http://us.f507.mail.yahoo.com/ym/login? ... 4uaotlshh3
Tony Blair called a British general election for May 5th. His Labour Party government is defending a parliamentary majority of 167 seats, but initial opinion polls suggested the outcome will be closer this time. The opposition Conservative Party, now led by Michael Howard, a former home secretary, has seen a resurgence based partially on its tough immigration policy.
British General Elections
British General Elections
A formula for tact: "Be brief politely, be aggressive smilingly, be emphatic pleasantly, be positive diplomatically, be right graciously".
British General Elections
Watch out for a strong showing from Lib/Dems, Howard no hope, Kennedey (Lib/dem) has just produced a baby son, great timimg for the campaign.
Expect Tories to concentrate on immigration and Blair on Education.
Expect Tories to concentrate on immigration and Blair on Education.
"I have done my duty. I thank God for it!"
British General Elections
Bothwell wrote: Watch out for a strong showing from Lib/Dems, Howard no hope, Kennedey (Lib/dem) has just produced a baby son, great timimg for the campaign.
Expect Tories to concentrate on immigration and Blair on Education.
By and large, I think that labour will prevail as winner.
Expect Tories to concentrate on immigration and Blair on Education.
By and large, I think that labour will prevail as winner.
A formula for tact: "Be brief politely, be aggressive smilingly, be emphatic pleasantly, be positive diplomatically, be right graciously".
British General Elections
Polycarp, it is indicative to me about the apathy of us Brits that you are the only response and you live in Nigeria, It is one of my pet hates that a democratic country cannot get people to vote.
"I have done my duty. I thank God for it!"
British General Elections
Listening to Mr Blurb on his Manifesto today, just leaves me wondering if he plans to do all that he promises, why-o-why the ruddy hell has he not done any of it so far 
Maybe if he had, there would be no competition!
Maybe if he had, there would be no competition!
British General Elections
posted by abbey
Maybe if he had, there would be no competition
Sadly there is no real competition anyway, new labour have pinched all the tory policies anyway, even maggie the thatch is on recorsd as saying new labour are her legacy.
posted by bothwell
Polycarp, it is indicative to me about the apathy of us Brits that you are the only response and you live in Nigeria, It is one of my pet hates that a democratic country cannot get people to vote.
This is the second thread, there is a dearth of britishers here, quality not quantity
Maybe if he had, there would be no competition
Sadly there is no real competition anyway, new labour have pinched all the tory policies anyway, even maggie the thatch is on recorsd as saying new labour are her legacy.
posted by bothwell
Polycarp, it is indicative to me about the apathy of us Brits that you are the only response and you live in Nigeria, It is one of my pet hates that a democratic country cannot get people to vote.
This is the second thread, there is a dearth of britishers here, quality not quantity
-
pink princess
- Posts: 1117
- Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2005 3:18 am
British General Elections
to be honest im not sure how much im liking the look of labours policies this year, i think conservatives and lib dems have stronger policies....
life is what you make it
my boyfriend just proposed to me (05/05/05) and im blissfully happy!! :-4 im engaged!! i have a fiance!! :-4
um..... well thats a bit out of date! im married now! and married life is the best thing in the entire world! with my husband by side my life is complete
:-4
my boyfriend just proposed to me (05/05/05) and im blissfully happy!! :-4 im engaged!! i have a fiance!! :-4
um..... well thats a bit out of date! im married now! and married life is the best thing in the entire world! with my husband by side my life is complete
:-4
British General Elections
So lets get this straight all 600 plus MP's of every political party plus thousands of local council members talk absolute rubbish 100% of the time?
This being the case I wonder how the country runs at all.
This is what the leaders of the main parties are discussing today
Tony Blair (Labour) Improving childrens diet and fitness, disabled rights
Michael Howard (Conservative) immigration and Income Tax and National health
Charles Kennedy (liberal Democrats) Crime and punishment, pensions
I would hope you would agree that all of the above issue are important, moreover given the above subjects if you are any of the following they apply to you.
A tax Payer
A child in education
An immigrant
A criminal
An old age pensioner
Disabled
An Hospital patient
or in other words a human being residing in Great Britain.
I feel the same as you in many ways and certainly did when I was younger but hoping they will just go away doesn't work. politics affects all of us and we can actively work to get the government we want or opt out. If the latter is the case then IMO you have forfeited the right to moan about it.
This being the case I wonder how the country runs at all.
This is what the leaders of the main parties are discussing today
Tony Blair (Labour) Improving childrens diet and fitness, disabled rights
Michael Howard (Conservative) immigration and Income Tax and National health
Charles Kennedy (liberal Democrats) Crime and punishment, pensions
I would hope you would agree that all of the above issue are important, moreover given the above subjects if you are any of the following they apply to you.
A tax Payer
A child in education
An immigrant
A criminal
An old age pensioner
Disabled
An Hospital patient
or in other words a human being residing in Great Britain.
I feel the same as you in many ways and certainly did when I was younger but hoping they will just go away doesn't work. politics affects all of us and we can actively work to get the government we want or opt out. If the latter is the case then IMO you have forfeited the right to moan about it.
"I have done my duty. I thank God for it!"
British General Elections
http://www.dont-vote-labour.co.uk/
There is not a single tory MP in Scotland, don't know how this will pan out but it's a fairly contentious issue up here
http://www.politics.co.uk/
On a lighter note the green party have adopted kermit the frog as a mascot, his theme song "it's not easy being green" hitting a sympathetic cord with them.
There is not a single tory MP in Scotland, don't know how this will pan out but it's a fairly contentious issue up here
http://www.politics.co.uk/
On a lighter note the green party have adopted kermit the frog as a mascot, his theme song "it's not easy being green" hitting a sympathetic cord with them.
British General Elections
I'd like to see Blair and his New Labor crooks swept out of power for aligning with Adolf Bush and placing Britain in a lapdog position re: the Iraq Invasion/occupation. I say vote Workers League. I wish I could. Let's bring back Neil Kinnock Labor!!
