Blair Will Win Election Despite Iraq Row -- Poll

[maddezmom]

By Katherine Baldwin
42 minutes ago



LONDON (Reuters) - British Prime Minister Tony Blair's opinion poll lead was barely dented on Monday despite new opposition accusations he deceived Britons on Iraq, putting him firmly on track to win a general election on Thursday.


But in the final days of campaigning, Blair -- seeking a third successive term -- will focus on his Labour Party's most vulnerable seats amid concern protest votes over his support for the Iraq war could slash his huge parliamentary majority.

Blair is widely expected to team up with finance minister Gordon Brown in an effort to try to shift the attention of voters onto Labour's preferred battleground, the economy, which has been buoyant since he came to power in 1997.

A YouGov poll for The Daily Telegraph newspaper put Labour on 36 percent, the main opposition Conservatives on 33 percent and the Liberal Democrats on 24 percent. The poll was conducted between April 29 and May 1.

~snip~
more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050502/wl_nm/britain_election_dc;_ylt=AnoDA46eVZMWqlJUNLa4WgxvaA8F;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

Interesting, watching a Q&A right now on CSpan1...and I'd think from the responses he'd be going down. :shrug:

edited to add this article:

U.K. Opposition in Freefall As Vote Nears

By BETH GARDINER, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 39 minutes ago



CARDIFF, Wales - Britons seem weary of Prime Minister Tony Blair after eight years in power and many of his Labour Party's backers are still furious over the Iraq war. Yet, Britain's Conservative Party seem unable to capitalize on Blair's vulnerability and appear to be heading toward a third straight election defeat on Thursday.
There's no shortage of explanations for the party's poor standing. The Tories supported the unpopular, U.S.-led war in Iraq and have been riven by years of infighting. Britain's economy is strong, and Blair has skillfully stolen much of the Conservative agenda.

The Conservatives, once an unstoppable juggernaut, have yet to fully recover from the drubbing Blair gave them in 1997 — and from their own success under Margaret Thatcher's powerful leadership in the 1980s. Thatcher won three elections, but by the time she was overthrown in 1990 the party was deeply divided — especially over Britain's role in the European Union.

The Conservatives' government, led by John Major, bungled a currency crisis, destroying the party's reputation for fiscal competence, and it forced through an unpopular privatization of the rail system.

~snip~
more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050501/ap_on_re_eu/britain_struggling_conservatives;_ylt=Aqn3J2pSf4gknJw0AD4Ze7ZvaA8F;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

[Taxloss]

1. The real question is turnout, not poll numbers.

In this case, relatively static polls are concealing turbulence beneath the surface - Blair is losing votes, but gaining others as fast. It's a volatile situation, and fascinating to watch.

[saigon68]

64. The Title---= Bushes Poodle Pulls another One Out.

Disgusting

[FloridaPat]

2. Whatever the Brits are drinking, most Americans are drinking too.

These two clowns lie to start a war, make a ton of money off of it, commit one war crime after another, and they keep getting rewarded bu the voters. Where is Justice?

[magellan]

20. Trust me, the Brits are nowhere near as fooled as Americans

We have almost daily contact with friends and family in England. People are NOT happy with Blair over Iraq. Because of their open press they've known far more for much longer.

It's the UK election process that has them in a catch-22. Brits cast their vote for a local MP, not the PM. The party with the most elected MPs goes into power; that party's leader becomes PM. So voting out Blair would require voting out the Labour majority in Parliament.

The problem is, Brits tend to prefer Labour to the Tories on the domestic front. So they can either cut off their noses to spite their faces, or sit tight with Labour until Blair stands down (which he's said he'll do before the next general election).

The alternative for some is to vote for the LibDems, who are enjoying a good boost from Blair's Iraq War Folly. My husband has already cast his absentee ballot for them. It's highly unlikely they'll take power -- they're untried and untested -- but they will gain seats, and there's nothing wrong with more LibDems exerting their common sense progressive values in Parliament.

I learned of another option by watching CSPAN tonight. Blair is the MP for a village up in NE England called Sedgefield. His constituents could vote him out by electing an independent candidate for MP, meaning the independent would become the PM...and it so happens that the independent who's running against Blair in Sedgefield lost his son in Iraq. So he plays very well to the anti-war crowd. Again, very unlikely...but it's an interesting wrinkle.

[Henny Penny]

24. Is that correct???

"His constituents could vote him out by electing an independent candidate for MP, meaning the independent would become the PM..." Would John Presott not become PM then?

[muriel_volestrangler]

27. You're right, it would be Prescott

Though Labour would have to hold a leadership election as soon as possible, which Brown would presumably win. So Prescott would have a month or so as Prime Minister. It would be like when John Smith died - his deputy, Margaret Beckett, was the temporary leader until Blair was elected by the party.

[magellan]

29. Sorry, my bad

It would be Prescott. American trying to translate British politics here. ;)

[Henny Penny]

30. Its ok Magellan...

we can all dream...
:pals:

[UKCynic]

78. No way

The post of deputy pm is always held by people who are not going to become pm (see Whitelaw). The position on John Smith's death was quite different as Smith wasn't pm. The Queen appoints whoever can command a majority in the House of Commons, which is nowadays the leader of the majority party, though not always in the past.

The labour party would hold an internal election. The American president is head of state and therefore the transition is instant. The British pm is only head of government and the state carries on regardless whether or not there is a head of government.

[FloridaPat]

31. Thank you for the civics lesson. I've always had problems understanding

how the British system works. I have always wished we had the vote of confidence thing here, but that probably wouldn't work with Bush. Best of luck. Getting Blair out would go a long way to getting him charged with war crimes - and Bush.

[magellan]

62. Glad to help

I have problems understanding British politics too (as you can see from the follow-ups to my note, lol), and I lived there for several years!

All in all, our Founding Fathers didn't do badly, borrowing from the British when constructing our government. There are strengths and weaknesses in both systems. Unfortunately we're seeing the weakness in both being ruthlessly exploited by politicians who, by simple virtue of their majority, are subverting the built in checks and balances for unethical purposes.

[nolabels]

67. But maybe as weak minded and lazy?

Apathy comes in many forms and there is a good chance that there are many here in states living in the same type of situation. They know a lot about it and might even care some but apathy keeps any type of conviction from taking hold.


The religious zealots biggest asset over here is that publicly they are thought to be steadfast and unchanging (conviction) which is a like a rock people cling on to in turbulent times. A weak, apathetic and unquestioning mind will do it to you every time

[FreedomAngel82]

37. I'm with you

This guy should be locked in jail next to Bush and his administration. I can't believe this! The truth has come out and they're still ignoring it!!

[UKCynic]

79. No one is ignoring it

The problem is that the Labour Party is supposed to be the left wing of British politics. The conservatives are much much worse. The LibDem option is OK in some constituencies but they haven't a hope in hell of forming a government. The ex-Labour spin-off called Respect is not standing everywhere and is led by a man with a very bad reputation in his home town.

To vote against the Labour party is not as easy as it might seem. That is why they say that 30% of those likely to vote are not certain who they will vote for.

[alcuno]

3. And then he'll claim it supports his Iraq policy.

Now where did I hear that?

[Rose Siding]

4. We'll need a photo shopper

[FloridaPat]

32. Still waiting for an answer.

[rainy]

5. Are their elections fraud free? Can they be trusted unlike here?

[DrDebug]

11. It's relatively fraud free

The main concern with UK elections is that they tend to change the redraw boundaries because the winner of election district gets all the votes just like the US system so it's not a proportional vote.

Before the election they map out exactly what their preferred boundaries of a district are and then try to change the district. This is very common in the UK and has been applied a lot in the past as well and it is always applied by the ruling party to ensure that they get as much votes as possible.

There have been reports about fraud ( like: http://www.theinsider.org/mailing/article.asp?id=1085 ) however it doesn't seem to be of a massive scale. The majority of adjustment is still done by redrawing the maps.

[muriel_volestrangler]

17. I don't think boundary changes are a worry in the UK

The Commission that does it is independent, and has to do its deliberations in public. The guidelines they have to follow mean that established boundaries of counties, town councils and similar have to be used wherever possible. I really don't think the 'ruling party' (ie Labour at the moment) has influence on them - and I'm not a Labour supporters.

The postal voting fraud you link to is a problem, however. Somewhere between 10 and 15% of votes are going to be by post - way more than in previous elections, and wide open to fraud. A Daily Telegraph journalist
got 11 votes just by sending applications. He picked names at random - if those people voted as well, then the fraud might be detected. But if you chose the names of people you were pretty sure wern't going to vote, you'd probably get away with it.

[Henny Penny]

25. There is a row going on in N Ireland

about people in certain areas and age groups being preferentially kept off the political register. Age and location are often as good an indication of political preference in NI as race is in the US.

