looks like Blair wins in a landslide-

[Pete]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vot...age/4513605.stm

[erynthered]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vot...age/4513605.stm

329774[/snapback]

 

 

Landslide?

[Pete]

Landslide?

329776[/snapback]

351-191- do you think thats a close race?

[Britbillsfan]

351-191- do you think thats a close race?

329853[/snapback]

Numbers of seats can be misleading. The actual majority he will end up with will be about as low as could be imagined based on predictions.

 

His parliamentary majority will be down from 166 to 67 (ish), since there are quite a number of different parties in the UK that have seats besides just the conservatives (Lib Dems have about 60 seats, the Northern Irish political parties (unionist and republican), strongly anti-war Respect (a real Socialist party) and the nationalist Scottish and Welsh parties also have a good number of seats between them).

 

So whilst it was a solid performance it was not overwhelming (with the multi party system we have here with first past the post constituencies Blair/Labour only polled about 35-40% of the vote (the precise numbers will come out in the next couple of days)). The conservatives would poll just above the 30% mark, Lib Dems just over 20%. Due to the distribution of voters it would have been possible for the conservatives to have more votes and Blair to have a solid majority of some 40 votes in any case.

 

Blair is NOT liked in the UK. It is just his main challengers are led by men with more severe PR problems - the Conservatives that many find difficult to even acknowledge as a feeling human being (aka the Vampire) and the Lib Dems by 'a nice man not really up to the job of running the country'. If the conservatives had decided on a half decent leader after the last election (they had three real choices and plumetted for the unelectable one) then Blair would no longer hold his job, but because they continue to self destruct the view of many is to go with Blair because the others are complete idiots.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Numbers of seats can be misleading. The actual majority he will end up with will be about as low as could be imagined based on predictions.

 

His parliamentary majority will be down from 166 to 67 (ish), since there are quite a number of different parties in the UK that have seats besides just the conservatives (Lib Dems have about 60 seats, the Northern Irish political parties (unionist and republican), strongly anti-war Respect (a real Socialist party) and the nationalist Scottish and Welsh parties also have a good number of seats between them).

 

So whilst it was a solid performance it was not overwhelming (with the multi party system we have here with first past the post constituencies Blair/Labour only polled about 35-40% of the vote (the precise numbers will come out in the next couple of days)). The conservatives would poll just above the 30% mark, Lib Dems just over 20%. Due to the distribution of voters it would have been possible for the conservatives to have more votes and Blair to have a solid majority of some 40 votes in any case.

 

Blair is NOT liked in the UK. It is just his main challengers are led by men with more severe PR problems - the Conservatives that many find difficult to even acknowledge as a feeling human being (aka the Vampire) and the Lib Dems by 'a nice man not really up to the job of running the country'. If the conservatives had decided on a half decent leader after the last election (they had three real choices and plumetted for the unelectable one) then Blair would no longer hold his job, but because they continue to self destruct the view of many is to go with Blair because the others are complete idiots.

329859[/snapback]

 

I like your system a hell of a lot better than I like ours. It reduces politics to what it should be----a local endeavor.

[Mark VI]

Numbers of seats can be misleading. The actual majority he will end up with will be about as low as could be imagined based on predictions.

 

His parliamentary majority will be down from 166 to 67 (ish), since there are quite a number of different parties in the UK that have seats besides just the conservatives (Lib Dems have about 60 seats, the Northern Irish political parties (unionist and republican), strongly anti-war Respect (a real Socialist party) and the nationalist Scottish and Welsh parties also have a good number of seats between them).

 

So whilst it was a solid performance it was not overwhelming (with the multi party system we have here with first past the post constituencies Blair/Labour only polled about 35-40% of the vote (the precise numbers will come out in the next couple of days)). The conservatives would poll just above the 30% mark, Lib Dems just over 20%. Due to the distribution of voters it would have been possible for the conservatives to have more votes and Blair to have a solid majority of some 40 votes in any case.

 

Blair is NOT liked in the UK. It is just his main challengers are led by men with more severe PR problems - the Conservatives that many find difficult to even acknowledge as a feeling human being (aka the Vampire) and the Lib Dems by 'a nice man not really up to the job of running the country'. If the conservatives had decided on a half decent leader after the last election (they had three real choices and plumetted for the unelectable one) then Blair would no longer hold his job, but because they continue to self destruct the view of many is to go with Blair because the others are complete idiots.