"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group that believes you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas millionaires, or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid." [font=Arial Narrow][/font]
President Dwight D. Eisenhower Nov. 08, 1954
President Dwight D. Eisenhower Nov. 08, 1954
British General Elections
David813 wrote: I'd like to see Blair and his New Labor crooks swept out of power for aligning with Adolf Bush and placing Britain in a lapdog position re: the Iraq Invasion/occupation. I say vote Workers League. I wish I could. Let's bring back Neil Kinnock Labor!!Interesting 
workers league?? it's not an option over here Dave.
workers league?? it's not an option over here Dave.British General Elections
Posted by Abbey
Interesting workers league?? it's not an option over here Dave.
It's one of the more obscure offshoots of the communist party. Revolutionary commumism is kind of dead in the UK-more like an obscure religious sect than anything else for those who like to feel victimised.
Interesting workers league?? it's not an option over here Dave.
It's one of the more obscure offshoots of the communist party. Revolutionary commumism is kind of dead in the UK-more like an obscure religious sect than anything else for those who like to feel victimised.
British General Elections
gmc wrote: Posted by Abbey
It's one of the more obscure offshoots of the communist party. Revolutionary commumism is kind of dead in the UK-more like an obscure religious sect than anything else for those who like to feel victimised.I'm surprised someone of your low intelligence level has ever heard of a 3rd party in Britain! Yes, the WL broke from the Stalinist CP in the 1940's and is very much alive in Britain. I like to feel victimized? No, I'm not a victim at all. Your boys dying in Iraq are. The Iraqis you are murdering are the victims. Your poor, the world's poor and people living in civil war and disease ridden countries looted by the UK are the victims. Watch who you're painting with that big fat arrogant brush gmc & Abbey. It just might be a mirror.
It's one of the more obscure offshoots of the communist party. Revolutionary commumism is kind of dead in the UK-more like an obscure religious sect than anything else for those who like to feel victimised.I'm surprised someone of your low intelligence level has ever heard of a 3rd party in Britain! Yes, the WL broke from the Stalinist CP in the 1940's and is very much alive in Britain. I like to feel victimized? No, I'm not a victim at all. Your boys dying in Iraq are. The Iraqis you are murdering are the victims. Your poor, the world's poor and people living in civil war and disease ridden countries looted by the UK are the victims. Watch who you're painting with that big fat arrogant brush gmc & Abbey. It just might be a mirror.
"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group that believes you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas millionaires, or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid." [font=Arial Narrow][/font]
President Dwight D. Eisenhower Nov. 08, 1954
President Dwight D. Eisenhower Nov. 08, 1954
British General Elections
For another perspective on UK politics go to www.socialistreview.org.uk Cheeky stuff.
"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group that believes you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas millionaires, or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid." [font=Arial Narrow][/font]
President Dwight D. Eisenhower Nov. 08, 1954
President Dwight D. Eisenhower Nov. 08, 1954
British General Elections
Down With Blair! Flush the Tories! Socialize Britain!
"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group that believes you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas millionaires, or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid." [font=Arial Narrow][/font]
President Dwight D. Eisenhower Nov. 08, 1954
President Dwight D. Eisenhower Nov. 08, 1954
British General Elections
David813 wrote: I'm surprised someone of your low intelligence level has ever heard of a 3rd party in Britain! Yes, the WL broke from the Stalinist CP in the 1940's and is very much alive in Britain. I like to feel victimized? No, I'm not a victim at all. Your boys dying in Iraq are. The Iraqis you are murdering are the victims. Your poor, the world's poor and people living in civil war and disease ridden countries looted by the UK are the victims. Watch who you're painting with that big fat arrogant brush gmc & Abbey. It just might be a mirror.WTF
Did i miss somehing??
Did i miss somehing??
British General Elections
posted by david813
I'm surprised someone of your low intelligence level has ever heard of a 3rd party in Britain! Yes, the WL broke from the Stalinist CP in the 1940's and is very much alive in Britain. I like to feel victimized? No, I'm not a victim at all. Your boys dying in Iraq are. The Iraqis you are murdering are the victims. Your poor, the world's poor and people living in civil war and disease ridden countries looted by the UK are the victims. Watch who you're painting with that big fat arrogant brush gmc & Abbey. It just might be a mirror.
If all you can do is resort to childish insults there's not much point you posting.
As a rule of thumb people who believe they are more intelligent than everbody else and are daft enough to say so have usually demonstrated the complete opposite.
I'm glad you feel able to express yourself and wish you luck in your never ending search to find someone that cares what you think.
posted by abbey
WTF
Did i miss somehing??
Not really, david813 calls himself a socialist which in the american context I suspect may be a bit like being the "only gay in the village"
I'm surprised someone of your low intelligence level has ever heard of a 3rd party in Britain! Yes, the WL broke from the Stalinist CP in the 1940's and is very much alive in Britain. I like to feel victimized? No, I'm not a victim at all. Your boys dying in Iraq are. The Iraqis you are murdering are the victims. Your poor, the world's poor and people living in civil war and disease ridden countries looted by the UK are the victims. Watch who you're painting with that big fat arrogant brush gmc & Abbey. It just might be a mirror.
If all you can do is resort to childish insults there's not much point you posting.
As a rule of thumb people who believe they are more intelligent than everbody else and are daft enough to say so have usually demonstrated the complete opposite.
I'm glad you feel able to express yourself and wish you luck in your never ending search to find someone that cares what you think.
posted by abbey
WTF
Did i miss somehing??
Not really, david813 calls himself a socialist which in the american context I suspect may be a bit like being the "only gay in the village"
British General Elections
Not really, david813 calls himself a socialist which in the american context I suspect may be a bit like being the "only gay in the village"
Outstanding GMC.
Outstanding GMC.
"I have done my duty. I thank God for it!"
British General Elections
gmc wrote: posted by david813
Not really, david813 calls himself a socialist which in the american context I suspect may be a bit like being the "only gay in the village"
:wah: :wah: :wah: You just made me choke and spit my tea over my desk.
