UK General Election 2005

not many people i'd rather have not running the country than Blair but Michael Howard is definitely one of them. it's a shame as there was an opportunity for this election to be much more dramatic and important, but no-one emerged to really take it to Blair at the time when it really could've made a difference. as it turns out Labour will win comfortably without even having to do anything - the Brown/Blair conflict seems no worse than other internal conflicts of the past that came to nothing. the apparent comfort the warmongering governments experience this decade betrays the dissatisfaction felt by many but can't muster worthy opposition.

prince harry and his "mates"
mark thatcher and his "mates"
the ferry family
john mccririck
aitken/archer/hamilton
THE DAILY MAIL

i now understand belloc's concept of "clinging on to nurse for fear of something worse."

New Labour have been appalling in so many ways, but the Tories will be so much much worse. As Blair camps on the centre-right (that's just Blair - the majority of the Labour Party and much of the government's policies and decisions are still of the centre-ish left) the tories have gone further right. A Tory government would be so ruinous.

As for the LDs, at some point they're going to have to face the yawning chasm in them as a party between economic and social liberalism. Whilst they've been a rump, it's been easier to bury that difference foor the greater good of unity as a third (comrades, we must not fight against ourselves but struggle against the real enemy - the other two parties). As they get bigger, that gets harder - look at their voting record on free votes, which shows them a split bloc with nothing like the ideological coherence of the other two parties.

lib dems would mop up labour votes if they devised what have been called 'policies' and took unambiguous 'positions'.

personally i wish that both labour and tories could go back to the parties they're supposed to be, i.e. tony benn on one side, norman tebbit on the other, and at least you know where either stands.

the overall proposed £4bn worth of tax cuts would appear to be the catch. and as sometime nhs employees, we both know how well the nhs has done out of a deregulated free market economy.

marcello is right to remind us of mark thatcher and harry

This is simply not true

It's about tone, not Tone. It's little things. Would the Tories be so keen on reliving African debt? Would they fuck. Would they be into the minimum wage? The HRA? Freedom of Information? I could go on, but part of the tragedy of New labour is that it's so fucking shy about the good things it has actually done, and so loud about Tories-manque.

As for wanting the Tories, be careful for what you wish for. Good luck under those cunts.

the result was 18 years of tory hell.

so no thanks.

2. why is it unfashionable to be right wing in britain, the way it isnt in america (is that young rightwingers here are always complaining about something, whereas there, it is the young left that is perceived as being hand-wringy and complainy)

3. its 20+ years since foot et al, at what point will the shadow of the miners strike no longer rest upon uk politics?

4. if the lib dems have not, by now, been able to displace a tory party backed into a corner by an ever rightleaning labour govt, will they ever?

5. if tories do close the gap on labour, is it more likely the message the govt will 'hear' is, "we are not tory enough?", not, "we have become too tory?"

Probably not, I'm emigrating to Atlantis

I think most of the Labour Party will opt for the latter because how can you actually be more Tory than they are just now? However I imagine the main New Labour fanatics will opt for the former.

If we think Labour's bad, remember the Tories have no policies beyond firing civil servants and dismantling the pubic spending agenda and trying to make every hospital in the country a foundation trust whether their finances can cope or not. Everything else is just reactionary: immigration, law and order, countryside alliance-centred stuff.

I don't know enough about the LibDems, which is my own fault.

1. no.
2. the pendulum swings. remember cnd, greenham, etc. in the '80s? anyway i'm sure prince harry will help make fascism hip in britain again before long
3. the shadow of the 1926 general strike still rests upon uk politics, so i suspect you've a long time to wait until that happens
4. no because most protesting voters "go home" to their own party when it's general election time
5. the former. you want to base your demographic appeal on daily mail readers then you'll hear what's convenient for you as a political party to hear

I wouldn't be so sure about that

In what way is resting on UK politics now exactly?

VOTE LIBERAL DEMOCRAT PLEASE

most people in britain want the restoration of the death penalty, lynching of paediatricians, compulsory repatriation of all immigrants (preferably from the top of the white cliffs of dover) and zero income tax, which latter policy has proved so successful in the lebanon.

so political parties have to work against their electorate's worst judgement.

In what way is resting on UK politics now exactly?

the emergence of new labout is surely a direct result of the demise of the trade unions, and the destruction of the miners?

Blair may have agreed to those referendums, but he kind of promised them in 2001, and it's obvious where his sympathies lie, so UKIP is a kind of 'hate vote'.

The idea that a Blair victory would lead to a left-realignment isn't on TBH. What's the well-spring for this left-realignment? The fucking anti-war movement? Do em a favour guv. The only well-spring is the Trade Unions, who remain wedded to the party, and I'll take my cue from them. Vote Labour, and work for a better Labour - anything else is a pipedream unliekly to work and very likely to utterly fuck this country royally, backwards, sideways and without any lube.

Mark - what's your take on the sciziophrenia of the Lib-dems? How can they coherently be a national party when in Rochdale, they';re the anti-Labour right opposition, wheras in Dorset, they're the anti-Tory left opposition? The solution - that we're for something as well as gaianst the rest isn't borne out by their voting record which suggests that they're equally divided over what they want as what they're against.,

xpost

i don't know where to start with this, but the open-faced workerism of the 'trade unions = the voice of the working man' line can be fairly easily discounted. has it been true since 1926 even? the mind boggles. the trade unions have about as much left-wing form as tony blair. ah, but anything else is a 'pipdream', politics is the art of the possible, and we are all now safe from WMD.

Because UK politics has left us exactly where it wants us: desperate, but unmotivated. The simple fact is that even thinking about New Labour and the alternatives equates to finding one's way out of a small, pitch black room, constantly banging into brick until you simply lie on the floor and give up.

Ultimatel;y, any genuinely socialist programme must be based on countering the exigencies of the market as felt throuigh the lived experience of working people; the unions are the vehicles for distilling that experience.

We are?

Blair isn't going to resign voluntarily until at least December 2008. I'd bet large amounts of money that he'll only leave office before then if the party forces him to. His supporters will say that a spring 2009 resignation will give his successor an entirely reasonable year to prepare for the next election.

(4227 days, if you're bothered)

I will credit the Blair government with a lot. They have got results even if they have destroyed a good deal of what was good about themselves and the public services, or at least not repaired the Thatcher damage. They have managed to rewrite the social contract again, get it closer to the post-war ideal. People in the main no longer want Tax cuts if it means the public services will suffer which means that a Tory party used to using that a a bribe to gain power for their more insidious ends has nowhere to turn.