329859[/snapback]

 

Which means there's a good chance Blair may not finsih his term, with only a slight advantage in Parliment, correct ? That was quite a hit that the Labour party took yesterday.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Numbers of seats can be misleading. The actual majority he will end up with will be about as low as could be imagined based on predictions.

 

His parliamentary majority will be down from 166 to 67 (ish), since there are quite a number of different parties in the UK that have seats besides just the conservatives (Lib Dems have about 60 seats, the Northern Irish political parties (unionist and republican), strongly anti-war Respect (a real Socialist party) and the nationalist Scottish and Welsh parties also have a good number of seats between them).

 

So whilst it was a solid performance it was not overwhelming (with the multi party system we have here with first past the post constituencies Blair/Labour only polled about 35-40% of the vote (the precise numbers will come out in the next couple of days)). The conservatives would poll just above the 30% mark, Lib Dems just over 20%. Due to the distribution of voters it would have been possible for the conservatives to have more votes and Blair to have a solid majority of some 40 votes in any case.

 

Blair is NOT liked in the UK. It is just his main challengers are led by men with more severe PR problems - the Conservatives that many find difficult to even acknowledge as a feeling human being (aka the Vampire) and the Lib Dems by 'a nice man not really up to the job of running the country'. If the conservatives had decided on a half decent leader after the last election (they had three real choices and plumetted for the unelectable one) then Blair would no longer hold his job, but because they continue to self destruct the view of many is to go with Blair because the others are complete idiots.

329859[/snapback]

 

Good analysis! Thanks for the help.

 

Multi-party system? That's how it would look here if the States had numerous parties?

 

Positive PR seems to be boiled down to the two main parties... And usually one of them?

 

Just too many fractured factions that would always have something negative on them?

[UConn James]

I like your system a hell of a lot better than I like ours. It reduces politics to what it should be----a local endeavor.

329888[/snapback]

 

Multi-party system?  That's how it would look here if the States had numerous parties?

329933[/snapback]

 

I don't know that it reduces politics, just that it makes it more fractured. Would think it creates more scenarios of 'if you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours,' making and breaking alliances like Survivor. And here, it would likely result in more pork barrel spending than we already have. Re-election largely depends on what/how much a member of congress brings back to their district in federal funds. Shouldn't be like that, but it is. You take any third party --- the Greens, Libertarians, Constitutionals, etc. --- and they will become as wrapped up in it as the Dems and Reps, if not more b/c they would have such a small bloc and sh-- for leverage.

 

Blair's seat is pretty hot. Word is going around that he might not finish his term, maybe 2 years, and will hand the reigns to his finance minister. Labor paid dearly.

[Britbillsfan]

The Labour parliamentary majority is a healthy one, in that they will be able to run the government, but not one where they can take for granted their majority (party MPs can and do vote against their parties or abstain (or be on 'urgent business elsewhere' when the vote comes up).

 

In his last two terms Blair has been the most presidential PM ever when the UK has had a properly democratic system in that what he said goes (and this is not how the UK system is supposed to work and I hate how he has run the country), this as a direct result of the huge majorities he has been blessed with (not really earnt, just no real alternative).

 

Blair is saying he will serve out his term, and there is a fair chance he will do so, his successor will be the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown.

 

Local MPs do get votes on local issues, but even a very good local MP can lose his seat in parliament for a number of reasons, especially if his partty is really unpopular. Some single issue parties and independents do crop up now and again (this time around it was George 'Saddam Hussein is a great man' Galloway...hmmmm), but it has been a long time since the Liberals/Liberal Democrats have been able to challenge the other two partied with any more than a couple of dozen seats. They are now building up to be a credible party.

 

Ulster has always been split on Unionist (who will form government with the Conservatives on occassion) / Republican lines, and there are seperatist parties that get half a dozen seats between them in Wales and Scotland.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

The Labour parliamentary majority is a healthy one, in that they will be able to run the government, but not one where they can take for granted their majority (party MPs can and do vote against their parties or abstain (or be on 'urgent business elsewhere' when the vote comes up).

 

In his last two terms Blair has been the most presidential PM ever when the UK has had a properly democratic system in that what he said goes (and this is not how the UK system is supposed to work and I hate how he has run the country), this as a direct result of the huge majorities he has been blessed with (not really earnt, just no real alternative).