Not really, david813 calls himself a socialist which in the american context I suspect may be a bit like being the "only gay in the village"
:wah: :wah: :wah: You just made me choke and spit my tea over my desk.
-
Philadelphia Eagle
- Posts: 505
- Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 8:50 am
British General Elections
There is virtually no media interest here in British politics. As an erstwhile student of international politics however, I would be grateful for some answers to what seems to me a somewhat confused political scene there.
At present the British Labor Party forms the government. It is led by virtually the only Social Democrat in that Party - Tony Blair. Most of the other members are socialists including his cabinet members and are therefore well to the left of his thinking. If I am correct he must find it difficult to remain the leader of a group of left-wingers when he himself is not one of them.
Are the general population in UK therefore left wing socialists?
If not - why do they keep electing a socialist government?
Britain has the reputation of being a heavily taxed nation but unlike some other European states where high taxation produces high quality social services, in Britain this is not the case. Reports from there suggest that Britain's social services are very poor despite the high taxes. Where do the tax dollars go?
If the Labor Party imposes ever-higher taxes without providing good social services why does the voting public keep electing them?
Is the answer, I wonder, that Britain has for so long been a country where the mind-set has been instilled into people to expect the government to provide for them 'from the cradle to the grave' that to introduce policies where individuals had to exercise a greater degree of responsibility in looking after themselves are politically unacceptable? If so - this would explain why a government with such a dismal record keeps getting re-elected!
What are the alternatives?
The Conservative Party appear to have few new ideas and are , in any case, not sufficiently different from the Labor Party to attract widespread support.
The Social Democratic Party (should Blair not be one of their number?) seem weak and ineffectual and in need of strong leadership.
In America we don't have a political party as far left as the British Labor Party - it would command little support here and the Conservative Party would be to the left of our Republican Party.
This seems to suggest that there is no mainstream political party in Britain which fits in with our capitalist philosophies. If that is a fair and accurate statement then I believe it to be a great pity for the people of Britain.
At present the British Labor Party forms the government. It is led by virtually the only Social Democrat in that Party - Tony Blair. Most of the other members are socialists including his cabinet members and are therefore well to the left of his thinking. If I am correct he must find it difficult to remain the leader of a group of left-wingers when he himself is not one of them.
Are the general population in UK therefore left wing socialists?
If not - why do they keep electing a socialist government?
Britain has the reputation of being a heavily taxed nation but unlike some other European states where high taxation produces high quality social services, in Britain this is not the case. Reports from there suggest that Britain's social services are very poor despite the high taxes. Where do the tax dollars go?
If the Labor Party imposes ever-higher taxes without providing good social services why does the voting public keep electing them?
Is the answer, I wonder, that Britain has for so long been a country where the mind-set has been instilled into people to expect the government to provide for them 'from the cradle to the grave' that to introduce policies where individuals had to exercise a greater degree of responsibility in looking after themselves are politically unacceptable? If so - this would explain why a government with such a dismal record keeps getting re-elected!
What are the alternatives?
The Conservative Party appear to have few new ideas and are , in any case, not sufficiently different from the Labor Party to attract widespread support.
The Social Democratic Party (should Blair not be one of their number?) seem weak and ineffectual and in need of strong leadership.
In America we don't have a political party as far left as the British Labor Party - it would command little support here and the Conservative Party would be to the left of our Republican Party.
This seems to suggest that there is no mainstream political party in Britain which fits in with our capitalist philosophies. If that is a fair and accurate statement then I believe it to be a great pity for the people of Britain.
America the Beautiful :-6
website - home.comcast.net/~nmusgrave/
website - home.comcast.net/~nmusgrave/
British General Elections
gmc wrote: posted by david813
If all you can do is resort to childish insults there's not much point you posting.
As a rule of thumb people who believe they are more intelligent than everbody else and are daft enough to say so have usually demonstrated the complete opposite.
I'm glad you feel able to express yourself and wish you luck in your never ending search to find someone that cares what you think.
posted by abbey
Not really, david813 calls himself a socialist which in the american context I suspect may be a bit like being the "only gay in the village"It isn't true that all Yanks are Ronald Reagan evangelical homophobic bigoted knuckle dragging flag wavers!:yh_eyerol There are Marxists, neo-Nazis and even monarchists here! Not to mention atheists, anarchists and some real crazies! I was wrong to be so rude in my earlier post here and I apologize. But please understand America is much more politically diverse than George Bush would have you believe!
If all you can do is resort to childish insults there's not much point you posting.
As a rule of thumb people who believe they are more intelligent than everbody else and are daft enough to say so have usually demonstrated the complete opposite.
I'm glad you feel able to express yourself and wish you luck in your never ending search to find someone that cares what you think.
posted by abbey
Not really, david813 calls himself a socialist which in the american context I suspect may be a bit like being the "only gay in the village"It isn't true that all Yanks are Ronald Reagan evangelical homophobic bigoted knuckle dragging flag wavers!:yh_eyerol There are Marxists, neo-Nazis and even monarchists here! Not to mention atheists, anarchists and some real crazies! I was wrong to be so rude in my earlier post here and I apologize. But please understand America is much more politically diverse than George Bush would have you believe!
"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group that believes you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas millionaires, or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid." [font=Arial Narrow][/font]
President Dwight D. Eisenhower Nov. 08, 1954
President Dwight D. Eisenhower Nov. 08, 1954
British General Elections
I will have a stab at it PE.
Blair finished the job that John Smith started and purged his party of the hard left, nationalise everything, suck up to the unions, free everything for everybody types. Smith realised that a new slant was needed on Labour if they had any chance of getting re-elected. To this end "The Third Way" was invented. This meant not Tory (Conservative) and not Old school socialism, what it really ment was that New Labour could happily jump into the middle ground and steal policies from whomsoever they wished.