And the postal vote issue could be very serious. If they are used to swing the marginal constituencies the UK election could be very easily fixed.

In my view first past the post is not a democratic method and should have been replaced by pr long ago. (Just like Tony "I've never told a lie" Blair promised the Lib Dems when he was first elected.) !!!

[FreedomAngel82]

38. I remember reading

an article that they were thinkking of using Diebold. There's an article in the election group. :shrug:

[muriel_volestrangler]

41. I haven't heard of any plans to use voting machines in the UK

Can you point me to the article? Thanks.

[T_i_B]

65. We have postal voting

which is an open invitation to fraud.

I shall be voting properly in a proper secret ballot myself thank you.

[ngGale]

144. I've been keeping up with "postal voting" -

seems to be where your cheaters are. Getting Diebold would really be a coup!

___snip___

Scale of postal voting becomes clear

Fears of electoral fraud have grown following revelations over the scale of postal voting in Thursday's poll.


A judge recently found that safeguards in Britain "would disgrace a banana republic" following the conviction of Birmingham councillors for fraud in last year's local government elections.

In London the Evening Standard newspaper revealed that there has been a three fold increase in the number of applications for postal votes, although in Hackney this figure is 40 times higher.

The borough has issued 19,456 postal ballot papers in the Hackney South and Shoreditch seat following an all-postal voting experiment in 2002.

The paper also revealed examples of potential fraud in the Bethnal Green and Bow constituency, where 6,600 postal ballot papers have been issued.

http://www.epolitix.com/EN/News/200505/bbd3d082-22d5-4b2f-9894-fd7e46f67380.htm

[Zhade]

6. British DUers, can you help me understand why the LibDems poll so low?

I know very little about that party, but I'm curious to know.

[muriel_volestrangler]

8. Part of the problem is the distribution of votes

For most of the 20th century, most seats have tended to vote consistently for either Labour or Conservative, and so those seats get known as ones where the other parties don't stand a chance. This tends to make people think that voting for the Lib Dems won't actually get them elected. Their policies themselves are popular enough. Back in January, an opinion poll, as well as asking the actual voting intentions of people, for which 20% said "Lib Dem", proposed: "In the general election I would vote for the Liberal Democrats if they had a realistic chance of winning in my constituency". 37% agreed - almost twice the vote they're likely to get, and that would possibly make them the most popular party. But, correctly or not, people don't think that enough other people agree with them - so they end up voting for someone else to keep out the people they really hate.

Opinion poll

There are also doubts about the leader, Charles Kennedy - while people like him, and think he's sensible and trustworthy, he doesn't always show strong leadership skills - and Britain still has a tendency to admire a strong person, whatever they say. So there's a feeling of "they're nice guys, and the policies are reasonable, but are they up to running a country?" Imagine if Dennis Kucinich was the Democratic presidential candidate.

[Zhade]

36. I'd be so happy if DK was the nom - but I see your point.

Thanks for the info!

[non sociopath skin]

148. Charles Kennedy a Dennis Kucinich? PUH-LEEZ, MU!

Kucinich would be disgusted by some of the LibDem's tactics.

The other reason is that the LibDems have always been seen -rightly IMO - as a party of opportunists, happy to pose as the party of the soft left in Tory areas and the party of the soft right in left-leaning areas.

People aren't as gullible as the LibDems like to think they are ...

The Skin

[muriel_volestrangler]

151. I'm thinking in terms of "nice guy, but is he a national leader?"

As I thought was obvious from the context. Kennedy is widely liked as a person. Lib Dem policies are often popular, but that doesn't seem to translate to as much electoral support as you'd expect.

[Henny Penny]

153. Lib dems are the only rational choice.

Your charges against them are making you sound a little rattled.

"as a party of opportunists, happy to pose as the party of the soft left in Tory areas and the party of the soft right in left-leaning areas."

Surely you mean "as a party of moderate centrists , happy to pose as the party of the soft left in Tory areas and the party of the soft right in left-leaning areas.

[non sociopath skin]

182. No. I mean a party of opportunists.

I've tried to work with them. Have you?

The Skin

[Anarcho-Socialist]

21. It was because traditionally...

...the Labour Party were the main party of the Left, the Conservatives the main party of the Right and the old Liberal Party were in the centre not polling very highly.

This has changed over the past 10 years where things are now much more blurred. On many issues the Lib Dems are to the left of Labour (but not in all issues), but philosophically most Lib Dem voters are more centrist. The Labour party's leadership is now more right-wing than the Lib Dems (whether this temporary or will change remains to be seen), but the Labour Party's membership is predominantly left-wing even more so than Lib Dem members. One argument for the reason why Labour voters aren't leaving the party is that they're waiting for Blair to leave in the next Parliament, whereafter they will "reclaim" the party from the neo-liberals.

The electoral system in the UK (like the U.S.) makes voting for a 3rd party a lot harder. Indeed there are many self-identified U.S. Democrats who are probably closer to the U.S. Green Party but yet don't vote for them for fear of the GOP getting seats.

[Zhade]

35. Do you think they can reclaim the party?

Blair's GOT to go.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

39. I think they will, because they cannot continue for long

as they are now. The Social Democratic wing of the Labour Party is seen as more 'trustworthy' by both the Labour Party membership and the electorate at large, than the untrusted Blairite Neo-liberal wing.

I think once Blair is gone (he is retiring after the election in the next Parliament) the Blairites will be swept away along with Blair's wake.

[Zhade]

45. Here's hoping he gets swept right into the Hague!

NT!

[daleo]

7. The poll results seem awfully close.

"...Labour on 36 percent, the main opposition Conservatives on 33 percent and the Liberal Democrats on 24 percent."

Here in Canada, that would almost certainly translate into a minority government, with Labour being supported by Liberal Democrats (in Canada the analogy would be Liberals supported by NDP). Perhaps the vote splits in British ridings are misleading though. Tory support may be very heavy in some secure ridings and light in most others, for example, making their popular vote totals ineffective at translating into seats.

I would hate to see the Tories win, but an informal coalition with the Liberal Democrats might keep Blair honest enough to quit playing the junior PNAC game.

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. But in the UK, that translates to a large Labour majority

becasue of the distribution of votes in the constituencues. See the BBC calculator - in simple terms, it gives Labour a 100 seat majority. More realistically, there will be some tactical voting which benefits the Lib Dems a bit - the 'fine tune' option allows you to try to take that into account. But almost however you do it, Labour will get an absolute majority of seats if they get the same as, or any more votes than the Tories.

[daleo]

34. It looks like the U.K.'s electoral system is more out of whack than Canada

Although technically they are the same system. I plugged in some numbers and had Labour winning a minority even with substantially less share of the popular vote than Conservatives:

LAB % 32
CON % 36
LIB DEM 24.7%
OTH 7.2%

translated to:

LAB 295
CON 265
LIB DEM 63
OTH 23

This particular combination of numbers may not be a realistic prospect, but once more it highlights the problem with first past the post voting systems.

[Name removed]

161. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[muriel_volestrangler]

163. Welcome to the world of 'first-past-the post' voting systems

which mean that the distribution of votes can give an absolute majority to a party that gets less votes. No, you didn't do anything wrong. Typically, the Cons do very well in the south of England (especially outside London), and so get huge numbers of votes in some constituencies - but, of course, that still only gets them one seat in Parliament for each constituency. Labour does well in cities, and the north of England, Scotland and Wales - where the Tories and Lib Dems both do OK, but not well enough to win many constituencies.

The more the overall vote differs from the previous election, the less reliable that model will be, too - if Labour did drop to 33%, it might vary a lot over the country. You can try to use 'Fine Tune' to allow for that, but it's mostly guesswork.

Realistically, you should keep the 'Other' vote at around the 9% they got last time - that's the nationalist parties (including Northern Ireland), which do get genuine votes, and seats (ie it's not just fringe weirdos like the BNP). A 30/30/30/10 vote gives:
Lab 328
Con 201
Lib Dem 86
Other 31
Still a Labour majority. Even with tactical voting, Labour would keep their majority, most likely. You won't be surprised that the Lib Dems want the voting system changed to Proportional Representation.

[Name removed]

166. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[muriel_volestrangler]

170. Yes, they would - the model has to start from historical voting

Exactly how they do the translation, I'm not sure - it could be "national vote for Labour is 4 points less, therefore the local Labour vote goes down by 4 points too", or it could be "one in ten Labour voters stopped voting for them nationally, so one in ten Labour voters in this constituency will stop voting for them", or some combination of those. Each constituency has about 70,000 voters, so a lot of them cover just one town, or part of a city - or a much larger area of countryside. So the voting patterns vary a lot even in constituencies quite close to each other.

[BlueManDude]

10. I fail to see why many here want a Conservative gov't in the UK

What will that prove? Make you feel good for 15 minutes 'til you realize that US GOPers will be celebrating and the UK will have a gov't totally up Bush's ass.