The alternatives are much worse. The Liberals are just that thw same, essentially as they have been for nearly two hundred years. Keep people just happy enough so they keep buying.

I'm coming to the conclusion that now maybe the time to join the Labour Party. Labour needs to become the broad church of socialist opinion that is was in the early half to 2/3rds of last century. The Attlee caqbinet was one of the most diverse of all time and that came from a party that included Trade Unionists, Intellectuals, Middle class and even aristocracy with a conscience, communists etc. etc.

The Labour Party is the only chance we have so it has to be changed by people form the inside. It has to be an argument on the inside, it's such a shame that internal debate is seen as weakness rather than strength in this day an age, but at least that view killed the tories.

Ask yourselves why no serious left-wing alternative, with a coherant voice, has emerged over the past seven years? The rise of UKIP shows its not impossible to launch a new party and bring it to prominence, if you have popular backing.

Where I disagree with Dave is that Blair could go after the election, basking in the glow of victory - he'll go on at least as long as Thatcher if he possibly can. (Will he have changed the political landscape as much in that time? Doubtful.) I can't see Ed's scenario occurring either - Blair knows full well that Brown's handling of the economy is Labour's #1 electoral asset and I think much of the country would rather have Brown as Chancellor than Blair as Prime Minister. Also, any demotion would look like an act of petulance and is bound to reflect badly on Blair himself in all sections of the press.

I have no experience of education or crime but my gut feeling is that they would be much worse under the tories.

Yes, I abhor their illiberal, Mail inspired immigration, asylum, security and criminal justice policies.

Yes they participated in an Illigal Iraq war, but in the foriegn arena at least they have been leading the cause of third world debt relief.

I don't think Blair, personally has got results, but Labour in a limited way, has.

He very charmingly pointed out that the simplest way to cut immigration into the UK would be to end bilateral agreements with Australia, New Zealand and the EU as these are by far and away the biggest areas og immigration to the UK. This is fantastic as it leaves the Tories with the choice of admitting that they only wanted to keep out Black/Brown/Yellow people or closing down the most popular routes out for nice white aspirational middle class people.

Also i hope someone points out that if it weren't for immigration the UK public services would collapse. The NHS seems only to function at the moment because of vast armies of highly skilled ghanaian and Nigerian Nurses, and is cleaned by even larger armies of Africans and Eastern Europeans.

so do the BNP but both parties at least provide some reasoning however ill-founded, usually the 'compromise and dilution of Britain's own culture' which incorporates Islamophobia, ghettophobia etc. They would probably also use the 'We don't want to take valuable resources i.e. trained people away from countries who need them more (though that itself is questionable gah)' argument and if they don't perhaps they ought to wrt to trying to get people to pay attention to them more?

What really upset me listening to the radio this morning was the way MH kept saying that people who paid to be smuggled into the country couldn't possibly be genuine asylum seekers. People go to extreme lengths and take incredible risks to get smuggled into the UK and often die on the way. You'd have thought that kind of desperation would demonstrate something.

I found out recently that coming into the UK legally counts against you if you want to claim asylum. Especially if you have your own passport. If you have time to pick up your possessions and buy a flight then how can you have been in danger at home?

Specific Tory proposals on tax mean I'd be much better off financially under Howard. I've always voted Labour before, putting principle ahead of self-interest. It's going to be a lot less clear cut this time - hard to regard a vote for Bliar as a vote for principle of any sort.

But converesley, hard to regard a vote for Howard as anything other than a vote for racism of the worst sort.

As for the point Ed made about Trevor Phillips - the Tories couldn't gove a fuck; he part of the liberal elite, and so his opinions don't count. The hateful effect of triangulation is the importation of US tropes; Blair decides to abandon economics and ape Clinton, Howard apes Rove and hits 'culture' buttons as tax cits don't work.

Gos, I fucking despise them all. Racist cunting evil backward fucks the lots of them. Though they're a good counterpoint to people who think Labour are just as bad. We're just not as bad as that, and it's naive to event think so, and dangerous to act so.

they also did a quick vox pop where nine out of the ten people they talked to on the street were over 50 so obv. 'what do you think should happen to drug addicts who stole your car' is going to get 'oh they'd better kill them in prison before i get my hands on them' type responses. fuckheads.

maybe this is a subversive ploy on the producers part but it's thanks to this sort of thing that my vote has just veered even more towards the LibDem camp (pretty much there already)...

it is a bit bonkers though.

*(not real placing)

I realise, though, that this isn't the answer you were looking for.

Both of which announcements are constitutionally illegal, of course.

I'm not going to be voting Labour, Henry.

Wasn't that a deliberate wind-up? He claimed so, at least.

I'm not going to be voting Labour, Henry.

Good thing you don't live in Bir... oh, xpost.

Election 2005
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/default.stm

And Obligatory blog
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/blog/default.stm

http://www.freakytrigger.co.uk/seven/

Let us know if you want to join in. There's even a chance some kind of serious political post will appear there before 5 May.

The Election Monitor
our campaign weblog

ha RickyT what were you expecting a swingers-ometer at an orgy !

The LibDems genuinely have a chance at breaking through; at least beyond the Alliance's vote-share in 1983. Kennedy does resonate reasonably well, and he'll clearly do as in 2001 and as Ashdown did in the 1992 and 1997 campaigns; the difference being that he has a higher base in the polls to work from (18-22% now; 10-14% in 2001, just before the elections?).

In terms of the 'apparent' two-party race, could this be the equivalent of the U.S. Presidential Election of 2000? Howard tries to be as unthreatening as Bush seemed to many back then... he thankfully does not have the lead that over Labour that Bush did over Gore going into that campaign, but he does in comparison to 2001.

Now, to focus on the Tories... I am deeply worried by and angry at their campaigning strategy, which seems to other nothing positive at all, but consist of trying to stir up apathy, and *get in by the back door*. And it's just possible they could succeed, or at least have a chance of winning the 'popular' vote. Right-wing people seem dangerously more inclined to vote than the majority, who are 'apathetic' moderates, or the left who cannot agree on where to go now. People need to be woken up to the possibility that they might get Howard as PM if they are not careful, or at least embolden right-wing politics in this country. They should not vote Labour if they don't feel they should, but they should at least vote to drive up the anti-Tory turnout.

