The problem is that the French National Front also has strong backing in France,and in the past they were closer to the BNP in nature,although probably more like UKIP now.
The problem is that the French National Front also has strong backing in France,and in the past they were closer to the BNP in nature,although probably more like UKIP now.
But, as noted above, FPTP leads to completely unrepresentative governments. And, while I despise the complexities that PR would bring, I've got to wonder if the UK electorate is now mature enough to deal with it. The alternative is unfortunately the flip-flop nonsense that the US has - and heaven save us from that (along with these stupid televised "debates").
And here's a thought - would it be so bad if some of the smaller parties policies were leveraged into practice? I've seen stuff in Green, LibDem and even UKIP manifestos that appeal.
Yep, and I'm proud to say that I'm one of the "over 50%".
I'm already girding my loins for yet another Scottish Referendum - heck that fat-faced poltroon already said as much (only to get slapped down politely by his successor as SNP leader). I figure that Nicola & co will make their "demands", which Cameron and his co will turn down. SNP will then turn around and claim that they tried to make a partnership with the UK government, but couldn't due to their intransigence so the only alternative would be an independent Scotland.
Meanwhile the kind of change that's needed - fending off the worst of austerity, protecting the NHS, working out Barnett and the West Lothian question/EVEL - gets forgotten about.
Sometimes I really hate politicians. Still it'll be interesting to see what happens with the Labour leadership contest.
LOL. ROFL. Oh come on. Contest? You need contenders for a contest. Who've they got that isn't a complete hobson's choice? No-one that I can see. They're a party of jokers and whoever they get will be on a par with the chap the country just voted against. They might as well ask him back.
The problem Labour faces with regards to the leadership is that most contenders are either inexperienced, or tarnished forever by the Blair – Brown years. Throw in to the mix that it is being understood that UNITE are willing to withdraw funding if a leader is elected that they deem to be too right wing, and you begin to understand that Labour are in a very difficult situation. From the periphery, it appears that they have been outflanked on the left by SNP in Scotland and on the right by UKIP in England. It's obviously far more complex than that, but that they are in a huge amount of trouble there is no doubt. They do have a couple of straws to clutch at, namely the EU referendum and the inevitable disruption both socially and economically that will bring, and the slim majority Cameron has, but I'm not sure electing the 'right' leader will make that much of a difference.
That said, I would like someone like Dan Jarvis. It would be very hard for the press, or the Tories, to go after him in the way they went after Miliband given his background. He also has quite a solid vision of where the party should go but would need to win over the Unions and is very inexperienced but, given what I said above, it might just be what they need. I think Labour are possibly looking at a 2 election strategy anyway, in which case now may well be the time to do it. Unfortunately, he has ruled himself out at the moment due to family pressures, but that might well change when it dawns on the party that they really are up the creek without a paddle.
Of the others being touted, I don't see anyone who can take on the Tories as it stands, certainly noone that that can do it without moving too far to the centre and alienating the Unions.
Last edited by opel80uk; 11-05-2015 at 04:04 PM. Reason: Double quote
That's pretty unfair. For a start you've got the pull between Blairite, neo-Blairite, and the traditionalists.
Heck, one of the names that has already come forward seems to be Blairite, and there's a strong rumour mill going that Yvette Cooper and Andy Burnham are going to put their hat in the ring. I honestly don't know who'd I'd plump for of all the names that have been suggested - one things for darn diddley though - anyone who gets Len McCluskey's support immediately loses a couple of points in my book.
I'll be looking for positive spins in the prospectives manifesto's - that's why I put Balls and Milliband (D) at the bottom of my choice list, because basically their message was "choose me to fight the Tories". Oh and Milliband (E) didn't figure at the top of my list neither.
I'd argue very strongly that Labour didn't get outflanked by UKIP, since they (UKIP) were going after disaffected Tories. And personally, the way that Unite's leadership has behaved has been inexcusable - the whole b****y shower should have been fired long ago.
Yes, DJ has a LOT of grass roots support - and he's strong enough to stand up to Unite & Unison and tell 'em to back off. Chukka Umuna has also impressed in the past - but his performance on Sunday's Andrew Marr show was pretty weak. That's one thing where Ed M had got it right - for Labour to progress they/we need to establish some distance from the unions. At the end of the day though, the unions are still better off with Labour, since there's a lot of shared values. Unite's McClusky's threat to put their money into another party was just a bluff - can you really see Unite's membership being happy to support the Green or the Lib Dem's?
At the moment though I'm more interested in Scottish Labour - Murphy has to go, and the fact that he's still hanging on like flatulence in a lift is quite annoying.
Really, Labour seemed to do well in pushing the Tories out of London. It could also be argued that Labour lost their seats in Scotland because they weren't on the left enough.
Now it's often suggested that UKIP is the party for the thickies so it's interesting to note UKIP's lack of penetration in London and Scotland. London also attracts the brightest people because of its economy. Scotland is also known for their intellect which dates back to the 'Scottish Enlightenment'. Perhaps, it is this intellectual capacity that rejected the Tory nonsense in London and Scotland. Perhaps, the rest of the country were gullible enough to take the message from the Tories and right wing newspapers.
We live in a political divided country as things stand.