[Capt_Nemo]

12. It is a question of decency and principle

a true democracy can not be lead by a war criminal.

Howard is an SOB but he doesn't yet have the blood of tens of thousands in his hands.

[non sociopath skin]

14. Howard has admitted that he would have accepted regime change ...

... as an excuse for supporting Bush on Iraq. His only quarrel with Blair is with the arguments he used. He would have been all too happy to have been a "war criminal."

A Howard government would be hand-in-glove with the Neocons but more racist.

There is no way that electing him would be a more principled stand than voting Labour.

As I've said before, it's LBJ v. Goldwater. As easy and as hard as that.

The Skin

[Anarcho-Socialist]

23. Would you vote against Congressional Dems who

voted to give the President authority for war against Iraq, even if it meant the GOP winning those seats?

[BlueManDude]

48. Good luck with that. You'll be begging for Blair in 2 years.

[w4rma]

137. The Tories voted to keep Blair in Power. LibDems didn't and won't.

And about half of Labour didn't and won't. Vote LibDem, but do not let Tories gain seats because they supported Blair, too.

[non sociopath skin]

13. A Conservative Government here would be WORSE than Bush ....

... in that racism has been a strong strand in the Tory campaign.

I understand where the tactical voters are coming from but, as the LibDems can't win, the real choice is between Labour and the Tories and every "protest" vote and left-leaning abstention makes a Tory victory more likely. BTW let us not forget that the LibDems were only an "anti-war" party before and after it. During it - when public opinion seemed to swing behind Blair - they were suddenly all for it. Then when the aftermath went pear-shaped, they suddenly decided that they were anti-war again.

I hate Blair but his days are numbered. The first priority is to stop the political climate in the UK from swinging further to the right. The second is to start moving it back towards the left.

The Skin

[Disturbed]

15. "LibDems can't win."

Catch22. They can't win so people don't vote for them. If more people did then maybe they could win. Same story in Amerika regarding The Green Party.

[non sociopath skin]

16. I'm not willing to see my country go Neocon. End of story.

The Skin

[muriel_volestrangler]

19. New Labour is the classic definition of Neoconservative

People who grew up on the left wing (several Cabinet members had far left links in their student days), and then moved to the right, advocating military force to make regime changes to get other countries to follow your own point of view.

[non sociopath skin]

56. That's BS, Mu, and you know it.

There's a very clear definition and whatever its faults - and they are many- New Labour doesn't meet them.

Or are you saying that the "Surestart" programme, for example, is something that Bush and Rumsfeld would back?

The Skin

[muriel_volestrangler]

63. There isn't a clear definition, and what there is is close to Labour

Neoconservatism is a somewhat controversial term referring to the political goals and ideology of the "new conservatives" in the United States. The "newness" refers either to being new to American conservatism (often coming from liberal or socialist backgrounds) or to being part of a "new wave" of conservative thought and political organization.

Compared to other U.S. conservatives, neoconservatives are characterized by an aggressive moralist stance on foreign policy, a lesser social conservatism, weaker dedication to a policy of minimal government, and a greater acceptance of the welfare state.
...
This political group supported a militant anticommunism; more social welfare spending than was acceptable to libertarians and mainstream conservatives; civil equality for blacks and other minorities; and sympathy with a non-traditionalist agenda, being more inclined than other conservatives toward an interventionist foreign policy and a unilateralism that is sometimes at odds with traditional conceptions of diplomacy and international law. They feuded with traditional right-wing Republicans, and the nativist, protectionist, isolationists once represented by ex-Republican "paleoconservative" Pat Buchanan.

But domestic policy does not define neoconservatism; it is a movement founded on, and perpetuated by an aggressive approach to foreign policy, free trade, opposition to communism during the Cold War, support for beleaguered liberal democracies such as Israel and Taiwan and opposition to Middle Eastern and other states that are perceived to support terrorism. Thus, their foremost target was the conservative but pragmatic approach to foreign policy often associated with Richard Nixon, i.e., peace through negotiations, diplomacy, and arms control, détente and containment (rather than rollback) of the Soviet Union, and the beginning of the process that would lead to bilateral ties between the People's Republic of China (PRC) and the U.S. Today, a rift still divides the neoconservatives from many members of the State Department, who favor established foreign policy conventions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservative_(U.S.)

My use of bold type - because you can see how it applies to Blair and his suporters, especially in foreign affairs which is the primary area of neoconservatism. About the only thing that's missing is the militant anticommunism.

Mark Mardell took the concept seriously enough to write this 2 years ago: Is Blair a neo-Conservative? His conclusion was 'Blair may not really be a neo-con ... but you know the old saying "if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck"...'. I think Blair's stubborn insistence over the last 2 years that he was right to invade Iraq just increases the sound of quacking.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

71. I would call Blair more a Neoliberal than a Neoconservative

I disagree with Wikipedia's pure judgment on defining it's definition solely by foreign policy.

Blair loves the free market and is idealistic about it as Neoliberals are, whereas Neoconservatives talk free market dogma only when it's in the "national interest". I wouldn't call Blair a social conservative, but a very moderated social liberal.

[non sociopath skin]

145. That makes a lot more sense, AS.

The Skin

[Henny Penny]

152. "I would call Blair more a Neoliberal than a Neoconservative"

of course you would! Because you're labour and see the LIBERAL Democrats as your main threat!

Subtle, not.

[Jack Rabbit]

177. In the words of Granny D . . .

Neoliberalism is the colonialism department of neoconservatism.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

178. I don't understand what point you're trying to make n/t

[Henny Penny]

179. mmm not sure myself anymore...

but it made sense at the time!!!

[CJCRANE]

18. It's the economy too.

I'm guessing that a lot of people will vote Labour because of Gordon Brown, and the perception that he will take over from Tony Blair sometime after this election.

[Henny Penny]

26. The lib dems can't win but

they can force Labour into coalition with them and get rid of Blair.

Go Charlie!!! you can do it...:party: :party: :toast: :bounce: :party: :hippie: :toast: :bounce: :beer: :thumbsup: :headbang: :woohoo: :applause:

[Anarcho-Socialist]

22. Exactly

I'm sure Howard would be happy to go along with any war with Iran. For Blair to try that would mean he would have to resign.

I don't want to enable a Howard victory just so people can say "yay Blair is gone". The happiness will wear off very soon. A Howard victory means class war, vile racist policies, cuts to public services and economic incompetence.

[CJCRANE]

28. True.

I just heard David Davies (of the Conservatives) say on BBC Radio 4's Any Answers programme that we are in "an era of pre-emptive war" and that there will be a "number of wars".

[UKCynic]

80. David Davies

He is in a very tight marginal race, and may well loose his seat to the LibDems. I drove through there the other day and they are busy. If he keeps it he may be leader of the Conservative party within a month. The LibDems are running a decapitation program, trying to pick off the big hitters.

[autorank]

33. I question the polls; I applaud the British people!

I don't see why British pollsters are any more reliable than the hacks we have in this country. I'm sure they're bought and sold by the media savvy Labour elite. The war documents just hit a week ago and have just begun to resonate. I suspect Labour will have to align with the Liberal Democrats to stay in power. What a happy day.

I applaud the British people. I say the three forums last night. The people treat the PM and candidates like employees under review, intense review. The candidates hang in there and take it, to their credit. It's wonderful seeing a true democracy in action!

Excellent post and observations.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

40. I agree with most of your post...

...although the "savvy Labour elite" don't have much to do with the opinion polls. Traditionally opinion pollsters have mostly helped the Tories.

In 1992 the pre-election polls overexaggerated Labour's poll lead and in response to the election eve polls many Labour voters stayed at home thinking a Labour victory is in the bag, and subsequently John Major and his Conservative Party won a surprising victory.

In both 1997 and 2001 the pollsters again overexaggerated Labour's lead in the polls, but because the Tories were so out of touch they were not able to gain from this.

[autorank]

43. Thanks for the correction. My trans-Atlantic analygy was incorrect!

Like your username:hi:

[Anarcho-Socialist]

44. Thanks...

...I think you're cool :hi:

[AP]

42. I interpret this story as a vote-suppression tactic.

Blair is giving speaches about how important it is to vote. Meanwhile, the media is saying the opposite: Blair will win. No need to vote.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

46. I think it's because the Tories have lost on every issue that has

been debated, that the only way they can make some gains is by suppressing the Labour vote.

[AP]

47. If you can't win with a representative sample of the population, the only

chance you have is to win with an unrepresentative sample.

So, they're trying to bore Labor voters out of voting.

Bill Clinton also talks about the curse of a being a good progressive leader in his book. When you're doing everything right, people forget the urgency of voting progressive.

Conservatives win by screwing things up, creating tension, and fear. You fuck up NI? That's OK, because you can use IRA bombings to convince people to vote for your RW ass.