Is the centreground shrinking...? Or is it just that Brown rather than Blair would be the man to capture it, and gain the convincing majority of the whole electorate?

is this the ultimate 'protest vote' election? the tories' line last night was that a vote for them would 'wipte the smile of tony blair's face'. the lib dems' platform eschewed actual policies for the claim that they provided 'an alternative'. even if you accept that politics are 'post-ideological' and the age of major social change is behind us (ever so slightly hubristic, you ask me), there surely *is* space for a party who might restore habeas corpus and so forth. but instead it's a generalized angst about the spectres of modern life (i saw an interviewee on tv blaming the lack of community, specifically the fact that she didn't know someone five doors down for her had died, on blairs -- which even i found a bit unfair) that a lot of the tory and lib dem campaigns will come down to.

ie the middlemass is breakin up into its um natural class-interest factions, each faction filled w.spite against some other faction in the "post-ideological" consensus

at the extremes we see VERY odd bridge-building (ie on the "left" sit-it-out historical materialists w. anarchoid class-warriors w. actual real pacificists w. hi-tech jihadists w. 12th-century theocrats)

(ie if NRQ's interviewee is typical, blaming "death of community" on blair)

If you take the Tory use of emblems of nu-labour badness, then the upshot is that policies are changed in order to remedy the immediate personal effects - waiting lists reconfigured to suit the exigencies of the person they've dragged up. When policy becomes a simplistic 'ease my particular pain', the right will always profit, because the simplicity argument is one they're more comfortable with, the cyncial aspect is a mode they're absolutely cool with, and the fact that you'll eventually have to decide which 'type' of people who want to prioritise the pain of is a decision they're entirely comfortable with making.

Simplicity then, presents labour and the left with problems, as their politics have an analytical base that doesn't stand up well to simplification. You see in Blair attempts to reduce his politics to 5 easy pledges leads to problems and whilst Blair is obviously chilled with the reduction, the majority of his party aren't.

hence labour nu-authoritarianism (re ASBOs etc) as much as the chaotic quasi-multi-cultural tory flailing (howard fl!ght = tebbit-acolyte BEING KICKED OUT FOR BOSH-SHOT TEBBITISM!!)

nu-labour's endlessly patronising "management-speak" kneejerk (= the cocky child of old labour's paternalist statism) has become airlessly oppressive to many, even if those many will never sit down and agree on ANYTHING ELSE

But Veritas want YOUR application to stand as a candidate for them:

http://www.veritasparty.com/Veritas_Candidates_Application_Form_110205.doc

I was planning to vote LD - not that it matters because Tooting is a rock solid Labour seat, 20K majority or something absurd - but my local MP has a good voting record (rebelling on the sort of stuff I'd want a Labour MP to rebel on) so I'm not sure now.

can we have this as the strap line to blog 7 please tom ;)

unlike beanz i live in tottenham which is more labour than a labour thing, i'm feeling very apathetic about the whole thing i must say, i wish i lived in a marginal...

There's the voters who can't bring themse3lves to vote Labour, but can't bring themselves to vote for anyone else. There's people who wonder if they can afford to express a left-anti-Labour vote if the end result is the Tories. There appears to be very little anti-Tory tactical voting going down, in contrast to 97 and 01, where (the latter especially), there seemed to be a feeling that the Tories were lying prone and battered on the floor, and really needed a good kicking to rub it in.

On top of this, the traditional backstop - the reliable holding pattern of a rock-solid vote is in real danger. For starters, the twin foundations of labour's majorities on a seat-by-seat basis have reasons to be uncheerful. The middle-class left feels betrayed over Iraq. The working-class vote feels like they haven't felt the benefit of 8 years of government and aren't motivated. Add in the increasing piss-poor turnout and the dilemma of many a left inclined voter which might lead to them staying away, and all bets are off. You have an American situation where getting the vote out on the day becomes crucial - hence Howard appealing to a disparate constituency of people who are vaguely pissed off but with no coherent ideological common thread. he touching the buttons of people who care about abortion, immigration, PC gone mad, Gypsies etc and hoping to galvanise them.

Putting that all together, this isn't the election to risk letting them in. I think this really is the last throw of their dice. The 'extreme' toryism Howard's going for would be so goddam awful that it doesn't bear thinking about. In short, the time for experiments with anti-Blairism isn't now, because the potential outcome is more awful than it might be in 4 years.

* - (that ignores tyhat the best hope for more left-leaning policies isn't the Lib-Dems but a post-Blair Labour Government).

I'll be voting Liberal Democrat regardless. Though the pleasant, pretty Tory candidate is flooding me with mail (and an actual visit and a chat) and I haven't heard a squeak out of the red or the yellows.

Ultimately, the point I'm making is that assumptions about safe seats seems to be incredibly weak this time aropund, because the rules and patterns of the Uk Electoral system seem to have been thrown out of the window. I'm sounding like my politics lecturers talking about class de-alignment and partisan re-alignment, but it's a fact which gets more prevelanet every election, and with the increase in that, the assumptions created in times of greater stability become more uncertain.

There's *no way*, even if the turnout collapses, the Tories can possibly win this seat.

Same here (apart from the pleasant, pretty bit)

Andrew Marr just said on the BBC news "If Labour wins the next general election we KNOW that Tony Blair will stand down as prime minister"

how do they know this?

Speculation that this may come earlier in the third term, rather than say 3.5 years + within a third term.

i.e it is a possibility that some MPs in the labour party may challenge Blair in a leadership contest

http://www.blogger.com/profile/536798

b) I take it you're not including MPs that were outed after being elected - Michael Brown, for example.

PMQs today: Labour could do no worse than broadcast the footage of Howard and other Tories doing their crass "UP...! UP...! UP...!DOWN...! DOWN...! DOWN!" 'routine', as a Party Political Broadcast. Considering the Tories' focus on Blair, it is inevitable that more scrutiny has to be applied to the man who is the only conceivable other winner. Michael Crick's got a book out on him soon, I hear; maybe that we start the ball rolling. He certainly needs exposing to the majority as a nasty piece of work and a genuine threat electorally, with that 'ruthless' Aussie the puppetmaster.

I will be on the internet, but political analysis is not particularly high on my agenda.

However, Thought of the day: if New Labour was a proper old skool Socialist Party would they nationalise Rover into a state run car production organization.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/conservatives/story/0,9061,1457749,00.html

"Gee Brain, I think so, but this time *you* wear the tutu..."

Still a right wing Thatcherite toerag tho. Been saying it for months, the Tories are going to win this sucker.

xpost

You can't use the phrase "working" on its own because that might imply "working class" and that's a complete no-no.

Also ALL people interviewed for their opinions on immigration who think they're being 'swamped' etc. must be subjected to spot-checks as to whether or not they can spell the word. I'm all for sending 'fails' on compulsory field trips to Zimbabwe in Union Jack t-shirts.

Really? I haven't heard a front bench New Labour person use the phrase "working class" possibly ever, I've heard "socialism" used more!

