Labour’s lead shrinks in Mori opinion poll

Now that the parties are neck-and-neck, here's an ethical dilemma:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Krago:
With a vote expected in May, would you vote Labour in a marginal constituency to keep out the Tories?

---

Well, I'm sooo pissed at B-LIAR and "New Labour" that the Tory candidate would have to be absolutely execrable!

It's hard to know how to feel about the LDs, not having a governing track record to look back on. Their MPs do have one merit over the other parties: sincerity. Most of the Labour and Tory MPs merely try to fake sincerity, and it can be seen right through. The LDs truly seem to be genuine, at least those in the forefront of the party. In PQs Charles Kennedy asks legitimate questions while Michael Howard just engages in a session of tit-for-tat arguing and loses every time.

Where did you find that picture, Heph? That's a good one!

Edited to insert missing preposition. 0=0

[ 26 February 2005: Message edited by: dokidoki ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by dokidoki:
Where did you find that picture, Heph? That's a good one!

---

http://www.whitehouse.org/

In Scotland, there are alternatives, but ubernationally, I have kept praying that Labour would finally wake up and overthrow the Blairites.

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:
Is there no effective opposition to Tony from within Labour?

---

The polls may show it close now but I doubt it's giving many fears to Labour. They really have an easy time making the Tories look bad and there are still roughly two months until the election.

quote:

---

Well God knows why - they hate the Tories and see no other choice I guess.

---

I'd concur with that assessment. Radio 4 has been doing an occasional spot following groups of voters in a marginal constituency, exposing them to campaign materials and manifestoes (Yikes, I'm making them sound like lab rats) and polling them on their reactions to the various parties.

Last I heard, the young women's group (they sound like they're 18-25) were aligning pretty solidly Lib Dem, but the pollsters acknowledged that a lot of that probably stems from just being forced to read the campaign materials--most kids, as per usual, won't bother. The older women (about a generation older from the sound of them) were Labour sliding Tory, largely on issues like immigration. But even they don't like Michael Howard--he's just not an inspiring leader.

Immigration. Don't get me started on the (Sun and Daily Mail-derived) British attitude to immigration--makes me want to take a flamethrower to the place, acting like this island's a lifeboat in stormy sea and anyone climbing on means someone else (usually a poor defenseless grannie) absolutely has to climb out..Feh. Sorry I'm derailing a bit. Did you know the Sun printed an article claiming that immigrants were catching and eating swans in the Southwest? It was entirely fabricated, to the point of inventing an nonexistent police report and investigation. They later 'retracted' it in the usual way: disclaimer on page 267 or whatever.

In answer to the question, if I lived in a marginla seat where it was a close race between some neanderthal Tory upper class twit and a socially progressive Labour MP, I would vote Labour, but if I lived in a safe Labour seat I woud be tempted to vote Liberal-Democrat (btw, the only reason Liberal Democrat MPs seem so sincere is because they never win! If the LDs won anelection, just watch how quickly they would become as macchiavellina as anyone else). Of course if I lived in a Tory held seat where the LDs were the clear strategic choice to defeat a Tory and Labour was in 3rd place - I'd vote LD.

quote:

---

The Mori poll puts Labour on 39 per cent, the Conservatives on 37 per cent and the Liberal Democrats on 18 per cent.

---

Is the 18% support for the Lib Dems in the poll you cite above, higher than what they have historically been polling at over the last decade or so, or is it about the same?

Also, the LDs play a role vis-a vis the Conservatives that is reminiscent of the NDP with the Liberals. Traditionally, the LDs have been a place for disaffected middle class small "l" liberal types to park their votes when they get turned off the Tories. When the Tories do badly, the LDs gain lots of seats, when the Tories do well, the LDs get crushed in the FPTP system.

In the 1983 and 1987 elections, the SDP/Liberal Alliance (predessecor to the LDs) took 25-26% of the vote and got a paltry 20-odd seats. Why? Because the Tories won big both times and the vast majority of winnable LD seats are Tory-LD tossups. When Labour does badly it doesn't help the LDs because there are very very few seats in the UK that are Labour/LD tossups. In 1997, the LDs only took 18% of the national popular vote but they double their seat count to 53! Why because, the Tories got so throughly thrashed that the LDs started scooping up Tory/LD marginals all over the place.

http://www.election.demon.co.uk/by2001.html

EDIT: I should add that the 4 byelection seats were all held by Labour MPs.

[ 26 February 2005: Message edited by: Seiltänzer ]

But recent British political history has been littered with LD candiadtes coming out of nowhere to win a previously safe Tory or Labour seat in a byelection, but then in the subsequent general election, that seat goes right back to its natural home.