But if you're a progressive, and you're putting people in decent schools, allocating the tax burden fairly, creating jobs and opportunity -- well people don't see that. You're making their lives easier which turns into people not carring about politics.

[Dr Zoidberg]

76. Yep, the Tories are playing dead

Convince the many people who are pissed off with Blair but would choose him over a re-run of the Thatcher-Major nightmare that the Tories can't win, so they stay home or vote Liberal. Then get the racists, xenophobes and the selfish rich whipped up enough to turn out in what they hope might just be enough numbers to put them in office.

[muriel_volestrangler]

49. Show me one expert who thinks Blair won't win

Looks at the polls. Look at the psephologists. Look at the bookmakers. Current Labour odds: 1-33. Current Conservative odds: 16-1. Blair just wants another huge majority, because he knows that some Labour MPs oppose him and his authoritarian measures. He knows that the left wing wants him gone as soon as possible. Hell, he knows that the country wants him gone. They're voting for Labour, not for him. He is despised. He has become a reincarnation of Thatcher.

[Henny Penny]

50. I think Blair's lost either way...

but then, I'm no expert.

:evilgrin:

[AP]

61. Show me one person who knows anything about politics who doesn't realize

that this is what the Conservatives' strategy is?

"A reincarnation of Thatcher"?!

The only satisfaction I would find in a heavy Lib Dem vote that puts Tories back in power is that the people who said it would be OK to vote for the Lib Dems without regard to whether it was going to put the Tories back in power would all have to shut up and leave DU for five years in shame after the Tories showed the true misery and neoconservatism the can bring to bear on the world.

[UKCynic]

83. Here is one person

The Tories are not that deep. They are in total free fall and utterly crippled by internal division on Europe which will kill them. Their membership has an average age of , I think, over 65 and dying. Howard is their third leader since 1997 and he is very insecure. They have only done as well as they have because everybody now hates Blair and the Labour government are arrogant and incompetent. Incidentally I am a member of the Labour party.

[AP]

88. And this strategy is their only hope. It wouldn't be the first time that a

party in its dying gasps resuscitated itself by convincing people not to vote or, if they do, to vote for a third party with no chance of winning.

[Jack Rabbit]

176. It is naive to suggest the Tories can win tomorrow

The latest polls show that Labour's lead is widening over the Tories. The Tories have run a dreadful campaign and have not been able to take advantage of the public's distrust of Blair or his overall unpopularity.

I have been fiddling this morning with the BBC's seat calculator. If current poll numbers are plugged in, it shows that, at worst for Labour, the Liberal Democrats and Tories will make only modest gains and, at best, that the election might be a virtual wash.

In order for the Tories to take control of Commons, the poll numbers would almost have to be reversed from where they currently stand. I finally got the Tories a solid majority by plugging in by giving the Tories 40% over Labour's 30% with 20% for the Liberal Democrats and 10% for other. Leaving the LibDem and Other percentages where they are in that run, the Tories would not overtake Labour's number of seats in a hung parliament unless they took 38% of the vote over 32% for Labour.

That's not going to happen.

[Jack Rabbit]

51. Polls quoted on the BBC today have Labour at least narrowly ahead

The BBC is tracking six polls.

YouGov and MORI each have Labour ahead 36-33% with the Liberal Democrats in the lower or middle twenties.

The others (Communicate, ICM, NOP and Populus) have Labour with 39-40% and the Tories with 30-31%. These also have the Liberal Democrats in the lower or middle twenties.

All of these show very little shift since the publication of the Goldsmith memo. The reason is believed to be that most people weren't surprised at what Lord Goldsmith said. The British public already suspected that Blair misled the public and simply had their suspicions confirmed. Minds were already made up based on what turns out to be the facts.

In any case, Labour is expected to win with a reduced majority. If Blair didn't have such a huge majority in commons to begin with, we might be seeing a change in power; as it is, that is unlikely.

[Henny Penny]

55. Turnout !

As I've already mentioned...

Mori has polled people on whether they will definitely vote or not and the results were...

Lab 61% Lib 72% and Con 80% and this poll was done before the latest war stuff came out.

So take the likely lab vote (36%) and multiply by 0.62 = 22.32%
similarly ... Con vote (33%) and multiply by 0.8 = 26.4%

mmmmmmmm interesting!

So I'm saying vote Lib Dem to get Labour sans Blair back in.

:+ :party: :toast: :hippie: :bounce: :silly: :beer: :beer: :hi: :pals:

[lovuian]

58. I don't think the Liberal Democrats are out of it!!! They can win!!!

They are an up and coming party because the Labour Party has been taken over by corruption!!!

[Jack Rabbit]

60. If I were British, I would vote Liberal Democrat on Thursday

However, they will finish third.

If there were a hung Parliament, I would hope that Mr. Kennedy would drive a deal. The LibDems would be more than happy to support Labour; the price is removing the following:

• Tony Blair
• Jack Straw
• Geoff Hoon
• Any hint of support for Bush's corporate wars

[Anarcho-Socialist]

69. They can't win...

...it's like me saying the Green Party can win the House of Representatives in 2006.

[lovuian]

129. They can if the Liberal Dems go in and vote!!! and Labour stays

home!!!

[non sociopath skin]

149. That's pretty naive, Bro. And the result would be a resounding Tory win.

The Lib Dem's actual power base is relatively low. They're hoping to pick up protest votes from Labour voters, NOT have them stay at home.

The risk is that, even without improving their vote, the Tories could come through the middle and win.

BTW, this would not be a problem to the LibDems who would be at least as happy working in coalition with the Tories as they would with Labour.

The Skin

[Henny Penny]

154. No need to be patronising dear! ;-)

If your arguments are sound they'll carry the day!

[cyberpj]

52. Anyone know anything about HOW they vote? Any new Emachines?

Just curious.

[muriel_volestrangler]

53. Paper ballots, but there's a problem with postal voting

Anyone one can apply for a postal vote - but there's no check that the application comes from the real person, and the postal ballot can be sent to another address. So people can steal someone else's vote - and it will only be detected if both the thief and the original person try to vote.

[UKCynic]

84. They are starting to check

but the postal vote problem is bad in some areas. Mostly where there are strongly patriarchal ethnic groups.

I know of a man who sold his postal vote in a pub for a pint, and said it was the most use he had ever got out of voting. Most people charge at least five pounds for their ballot paper though.

[muriel_volestrangler]

99. How are they checking?

Are they checking for several ballots being sent to the same address? The problem is that there's no record of the "voter's signature" before the application for a postal vote. Since the result of that application (ie the ballot itself) can be sent anywhere, that just means the same person filled out the application and the ballot. Nothing ties that to the person at the real address.

[UKCynic]

114. Several at one address is being looked at

They check by sending a policeman round to ask questions, or so I am told. I imagine that the local political parties, who have access to the lists of applicants on each roll, will be suggesting to the returning officers which applications they suspect. That was what I used to do when I was running a campaign.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lovuian]

57. I don't believe the Polls!!! Blair is in trouble!!!

Everything isn't OK in England !!!

[Henny Penny]

59. "Blair's in trouble".... yes siree Bob!

:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

[Stockholm]

66. What is the realistic alternative to Labour?

Tory victory and a larger LibDem party?

And to be fair what is the difference between the Neoliberal New Labour and the Tories?

[Anarcho-Socialist]

68. an election defeat for Blair means a Tory victory

The Lib Dems will increase their seats but not by much.

Tony Blair is a Neoliberal in the image of Bill Clinton, but the bulk of his Parliamentary party is Social Democratic.

The Conservatives are Neoconservative but with a more racist and xenophobic edge than their American counterparts.

[Henny Penny]

70. Nonsense.

The Tories will not win a majority of seats unless labour really collapse. And even then they will be relying on the Ulster Unionists, who look to be in trouble.

The most likely outcome is a lib dem / lab coalition.

:bounce: :toast: :party: :beer:

[Anarcho-Socialist]

72. The poster was asking about what an election defeat for Labour

would mean. It would mean a Tory victory. I never said it would be the likely outcome.

[Henny Penny]

73. Sorry Anarcho-

But I was replying to your a defeat for Blair would mean x. I am hoping it is possible to defeat both Blair and Howard.

Though I must admit the possibility of a total lab collapse is scaring me a little. It is hard to gauge the effect of seeing a young mother of three widowed by this awful war.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

74. No problem

I'm hoping for a reduced Labour majority and a larger Lib Dem party, but without a resurgent Tory Party. But I know it can be difficult to achieve all those criteria. I just hope Blair leaves soon so that the social democrats can take back the Labour Party and withdraw from the war. :hi:

[UKCynic]

85. But who replaces Blair?

I don't see Robin Cook as standing, Brown will probably take it, but when has he ever said a word against the Iraq war? And though he is far more of a socialist than Blair, it is not by much.