They also did something never done to any great degree before in British politics, they absolutely controlled the media. maggie Thatcher had no need to worry about "Spin". her attitude was " I say it's good for the country" and that was it. Blair employed a whole army of media savvy types, the head weasel being and ex Mirror journalist called Alasdair Campbell.
The other sea change is the lack of cabinet government, many people may say the Maggie was a leader who did not consult her cabinet, the fcat is that she did, she had people of real stature and political experience around her and they would not hesitate to criticise if necessary. Blair however is all about Blair and his very small inner circle. He is acutely aware of his place in history and this is what drives him. To witness this you only have to remember him bounding up the steps of the white house trying to act like Churchill.
The reason they keep getting elected is primarily because there is now no real opposition. Since Maggie the Conservatives have been in turmoil and have had a succession of weak leaders. I don't see them as a credible alternative. The Lib Dems can promise free chocolate everyday and anything else they like, they are not going to be the government so what difference does it make.
It is a very sad state of affairs PE, Blair will get back in and I am really P****d about it, the man is an out and out liar. Forget the biggie (Iraq), any policy trhat would be absolutely clear in old labour terms such as, Independant Nuclear Deterrant, Classification of Drugs, School Meal funding, Immigarteion etc are all "Under Review" in other words they are being dealt with by committees who dont report back until AFTER the election, how convenient. This allows all the Labour ministers to refuse to answer difficult questions as the subject is "Under Review". What it means is that Tony is going to make all of these decisions and they will not be what traditional labour voters would want so he could not put it in the manifesto.
One of the greatest misunderstandings about us Brits is that because we have a National health Service and Social Security we wander around with our hands out and have to be continually supported by the government. Not true!! We like any other nation that has this type of sytem a number of the population that will not work and have no intention of exsisting in any way other than on government handouts, they are a minority. this country was built on the industrial revolution, the work ethic is ingarined in this "nation of Shopkeepers" (Napoleon), thousands of small owner run business thrive on ingenuity and the ablility to make a quid.
Now the bad bit, the high unemployment of the 1970,s and 1980's has led to a new generation whose parennts were out of work and had no prospect of ever having a job again. They now have children who see this as the norm, these are the ones who believe that it is ok to be supported by the state, so whilst our county is crying out for skills such as Nurses, teachers, plumbers, carpenters etc this lot just wander about the streets moaning that the commit crime because they are bored. It is by no means all of our youth but in some industrial cities it is a significant number.
I am sure I probably did not answer the question .
Blair finished the job that John Smith started and purged his party of the hard left, nationalise everything, suck up to the unions, free everything for everybody types. Smith realised that a new slant was needed on Labour if they had any chance of getting re-elected. To this end "The Third Way" was invented. This meant not Tory (Conservative) and not Old school socialism, what it really ment was that New Labour could happily jump into the middle ground and steal policies from whomsoever they wished.
They also did something never done to any great degree before in British politics, they absolutely controlled the media. maggie Thatcher had no need to worry about "Spin". her attitude was " I say it's good for the country" and that was it. Blair employed a whole army of media savvy types, the head weasel being and ex Mirror journalist called Alasdair Campbell.
The other sea change is the lack of cabinet government, many people may say the Maggie was a leader who did not consult her cabinet, the fcat is that she did, she had people of real stature and political experience around her and they would not hesitate to criticise if necessary. Blair however is all about Blair and his very small inner circle. He is acutely aware of his place in history and this is what drives him. To witness this you only have to remember him bounding up the steps of the white house trying to act like Churchill.
The reason they keep getting elected is primarily because there is now no real opposition. Since Maggie the Conservatives have been in turmoil and have had a succession of weak leaders. I don't see them as a credible alternative. The Lib Dems can promise free chocolate everyday and anything else they like, they are not going to be the government so what difference does it make.
It is a very sad state of affairs PE, Blair will get back in and I am really P****d about it, the man is an out and out liar. Forget the biggie (Iraq), any policy trhat would be absolutely clear in old labour terms such as, Independant Nuclear Deterrant, Classification of Drugs, School Meal funding, Immigarteion etc are all "Under Review" in other words they are being dealt with by committees who dont report back until AFTER the election, how convenient. This allows all the Labour ministers to refuse to answer difficult questions as the subject is "Under Review". What it means is that Tony is going to make all of these decisions and they will not be what traditional labour voters would want so he could not put it in the manifesto.
One of the greatest misunderstandings about us Brits is that because we have a National health Service and Social Security we wander around with our hands out and have to be continually supported by the government. Not true!! We like any other nation that has this type of sytem a number of the population that will not work and have no intention of exsisting in any way other than on government handouts, they are a minority. this country was built on the industrial revolution, the work ethic is ingarined in this "nation of Shopkeepers" (Napoleon), thousands of small owner run business thrive on ingenuity and the ablility to make a quid.
Now the bad bit, the high unemployment of the 1970,s and 1980's has led to a new generation whose parennts were out of work and had no prospect of ever having a job again. They now have children who see this as the norm, these are the ones who believe that it is ok to be supported by the state, so whilst our county is crying out for skills such as Nurses, teachers, plumbers, carpenters etc this lot just wander about the streets moaning that the commit crime because they are bored. It is by no means all of our youth but in some industrial cities it is a significant number.
I am sure I probably did not answer the question .
"I have done my duty. I thank God for it!"
British General Elections
posted by philadelphia eagle
At present the British Labor Party forms the government. It is led by virtually the only Social Democrat in that Party - Tony Blair. Most of the other members are socialists including his cabinet members and are therefore well to the left of his thinking. If I am correct he must find it difficult to remain the leader of a group of left-wingers when he himself is not one of them.
Firsly you need to appreciate that socialist in the UK has completely different connotation than in the US where it seems synonymous with revolutionary socialism/communism and very much a pejorative term. here it just describes a political viewpoint.
social democracy n.
a socialist system achieved by democratic means.
social democrat n.
socialism // n.
1 a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the community as a whole should own and control the means of production, distribution, and exchange.
2 policy or practice based on this theory.
It's the second one that matters in the UK context.
