinating viewing on the old Election night results shows (BBC, obviously, does anyone watch the ITV version of such things?). Have even booked Friday off because I'll be up all night watching for the results in Dumfries and Galloway, Dorset South, Braintree, Monmouth and Lancaster & Wyre*.

*Labour's 5 most vulnerable seats, each requiring a less-than-1% swing to fall.

Some people might have been tempted to watch the Channel 4 version, though I just looked at the TV listings and it seems that that will consist of a feature-length special of Bremner, Bird and Fortune. Shame they're not doing their own coverage of the results - I have enjoyed quite a lot of their news coverage of the campaign.

I too will be interested in the Monmouth result, as it is next door to the constituency I live in. But probably not interested enough to stay up till the wee small hours. I get the impression that their current Labour MP, Huw Edwards, is quite well respected locally; however whether this has anything to do with people confusing him with the BBC newsreader of the same name, I couldn't say.

John Self

5th May 2005, 10:40

They say all MPs are well-regarded locally, usually, don't they? Good constituency worker and all that. I wonder if it really makes much difference come polling day.

I will probably stay up until 1 or 2 by which time the overall picture should become clearer.

Wavid

5th May 2005, 10:41

Also, I would have thought being confused with Edwards the newsreader is a terrible thing. I can't stand him. :evil:

amner

5th May 2005, 10:54

I've voted already too, before coming to work. We had council elections as well here, and I was horrified to discover that there wasn't a Green candidate in my council ward - I think I was confused by the fact that there are a lot of Green posters around my workplace which isn't in the same ward.

I've been and voted too, in that 'frantic' first hour (there must have been, ooh, me in the queue at least). Happy to say the council sheet had a much more entertaining list of parties included (Keep Monarchy White, Ban All Sophies, Artichokes r Us, etc., all that lot): plus a Green, so I'm a little more satisfied.

When I was in my teens and twenties my Mom used to care for an aged old gentleman who lived up the street. Born in 1898, he'd had a fascinating life: his dad used to be one of those handle-bar moustachioed strong men you see in old circus posters, wearing stripy togs and lifting stereotypical "1 Ton" labelled barbels; despite a hole in the heart he was a fabulous swimmer and was often credited with introducing the Australian Crawl (or 'freestyle' as we're supposed to call it now) to this country, indeed he was expected to have represented GB at the Olympics if the Great War hadn't been inconveniently raging across Europe at the time; as a seemingly able-bodied man during that conflict he was - much to his personal horror - given a white feather; he had the freedom of the city of Nottingham, and was forever being fêted at one event or another; in short, quite the character. Anyway, as he grew older and more infirm he came to rely on me giving him a lift to the polling station every time there was an election on (being the age he was, he was insistant on voting whenever he had the opportunity). This I did, but secretly dreaded, for every time I helped him into the school hall where we would vote he would shout at the top of his voice: 'Just tell me which one of 'em isn't that bitch Thatcher!'

John Self

5th May 2005, 23:11

10:10pm. The BBC/ITV exit poll suggests a majority of 66 for Labour. Why didn't they just look at my prediction on page 1 of this thread and save themselves a lot of effort??

John Self

6th May 2005, 8:51

I'm glad Labour's majority has been so seriously slashed, though sorry that the Tories have gained seats. However any talk of a Tory recovery by Howard is foolish when you consider that his party has fewer seats than Labour won under Michael Foot (209) in the disastrous crushing defeat of the 1983 election (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/vote2005/past_elections/html/default.stm?gotoyear=11). Not that Howard will be around for much longer if this (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,,1474277,00.html)report from last week's Observer is anything to go by:

Senior Conservatives are preparing for a new leadership battle if Michael Howard fails to secure at least 200 seats for the party in Thursday's general election.

Tory MPs are saying that although the turmoil caused by William Hague's resignation the day after the 2001 election has left little appetite for another swift change of leader, Howard's position will be untenable if he fails to add at least 40 seats to the current Tory total of 160.