Also, historically the Liberal Democrats have sometimes picked up support in Labour held seats in byelections, but in general elections, they tend to have much better luck expanding their vote at the expense of the Tories.

quote:

---

In fact, I'd be tempted in a marginal constituency to vote Tory to keep Labour out.

---

the tories want to:

a) withdraw from the 1951 United Nations Convention on Refugees, which obliges countries to accept people being persecuted on the basis of need, not numbers

b) introduce laws to allow the immediate removal of asylum seekers whose claims were clearly unfounded because they came from safe countries or had destroyed documents

c) detain asylum seekers without documents so people whose identity was not known were not able to move freely around the UK

d) stop considering asylum applications inside the UK and instead take people from United Nations refugee agency camps. anyone applying for asylum would be taken to new centres close to their countries of origin.

e) quotas for those seeking work permits

f) all migrants over 16 would be tested for HIV

g) mandatory TB screening for all individuals from outside the European Union wishing to come and live in the UK for more than six months

h) individuals staying in the country and working in healthcare, childcare or teaching would be required to undergo TB screening regardless of the length of their stay

still think that you'd vote tory in a close seat?

andrew rawnsley, in the observer, is always worth a read:

quote:

---

The party's senior campaign strategist purred with pleasure. 'Just what we needed at this moment,' he remarked after the second of two opinion polls was published suggesting that the Conservatives are closing on the government. The party that the senior strategist works for is the Labour party.

Why can a couple of better polls for the Tories be spun as brilliant news for Tony Blair? The greatest anxiety gnawing at the guts of the government is that too many people, voters and pundits alike, take it for granted that Labour is cruising to a comfortable third term. So natural Labour supporters may think they can afford to sit on their hands on polling day or indulge in a vote for the Liberal Democrats. Opinion polls which make the idea of a Conservative government seem a bit more credible is just what is needed to frighten these floaters back to Labour.

The budget next month is the pre-election event when that power of action can be wielded for greatest effect. However poisonously the Chancellor may feel towards Tony Blair, however semi-detached from the campaign Gordon Brown might be so far, he will surely want to extract maximum juice from the budget. He will want to be depicted as the big man riding back into action to rescue Labour's campaign.

---

quote:

---

I'd be tempted in a marginal constituency to vote Tory to keep Labour out.

---

is pretty clear.

in any case, i'm not arguing for people to hold their nose and vote labour, as both parties seem intent on winning the BNP vote with their policies on refugees and asylum seekers.

i think that the problem that some people have with voting for other parties would be as follows:

lib dems: at the local council level, they've repeatedly made power-grabbing alliances with the tories, i.e. they're right-wing in certain cities and more like the national lib dems (centre-left) in other cities, whenever they feel like it. all this "lib dems are more ethical than other parties" stuff is uninformed hot air. they're very dirty campaigners.

respect: the organisation spine of the party is the SWP, and this alienates other parts of the left-green spectrum; that being said, they'll be a significant force in certain constituencies (george galloway running in "bethnal green and bow" in a mainly muslim area of east london; jack straw's riding in blackburn; they polled well in one of the four recent by-elections mentioned, albeit since the greens didn't run a candidate)

the greens: i'm personally a member of the green party, but there are only a handful of constitutencies nationwide where we could poll over 15%.

quote:

---

i think that:

"I'd be tempted in a marginal constituency to vote Tory to keep Labour out."

is pretty clear.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seiltänzer:

I'm sorry to have so offended you. The fact is New Labour is disgusting, and anyone who can't see facets of Thatcherism in this jingoistic sycophantic money-grubbing Blairite spin-machine is naive. It's all well and good to bash the Tories but that doesn't negate what Labour has done. The War in Iraq was a tremendous crime, one of the Greatest a British Government has committed in decades. The Tories supported it - they must bear blame; but New Labour orchestrated it - they must bear more, and because of it they do not deserve to be re-elected. I will vote LD, but I a vengeful part of me is tempted to vote Tory in Sedgefield or in any other constituency where one of Tony’s fawning ministers is running.

---

I suspect there likely will be some soft-left types in the U.K. who vote Tory (unless the candidate is a completely excreable Thatcherite) in marginal seats just to be assholes (much deservedly so) to the Blairite War Machine.

Voting for a non-Neanderthal in the Tory party to keep out a Blairite cabinet minister is little different from when leftish (and even a few leftists!) voters in Calgary abandonned the NDP and the Liberals in droves to push Joe Clark over his surging Reformatory opponent in 2000.