All parties in UK and most of europe come to that are social democrat in nature what has changed is that very few would advocate outright state control if everything a policy that only the more extreme advocate now and they are on the fringe of the left. Generally it would be swopping one set of masters for another, after Stalin got power support for the communist party died away to nothing in the UK as it became clear what Russia had become. As a side note the communists formed their own party because the Labour party rejected revolutionary socialism even early on and voted to keep the extremists out.
Our present NHS etc came in to being after the second world war when generally speaking people were going to have change for the better, what really swung it and gave labour the landslide was the votes form the troops stationed abroad. Many remembered Churchill from before the war as the home secretary that ordered tanks ready on the streets, good for fighting a war but sod the empire we want social change at home. People were not fighting for the British Empire.
posted by Philadelphia Eagle
Is the answer, I wonder, that Britain has for so long been a country where the mind-set has been instilled into people to expect the government to provide for them 'from the cradle to the grave' that to introduce policies where individuals had to exercise a greater degree of responsibility in looking after themselves are politically unacceptable? If so - this would explain why a government with such a dismal record keeps getting re-elected!
Education and the NHS are the two most important election issues and parties ignore public sentiment at their peril.
Try and understand the government doesn't provide for us. We tell them to do it and if they don't they don't last very long if they are perceived as being uncaring or not being interested in social justice. We are not mindless morons spoon fed by the government through our social welfare system. Americans seem unable to appreciate that we have a NHS from choice and don't want the fundamental principle changed.
looking at stories in the US about people not being able to afford medical care or going bankrupt because a family member is ill-it's a common feature in US soaps you wonder why americans put up with that kind of situation and don't vote to change things so that medical care is avaialable to all regardless of income. Not to be able to get medical care because of poverty seems an obscene situation to allow.
Same with further education-free access to further education for all regardless of income was a fundamental tenet of labour policy until recently now it is an election issue as labour have got away from that. Why don't americans expect the same rom their godvernment? Education of the young is a nations best resource, not to provide it for all seems short sighted.
New Labour are now a centre right party, arguably they have alienated their core support and now they are worrried about turnout. Vote for us or the Tories will get back in is not much of a slogan. People are likely to register protest by not voting.
Michael Howard was one of the B^*&%%S that introduced the poll tax, that cost maggie her leadership because she ignored the opposition to it (you would have thought people rioting on the streets would have been a good hint). It was not paying tax per se that is the problem it was the injustice that pout peoples cback up. It also completely wiped out the Tory party in Scotland, where it was introduced over widespread opposition, and where they are now an endangered species.
I agree with Bothwell about Tony Blair, the prime minister is supposedly first amongst equals not the government. Then again parliament allowed themselves to be emasculated.
I suspect he'll get back in but more because the opposition are useless. The liberal democrats have all their ideas pinched by the other parties and out first past the post electoral system makes it almost ompossible for them to get the number of seats their support actually justifies.
posted by Philadelphia Eagle
The Social Democratic Party (should Blair not be one of their number?) seem weak and ineffectual and in need of strong leadership.
In America we don't have a political party as far left as the British Labor Party - it would command little support here and the Conservative Party would be to the left of our Republican Party.
This seems to suggest that there is no mainstream political party in Britain which fits in with our capitalist philosophies. If that is a fair and accurate statement then I believe it to be a great pity for the people of Britain.
The Social Democratic Party (should Blair not be one of their number?) seem weak and ineffectual and in need of strong leadership.
I take it you mean the Liberal democrats? No he's too right wing now, not to mention power crazed lunatic.
In America we don't have a political party as far left as the British Labor Party - it would command little support here and the Conservative Party would be to the left of our Republican Party.
Take the word socialist out of it and do it on a policy by policy basis I bet you would get a lot of support. Using labels is a convenient way to stifle debate.
This seems to suggest that there is no mainstream political party in Britain which fits in with our capitalist philosophies. If that is a fair and accurate statement then I believe it to be a great pity for the people of Britain
What's a capitalist philosophy? Was having a look at the ayn rand institute, if that is capitalist philosophy you can keep it.
Have a look at Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, supposedly he was the father if modern capitalism and is quoted selectively. Have a read it might surprise you.
Rampant capitalism without any way of controlling it is every bit as bad as rampant communism. Both are identical is that there is invariably an elite that believes they and only they are right. Who controls america, the people or big corporations?
At present the British Labor Party forms the government. It is led by virtually the only Social Democrat in that Party - Tony Blair. Most of the other members are socialists including his cabinet members and are therefore well to the left of his thinking. If I am correct he must find it difficult to remain the leader of a group of left-wingers when he himself is not one of them.
Firsly you need to appreciate that socialist in the UK has completely different connotation than in the US where it seems synonymous with revolutionary socialism/communism and very much a pejorative term. here it just describes a political viewpoint.
social democracy n.
a socialist system achieved by democratic means.
social democrat n.
socialism // n.
1 a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the community as a whole should own and control the means of production, distribution, and exchange.
2 policy or practice based on this theory.
It's the second one that matters in the UK context.
All parties in UK and most of europe come to that are social democrat in nature what has changed is that very few would advocate outright state control if everything a policy that only the more extreme advocate now and they are on the fringe of the left. Generally it would be swopping one set of masters for another, after Stalin got power support for the communist party died away to nothing in the UK as it became clear what Russia had become. As a side note the communists formed their own party because the Labour party rejected revolutionary socialism even early on and voted to keep the extremists out.
Our present NHS etc came in to being after the second world war when generally speaking people were going to have change for the better, what really swung it and gave labour the landslide was the votes form the troops stationed abroad. Many remembered Churchill from before the war as the home secretary that ordered tanks ready on the streets, good for fighting a war but sod the empire we want social change at home. People were not fighting for the British Empire.
posted by Philadelphia Eagle
Is the answer, I wonder, that Britain has for so long been a country where the mind-set has been instilled into people to expect the government to provide for them 'from the cradle to the grave' that to introduce policies where individuals had to exercise a greater degree of responsibility in looking after themselves are politically unacceptable? If so - this would explain why a government with such a dismal record keeps getting re-elected!