In short I think the vote is going to be steady as we go.

tories are going for aggrieved nu-labour vote

I wonder how much external events could sway things, collapse of Rover - loss of confidence in government's handling of economy plus terrorist threat either in Uk or Iraq.

Also 80's style anti-tory vote being split by resurgent libdems.

controlling immigration is such a mundane, logical exercise tho. it's a shame that a conversation about it can't be had without both right and left wing reps veering (or being accused of veering) further away from each other to the brink of insanity.

Says something about public attitudes too of course.

The one I don't like is the nasty Tory beeyatch in South Islington who has said nasty things about Chris Smith and his AIDS and thus has no clue about her potential constituency demographics.

Search
Sorry, your search was empty!

Searchword: "working class"

Sometimes irony is so hard to do.

But hey! That's one less stamp for Tory campaign funds WHICH IS MORE THAN YOU LOSERS HAVE ACHIEVED. Because you are closet Tories.

Obviously I'm not going to vote for her. Perhaps I should have made that clearer.

I'M NOT GOING TO VOTE FOR HER!

I mean, bloody hell.

When the expected election started getting close, though, she was deselected - on the grounds that she didnt' spend enough time in the area - and replaced with the chap who runs the Tory group on one of the local councils (albeit not one actually in the constituency), and who has been a major bigwig in the local party for many years. I don't think they'd be doing that if they didn't think he could win - if they were expecting to lose, they'd rely on the throwaway Central Office candidate that they'd already selected.

(also har har my shoes were better)

xpost: There is Power is a Tactical Vote Exchange

I wonder how much external events could sway things, collapse of Rover - loss of confidence in government's handling of economy plus terrorist threat either in Uk or Iraq.

I haven't heard any mention at all of increased security in case somebody's plotting a Madrid-style attack. I think if I lived in London it might be on my mind as I commuted over the next few weeks.

I saw Billy too. What a Joey Billy is.

Bragg and Howe going at it, yesterday

"oi dont wunt to change dur wurld, oim not lukin for new inglund..."

-- The Horse of Babylon's Butle

I had an email from Lynn Featherstone saying almost exactly that. Roche's office is almost directly under my flat. The frequency of lost people ringing our buzzer asking if any of us is Barbara Roche is rising.

'Are you thinking what we're thinking?'

A-ha! Then you probably live over my barber (not really relevant to this thread).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4444513.stm

Of course it is just coincidence that Galloway decided to stand in Bethnal Green - choosing out of all the seats in the UK to take on one where there is a Jewish MP and a large Muslim population.

Kick this fascist bastard out.

George Galloway is not a fascist.

The leader of the British Union of Fascists was called Oswald Mosley.

Your opening observation would have been far more pertinent had you substituted the name "Robert Kilroy-Silk" for "George Galloway."

Me too - it says Lib Dem 38, Green 13, Labour 9, UKIP 7(!), Tories -22. Is this site actually made by the Lib Dems?

Iraqis and Afghans don't literally have darker skins than Oona, it hinges solely on the fact that she is half Jewish.

Except it doesn't. Her mother is Jewish. "Her father, Preston King, an African American from Georgia, won a scholarship to study at the LSE, the only black student in a group of 10."

Nick, Judaism is matrilineal, so Oona King would be considered Jewish, even though she doesn't participate in the religion as far as I'm aware. If your father is Jewish and your mother is not, you are not considered Jewish by other Jews.

totally agree -- but at the same time, many critics of israel are anti-semitic.

no sign of an manifesto on the website yet either

[JOKE]

http://www.channel4.com/news/microsites/E/election2005/gallery_2_cartoongallery.html

http://www.politicalsurvey2005.com/scripts/quiz

http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/election.php

As I have suspected, I am well out of tune with my MP, an ex-hero of the Left - Chris Mullin, author of "A Very British Coup" and prominent in the freeing of the Guildford Four - who has voted pretty staunchly for all the Government measures I have disagreed with, though he abstained on Iraq.

Seems the LibDems are roughly the closest to me, although the 'Political Survey' makes me out to be more of a Green - much use, as they're not standing in my area.

Agree fully with Momus, Marcello and others upthread that it's a gross failure in perspective to be laying into George Galloway at this point; he's hardly as dangerous, leading his fringe party, as Howard the certified right-winger is. He might actually have a chance of being PM... thankfully nobody seems to want that; a shame that he stills leads Kennedy in a Presidential-style poll: Blair 38, Howard 26, Kennedy 21 IIRC.

http://www.englishdemocrats.org.uk/

I think I might go and put a fiver on Theresa May for next leader of the conservatives.

Your position: Very left-wing (rehabilitation; internationalist)

By comparison, you described yourself as Slightly left-of-centre.

Most people who think of themselves as being "left wing" are on the centre on the first axis; those who think of themselves as being "right wing" usually are on the right of this axis.)

Compared to the whole population

By comparing your answers to the answers of the respondents in the opinion poll, we can tell you how your views compare to those of the whole population of Britain.

Compared to the whole population...

* 1.1% are significantly to your left
* 6.8% have views about the same as yours
* 92.1% are significantly to your right

Yes. Depressing.

I'd never seen that Pete Postlethwaite advert before though - how terrible!

Your position
Slightly right-of-centre

By comparison, you described yourself as Slightly left-of-centre.

Most people who think of themselves as being "right wing" are on the centre on the second axis; those who think of themselves as being "left wing" usually are on the left of this axis.)

Compared to the whole population

* 50.3% are significantly to your left
* 39.9% have views about the same as yours
* 9.9% are significantly to your right

* 0.0% are significantly to your left
* 0.9% have views about the same as yours
* 99.1% are significantly to your right

Axis two

* 26.0% are significantly to your left
* 51.8% have views about the same as yours
* 22.2% are significantly to your right

Somewhat spurious axes once again. Incidentally the guy who created that was in the year above me at school.

Your position> Fairly left-wing

By comparison, you described yourself as Slightly left-of-centre.

Compared to the whole population...

* 5.6% are significantly to your left
* 10.4% have views about the same as yours
* 84.0% are significantly to your right

2

Your position> Slightly left-of-centre

By comparison, you described yourself as Slightly left-of-centre.

Compared to the whole population...

* 4.1% are significantly to your left
* 36.7% have views about the same as yours
* 59.2% are significantly to your right

There was no option to say that you read the Metro, the test is flawed.

Socialist Labour Party

ARTHUR SCARGILL MANIFESTO - CONTENTS
http://www.socialist-labour-party.org.uk/Election%20News.htm

A grand total of £494.25 to be given before the election? Vote bribing only works if you pay more than 3 people.