A friend who knows them all says that the man to watch is Peter Hain, though not this time round perhaps.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

91. I'd be happier if Brown took over

he is the one directing the more progressive social policies out of the Labour Government, whilst fighting Tony Blair over Blair's attempts at bring in the private sector into public services. He was the also the one key to wiping Third World debt that was owed to Britain.

[aneerkoinos]

108. You are right

Robin Cook: I won't stand against Brown:
http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=478&id=472102005

I'm not a fan of Brown any more than of Blair, so this is not good. On the optimistic side, the hope is that New Labour blairites will take a such a kicking in this election (not given, there's real and horrible possibility of five more years of Blair) that Brown will need to socialist anti-war votes and hence Cook as strong ally to be elected, and Cook gets the post of Chancellor or equivalent vice-PM post in the post-Blair Labour gov.

[UKCynic]

116. Chancellor in a Brown cabinet?

Can you imagine that Brown will have anyone one but a puppet in that post? Just as Blair ran his own foreign policy.

[aneerkoinos]

141. I can

If all goes well, the left MP's in Labour and Cook as their leader become kingmakers, so Brown will have to cut a deal with them.

It took Blair 10 years to get rid of all the good guys in the cabinet, and even though he just tried, he couldn't get rid of Brown.

[UKCynic]

142. Blair now says he will bring Blunkett back

And that would be a disaster for democracy. I don't know who these good guys are that will put pressure on Blair. There were some in 97 but they are mostly gone now.

[AP]

75. Think FL 2000: Gore=Labour, Bush=Tories, Lib Dems = Nader.

[Jack Rabbit]

81. Unfortunately, the analogy is Baghdad 2003

Blair = Bush.

That is why I would vote Liberal Democrat were I British. One party that supports an illegal colonial war is as bad as the next.

One could argue that I actually voted for Kerry, who gave qualified support for the inavsion and occupation. Well, so I did. However, I also believe Kerry to be a pragmatist who would have eventually gotten us out of Iraq after trying two or three alternatives that would have failed. Bush isn't going to abandon the Iraqi people to Baathists and terrorists his corporate cronies who have gone to Iraq in pursuit of war profits, come Hell or high water.

However, the biggest reason why Blair is Bush rather than Kerry is that Blair actually led the British people into Bush's colonial war with the very same pack of lies that Bush and the neoconservatives did told Americans. Kerry, even if his reasons for supporting the war and the continued occupation were lame, did not. Bush is a war criminal who should be brought to trial before an international tribunal. Blair is a war criminal who should be brought to trial before an international tribunal. Kerry is not.

Voting for the Tories is a bad idea, as always. However, voting for a Blair-led Labour Party would be unconscionable. The only way I would do it would be if I lived in a constituency with a Labour MP who is an outspoken opponent of the war and will vote to replace the war criminal at the earliest opportunity. No MP of any party who helped Blair go to war lockstep with Bush would get my vote.

There a personality to whom one might want to compare Blair: Neville Chamberlain. The difference is that Chamberlain did not assist Hitler in invading Poland the way Blair assisted Bush in invading Iraq. Chamberlain was forced out as Prime Minister for bringing much less dishonor to Britain than has Blair.

[AP]

87. It is very possible that British involvement in Iraq is one of the few...

...things standing between all out imperialism and the possiblity that Iraq will someday exist for the benefit of Iraqis.

I suspect that if you want to see true imperialism, vote Lib Dem in districts where labour is just ahead of the Tories.

[Jack Rabbit]

89. It is very possible that Blair's intention was to moderate Bush

If so, he fell flat on his face.

Bush is a tyrant who does what he pleases and whose word is worthless regardless of to whom he gives it. The only way to deal with Bush is to confront him with active opposition. It is just as foolish for Blair to try to appease him as it was for Chamberlain to try to appease that other tyrant bent on world domination.

I have entertained that theory myself. Assuming it has merit, Blair failed in this endeavor. It is time to try something else. If it has no merit, then Blair is a conscious co-conspirator with Bush who deserves to spend the rest of life with Bush in a secure home for retired war criminals.

[AP]

90. It will be 10 to 50 years before we know if that strategy worked.

Personally, I think that this is so obviously what is going on.

Tell me, what say do France and Germany have about what happens in Iraq?

[Jack Rabbit]

92. I'm not waiting 10 to 50 years to oppose Bush

Personally, I've rejected the theory. A reasonable man would have given up by now. Blair has not.

When it's all said and done, France and Germany have as much to say about Iraq as Blair does. Nothing, unless he just wants to do as the Frat Boy says.

Active opposition is the only way to deal with Bush. Appeasement, which is what you are describing, doesn't.

[AP]

93. History moves slowly and it doesn't turn on peoples impulsive desire to...

...hate Bush.

[Jack Rabbit]

96. History may move slowly, but the election is Thursday

I don't think my judgment of Mr. Blair is going to change between now and then. If he isn't a war criminal, he is the dupe of a master war criminal.

Were I British, I would vote for the Liberal Democrats for that reason.

[AP]

101. If you could look into the future and see Iraq and Europe under three...

...different circumstances -- (1) UK on the sidelines viz Iraq, along with France and Germany, (2) UK involved with Blair losing on Thursday, and (3) UK involved with Blair winning on Thursday -- I think it's so obvious that Iraq and Europe are going to be free from fascism in 10 and 50 years only in situation #3 and that under situation #1, it would have taken one successufl shoebomber to have already produced a vote of no confidence for Blair, or economic malaise caused by SERIOUS chaos in Iraq and the ME, thanks to free reigning Bush in the ME, for Tories to have already been returned to power. Under situation #2, I think you just need to look at what Thatcher did in South America to know that neoliberalism and neocolonialism are going to make a very rapid return to British foreign policy and will be that way for the subsequent half century.

[Jack Rabbit]

104. My crystal ball is broken

So I will have to do with immediate circumstances and how they appear to me.

They are that Blair, knowingly or unwittingly, helped Bush in an immoral and illegal colonial war by giving it a flimsy covering of legitimacy. He lied, and he almost certainly knew he was lying. What is Blair's position? Little different that Mussolini's in World War II. He's playing second banana to a real thug.

Blair's support of Bush has brought dishonor to Britain. He deserves a bloody nose.

He also deserves to be brought to trial by an international tribunal for war crimes.

[AP]

105. I think that that analysis is based on a very small set of facts and is...

...naive in terms of underestimating what the US would be doing with Iraq if they ran the entire country.

- Why was Rumsfield disappointed that the UK signed on?
- What is the difference between Basra and Baghdad right now?
- Is the UK purse being drained in order to help private companies tightly connected to the government imensely wealthy? (I read that Blair isn't even letting Cairn Energy -- Bush's best friends in Scotland -- profiteer from Iraq.)
...

[Jack Rabbit]

109. That is entirely irrelevant

Yes, things are better in British controled zones like Basra than they are in US controled zones like Baghdad. That, I will grant you, has a lot to do with Blair's idealism.

Blair, like Bush, has involved his country in an unnecessary foreign war and predicated the action on deliberate lies. If there is a worse thing a leader could do, I don't know what it could be.

Things in Iraq are not appreciably better because of a British presense than they would be without it. No Iraqi political leader working inside the system imposed on them by Bush and Bremer can lift his pinky without first asking an American operative, "Mother, may I?" If Blair has tried to moderate Bush, he has failed.

And for doing that, rather than joining the rest of the world and standing firm against Bush and the neoconservatives, he needs to be given, in Mr. Sedgemore's words, "a bloody nose".

[AP]

122. The US was going to invade with or without the UK.

And I don't think there'd by an "relatively safer" area in Iraq if the US controlled all of Iraq.

As for your last two paragraphs: it may be too early, and time will tell.

At least with the UK involved, there's a chance things will turn out better 10-50 years down the road. Without the UK involved, there'd be no chance.

[Jack Rabbit]

130. Wait years to see if Blair's complicity in crime worked for the best?

That is bizarre.

Really, Mr. AP, all you are giving us is twisted version of Bush's latest set of excuses as to why the British people should express their appreciation of Blair. Since there was no threat from Iraq (as both Bush and Blair claimed there was), Bush says he went in to Iraq to destroy Saddam and bring democracy to Iraq. We at least agree that that is a lot of steer manure. However, you claim on Blair's behalf (Blair certainly has said nothing like this) that Blair was only trying to moderate the tyrant Bush. That is fantastic. It isn't backed up by a shred of evidence.

If his intentions were so noble, why did he lie to the British people? So he would keep Bush off balance? Even if those were his intentions, sending British troops into combat when he had good reason to know Saddam couldn't beat back an army of ants and had nothing to do with al Qaida shows an arrogant, cynical disrespect of the people and the democratic process. No leader worth the name takes his country to war based on lies, not even little white lies.