 

Blair is saying he will serve out his term, and there is a fair chance he will do so, his successor will be the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown.

 

Local MPs do get votes on local issues, but even a very good local MP can lose his seat in parliament for a number of reasons, especially if his partty is really unpopular. Some single issue parties and independents do crop up now and again (this time around it was George 'Saddam Hussein is a great man' Galloway...hmmmm), but it has been a long time since the Liberals/Liberal Democrats have been able to challenge the other two partied with any more than a couple of dozen seats. They are now building up to be a credible party.

 

Ulster has always been split on Unionist (who will form government with the Conservatives on occassion) / Republican lines, and there are seperatist parties that get half a dozen seats between them in Wales and Scotland.

330007[/snapback]

 

 

As a whole however, the British Parliamentary system is far more open than our own three-branch government, IMO. There is a far greater correlation between wote totals and actual representation in the UK than there is here. Also, third parties have a shot at influencing things in the UK, unlike here where we're stuck with nearly identical parties that are more interested in keeping their stranglehold on power than actually representing "We the People".

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Blair is NOT liked in the UK.

329859[/snapback]

 

Why? Iraq's an obvious reason...so obvious it may as well be cliche. But there's got to be more to it than that...

[Britbillsfan]

Why?  Iraq's an obvious reason...so obvious it may as well be cliche.  But there's got to be more to it than that...

330395[/snapback]

Trust. No one trusts him other than those who will always vote for his party as a matter of blind faith. He will run away from awkward questions involving policy (not unique in that politicans often do this, but he is especially prone (as are his ministers)) to the degree of actually avoiding shows that are very good at asking said questions and reducing question time when he has to face parliament.

 

His style of governing the UK has been a 'presidential' one. There has been sod all debate within the cabinet (where decisions used to be taken as a group) in implementing policy.

 

It is not so much the war in Iraq that has hurt him, but the legal justifications for it, in a situation pretty much unheard of in the UK he did not allow even the rest of the cabinet to see the full advice on the legality on the war, let alone Parliament. So others were left to make decisions based on information he kept deliberately less than complete (ironically he probably would have gotten the go ahead anyway, but that is another story).

 

Personally I don't like him and his chancellor because they have shafted the future of the country by discouraging people to invest in pensions and now there is likely to be real problems 20/30 years down the line when those who would have put money to one side get old. This in spite of advice on what would happen when he messed about with the UK pension system (which was the only sound one in the Europe, long term). I dislike politicians who make decisions that make them look geniuses in the short term whilst being fully aware that there are going to be awful problems caused by said policies down the road.

 

The government has made a couple of very good decisions early on but for the last 6/7 years it has been mostly fluff / micromanagement stuff, not the bigger picture. And taxes are likely to rise again in this government.

[erynthered]

Trust. No one trusts him other than those who will always vote for his party as a matter of blind faith. He will run away from awkward questions involving policy (not unique in that politicans often do this, but he is especially prone (as are his ministers)) to the degree of actually avoiding shows that are very good at asking said questions and reducing question time when he has to face parliament. 

 

His style of governing the UK has been a 'presidential' one. There has been sod all debate within the cabinet (where decisions used to be taken as a group) in implementing policy.

 

It is not so much the war in Iraq that has hurt him, but the legal justifications for it, in a situation pretty much unheard of in the UK he did not allow even the rest of the cabinet to see the full advice on the legality on the war, let alone Parliament. So others were left to make decisions based on information he kept deliberately less than complete (ironically he probably would have gotten the go ahead anyway, but that is another story).

 

Personally I don't like him and his chancellor because they have shafted the future of the country by discouraging  people to invest in pensions and now there is likely to be real problems 20/30 years down the line when those who would have put money to one side get old. This in spite of advice on what would happen when he messed about with the UK pension system (which was the only sound one in the Europe, long term). I dislike politicians who make decisions that make them look geniuses in the short term whilst being fully aware that there are going to be awful problems caused by said policies down the road.

 

The government has made a couple of very good decisions early on but for the last 6/7 years it has been mostly fluff / micromanagement stuff, not the bigger picture. And taxes are likely to rise again in this government.

330471[/snapback]

 

Sorry, you live there and such my good man. But, how the hell does he get elected again and again then if he sucks so bad, and everybody in the country hates him as you elude to. I'm confused, help me my good man.

[chicot]

Sorry, you live there and such my good man. But, how the hell does he get elected again and again then if he sucks so bad, and everybody in the country hates him as you elude to. I'm confused, help me my good man.