(xpost)

You have to pay to watch snow on the internet.

"Deep in email debate with angry Labour voters threatening not to vote for the party this time, I find it is the war and terror legislation they care about most, not poverty. Time and again they dismiss social justice as a second-order question. All ideological fervour is expended on liberty, very little on equality ... [F]or many Labour voters the war appears to take priority; it is a kind of decadence that makes distant things easier to feel passionately about than the messiness of difficult social policy at home."

it is an interesting question, even if toynbee's social aims are extraordinarily limited and her political and economic aims nil. but isn't this the most gross use ever of the 'liberty vs equality' trope. liberty not to get locked up without charge is not the liberty "we all deplore" in the "libertarians".

but i don't see how labour voters voting against the war, and against repression, are 'mirroring' the republicans who vote because they support the war. they aren't mirroring, but opposing.

I am minded to not bother voting anyway, or to waste my vote by voting Labour.

There, now I sound like a twat anyway.

Will more people on Merseyside vote if Liverpool win?

NRQ, I am undecided. I would like to vote against Theresa May, my current MP, but I don't much care for Lib Dem, who are the only ones with a chance to boot her out. I vowed never to vote for Labour again after they let Pinochet go (which reminds me, I must find out if the new pope was mates with Pinochet). So that leaves me with Greavsie's Gaff regulars UKIP and your friends and mine the BNP. Pretty poor choice really.

Norman Tebbit is worried about multi-culturalism.

I am torn. Same seat as discussed above (Hornsey & Wood Green). Need more info - to the party websites!

I'm surprised Andrew Gilligan is out on the streets. I'm surprised they do vox pops near galleries rather than branches of Primark.

I always felt quite comfortable having opinions about politics in Spain even though I couldn't vote. I knew more about it than most nob-ends.

All I can find is the bloke who announced 'habeamus papam' or whatever was a big Pinochet supporter.

Why am I being told that I hold the same views as BNP when this isn't even what the statistics show?

Polly Toynbee's concept of social justice and equality is that we can all have the chance to buy nice houses away from poor people and blacks and the like, the chance to invest in private medical care, the chance to join private pensions schemes, the chance to send our children to private school, the chance make sure that someone else's children clean our floors etc etc etc. Fuck her and fuck New Labour

It's a tricky one, but I think it's important that people on the left of centre register their disenchantment with New Labour or the party will continue to assume we'll vote for them anyway and lurch further to the right to capture the floating voters.

here is the labour website:

Welcome to the website of

Hornsey & Wood Green Labour Party.

We hope to be able to add lots of useful information onto our new website very soon so please bear with us while our site is under construction.

Point being, she didn't give the impression of being stuck up.

But I've never read her articles.

I have only voted once because I was abroad the rest of the time. This was, I think, 1987. Unless there was no election that year.

It's kind of weird just how many people are in the same constituency here.

xpost to Anna

Yes, Henry. The Ilx0rzz united will never be ignited.

haha joke only for sad robot teenpop perverts *over there*...

Economics, etc
Your position on this axis is 2.0
You are likely to be fairly free-market and pro-war.

your position: -2.9 slightly left of centre
By comparison, you described yourself as Centre.

interesting, there are more women who are more right wing than men who are more right wing than me - I always thought being right wing is like a MAN thing like WAR yeah!! BUSINESSES!!!

You told us that you don't know who you will vote for. Ho-hum. On your answers we judge — against this axis only — that your best match is the Green party.

Oh Jesus. :(

axis 2:
Your position 2.0 Fairly right-wing!

This is amazing - my views on trade and stuff are more right wing than most tories!!

You should join the Labour Party then

However, Chuck was hindered by people not taking him seriously and his fairly mediocre skills at debate (he sees his quoting and deferring to higher bodies than himself a good thing, most voters won't), Howard was hindered by having reacted to his public speaking lessons badly so that he seemed to be holding an imaginary football whilst leaning forward throughout which just looked wierd (and having to dance around his bargain bin, slapdash, how's your father policies) and Blair was fighting Iraq which meant no time to play to his domestic policy strengths (the ongoing triangulisation of his face makes for fascinating viewing though). The loser in all this is the British public.

I'm getting bored of seeing Blair say exactly the same thing about Iraq again and again and again. Do people actually think they're catching him out? Its like asking Geir about rhythm and melody and thinking he's going to say something inconsistent with what he's been saying non-stop for the past two years.

Unsurprisingly I thought Howard came off the worst of the three but the lines of questioning were pretty poor. I got the feeling people were just trying to catch out caricatures (see debate instantly moving onto asylum with Michael Howard when neither of the other two were asked about it at all).

"Tony Bliar is a BIG NASTY EVIL LIAR!!

"(but I'd have done exactly the same thing he did anyway)"

i love how howard would have invaded iraq without any mention of wmd. like: he would have just invaded the fucker. at random. with or without the usa. just for the fucking glory of the thing.

Well, that was who I first thought of: but frankly I don't think Oona King is *important* enough to be classed as the Ned of politics.

Regime Change : We get rid of your evil dictator and cronies.

Regine Change Plus : We get rid of your evil dictator and supply a peace-keeping force for 12 months. Includes loan of tanks and armoured personnel carriers while your vehicles are off the road.

Regime Change Platinum : We get rid of your evil dictator, supply a peace-keeping force, and help you set up a new goverment.

Our Regime Change range of products provide the fastest solution to removing troublsome dictatorships - once and for all! All packages include a UN mandate waiver, removing the need for time-consuming consultation and compliance with international law.

'Firm but Fair on Asylum' and some waffle about harmonising asylum standards across europe (which could mean tightening up british Asylum policy as most other nations are stricter and you won't get, say, Italy liberalising on the issue).

On Immigration the pledge to consult with business and public sector employers to determine the number of work permits required to allow briatin to continue to prosper.

I didn't watch it, but how does it compare to the footage of Nixon in the 1960 presidential debates?

The world would be a better place if lawyers were prevented from holding public office.

We'd get rid of Blair *and* Howard! Hurrah!

EW EW EW EW x 10/250,000

http://www.ukip.org/cgi-bin/axs/ax.pl?http://www.ukipshop.co.uk/ppb2005_0001.wmv

Incidentally ukip.org.uk appears to be run by the 'imperial tories'; whoever they might be.

Check the LD spoof PEB on channel 4 it's the best one yet.

The second half is a tribute to... which was of course, caused by... oh, I'll let you lot read it and find out for yourselves. It's a basic irony.

This just goes to show something, although I'm not quite sure what.

I must investigate this Oona King person.

Regime Change Platinum : We get rid of your evil dictator, supply a peace-keeping force, and help you set up a new goverment.