Let's see: If I were a British citizen and my Prime Minister led Britain into a war in which Britain had no direct stake and he lied to get the country into war, what would I think the best thing to do with such a man would be? Removing him from Number 10 as quickly as possible, that's what. It would make precious little difference how right he thought he was.

If I were British, I would vote to remove Blair from Number 10 on Thursday. I am not going to wait 10-50 years to see if his little white lies turn out all right, especially not if my children or grandchildren run the risk of falling victim to those little white lies in the interim.

As stated earlier, I don't buy the little white lies theory. There are a lot fewer moving parts to the theory that holds that Blair lied for the same reasons Bush did: that if the British people knew the truth, they would not have permitted him to follow Bush into an illegal colonial war at all.

Accepting the theory with the least moving parts, I would removed from Number 10 and have him put in prison for war crimes. If your theory has any merit, he should be removed from Number 10 and put in an institution.

[AP]

133. I am so confindent that as time passes, it will become obvious that

my theory is correct.

[Jack Rabbit]

175. I am just confident that history will not forgive Blair

. . . and that your theory has no merit.

Even in your theory, Blair lied to the British people about his reasons for going to war. That is unforgivable.

Even if your theory is correct, it is sheer lunacy to believe that a tyrant like Bush can be appeased. As Churchill said of Chamberlain's appeasement policies: Britain and France had to choose between war and dishonor. They chose dishonor. At least Chamberlain didn't help Hitler invade Poland. Blair has brought an even worse dishonor to his country than did Chamberlain.

Of course, Chamberlain had good intentions, too. Unlike your theories about Blair, there is evidence to support the notion that Chamberlain had good intentions. Of course, that hasn't helped Chamberlain's reputation in the history books.

Saddam was a bloody tyrant, but he wasn't a threat to his weakest neighbor. Bush may not be as brutal, but he is a tyrant in possession of a nuclear arsenal and has declared that a nuclear first strike is the prerogative of the US and the US alone. Bush is far more dangerous than Saddam ever dreamed of being.

Bush needs to be stopped, not appeased. Even if Blair's intentions were as good and pure as you make them to be, he is still an accomplice in Bush's war crimes. That is how he will be judged.

Were I British, I would vote LibDem as an expression of my disapproval of Blair's war policy and his dishonorable appeasement of Bush.

[aneerkoinos]

115. Rummy

No, he was not disappointed by getting moral and military support from UK. With his statement he just put the sidekick in its place: usefull, but not necessary. The weasel spineless sidekick Mussolini-Chamberlain went along, even after so humiliated, because he knew no better than to be sidekick imperialist.

Do you honestly believe Blair was not honest when openly and repeatedly defending unilateral US-lead world order?

[aneerkoinos]

113. Neocolonialism

It never went away, on the contrary, Blair and Brown have paleocolonialism and the Glory of the Empire in anchored their heart. Edumacating them wogs, you know...

Where would Latin America be now, if subcommandante Marcos and Chavez had chamberlained like Labour and not followed their heart?

PS: Ingerland can leave EU for all I care. We "continentals" want to take our Europe back, and honestly, without Ingerland, it would be much easier...

[Atlanticist]

162. Agreed totally, which is why I've

already voted Lib Dem via a postal vote. My wife is voting Lib Dem too (mind you, as we're in a Con held Con/LD marginal, all of Non Sociopath Skin's comments about not voting LD are moot).

You have to hand it to the British media (and the politicians too) in that we've seen far more public debate about Iraq/public services/trust/integrity than anything in the US media. Blair was given a really hard time last night by Jon Snow on Channel 4, and although I'll never forgive him over Iraq, he actually put up a pretty good fight. On domestic policy, he's untouchable - why oh why did he sell his soul to Bush over Iraq - he could have been such a great, compassionate, progressive Prime Minister.

[aneerkoinos]

111. Don't hate Bush

Hate is non-productive, love thy enemy, love Bush.

And oppose his policies and American & corporate imperialism every inch, stand with Chavez and start innovating and building 21st century socialism, all people together. Wisely and relentlesly, with only human mercy for war-criminals, no political or moral mercy.

[aneerkoinos]

117. More on Chavez and Blair

Chavez stood up and revolted against evil regime, and when he failed, he owned up and said: my bad. That's how Bolivarian revolution started in Venezuela, people became convinced that Chavez is a tool ("leader") they can use. And Chavez has not let his people down, he's still a good tool surpassing expectations, not only for people of Venezuela, but all the people in the world.

Blair never stood up, never owned up, but sold his pinky finger in a Faustian deal to Rupert Satan Murdoch, rest is logical consequence of that choise.

[AP]

135. Chavez and Blair are taking their countries left at the fastest pace each

political system (respectively) can tolerate.

Chavez has it a lot easier in many respects -- although they both have RW-dominated newspapers, at least Venezuela doesn't have a monarchy fucking with people's heads.

[aneerkoinos]

139. Amusing

"Chavez has it easier", LOL.

Blair is not taking the country left, he's taking Labour and England right.

[AP]

159. You obviously have no memory of the world prior to 1997.

Have the Tories hypnotized the world into forgetting what it was like before May 1, 1997?

[aneerkoinos]

173. Rhetorics, nt

[AP]

You know that Labour went after Pinochet...

...and backed down when the Clinton administration and everyone else said they were causing more problems for the moderates in power. The theory was that if Pinochet were tried it would cause a backlash against the moderates and it would return the fascists to power.

On the one hand, I was so impressed with Straw and then so disappointed in straw when he crapped out on the extradition to Spain. On the other hand, it looks like the moderates are transitioning to a more progressive government in Chile, which might not have happened otherwise.

Furthermore, Chileans with the most reason to want to see Pinochet pay for his crimes seem incredibly satisfied with what happened. They aren't angry that Pinochet didn't end up in a holding cell in Spain.

[AP]

134. You know that Labour went after Pinochet...

...and backed down when the Clinton administration and everyone else said they were causing more problems for the moderates in power. The theory was that if Pinochet were tried it would cause a backlash against the moderates and it would return the fascists to power.

I was so impressed with Straw and then so disappointed in straw. On the other hand, it looks like the moderates are transitioning to a more progressive government in Chile, which might not have happened otherwise.

Furthermore, Chilean with the most reason to want to see Pinochet pay for his crimes seem incredibly satisfied with what happened. They aren't angry that Pinochet didn't end up in a holding cell in Spain.

[Henny Penny]

95. "What say do France and Germany have???"

About the same as the UK!

They have however the advantage of securing this leverage without spending lots of cash they don't have or putting the lives of their military at risk!!

I like to think the best of people and I really want to believe that Colin Powell took Blair aside and said something like..."you gotta help me stop these guys... they are NUTS!!"

But while that may have been the case in July of 2002 it is certainly not true now. And never mind what say the Europeans have in Iraq... what say do the Iraqis have!

[Jack Rabbit]

97. Wonderful point

(W)hat say do the Iraqis have (about what happens in Iraq)?

That is the single most important question.

The answer is: Very little. If Bush has his way, they'll have none at all. Furthermore, from where I'm sitting, it looks whatever say they have is due to the efforts of Ayatollah Sistani, not Tony Blair.

[AP]

102. They benefit from Blair representing Europe's interests. But Bush has

no interest in a progressive, wealthy happy Europe and ME, and if there were no European nations involved in Iraq trying to see Iraq making money for an Iraqi middle class and therefore the region and not for Houstonians, you'd see Europe's wealth (as well as Iraq's) dissipate so that rich people in Houston can get richer.

For emphasis -- right now, with the EU moving forward on the principle that wealth should accumulate in the hands of people who work to earn it, and the US moving forward on a very different theory of how the world should work, Iraqis who suffered under one kind of fascism under Hussein for so long have a deep interest in the EU standing in the way of another kind of facism the US is trying to impose on them (privatized everything for the benefit of Halliburton.

I have no idea how anyone expects Iraqis to defend themselves from Bush without Europe being involved through the proxy of the UK. It's really their only hope long term.

[Jack Rabbit]

107. You're right about Bush

And you might be right about the EU's vision.

And Saddam Hussein was certainly a fascist. Unfortunately, he and his gang of murderers have been replaced by nothing better than a gang of thieves.

And Tony Blair helped enable it.

How are the Iraqis going to defend themselves? Until they drive Bush out of their country, the same way the Vietnamese did forty years ago. That's unfortunate, but true.

I don't know how you deal with it, but for me, as an American, dealing with it means counseling my two young adult sons to avoid military service until sanity returns to America.

Wer I British, I would deal with by voting for the Liberal Democrats.

[AP]

125. Say the UK didn't participate...

...and the US were entrenched in Iraq for a century, denying Iraqis democratic control of their country and setting it up as Houstonian neoliberal's wet dream economy (everything privatized with all the wealth of the nation flowing to America's largest cities and riches families)?

You could also blame Blair and the rest of Europe for enabling that.