Education and the NHS are the two most important election issues and parties ignore public sentiment at their peril.
Try and understand the government doesn't provide for us. We tell them to do it and if they don't they don't last very long if they are perceived as being uncaring or not being interested in social justice. We are not mindless morons spoon fed by the government through our social welfare system. Americans seem unable to appreciate that we have a NHS from choice and don't want the fundamental principle changed.
looking at stories in the US about people not being able to afford medical care or going bankrupt because a family member is ill-it's a common feature in US soaps you wonder why americans put up with that kind of situation and don't vote to change things so that medical care is avaialable to all regardless of income. Not to be able to get medical care because of poverty seems an obscene situation to allow.
Same with further education-free access to further education for all regardless of income was a fundamental tenet of labour policy until recently now it is an election issue as labour have got away from that. Why don't americans expect the same rom their godvernment? Education of the young is a nations best resource, not to provide it for all seems short sighted.
New Labour are now a centre right party, arguably they have alienated their core support and now they are worrried about turnout. Vote for us or the Tories will get back in is not much of a slogan. People are likely to register protest by not voting.
Michael Howard was one of the B^*&%%S that introduced the poll tax, that cost maggie her leadership because she ignored the opposition to it (you would have thought people rioting on the streets would have been a good hint). It was not paying tax per se that is the problem it was the injustice that pout peoples cback up. It also completely wiped out the Tory party in Scotland, where it was introduced over widespread opposition, and where they are now an endangered species.
I agree with Bothwell about Tony Blair, the prime minister is supposedly first amongst equals not the government. Then again parliament allowed themselves to be emasculated.
I suspect he'll get back in but more because the opposition are useless. The liberal democrats have all their ideas pinched by the other parties and out first past the post electoral system makes it almost ompossible for them to get the number of seats their support actually justifies.
posted by Philadelphia Eagle
The Social Democratic Party (should Blair not be one of their number?) seem weak and ineffectual and in need of strong leadership.
In America we don't have a political party as far left as the British Labor Party - it would command little support here and the Conservative Party would be to the left of our Republican Party.
This seems to suggest that there is no mainstream political party in Britain which fits in with our capitalist philosophies. If that is a fair and accurate statement then I believe it to be a great pity for the people of Britain.
The Social Democratic Party (should Blair not be one of their number?) seem weak and ineffectual and in need of strong leadership.
I take it you mean the Liberal democrats? No he's too right wing now, not to mention power crazed lunatic.
In America we don't have a political party as far left as the British Labor Party - it would command little support here and the Conservative Party would be to the left of our Republican Party.
Take the word socialist out of it and do it on a policy by policy basis I bet you would get a lot of support. Using labels is a convenient way to stifle debate.
This seems to suggest that there is no mainstream political party in Britain which fits in with our capitalist philosophies. If that is a fair and accurate statement then I believe it to be a great pity for the people of Britain
What's a capitalist philosophy? Was having a look at the ayn rand institute, if that is capitalist philosophy you can keep it.
Have a look at Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, supposedly he was the father if modern capitalism and is quoted selectively. Have a read it might surprise you.
Rampant capitalism without any way of controlling it is every bit as bad as rampant communism. Both are identical is that there is invariably an elite that believes they and only they are right. Who controls america, the people or big corporations?
British General Elections
There is virtually no media interest here in British politics. As an erstwhile student of international politics however, I would be grateful for some answers to what seems to me a somewhat confused political scene there.
At present the British Labor Party forms the government. It is led by virtually the only Social Democrat in that Party - Tony Blair. Most of the other members are socialists including his cabinet members and are therefore well to the left of his thinking. If I am correct he must find it difficult to remain the leader of a group of left-wingers when he himself is not one of them.
I think you’re correct, he’s able to remain in charge because the cabinet know they haven’t got a chance of staying in power without him. IMO
Are the general population in UK therefore left wing socialists?
No.
If not - why do they keep electing a socialist government?
The majority who will vote Labour, will do so, because they trust the opposition even less that they trust labour. IMO.
Britain has the reputation of being a heavily taxed nation
We pay lower overall taxes than other comparable European countries.
but unlike some other European states where high taxation produces high quality social services, in Britain this is not the case. Reports from there suggest that Britain's social services are very poor despite the high taxes. Where do the tax dollars go?
I don’t think social services are as bad as you may of read, our press thrive on reporting stories of things that go wrong but rarely report on anything positive, (the glass is always half empty) and as I’ve already said we’re not as highly taxed as you may think.
If the Labor Party imposes ever-higher taxes without providing good social services why does the voting public keep electing them?
Is the answer, I wonder, that Britain has for so long been a country where the mind-set has been instilled into people to expect the government to provide for them 'from the cradle to the grave' that to introduce policies where individuals had to exercise a greater degree of responsibility in looking after themselves are politically unacceptable? If so - this would explain why a government with such a dismal record keeps getting re-elected!
What are the alternatives?
We have our fair share of scroungers but the vast majority of people are hard working, I’ve never met anyone that expects the government to provide for them from cradle to grave.
The overwhelming majority of people accept that it’s their responsibility to look after themselves, whatever made you think otherwise?
The Conservative Party appear to have few new ideas and are , in any case, not sufficiently different from the Labor Party to attract widespread support.
You’re correct, New Labour could have called themselves New Conservatives.
The Social Democratic Party (should Blair not be one of their number?) seem weak and ineffectual and in need of strong leadership.
In America we don't have a political party as far left as the British Labor Party - it would command little support here and the Conservative Party would be to the left of our Republican Party.
This seems to suggest that there is no mainstream political party in Britain which fits in with our capitalist philosophies. If that is a fair and accurate statement then I believe it to be a great pity for the people of Britain.
I don’t know a great deal about American politics but both New Labour and the Conservatives here, would be considered capitalists.