I liked Dr C's warranty metaphor, but it could have gone further and included:

Regime Change plus Citizenship: We get rid of your evil dictator and make you a citizen of our own democracy for life. Obviously this entails a big commitment from us, and might actually make us think twice about invading you.

Your average Sun reader isn't expected to realise that, though. They've been fed the "drugs IS EVIL" line for long enough that they're just expected to believe it.

However, Rupert Murdoch backs the war in Iraq, so it's like that and that's the way it is.

Cannabis smoke supposedly contains more tar and higher concentrations of carcinogens than tobacco smoke, so I guess that if people were smoking enough of it, you would expect similar health problems to emerge, including a lowering of life expectancy. Which is no reason for it to be criminalised obviously, but it's not strictly true that it's harmless. But you know all that shit anyway. Not sure if that's what the Sun is referring to or not though.

You're clearly more keen to be a satirist than a satyr, Henry, but your barb is blunted by the fact that Bush would and could never invoke 1776 as a precursor to his War on Terror (if he did it would be clear that Bin Laden is closer to Tom Paine than he is), but that Chirac can and does compare the EU constitution to 1789.

meantime 1789 proclaimed the sovereignty of nations...

It's probably smaller than the proportion who just want to look at tits.

Cross posts

I think Howard's done his best with tapping into good old ugly xenophobia. He's made it into a more general thing that people can identify with. The Mekon and AIDS focus on Europe was a bad move, it didn't really relate to people and even the Britains most backwards racists tend to have a soft spot for somewhere on the continent that they holiday in. The British Asian communities are perfect - lots of nasty recent associations for "their kind", a strong a very different image thats very present and acts as almost constant advertising for your backward slabhanded views, and the whole illegal immigration angle that gives them a premade association with crime and nastiness and is a definite problem that is definitely being mismanaged even if their angle is missing the point entirely. I'm impressed how he's managed to keep his cool and infer bigotry without really getting caught out on it. I think Howards run a good campaign given what he's got to work with.

Labour have had a tough one - Blair's not been able to escape Iraq and rightly so. Their strength is still domestic policy and they've not been able to spend enough time on it whilst Blairs been answering all the questions. Pretty much the entire rest of the party have been strangely absent which is quite telling. We're counting down the days to leadership contests and the shrewd will have been keeping quiet so they don't have too much an association with Tony "Eaden" Blair. Except Gordon, of course, who's doing all that false grinning to get rid of a bad press meme about splits in the party. I reckon there was a meeting before the campaign started where they worked out that statistically they'd get in with Blair this time, so they could afford to play their ace of installing Gordon next time. There was no need to put him in there now if Blair could win.

The Lib Dem's biggest achilles is still the leadership, which irks me because he's a decent chap who's style just isn't right. He likes to be a sort of Chair of Debates rather than a leader and always defers to those who specialise in whatever issue's at hand. It's commendable but not voteablefor. A lot of their un-sugar-coated policies are very comendable and they've done a better job than before of making people understand them, but not good enough. They need someone else before they can get rid of the snipy press attitude about them.

Frankly I feel offended that Labour do not want to talk to me as a wavering former supporter.

This has actually helped decide to sod it and vote Lib Dem! Going by the scientific method of counting posters in windows I think Lynne Featherstone is ahead (at least in Muswell Hill).

(there aren't any other parties standing)

will howard go? if so, what do y'all think the tories will present to the public in four years. and, obviously, does anyone see a future for the lib dems as a serious party? will we really see, in 2009, a lab v lib dem contest with the tories clinging on to an ageing core vote?

Church of the Militant Elvis Party
Death Dungeons and Taxes Party
Removal of Tetramasts in Cornwall Party
Motorcycle News Party
Personality AND Rational Thinking? YES! Party
Tigers Eye - the Party for Kids
Telepathic Partnership Party
Vote for Yourself Rainbow Dream Ticket
Xtrordinary People Party

Blair has said he'll stand down this term, more or less. Mick How'd resign. Oliver Leftwing to stood up to lead? There'll be no scramble to lead the party unless and until their popularity increases significantly, at which point there will be an unholy scrum for the job.

LibDems? It could happen.

My fear is that in normal terms, they're fucked. But this isn't normal - if they hold a line (the one more heave tendency) they could be elected on a swing back of the pendulum - the regular feeling that it's time for a change. That would definitely be an emigration government for me.

LOL! If you go by this in my constituency, Brighton Pavilion is going to be a Green landslide with them gaining about 80% of the vote!

or "losing every deposit" more like...

x-post

Well I'm definitely rooting for this Matt! Dunno if it'll come to pass though, don't forget that blue-rinse Patcham is part of the constituency.

i think a saner hague would stand a chance with the public, but as dave said the conservative party out of doors is mentalist central.

Open Lib Dems:

"Hello, please vote for our candidate as she wants to scrap tuition fees, oppose Iraq and provide free support for the elderly."

Open Tories:

"Dear Hertfordian, As the imminent shadow of fear descends upon our beautiful heartland, beware the perils of blahblahblah immigrants blahblahblah Eurobastards etc..."

I don't think I can vote for a party that does nothing but moan and reject and fear everything instead of getting on and improving stuff. The Lib Dems just seem that much more constructive and the Tories destructive.

Same here. Even though there are many Green policies I don't really agree with, I think the outside chance of a Green seat in this, or a future election, can only be a good thing to help advance currently unfashionable eco-politics, so they are getting my vote.

x-postoroonie avooti

Results in last general election:

Labour 48.7%
Conservative 25.1%
Liberal Democrat 13.1%
Green 11.6%

woah! really????? what will the guardian's website look like?

Wow Ned, that's plain uncanny! Dunno how you're so well versed in the hot local issues here, but that is exactly the Green stance over the proposed new stadium at Falmer. Oddly, they're keeping *very* quiet on this in the run up to tomorrow.

Reality: Voting in Lib Dem MPs would reduce the likely New Labour Govt majority of the combined opposition and reduce the number of tory MPs. FACT there are more Lib Dem/ Tory marginals.

Lib Dems prediction game: number of MPs after election

A: under 56 [Under Achieving] 56 seats is the current number of Lib Dem MPs prior to the calling of this election

B: 57 - 70 [Slight Improvement] 70 seats would be a 25 % increase from current levels

C: 71 - 85 [Noticeable Improvement] 84 seats would be a 50 % increase from current levels

d: 86 - 100 [Significant Achievement] Breakthrough 100

E: 101 + [Extraordinary] 103 seats would be 100 % increase from current levels

what will the outcome be?