Some are arguing that even if Howard achieves a poor result - which increasing numbers of Tories now expect - any leadership contest should be delayed for at least six months to give MPs time make a considered choice. However, others warn that even if Howard wants to stay on, the certainty that he would not be able to fight the following election would mean his resignation could not be long delayed.

'If it's very bad - 200 or so seats - then change will have to come very quickly,' said one former frontbencher.

Plus I regret the success of George Galloway - I'll take anti-war rhetoric from anyone but that fop. Shame on the people of Bethnal Green & Bow for supporting his plan of parachuting himself into whatever constituency he thought he could win most easily on a dog-whistle anti-war ticket. (Still, the designer shopping is so much better in London than in Glasgow Kelvin, eh Gorgeous?) After all, Galloway is the man who gave meat to the nasty Labour lie that if you opposed the Iraq war, you must be a supporter of Saddam Hussein. At least the leader and sole MP for what Private Eye calls the Sir-I-Salute-Your-Indefatigability Party is a keen proponent of human rights: OK, so he accidentally forgot to raise the issue of widespread human rights abuses in Bangladesh when he visited it, despite pledging to do so previously; and he may have accidentally forgotten to sign an early day motion in the Commons condemning human rights abuses in Burma, to which 289 MPs added their names (including MPs from every party in Parliament except ... Galloway's Respect 'Coalition'); but! at least he did make an impassioned plea for the release of a prominent "political prisoner" on al-Jazeera TV recently. Yes, he pointed out that Tariq Aziz, Saddam's foreign minister who was implicated personally in the murder of political prisoners, and in the 1988 gas attack against the Kurds in Halabja in 1988, was an "eminent diplomatic and intellectual person" who was being held "illegally" and should be released forthwith. So nice to get your priorities right, George.

Wavid

6th May 2005, 9:34

Yes, there are 30 odd seats still to declare, so it's possible the Tories will pick up a few more and get to the 1983 Labour figure, though probably unlikely. Of course, despite having a rather deranged manifesto, Labour were in a pretty strong position in '83, with the country in recession and unemployment rampant. The current government have been very lucky with the economy, meaning that the Tories didn't have an awful lot to play with this time round.

Generally, it's a good result. A reduced majority means Blair will have to consult more with parliament, whilst still leaving a pretty effective government in place.

It also means that the next one will be a bit tighter, and hopefully more engaging. The slowdown in the economy might really start to bite in a few years' time, meaning that Labour can't be so complacent.

The fact though, that a government has been elected with such a tiny proportion of the popular vote (just one in three voters opted for Labour, a mere 3% more than the Tories) means that questions must surely be asked about how democratic this process actually is.

edit: The BBC have a rather nifty election map thingybob here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/vote2005/flash_map/html/map05.stm).

ono no komachi

6th May 2005, 9:45

And Paxo strikes again here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/blog/4519553.stm).

Wavid

6th May 2005, 9:50

Yes, and quite right to. To more or less any other politician, that line of questioning is a bit out of order, but Galloway deserves everything he gets. The man is preposterous.

Digger

6th May 2005, 9:59

Indeed.

Anyone else catch Mssrs Bremner Bird and Fortune, I loved Bremner's shadowing of Mr Howard and his campaign, priceless! :lol:

Shame the Lib dems didn't make 25%, and that the labour lost seats seem to have been handed primarily to the Tories. A more even split would have really heated up the debating and discussion. But, at least Milton Keynes SW went Labour, the candidate there is my landlady, if she'd lost her seat, she'd want her house back, and Digger would be homeless - phew!

NottyImp

6th May 2005, 10:23

But, at least Milton Keynes SW went Labour, the candidate there is my landlady, if she'd lost her seat, she'd want her house back, and Digger would be homeless - phew!