At present the British Labor Party forms the government. It is led by virtually the only Social Democrat in that Party - Tony Blair. Most of the other members are socialists including his cabinet members and are therefore well to the left of his thinking. If I am correct he must find it difficult to remain the leader of a group of left-wingers when he himself is not one of them.
I think you’re correct, he’s able to remain in charge because the cabinet know they haven’t got a chance of staying in power without him. IMO
Are the general population in UK therefore left wing socialists?
No.
If not - why do they keep electing a socialist government?
The majority who will vote Labour, will do so, because they trust the opposition even less that they trust labour. IMO.
Britain has the reputation of being a heavily taxed nation
We pay lower overall taxes than other comparable European countries.
but unlike some other European states where high taxation produces high quality social services, in Britain this is not the case. Reports from there suggest that Britain's social services are very poor despite the high taxes. Where do the tax dollars go?
I don’t think social services are as bad as you may of read, our press thrive on reporting stories of things that go wrong but rarely report on anything positive, (the glass is always half empty) and as I’ve already said we’re not as highly taxed as you may think.
If the Labor Party imposes ever-higher taxes without providing good social services why does the voting public keep electing them?
Is the answer, I wonder, that Britain has for so long been a country where the mind-set has been instilled into people to expect the government to provide for them 'from the cradle to the grave' that to introduce policies where individuals had to exercise a greater degree of responsibility in looking after themselves are politically unacceptable? If so - this would explain why a government with such a dismal record keeps getting re-elected!
What are the alternatives?
We have our fair share of scroungers but the vast majority of people are hard working, I’ve never met anyone that expects the government to provide for them from cradle to grave.
The overwhelming majority of people accept that it’s their responsibility to look after themselves, whatever made you think otherwise?
The Conservative Party appear to have few new ideas and are , in any case, not sufficiently different from the Labor Party to attract widespread support.
You’re correct, New Labour could have called themselves New Conservatives.
The Social Democratic Party (should Blair not be one of their number?) seem weak and ineffectual and in need of strong leadership.
In America we don't have a political party as far left as the British Labor Party - it would command little support here and the Conservative Party would be to the left of our Republican Party.
This seems to suggest that there is no mainstream political party in Britain which fits in with our capitalist philosophies. If that is a fair and accurate statement then I believe it to be a great pity for the people of Britain.
I don’t know a great deal about American politics but both New Labour and the Conservatives here, would be considered capitalists.
-
Philadelphia Eagle
- Posts: 505
- Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 8:50 am
British General Elections
Many thanks to Bothwell, GMC and TMC for your considered replies to my post.
I generally find that relying on newspaper and TV reports is no substitute for in-depth information from people 'on the ground'.
I hope the problems outlined by Bothwell can be resolved both in establishing an effective government - by whichever Party - and the sad situation presented by a new generation of younger people who feel they are owed a living by the State.
I take your point, GMC, re the difference in meaning of the word ' socialist' in the US and the UK. You make the point that the Labor Party has shed its ties to the communists many years ago. Does that apply to all Party members? Is it true that delegates to the annual Labor Party conventions stand up and sing the old communist anthem - The Red Flag? If so, it must cause modernisers like Tony Blair some embarrassment!
If I may correct one misconception on your part concerning health care in the United States. We believe - rightly I think - that we have the best health care service in the world. Yes - it is expensive- but not excessively so. Personally I have fully comphrensive insurance cover which costs around the same as paying British National Insurance for, quite frankly, a much better service.
No-one in America needs to be without medical care. Our system offers both Medicare and Medicaid to lower income groups, retirees and those unable to afford their own insurance. The picture of an injured person being asked for their credit card details before being taken off to hospital is a myth!
The same applies to further education - a program of grants which is means-tested ensures that everyone who has the ability irrespective of the means to afford it can qualify for college education.
Yes - I did mean the Liberal Democratic Party - not the Social Democrats. That was my mistake.
I agree with you that rampant capitalism is as bad as rampant communism. Thank goodness neither of our countries have it.
TMC - Thanks for your input. It seems that Tony Blair is the 'raison-d'etre' for the very existence of his modernised Party. There is some concern expressed here that if he were to be unseated as leader we would lose a strong ally as continued support for our push to bring democracy to Iraq, Afghanistan etc. would not be there. Is that a genuine fear?
Again - thanks everyone for your comments and advice.
I generally find that relying on newspaper and TV reports is no substitute for in-depth information from people 'on the ground'.
I hope the problems outlined by Bothwell can be resolved both in establishing an effective government - by whichever Party - and the sad situation presented by a new generation of younger people who feel they are owed a living by the State.
I take your point, GMC, re the difference in meaning of the word ' socialist' in the US and the UK. You make the point that the Labor Party has shed its ties to the communists many years ago. Does that apply to all Party members? Is it true that delegates to the annual Labor Party conventions stand up and sing the old communist anthem - The Red Flag? If so, it must cause modernisers like Tony Blair some embarrassment!
If I may correct one misconception on your part concerning health care in the United States. We believe - rightly I think - that we have the best health care service in the world. Yes - it is expensive- but not excessively so. Personally I have fully comphrensive insurance cover which costs around the same as paying British National Insurance for, quite frankly, a much better service.
No-one in America needs to be without medical care. Our system offers both Medicare and Medicaid to lower income groups, retirees and those unable to afford their own insurance. The picture of an injured person being asked for their credit card details before being taken off to hospital is a myth!
The same applies to further education - a program of grants which is means-tested ensures that everyone who has the ability irrespective of the means to afford it can qualify for college education.
Yes - I did mean the Liberal Democratic Party - not the Social Democrats. That was my mistake.
I agree with you that rampant capitalism is as bad as rampant communism. Thank goodness neither of our countries have it.
TMC - Thanks for your input. It seems that Tony Blair is the 'raison-d'etre' for the very existence of his modernised Party. There is some concern expressed here that if he were to be unseated as leader we would lose a strong ally as continued support for our push to bring democracy to Iraq, Afghanistan etc. would not be there. Is that a genuine fear?