However if the Poltical System was based on PR, Lib Dems would have circa 25 % of the MPs.

Jennifer's coming out as the party's new weapon to win youth votes will
begin next week when she stars in the BNP's first television political
broadcast for Wales, in which she reads a script written by her father
on the dangers of so-called 'white flight'.

'The Welsh language and identity is being threatened by the white
flight of native-born Britons who are moving to Wales to escape the
growing number of immigrants entering England,' she says, thumping her
Coca-Cola back down onto the table.

When pressed as to how her beliefs can co-exist with the findings of
the latest census showing that the only population transfer threatening
Wales is that of outward migration, Jennifer flushes. 'Really?' she
says in amazement.

When told that 22 per cent of those classifying themselves as Welsh
now live elsewhere in Britain, with the greatest loss being the
decision of the young and university-educated to move to the south east
of England, she fiddles with her pink mobile phone.

'If that was true, I am sure my father would have told me,' she
mutters. 'The Daily Mail seems sure that illegal immigration is causing
terrible problems across the country. I am only 17. I can't be expected
to know all the facts.'

...

She admits that despite her claims that Britain is the land of milk
and honey for asylum seekers, she has no idea how much they receive in
benefits each week. When told that adult asylum seekers exist on
£37.77, 30 per cent below the poverty line, she is genuinely shocked.

'They should receive more than that,' she gasps, then pauses and adds
quietly: 'Of course, dad would not agree.' She glances into the
backroom of the pub where her father is sitting out of earshot. 'I
guess there are a few things he and I disagree on after all but I
decided the BNP was for me at the age of 14 and I will never change
that view. It guess it is just in my blood.'

Locally therefore the entire thrust of the Lib Dems strategy is to persuade people not to waste an anti-Blair vote by voting for any other party. Meanwhile at national level Kennedy is urging us all to vote for the candidate who best represents our values, irrespective of whether he/she can win.

I will still vote Lib Dem tomorrow but I wish it didn't mean voting for a candidate either blind to the inconsistency and hypocrisy of this or too cynical to care.

Am I the only one who lived through the 80s and recognise those promises? And remember they came from a different party.

I might have been undecided before tonight, but there's no way they're getting my vote now. And the right to vote was not won lightly, so I'll vote against them rather than abstain.

I think I may be disliking you already too! :-)

- they meddle with the public sector implementing unnecessary controls/ regulation / inflexible targets / red tape
- they have increased taxes including increasing National Insurance when they said they would NOT
- they submit to power of President Bush and right wing republicans: re Iraq
- they imposed tuition fees on students and carry on the student loans agenda of the tories
- Council Tax continues to increase ever year - this tax system is inflexible and they refuse to replace it
- they want to impose ID cards that would cost billions
- they have daft schemes such as Baby Bonds that will be worth next to nothing when kids turn to 18 - indeed if the New Labour party are in charge then they will still have to pay for tuition fees ! Giving in one hand, taking back with the other
- their leadership style is dictorial and many post 1997 MPs are New Labour Blairite robots with no ideas of their own.
- Labour are soft on crime, re reducing sentences and ineffective tagging
- they are pro big business outsourcing jobs to private companies
- they are not committed to redistribution of wealth, re higher taxes for the very wealthy
- their London Major increases Travel costs on the buses and tube
- instead of reducing the retirement age, they want to implement a 65 year retirement age for all and indeed there has been talk of encouraging people to work till 70 by bribing them with xtra lump sum payments if they delay taking their pension!

There is a great site on the general election that attacks the establishment agenda of the right wing Conservatives and New Labour who they label as Neo-Conservatives.

http://www.eurolegal.org/neoconnewlab.shtml

The coming election is not a battle between right and left - but between two equally right-wing factions - the Lunatic Right of Howard's Conservatives, and the Neoconservative Right of Blair's "New" Labour.

Over Blair's last two terms, it has become increasingly apparent that "New" Labour has very little indeed to do with the democratic socialism of the old Labour Party, or with democratic anything

Check the tactical voting - shit list to kick out the Tories and Blairite New Labour
http://www.eurolegal.org/ukneocons/theshitlist.htm

Yeah, but he cut them first.

this is very interesting! i hope this happen so i can rejoice in making my flatmate pay more local income tax than i do because he earns more ££££££

I will vote Green if I can but I'm not sure whether there is a Green candidate, I got sent a pamphlet for one but it says he is standing in Glasgow North, and I'm Glasgow Central. If there is no Green, I will be a bit stumped.

I suppose I might very grudgingly vote Lib Dem.

I am going to investigate sarwar, a little, now. I thought he was the monklands and scandal guy, from years ago, but I may be wrong.

his name is an anagram of "ARS WAR", though. not in my name.

First, the general election poll in the Govan constituency, on the river's south bank, was allegedly rigged with non-existent "ghost electors", with the victorious Labour nominee, cash-and-carry millionaire Mohammed Sarwar, 46, admitting handing £5,000 (which he said was a loan) to a rival Asian candidate.

I will definitely not vote, for him.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/newspapers/5_may_2005/img/2.jpg

Today's Morning Star:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/newspapers/5_may_2005/img/5.jpg

Today's The Sun:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/newspapers/5_may_2005/img/6.jpg

I don't know which one's worse.

Also, The Sun = spot on in equating Blair and Brown with the most despised team in the country. Deliberate, yeah?

Labour 48.7%
Conservative 25.1%
Liberal Democrat 13.1%
Green 11.6%

Norwich, where I live, has 5 councillors from a smaller population! Whodathunk of that? Especially given the popular reputations of the two cities.

Blair and Brown are meant to be wearing Liverpool shirts on the front of The Sun, not Manchester United, if that's what you mean by 'most despised' - Liverpool just got through to the final of the European Champion's League, hence the reference.

The Morning Star's front page editorial this morning:

VOTE FOR PEACE, JOBS, PENSIONS, PUBLIC SERVICES

Tony Blair is urging traditional Labour supporters not to protest against new Labour policies, including the illegal invasion of Iraq, by voting Liberal Democrat in case this results in Michael Howard getting into 10 Downing Street by the back door.

The least he should do is admit his personal responsibility for leaving the back door open because of his pro-war, pro-private profits agenda. The Labour Party should also revisit its unjustifiable refusal to consider a fairer voting system, where seats won would reflect more closely the number of votes cast.

It is an indictment of the first-past-the-post system that the only choice of Prime Minister on offer is between a war criminal and a xenophobe who imposed the poll tax during the dark days of Margaret Thatcher. These unpalatable alternatives may appear to many voters as a reason to abstain or spoil their ballot.