Ah, a bit of old-style patronage. I hope you tugged your forelock, Digger. :lol:

John Self

6th May 2005, 10:34

Yes, there are 30 odd seats still to declare, so it's possible the Tories will pick up a few more and get to the 1983 Labour figure

No. They have 195 now on 619 declared, which means 27 still to declare, of which 18 are in Northern Ireland - so at most the Tories can get 9 more seats, total 204.

The Paxo thing is very good, sorry I missed that (went to bed at 2am) - only problem is when he said "I'm not insulting them. I'm not insulting you," the correct line should have been "I'm not insulting them, I'm insulting you."

Digger

6th May 2005, 10:39

Ah, a bit of old-style patronage. I hope you tugged your forelock, Digger. :lol:

Ooo arrrr, if I culd I wud, m'am! Pleesin yur ladyness.... oh i'm so pleesed you won yur seet, an I do luv livin in yur uther house now yu'll be stayin in yur constituncy, m'ladyness, ver grateful n'all... bow bow - or rather curtsy curtsy - fringe tug tug, smile smile (respectfully)

Digger

6th May 2005, 14:21

I like these (http://www.channel4.com/news/microsites/E/election2005/cartoongallery.html) :lol:

John Self

6th May 2005, 15:17

With just one GB seat left to declare - Harlow - (there's also Staffordshire South but it will be decided by a by-election after the Lib Dem candidate died) Labour have a majority of 65. If they hold Harlow it will be 66 - precisely the number predicted by the BBC at 10:00pm last night. If they lose it their majority will be 64.

Now where's that "I told you so (more or less)" smilie?

I thought it might be interesting to see how many of the Labour losers were Blairite loyalists. You can do this by clicking here (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/election2005/seatslost/0,15982,-145,00.html)for the Guardian's list of Labour losses. Click the constituency, then the name of the Labour candidate who lost, and if you scroll down you can click on "How have they voted?" which gives you their record on controversial legislation. Hours of fun guaranteed.

Wavid

6th May 2005, 22:36

Oh dear:

UUP leader loses Upper Bann seat (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/northern_ireland/4523649.stm)

The Ulster Unionist leader and former Northern Ireland first minister, David Trimble, has lost his Upper Bann seat.

David Simpson, DUP, beat Mr Timble by 5,000 votes. It is the fifth seat loss for the UUP and comes amid speculation Mr Trimble will soon resign as leader.

With only one of the 18 seats left to declare, the DUP are celebrating an election victory. They have taken nine seats so far and the UUP have one.

Mark Durkan has won Foyle for the SDLP - a seat held by John Hume since 1983.

He paid tribute to John Hume for all that he had done.

However, the SDLP has lost its Newry and Armagh seat to Sinn Fein's Conor Murphy. The seat had been held by deputy leader Seamus Mallon since 1986.

The SDLP's Eddie McGrady held his South Down seat.

The DUP has taken a total of four seats from the UUP.

William McCrea, DUP, took the South Antrim seat from David Burnside of the UUP.

The DUP's Sammy Wilson has taken East Antrim from Ulster Unionist Roy Beggs. Mr Wilson polled twice as many votes as Mr Beggs, who had been an MP for 22 years.

Following his defeat, Mr Trimble said: "I believe the situation in Northern Ireland is now a much better one as a result of what we have done."

In a statement on Friday night, UUP chairman James Cooper, said the party was "bitterly disappointed" at the election results.

"It raises a number of questions at a strategic and political level within the party that we will reflect on over the course of this weekend and in the months ahead as we seeks to rebuild trust," he said.

David Simpson said of his own victory over Mr Trimble: "It sends out a very, very clear signal that push-over unionism has gone forever."

DUP leader Ian Paisley said Mr Trimble had beaten himself, adding: "David Trimble took the wrong road."

The SDLP's Alasdair McDonnell had a surprise win in South Belfast, taking the seat from the UUP. Jimmy Spratt of the DUP came in second place.