330827[/snapback]

 

He gets re-elected because the opposition is totally useless and also because of the blatantly unfair electoral system (Labour got only 36% of the vote yet ended up with a majority of 60-70 seats). The tories ran an extremely negative campaign that appealed to hardly anyone outside of their core support and the Liberal Democrats were starting from so far back that they had no chance of forming the next government (though they did substantially increase their number of seats).

[blzrul]

He gets re-elected because the opposition is totally useless and also because of the blatantly unfair electoral system (Labour got only 36% of the vote yet ended up with a majority of 60-70 seats). The tories ran an extremely negative campaign that appealed to hardly anyone outside of their core support and the Liberal Democrats were starting from so far back that they had no chance of forming the next government (though they did substantially increase their number of seats).

330840[/snapback]

I listened to a report yesterday that discussed the fact (? - you'd know better than me) that the economy in the UK has been very good since the Labor party took control. So perhaps it's partially the "I got mine" syndrome. People vote their pocketbooks. They may not trust Blair, may not like him, but perhaps they think things could be worse.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Sorry, you live there and such my good man. But, how the hell does he get elected again and again then if he sucks so bad, and everybody in the country hates him as you elude to. I'm confused, help me my good man.

330827[/snapback]

 

How does a pinhead like Bush get reelected to a second term? Because he runs against an even bigger moron like Kerry...

[Britbillsfan]

I listened to a report yesterday that discussed the fact (? - you'd know better than me) that the economy in the UK has been very good since the Labor party took control.  So perhaps it's partially the "I got mine" syndrome.  People vote their pocketbooks.  They may not trust Blair, may not like him, but perhaps they think things could be worse.

330854[/snapback]

Whilst that is true, and their one truely great policy decision was to place interest rate control out of the hands of politicians (who manipulated it for election purposes and not just the economic ones), they did take over from the conservatives who had built up an extremely strong economy for them to take over (John Major's period in control, not Thatcher's). The Tories lost power because the party had become disliked and despised, not because of economic mismanagement, and people felt 'the need for a change'.

 

The Labour party under Blair is no longer the politics of envy band of socialists that it once was (one of the more famous quotes from prior to Thatcher was from one of their chancellors 'We'll tax them until their pips squeak' referring to the wealthy - who promptly left the country or dumped all their earnings in off shore tax havens, destroying investment in this country's industry).

 

All the unpopular decisions regarding the economy were taken by the tories (and they did make some boobs, for sure), labour since they have been in have continued those policies ever since and reaped the benefits (especially from the elimination (just about) of militant trade unionism that made the UK a byword for innefficiency and strikes).

 

Blair has benefitted greatly from the great disintergration of the Conservative party in the last decade. It is easy to win an election when the opposition as busy looking at their own colon all the time. The other parties are unelectable (still) for differing reasons so Blair gets a (just about) free ticket to the top job.

[Britbillsfan]

How does a pinhead like Bush get reelected to a second term?  Because he runs against an even bigger moron like Kerry...

330881[/snapback]

Whilst I would never call Blair a moron, despite disliking what he has done to the British political system (something most electors are unaware of because the other parties do not use it enough in their favour), this is essentially correct.

 

Blair's three wins have come over a Conservative party in all sorts of disarray. John Major was dealing with the legacy of the fairly widespread dislike of Thatcher at the end of her time in power plus the huge amount of political infighting in his own party, William Hague was still fighting the internecine political infighting within his party and his successors Ian Duncan-Smith (one of the key artichets of that infighting) and Michael Howard were both too disliked on a personal level for them to have any real chance of winning (IDS got kicked out before he could get to run an election campaign he was so useless)

 

As Chicot indicated the Liberal Democrats are starting far too far back to have a real chance of winning (the last Liberal government was in the First World War) and this will be the cae for the next election also, barring a political miracle.

 

(I will not go into the ins and outs of the British political system , good and bad, as this would mean a post that would make FFS posts on football seem like one sentence soundbite).

[ExiledInIllinois]

Blair has benefitted greatly from the great disintergration of the Conservative party in the last decade. It is easy to win an election when the opposition as busy looking at their own colon all the time. The other parties are unelectable (still) for differing reasons so Blair gets a (just about) free ticket to the top job.

330896[/snapback]

 

Exactly.

 

That is what I thought.