But people should consider the issues that matter, including peace, jobs — especially in the manufacturing sector — pensions and public services, and ask themselves what kind of government would be more likely to deliver progress.

The Tories are committed to slashing £35 billion from public spending, which will result in worsened services and tens of thousands of job cuts. They were, if anything, more gung-ho over the Iraq war than new Labour. The Tories presided over the destruction of Britain’s coal mining, shipbuilding, steel and other key industries. They broke the link between the state pension and average earnings. New Labour forced through parliamentary backing for George W Bush’s invasion scheme, but Labour MPs formed the largest and most consistent anti-war bloc.

The government has significantly increased spending on public services, although it remains wedded to private finance initiatives and other devices to channel public cash to the private sector. It failed to defend Rover and other key industrial assets. It has refused to take back our railways into public ownership. And it has not reinstated the link between pensions and earnings.

These failures have cast a dark shadow over the government, but they do not add up to a credible argument for not exercising a preference in the choice between Labour and Tory. A Labour government — even a right-wing new Labour administration — confronted by newly enthused large sections of the labour movement, the trade unions and the left fighting to achieve more progressive policies is a historically more advanced position than any return to a rabid-right Tory government faced with a toothless Labour opposition

This does not have to mean a Labour vote in all seats.

The leading members of the War Cabinet have not only forfeited personal trust but are responsible for bringing about a situation in which many erstwhile Labour voters are determined to cast their votes for credible socialist antiwar candidates in many constituencies.

But, in the vast majority of seats, forces for change must vote Labour.

They should also start building now for the future, meeting and discussing with each other the need for an agreed left-wing programme around which the labour and progressive movements can unite and campaign. This cannot be the preserve of any one group. Nor can it be the project solely of those with a Labour Party card in their pocket, especially in light of the 200,000 members that have left the party since 1997. The broadest possible unity is essential to develop such a programme, for which a Labour government is the necessary backdrop.

Busses are still cheaper now than when I started paying adult fares 10 years ago. Much cheaper if you take oyster pre-pay into account.

voting slip had serial number on the back and my elector number is now on the stub associated with that slip - so much for secret ballot.

and then random woman outside want to take my electoral number as i left.

whole thing was made more confusing by watching stereolab videos beforehand and hearing laetitia singing that she *doesn't care* if the fascists have their way. has the world gone crazy? 8)

Minor bomb blast outside british conslate and New York.

Minor bomb blast outside british consulate and New York.

the former, with the latter implicit (i think -- i didn't take the call).

Ha! I was expecting this last night as the friend I was out with is actually a junior spin doctor. To her credit she listened to me rant and then turned bacck to the pressing issue of buying more wine.

Voted on the way to the bus stop. Very anticlimactic, I always expect glitter to shoot out of the polling booth or something when the cross has been inscribed.

I'm still undecided. not tory, but...?

A right-wine agenda? Do they want Jilly Goolden for PM?

i voted this morn. i wasn't going to. at 6.45am there was a lib-dem leaflet saying 'GOOD MORNING!' on it. too, too much, lynne.

xpost to Tom

go to the polling station?

This has always been the case. Back in the 50s, MI5 used to go through all the Communist ballot papers after the election to check up on who was voting for them.

I voted before going to work, at about 7.15. On my way out of the polling station, the Tory candidate was just pulling up in his car. I mentioned it to my mother, and found that she thought our sitting Labour MP was a Tory. "I'm sure we used to have one."

"No, mother, he lost the '97 election. He's a journalist now - the Tory Party don't like him because he's gay, and he lost the election after taking money to ask questions in Parliament."

Had a conversation with a colleague at work about politics. "Of all the parties," he said, "the one I'm closest to is the BNP. We don't have enough nationalism in this country. All these Europeans just do what they want, and we're the only ones stupid enough to follow the rules." He then went on about the election being unfair: "My son's at university, and he had a voting card sent to his halls there, and then one sent to our house! It always used to be that everyone just got one vote! If he wanted to, he could vote there, drive back home and vote twice! And noone would know! They don't have computers or anything in the polling stations."

Peter Rigby
Independent
Mr Rigby, 57, who lives in Sandy, is a freelance journalist specialising in conservation.
He will be campaigning for teachers to be given priority in affordable housing, for wider adoption of hydrogen fuel and try to engender a feeling of connection between Hitchin and Harpenden.

hahaha, for some reason this has me thinking about orbital raves...

Oooohoohoo... :-I

The UKIP guy for Hitchin and Harpenden is even scarier looking!

CHANGE IS EXCITING!!!

Another thing - do you think that when people vote they generally think of themselves (i.e. "will an alteration to council tax benefit me?") or for everyone (i.e. "is an alteration to the council tax a benefit to those who deserve it?"). I'm the latter but a lot of people I've spoken to were surprised that I'd think like this even if it didn't benefit me directly.

Possibly the most sensible thing I've read today.

Voted before work - in Croydon North we were spoilt for choice: Veritas, Ukip, Green, Croydon Pensions Alliance, The People's Choice! Exclusively For All* and another independent (* or the People's Choice Making Politicians Work if you believe The Guardian).

a bored-looking lady, just inside the front doors, handed me a labour leaflet, which I took, looked at and placed on the counter beside her.

got my ballot, paused, for a moment, looking at all the candidates' addresses--one of them lives in lancashire--voted.

bored-looking lady looked even more bored, as I left.

home, eating frosties.

Mind you, it's been very odd all round in our constituency this time (walthamstow). No-one on the doorstep, only the lib-dems really doing any leafleting. Only 5 candidates on the ballot paper, the three usual suspects, UKIP, and the Socialist alternatives. I guess our MP's feeling pretty safe with his 40% majority, and most parties I guess will be putting their resources elsewhere.

My only problem was that I voted at 7am and I came out of the polling station scared stiff that I might have put a cross against the wrong candidate in my early morning stupor.

Pro labour - everyone said "it makes no difference" back in '79

Anti labour/pro libdem - taking the nation to war = the most important thing ever, and this lot fucked up by just about any standard you care to name.

anti tory - they are repellent and incompetent.

Not a billboard as such, more the 'estate agent' type board in gardens around here.

No one wearing a rosette or attempting to canvass me at all. Rubbish.

Oh, and there are loads of LibDem billboards round my way. More than there are Labour or Tory, weirdly. I think they sense a fertile feeding ground.

Labour: 37%
Conservative: 33%
Lib Dem: 22%
Others 8%

Labour: 356 seats
Conservative: 209 seats
Lib Dem: 53 seats
Others 28 seats

http://www.musicfanclubs.org/natalie/logot.jpg

"I'd hit it!"