Again - thanks everyone for your comments and advice.
America the Beautiful :-6
website - home.comcast.net/~nmusgrave/
website - home.comcast.net/~nmusgrave/
British General Elections
Philadephia Eagle
TMC - Thanks for your input. It seems that Tony Blair is the 'raison-d'etre' for the very existence of his modernised Party. There is some concern expressed here that if he were to be unseated as leader we would lose a strong ally as continued support for our push to bring democracy to Iraq, Afghanistan etc. would not be there. Is that a genuine fear?
Even of not unseated it is highly unlikely there would be any support for any more military action. Labour getting in and the modernisation of the labout party owes more to John Smith than to TB.
Quite bluntly Tony Blair lied and has been caught out he won't get away with it again. I have doubts Tony will last much longer as leader." Trust me I believe I'm right" does not go down well.
I take your point, GMC, re the difference in meaning of the word ' socialist' in the US and the UK. You make the point that the Labor Party has shed its ties to the communists many years ago. Does that apply to all Party members? Is it true that delegates to the annual Labor Party conventions stand up and sing the old communist anthem - The Red Flag? If so, it must cause modernisers like Tony Blair some embarrassment!
I might have been more accurate to say revolutionary socialism is no longer passe.
Yes they sing the red flag and who cares whether it embasasses Tony Blair, he shouldn't have joined a socialist party if it does. Tony Blair is the leader of the Labour party-odds are he won't last. Arguably he has already alienated the core support of the Labour party. Modernising does not mean you lose socialist principles you change in your outlook and the means you use, speeches on class warfare just don't go down so well as society has moved on, we are less polarised now than we were, on the other hand social justoce strikes a chord with most of the electorate. Labour used to stand for that, The Tories were always seen as the party of the rich. Maggie got in because people were fed up with extremists in the unions striking all the time, the unions fo not have the same political clout they once had.
TB is not in the same position as a US president and most definitely does not get anything like the same respect and most definitely nothing like the same authority. In our political system it is parliament that is sovereign, the cabinet act as executive with the authority as parliament who supposedly can stop them any time they like.
TB will have to do what the electorate tell him I dont understand why you think his removal matters that much I'm afraid we regard our leaders with a great deal less respect than you seem to your president. This idea you need to follow and support your leader in the name of patriotism is a load of bollocks and very unbritish.
Calling TB a lying devious two faced hypocritical BA*)(&&d is not viewed as being unpatriotic
What has happened is we have ended up with a form of prime ministerial government which is detrimental to our political processes IMO. Supposedly he is primo inter (first amonget equals can't remember the latin phrase maybe Bothwell can) He is not the same as a president and should not be viewed as a Briutish equivalent.
I had little time for Maggie Thatcher but compared to TB I feel almost nostalgic, at least she wasn't smarmy.
Like TMC I think labour will get back in, hopefully with a much reduced majority, our electoral system militates against smaller parties gets the number of seats that reflect their actual support in the country.
It will be interesting to see if TB has destroyed the Labour part much as Maggie destroyed the Tories.
We have a very different history and culture to america it's only trying to explain o a foreigner you really appreciate the fact.
TMC - Thanks for your input. It seems that Tony Blair is the 'raison-d'etre' for the very existence of his modernised Party. There is some concern expressed here that if he were to be unseated as leader we would lose a strong ally as continued support for our push to bring democracy to Iraq, Afghanistan etc. would not be there. Is that a genuine fear?
Even of not unseated it is highly unlikely there would be any support for any more military action. Labour getting in and the modernisation of the labout party owes more to John Smith than to TB.
Quite bluntly Tony Blair lied and has been caught out he won't get away with it again. I have doubts Tony will last much longer as leader." Trust me I believe I'm right" does not go down well.
I take your point, GMC, re the difference in meaning of the word ' socialist' in the US and the UK. You make the point that the Labor Party has shed its ties to the communists many years ago. Does that apply to all Party members? Is it true that delegates to the annual Labor Party conventions stand up and sing the old communist anthem - The Red Flag? If so, it must cause modernisers like Tony Blair some embarrassment!
I might have been more accurate to say revolutionary socialism is no longer passe.
Yes they sing the red flag and who cares whether it embasasses Tony Blair, he shouldn't have joined a socialist party if it does. Tony Blair is the leader of the Labour party-odds are he won't last. Arguably he has already alienated the core support of the Labour party. Modernising does not mean you lose socialist principles you change in your outlook and the means you use, speeches on class warfare just don't go down so well as society has moved on, we are less polarised now than we were, on the other hand social justoce strikes a chord with most of the electorate. Labour used to stand for that, The Tories were always seen as the party of the rich. Maggie got in because people were fed up with extremists in the unions striking all the time, the unions fo not have the same political clout they once had.
TB is not in the same position as a US president and most definitely does not get anything like the same respect and most definitely nothing like the same authority. In our political system it is parliament that is sovereign, the cabinet act as executive with the authority as parliament who supposedly can stop them any time they like.
TB will have to do what the electorate tell him I dont understand why you think his removal matters that much I'm afraid we regard our leaders with a great deal less respect than you seem to your president. This idea you need to follow and support your leader in the name of patriotism is a load of bollocks and very unbritish.
Calling TB a lying devious two faced hypocritical BA*)(&&d is not viewed as being unpatriotic
What has happened is we have ended up with a form of prime ministerial government which is detrimental to our political processes IMO. Supposedly he is primo inter (first amonget equals can't remember the latin phrase maybe Bothwell can) He is not the same as a president and should not be viewed as a Briutish equivalent.
I had little time for Maggie Thatcher but compared to TB I feel almost nostalgic, at least she wasn't smarmy.
Like TMC I think labour will get back in, hopefully with a much reduced majority, our electoral system militates against smaller parties gets the number of seats that reflect their actual support in the country.
It will be interesting to see if TB has destroyed the Labour part much as Maggie destroyed the Tories.
We have a very different history and culture to america it's only trying to explain o a foreigner you really appreciate the fact.