[ 27 February 2005: Message edited by: NDP Newbie ]

quote:

---

Voting for a non-Neanderthal in the Tory party to keep out a Blairite cabinet minister is little different from when leftish (and even a few leftists!) voters in Calgary abandonned the NDP and the Liberals in droves to push Joe Clark over his surging Reformatory opponent in 2000.

---

quote:

---

types in the U.K. who vote Tory (unless the candidate is a completely excreable Thatcherite) in marginal seats just to be assholes (much deservedly so) to the Blairite War Machine.

---

so voting for a pro-war tory party to punish a blairite pro-war party? gee, i can't argue with that logic.

quote:

---

I think that some of us just look at Tony Blair's support of the Iraq war and then we assume that the Labour government is rightwing on every other issue.

---

i think if you look closely at these policy "successes", you'll find that they're not what they're cracked up to be:

- a london assembly (ken livingstone forced by gordon brown to accept a part-privatisation of the london underground; lack of further devolution of powers, despite ken doing better than average job)
- devolution (a weak assembly in wales, anonymous leadership in edinburgh of the scottish assembly)
- the elimination of heridatry peers (after 8 years of labour government, no hint of an elected 2nd chamber)
- major advances in gay rights (two out gay cabinet ministers in 8 years, you go tony; david blunkett being absent for the vote on lowering age of consent for gay sex to 16, along with ruth kelly, the present education secretary, a member of opus dei)
- labour is also much more committed to Europe and to a European constitution and to the Euro (well, blair is, brown isn't, most of britain isn't, i don't see how the euro is progressive, i don't see how the common agricultural policy is progressive -- written into the constitution, etc)

after four years of living in britain, i find it sad and depressing that people are persisting with this idea that "if we just vote blair in again, they'll at least be less smelly than the tories," or the even fainter hope, "if we vote labour in again, this time, they'll be radical for the common man,"

hey folks,

wake up,

take the pillow from your heads,

there was a right-wing takeover of the labour party after john smith died.

quote:

---

- devolution (a weak assembly in wales, anonymous leadership in edinburgh of the scottish assembly)

---

If the Scots choose to elect "anonymous leadership, that's their problem. The fact remains that the vast majority of Scpots wanted an assembly and under the Tories there was ZERO chance of ever getting one. Wales barely passed their very weak assembly in a referendum - that is how unenthused the Welsh are about devolution in the first place.

quote:

---

the elimination of heridatry peers (after 8 years of labour government, no hint of an elected 2nd chamber)

---

Agreed but it is still a step in the right direction.

quote:

---

major advances in gay rights (two out gay cabinet ministers in 8 years, you go tony; david blunkett being absent for the vote on lowering age of consent for gay sex to 16, along with ruth kelly, the present education secretary, a member of opus dei)

---

I think two openly gay cabinet ministers is quite good (and there have been other openly gay undersecretaries etc...). It is estimated that about 2-3% of the population is openly gay. So 2 out of the 70-80 or so people who have been full cabinet ministers since Blair won is not bad. Under the Tories, it would be ZERO (unless you count the openly bisexual Michael Portillo). Meanwhile the age of consent was lowered to 16 and I don't care if one or two Labour Mps were absent for the vote. It passed and it could only have passed with Blair's support. The Tories voted en masse against it. This week same sex spousal rights were enshrined, Clause 88 was repealed under Labour and the ban on gays in the military was scrapped. What more do you want?

quote:

---

- labour is also much more committed to Europe and to a European constitution and to the Euro (well, blair is, brown isn't, most of britain isn't, i don't see how the euro is progressive, i don't see how the common agricultural policy is progressive -- written into the constitution, etc)

---

quote:

---

I tend to think that anything that makes people think internationally is progressive and anything that breaks down old ethnic nationalist type sentiments is progressive. Besides, the only people in the UK who are explicitly anti-Europe are these neo-fascists in the British National Party, the UK Independence Party and the rightwing 2/3 of the Tory party. I know if I was British I'd be pro-Europe because the people who are anti-Europe are all such rightwing extremeists.

---

So now I get that you're a "post-leftist." I really don't know what the hell that means, though. Would you considere starting another thread somewhere telling us about something you do believe in?

[ 03 March 2005: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vigilante:
Yay, make nationalism bigger instead!!! Bigging up Europe is just for the sake of building another empire. People who want social justice but support the EU should be ashamed of themselves. This is why I'm a post-leftist among many things, for loser view points like this.

---