Iris Robinson of the DUP has retained her seat in Strangford, Jeffrey Donaldson of the DUP retained his Lagan Valley seat, whilst DUP leader Ian Paisley retained his North Antrim seat.

Sinn Fein's Gerry Adams was re-elected in West Belfast and the UUP's Sylvia Hermon retained her seat in North Down.

Peter Robinson of the DUP retained his East Belfast seat, his party colleague Nigel Dodds held his North Belfast seat and Gregory Campbell of the DUP held his seat in East Londonderry.

Sinn Fein's Michelle Gildernew retained her seat in Fermanagh/South Tyrone and her party colleague, Pat Doherty, held his seat in South Tyrone.

Earlier, Gerry Adams retained his West Belfast seat with 24,348 votes and the SDLP's Alex Attwood came second with 5,033 votes.

Mr Adams was confronted by two of the Omagh relatives as he arrived at the count in Belfast City Hall. He made no comment to the protestors.

DUP candidate William Hay has said some unionists voted tactically in an attempt to prevent Sinn Fein from winning the Foyle seat.

Mr Hay said he had been at several polling stations in the city and was in no doubt that tactical voting took place.

Ballot boxes across NI were opened at about 0900 BST to be verified, before counting started.

Counting for the Westminster seats is expected to continue late into Friday.

The counting of papers in the local council election does not begin until Monday.

A total of 918 people are competing for 582 council seats.

This has to be bad news, right?

Wavid

6th May 2005, 22:47

The new cabinet has been announced, details here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4523651.stm).

John Self

6th May 2005, 23:17

This has to be bad news, right?

Yes and no. David Trimble, although the victim at an early age of a tragic hit-and-run charisma bypass operation, has done a good deal for political progress in Northern Ireland - and indeed shared a Nobel peace prize with John Hume of the SDLP. But with Paisley's DUP becoming the largest unionist party (and the largest party overall) in the 2003 Assembly elections, the results of the Westminster elections aren't really that important as there wasn't a big role for Trimble's UUP since 2003 anyway. Secondly the party is in a mess and needed a good Labour-in-1983-style meltdown (in 2001 it got 6 MPs, now it has 1; though in 2004 two of its MPs defected to the DUP anyway so it's a loss of 3 rather than 5) to make it take stock and build itself anew, which it must now do.

Sinn Fein made only one gain which will be very disappointing for them, and this, combined with the rise of the DUP, will keep them and the IRA on the defensive which is no bad thing. In addition, the bogeyman DUP has become much less hardline in recent years, from the stance in 1985 of "Smash Sinn Fein" to working with them in Councils and Assembly committees and getting within a gnat's chuff of an overall political deal with them (albeit negotiated indirectly) last autumn. This is the fruit of their discovery that when you're the party with the power you can't just rubbish other people's ideas all the time, you have to come up with some of your own. I suspect they will become more moderate still when Paisley dies, which I hope (sorry, but) will be sometime in this Parliament.

If there are stable political structures in the coming years - and it'll take years - then the moderate voters could return in force, as the tribalism that we see in today's results comes largely from fear of 'the other side' getting one over on you - 'if they have hardliners, we'd better have hardliners on our side.' It will take some work - Blair had better stay for the full term, heheh - to get a workable deal with Sinn Fein and the DUP as the main parties, but they're both hungry enough for devolved power for it to happen eventually. In the meantime there is always talk of the risks of violence returning in the wake of a political vacuum, but it's understood that the IRA by and large has no appetite for a return to violence, and its leadership (inc. Martin McGuinness and Gerry Adams: so sue me, guys) definitely doesn't. For a start, if it did, they would lose a lot of support both locally and internationally: and in the latter they're sucking the hind tit as it is after the Northern Bank robbery and the murder of Robert McCartney.

So it'll be interesting to see what happens in the future. One small positive point is that the centrist Alliance, although more successful at council and Assembly level and never having had a Westminster seat, increased its vote slightly. I'll take that credit thanks.