Last edited by Top_gun; 11-05-2015 at 03:52 PM. Reason: created paragraphs to ease reading
It's a mistake to think Labour have not lost a sizeable amount of voters to UKIP. In fact, it was the Tory vote that was able to withstand the threat, considering that that was UKIP's main target. The votes may not have translated into seats, but Labour have struggled with their immigration policy and many of the votes that went UKIP's way, especially in the working class northern areas would traditionally been Labour supporters, if not voters. That UKIP's vote increased in a lot of those areas, while the Tory vote largely stayed the same, is telling and should be a huge danger sign to Labour.
That is bluff I wouldn't like to call right now. It's hugely doubtful that the Unions would fund another current party, but entirely conceivable that they would cut ties with Labour and form another. That sounds quite extreme, but this has been bubbling away for a while now. The mainly serene economic conditions from 1997-2007 kept a lid on that, but I wouldn't take for granted the Unions support if I were Labour, especially if the Union leaders do not see a realistic Labour Government anytime soon.
I struggle to imagine how one seat is 'well'.
http://www.cityam.com/215415/general...win-london-and
In fact is was the Lib Dems they hoovered up.
But let's not let those pesky facts get in the way of your ideology!
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
I wonder if the Unions seriously think that forming another left, or left of centre, party is actually a way to get greater representation than a relationship with Labour?
Seems to me that unions are pretty much defunct outside of the public sector. And we've just watched UKIP get (almost) 4 million votes and one single, solitary seat for it. Do you think they think they can either get enough votes from elsewhere to make a dent, or can replace Labour and take all their votes?
My bet? If the unions want to see a Tory government in power in perpetuity, split the left of centre vote even further. If they take a couple of million votes, then UKIPs example suggests that unless it's geographically restricted, a la SNP, they may at best get a handful of seats, and in every seat they don't win, they could well let the Tories, or given that they came second in 160 seats, UKIP, in.
I suspect Cameron and Farage would both be salivating at the prospect of the unions breaking away from Labour and forming a competitive party, because they'll be damned lucky to achieve more than splitting Labour right down the middle, and letting a succession of Tory victories come trucking straight through the gap.
Besides .... I think the point several senior Labour figyres have been making is that one critical Miliband mistake was moving further left. For Labour to win power, these days, they MUST appeal more to the centre (politically) and both the south East, East and now, South West, geographically. The old left/right perception of UK politics is so 1970s. Not getting that is why Blair (hiss, spit) won, and Miliband ...., and Brown .... didn't.
What I find quite curious is that my Facebook news feed over the election period (including pre-election) is *entirely* left leaning (Labour/SNP) and the results resulted in a lot of virtual tears / vomit. Not a single person I know said anything positive about Tories (ignoring sarcasm). I wonder if it is my circle of friends/acquaintances, or they are simply more vocal.
Also, I also note that students that I know (undergrads -> PhD) all tend to be left-leaning too. What I am not sure if whether it is just mainly about tuition fee or there are other policies that appeal to this demographic.
Lastly, are conservative policies really.. conservative? I must say that in the fast moving world today, holding onto traditional values without challenging it could leave one behind.
I have a funny feeling Labour will be out of power until 2025. I can't see them reinventing themselves in a effective fashion for 2020 even though 5 years is an age in politics.
Ok, let's look at the facts. In the first line of the article it says this:
"The Tories didn't win everywhere: Labour increased its number of seats in London in the General Election."
In other words Labour had increased its majority in London to put it to you in simple terms.
What the article has failed to mention was the fact Labour took 6 seats away from the Tories with many other seats dangling on string. So the majority could have been even more.
The Tories on the other hand failed with a big fat zero to take any seats from Labour in the London area. I'd say it's nothing worth bragging about in terms of taking seats from the Lib Dems as it reflects a national picture. It's more to do with the poor performance of the Lib Dems rather than the Tories themselves providing a credible alternative.
The reality is the Tories haven't got a grip on the capital and more importantly never will in the future.
Last edited by Top_gun; 11-05-2015 at 07:37 PM. Reason: ETA:So the majority could have been even more
I struggle to tell if you a troll or not!
The fact is the Tories lost one seat in London. The Lib Dems lost almost all of theirs. Labours gains came overwhelmingly in Lib Dem seats, all bar one.
Hence why I was saying it wasn't the Tories so much, as a the Lib Dems who Labour gained from.
BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T! They took them from the Lib Dems....What the article has failed to mention was the fact Labour took 6 seats away from the Tories
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
I'm afraid name calling or misrepresenting the facts isn't going to help your case that somehow the Tories are a majority party in London. More like a dwindling force in London to be honest.
Hopefully this image will show the political changes in the London.
[source: London BBC]
The reality is Labour took seats away from the Tories and not the other way around.
The reality is Labour took more seats from the Tories than they did with the Lib Dems.
The reality is the Tories were fortunate enough to gain three seats from the Lib Dems to mask their poor performance in London.
The reality is Labour could have taken up to 8 seats away from the Tories but I'm content with just the four seats.
Animus, it seems you're in denial that London is a strong-hold for Labour in spite of the fact the Tories had won the 2015 elections. A victorious party ought to have done better in the capital in order to earn the right to be a legitimate government.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)