Or would you be happy that they had clean hands in a very dirty, fucked-up world?

And I bet you couldn't name three Lib-Dem policies with which you agreed.

[Jack Rabbit]

131. Since you have not persuaded me that Blair's intentions were good

Since you have not persuaded me that Blair's intentions were good, the questions are irrelevant. As far as I am concerned, Blair is almost as guilty as Bush in this travesty.

The Liberal Democrats:

• Oppose the occupation of Iraq and pledge that Britain should never again involve itself in an illegal war;
• Strengthening NHS and orienting NHS to patients' needs;
• Opposition to national ID cards and supporting more police to fight crime;
• Meeting Britain's obligations under the Kyoto agreement.

I think I can support those planks.

[AP]

132. they want a 50% tax on earned income over £100k

which I -- as someone who cares a great deal about tax policy -- think is absurd.

By all means, set 3, 4 or 5 tax bands on income, but let's separate out dividend and cap gains from earned income and tax that more. 100K of earned income is way to low to start taxing at 50%.

As for your points: Labour was walked the walk on the NHS; you've probably never seen a British driver's license, and, if I'm not mistaken, Blair signed up for Kyoto.

Furthermore, Labour has done this:

• Britain now has the lowest inflation for thirty years and the lowest mortgage rates for forty years - saving homeowners an average of £3,700 a year compared to the Tory years. We have the longest period of sustained growth for 200 years.
• The number of people in work is at a record level, up by over 2 million since 1997.
• Over 1.5 million working people are better off thanks to the National Minimum Wage.
• Hospital waiting lists in England are at their lowest since 1987.
• In the NHS there are 19,300 more doctors and over 77,500 more nurses working with modern equipment, giving faster access to more people, all free at the point of need.
• Standards are up across the board including the best ever primary school results. More teachers are in our schools than at any point in last 20 years - 28,500 more than in 1997.
• Police numbers are at record levels - up over 12,500 since 1997, and are assisted by over 4,000 new Community Support Officers.

[muriel_volestrangler]

146. Top income tax rates in the EU

Austria 50%
Belgium 50%
Denmark 26.5%
Finland 35%
France 49.6%
Germany 47%
Greece 40%
Ireland 42%
Italy 45.6%
Netherlands 52%
Portugal 40%
Spain 45%
Sweden 60%
UK 40%

So, 50% isn't absurd. Until Thatcher slashed it, it would have been thought a very low rate. Those earning over £100,000 are just 0.9% of the adult population. You think the top 1% can't afford it?

By the way, during the last 18 months of the Conservative government, inflation was lower than it is now (link:www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/tsdataset.asp?vlnk=229&More=N&All=Y|source). Does the rest of the Labour party handout need fact checking too?

[AP]

160. Low inflation thanks to stagnant wages: you must love American Republicans

Lower inflation under Conservatives relative to stagnant wages is worse for working people than increasing wages and employment that are increasing at greater than the rate of inflation.

If your goal is no inflation at the cost of flat or shrinking wages and increasing unemployment, then you most LOVE America under George Bush.

If you increase wages and employment, you're going to have a little inflation. It's inevitable. Thank god Labour wasn't worried about that inevitability.

As for tax rates, I'm not going to rehash an tax debate that we went through in the presidential campaign. Taxing work and cap gains and dividend income all at the same rate, doesn't make sense. If 1% of the population makes over 100K, it's still unfair if half those people make it from earned income and half from unearned income to tax them at the same rate.

And when do those top brackets start in all those other countries, by the way?

[muriel_volestrangler]

165. I was just pointing out that Labour's figures aren't always reliable

A moment ago you were trumpeting how great their inflation performance was - now you're saying that it's unwise to keep it too low.

I might agree with you about taxing capital gains and dividends at a higher rate - but none of the UK parties, including Labour, do.

Thresholds for some countries, in dollars (sorry, no formatting - original PDF here):

Country Top Income tax rate (%) Threshold in US$ (PPP-adjusted) Top rate higher (+)/lower than UK Top threshold higher (+)/ lower than UK
Czech Republic 21.9 22,155 -18.1 - 31,216
Poland 26.2 48,596 - 13.8 - 4,775
Slovak Republic 36.6 92,674 - 3.4 + 39,303
New Zealand 39.0 41,165 - 1.0 - 12,206
Switzerland 39.4 148,053 - 0.6 + 94,682
United Kingdom 40.0 53,371 - -
India** 42.0 N/A + 2.0 N/A
Korea 41.8 135,484 +1.8 + 82,113
Canada 43.2 82,678 + 3.2 + 29,307
Germany* 45.0 61,844 + 5.0 + 8,473
Japan 45.5 152,166 + 5.5 + 98,795
Italy 45.9 96,526 + 5.9 + 43,155
United States 46.1 304,287 + 6.1 + 250,916
Australia 47.0 45,166 + 7 - 8,205
France 47.3 136,385 + 7.3 + 83,014
Spain 48.0 97,225 + 8.0 + 43,854
Austria 50.0 53,528 + 10 + 157
Netherlands 52.0 53,666 + 12.0 + 295
Belgium 52.1 83,830 + 12.1 + 30, 459

So all the thresholds for the European countries are comfortably below £100,000.

[AP]

169. I was saying that you can't say lower inflation under Conservatives

means they were better than labour if they were also keeping wages and employment down too.

Low inflation with Labour plus increasing wealth for people who work for a living, even if it's higher than one 18 month period of low Tory inflation, is much better for the people than anything that happened under Tories.

Thanks for the tax information -- I still think the answer is lower rates for earned income than unearned income, and I suspect that a 50% rate on earned income even for the top 1% of earners isn't necessary.

[aneerkoinos]

118. AP,

Blair does not represent Europe's interests. Not in any way. Period.

Imperialism is not Europe's interest, we tried that and see what happened. There's still this small island of unrepentent imperealists, where Ingerlanders colonialize other parts of that island and the the other island, and while we love those Ingerlanders on personal level, sooner or later they need to give up colonialising wogs like all decent people do.

>>>I have no idea how anyone expects Iraqis to defend themselves from Bush without Europe being involved through the proxy of the UK. It's really their only hope long term.<<<

I have plenty idea. Kick the bastards out, like Vietnameze did. Europe, all of Europe, should first stop stayng allied to US. Then we can discuss tactics.

Proudly living in a non-Nato country, Aneerkoinos

[Henny Penny]

120. "Blair does not represent Europe's interests in Iraq"

I agree 100%.

The UK does join with Europe in trying to put diplomatic pressure on the US on other issues such as Israel and Iran and I am glad they do.

I totally agree regarding imperialism. Some people in the UK are still at best, ambivalent about the empire. They do not seem to be aware of how they came by it or how they retained it for so long! But in my view, there is no room for ambivalence about empires.

Killing, raping and torturing the citizens of another country in order to get your hands on their wealth is wrong and has absolutely no place in a civilised society.

[AP]

124. Unfortunately, the only way to prove that Blair is looking after...

...Europe and the UK and Iraqi best interests (rather than wealthy Americans' best interests) would be for the Tories to take over.

Then you'd really see the differnce.

And if you wanted no European country participating in Iraq, then you'd REALLY see America running the imperialist board in your hemisphere. The US would be in total control of the spigot of economic development.

[Henny Penny]

127. "The US would be in total control of the

the spigot of economic development."

You know it only takes the Chinese to unpeg the yuan from the dollar... and that whole "total control" bouquet will be thrown up in the air.

[AP]

128. But that wouldn't change the fact that the US controlled the ME via

total control of Iraq.

[aneerkoinos]

140. You overestimate your neocons

Without UK and Blair to give them support they would only fuck up their empire earlier.

If Blair (and Brown) would have chosen the good fight instead of imperialism and status-quo, they would have already taken UK into eurozone, and together with France and Germany created independent European defence. And quite likely that (euro-Brent and US loosing military say in Europe) would have allready broken the petrodollar empire, and kick the neocons out of power in US. Yep, You can thank Blair for four more years of Bush.

[muriel_volestrangler]

100. Which bit of non-imperialism in Iraq are you happy with?

Abu Ghraib? Ahmed Chalabi as deputy prime minister and acting oil minister? A doubling in the malnutrition rate amongst children? 14 permanent US bases?

If Blair went into Iraq to stop US imperialism, then he should be sacked for gross incompetence.

[AP]

106. Keep your friends close and your enemies closer. That's how I see

the UK's role in Iraq.

The UK does not want Iraq to be a platform from which the US destroys Iraq, the ME and Europe.

[aneerkoinos]

119. Finlandiezierung

The 70's was not the proudest moment in Finnish history. Yup, pragmatical friends close and enemies closer realpolitik was the "wisdom", but boy did we overdo it. But not nearly as much as UK is overdoing it with US. At least we just pretended and allways knew who was the enemy, and never in our hearts allied with Stalin and Breshnev. And in the minds of soviet people, it was the Helsinki process that in the end took away any and all legimity from the tyrants.

There is no UK, there is The Glorious Murdoch Empire of WASP fascism, consisting of Australia, US and England (but not of Scotland etc.). It is the Murdoch Empire, aka Oceania, that is hell beant on destroying Europe, ME, any and all opposition to Fascist corporate rule of the globe.

[AP]

121. No offense, but the UK has more power to dictate the direction things

take in Iraq than Finland had with the Soviet Union.

If the UK weren't involved, who would be there to make sure that Iraq didn't become a tool to make wealthy Americans wealthier?

[aneerkoinos]

138. The same as now

Iraqi people.

[AP]

164. Against the power of the US Armed Forces? Good luck.

That's a shure way to delay justice 50 to 100 years.

Look at Vietnam. They still haven't regained their footing from attempted US domination and it has been 30 years, and the US pulled out!

Great power requires great responsibility and turning your back when you could make a difference for people is not acting responsibly.

[aneerkoinos]

171. Look at Iraq

The question was about robbery of Iraq making US wealthier. Clearly, the war in Iraq is making US poorer (war on debt), and no oil, since the resistance blows the pipes.

Sure, Bush and Blair can royally fuck up Iraq, it's beyond laughable to think Blair is or could do anything to fix up things there, cause they're both destroying and looting, not fixing.

[aneerkoinos]

110. No, not possible

Blair takes side with the IMF and World Bank Neoliberalism against the people of the world. He has done nothing to counter the neoliberal fundamentalist privatization and robbery of Iraq, and was a willing participant in a war of aggression, and also in the horrible war crime against Fallujah.

Blair is Bush boy, all the way. Democracy, human rights and common decency, and peoples belief in those values, for him have been just obstacles to be overcome.

Blair is for a racist police state just as much as Tories.

[AP]

Those are slogans, and I think the truth is not so simple.

[AP]

126. Those are slogans, and I think the truth is not so simple.

[pescao]

183. hang parliament!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1470239,00.html

The prime minister is a war criminal

Like Chamberlain in the 30s, Blair is an appeaser of a dangerous global power. He should be in prison, not standing for election

Richard Gott
Tuesday April 26, 2005
The Guardian

Tony Blair has been the worst prime minister since Neville Chamberlain, a figure with whom he shares a number of significant characteristics. Chamberlain was a supremely confident and arrogant politician, an excellent speaker and a deeply religious man with a hotline to God. He had an unassailable majority in parliament, was popular in the country and presided over a cabinet stuffed with nonentities.

...

Instead of seeking a grand alliance to confront this new danger - "a coalition of the unwilling" that would include the Europeans, the Russians and the Chinese - Blair has sided with the evil empire. He has taken up a role as its principal cheerleader, obliging Britain to become a participant in its wars of aggression. Today's Labour party has been a supine collaborator in this policy of appeasement, just like the Tory party in the 1930s. Blair's war party must be defeated at the polls.

...

This year, because of the serious and lasting disaffection of a large slice of the electorate that traditionally sees it as its duty to vote, there is a slim but realistic chance of a change. Votes cast thoughtfully rather than tribally could bring about a breakthrough that would not only destroy the Blair government but create a new political framework. Each individual voter must use the vote to secure an anti-war majority in parliament, and to this end it will be necessary to vote in most cases, for the Liberal Democrats and occasionally for Respect or the Greens. Yet no one should be ashamed of voting for Tories who voted in parliament against the war. Ancient animosities must be set aside, as they were in the Commons vote that brought down Chamberlain.

The ideal outcome would be that the vagaries of the existing electoral system, which requires the selection of a local MP rather than a party leader, throws up a result in which the three main parties would each have approximately 30% of the MPs in the new House of Commons. The resulting hung parliament would bring home the troops from Iraq, just as the Spanish electorate was able to do. It would also have a further benefit, producing fresh electoral arrangements and the possible revival of interest in politics within the parliamentary arena. That might be unlikely, but is the most optimistic scenario that might emerge from the current contest.

[Freddie Stubbs]

167. Why did Labour pick someone as their leader who does not match

the majority's ideology? :shrug:

[muriel_volestrangler]

172. He was young, good on TV, and they thought they had to move to the right

like Clinton's 'triangulation'. He's become much more authoritarian as he's gone on, as well - you can pick up some interesting old quotes from Blair about only doing things that the UN has agreed to, or the importance of trial by jury, that completely contradict what he's done later.

[Freddie Stubbs]

174. So why didn't they replace him as party leader?

Or do the majority of Labour MP's support him?

[Protagoras]

77. What happened to Robin Cook?

I remember him being a riveting (if lone) voice in the buildup to Iraq...I don't know that much about him, but it seemed like everyone really respected him. Is everything always run along party lines, or do personalities count?

[TR Fan]

180. Robin the Gnome

You mean the Robin Cook who, as soon as he became somebody, left his wife for his SECRETARY? I mean, Jesus, if you're going to leave because you're now important, leave for somebody who is somebody.

[autorank]

82. GREAT NEWS!!! Highly fluid situation. Look below:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/02/03/AR2005040701070.html

Could Leaks Sink Tony Blair?

By Jefferson Morley
washingtonpost.com Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 3, 2005; 7:05 AM

The drip drip drip of press leaks about Tony Blair's decision to join the U.S. invasion of Iraq is eroding the British prime minister's lead in public opinion polls heading into Thursday's election, according to British online commentators.

With Blair and the Labor Party holding only a three-point to eight-point lead in a three-way race with Conservative Party leader Michael Howard and Liberal Democrat Charles Kennedy, pundits say revelations about Blair's Iraq policy are threatening to alienate Labor voters.

[Jack Rabbit]

86. A survey published today shows Labour widening its lead

The MORI poll is taken for the Financial Times. It is quoted by the BBC.

Labour: 39%
Conservatives: 29%
Liberal Democrats: 22%
Others: 10%

From where we're sitting (in America reading the British press online), it looks like the Tories have run a lousy campaign and Labour has been running away from Blair.

[autorank]

94. They're not running far enough. Let's hold out some hope. bLiar loses in

his district.:rofl: That would be sweet but it won't happen.

I think these polls are the same as previously published due to the MOE.
We'll see.
:hi:

[Jack Rabbit]

103. The poll I'm quoting is the most recent one; it's dated today

It shows a definite upswing for Labour at the Tories' expense.

[Bridget Burke]

98. So they prefer a Labour scumbag to a Tory scumbag!

No big surprise.

[demo dutch]

112. Agreed Blair has got to go, but the Thatcher type policies are pretty bad!

[TR Fan]

181. The only reason Labor won in 1997

was because of their "Thatcher type policies."

[autorank]

136. Right (as long as the scumbag isn't bLiar). I prefer a Kennedy!

As in the candidate for the Liberal Democrats. The man opposed Iraq when the war and post war popularity was a majority in GB. So, here's for one of us.

[Henny Penny]

123. Did anyone see Newsnight tonight???

Martha Kearney was suggesting the latest negative broadcast by Labour was because they had caught sight of the postal ballots and were getting worried!

When is the cut off date for the postals? I mean are they worried by postals cast after the latest anti war stuff, or are they likely to have been cast much earlier?

[lovuian]

143. I just saw a poll that said 36% are undecided thats alot

that has not been reported!!!

Liberal Democrats are going to sneak in here and take it!!!

[ballaratocker]

147. The time is after the election...

for British Laborites to begin moving the party back to the left. I hate to say this but while the Tories are demoralized, they will only become more right wing and radical to distinguish themselves from Labor. And when they do sieze power, the results won't be pretty.

[0007]

150. Are the Brits clueless or are they between a rock and a hard place?

I think the Brits are more aware than our sleepy head Americans who can't see the on coming train wreck.

[DrDebug]

156. They are between a rock and a hard place

A conversative win would mean more of the same as well. They are not misinformed though, since the BBC and the Guardian have proven themselves pretty independant and not prone to censorship, however the majority loves the tabloids with their fresh supply of lies and totally made-up stories.

[Henny Penny]

155. Has any body else noticed that this morning's

front page at the BBC news site was about an awful lot of people being killed in Iraq! But now, magically this upsetting news has been replaced by the fabulously cheering tale of an Al Qaeda guy, that no-one's heard of before, being captured in Pakistan!

Labour govt's not scared of the truth is it?

[Barrett808]

168. This is typical psyops: think of the "Zarqawi letter"...

Appearing immediately after the embarrassing "unredacted" report on the Calipari/Sgrena hit.

[emad]

157. "Blair will be charged with treason and will lose his head":

Expect a military coup d'etat to solve this next of vipers.....

[emad]

158. "Blair will be charged with treason and will lose his head":

Expect a military coup d'etat to solve this next of vipers.....