[wakeyboy]

[mr dragon]

I missed that on the news the other night. It looks like the normal political calculated stuff. Labour got a lot of criticism over those issues in the last couple of weeks, they're poll ratings are down, they've got a general election coming up in 10-12 months...so the senior cabinet members will start 'manouvering' a little with their statements with the press to put themselves in the limelight. I remember Milliband doing it a while back when Brown had other problems. I guess the leadership leadership contest could possibly be between Blears and Milliband if Labour looses, and Brown steps down.

[wakeyboy]

I missed that on the news the other night. It looks like the normal political calculated stuff. Labour got a lot of criticism over those issues in the last couple of weeks, they're poll ratings are down, they've got a general election coming up in 10-12 months...so the senior cabinet members will start 'manouvering' a little with their statements with the press to put themselves in the limelight. I remember Milliband doing it a while back when Brown had other problems. I guess the leadership leadership contest could possibly be between Blears and Milliband if Labour looses, and Brown steps down.

You're probably not a natural Labour supporter, but what I will say is that Labour are doomed if they go with Milliband. It will be the final nail in the coffin. The only way to cling to life as a party (be it a very deminished party) is to move a little bit back to the left. Not all the way, but enough to look like they give a shit about all the poor people that were screwed by the recession and the failure to make good on promises at election time.

[mr dragon]

I'm not a 'natural' *any* party supporter Wakey. I've always been an independent voter, and I always will be. I don't do partisan politics. It's a waste of time- at least in my view.

Usually I base my judgement on who I will vote for in a General Election on two pieces of criteria. What I think of each of my local candidates who want to take a seat in Parliament, and also what I think of the overall policies of the parties up for election at the time- as well as what I think of the leaders. If the local candidate I happen to like is from an opposing party to the one I'd rather see win the GE, then I have to weigh up the two. Though normally, in a General Election, I'll weight my decision towards the party I want to see elected rather than the individual local candidates from any of the parties. But I still consider both.

I hate labeling my own politics into traditional right and left as I have vary varied views on different political issues, but as big generalisation - I'm centre/right politically. The party that's closest to that position, and also what I believe to be the most competent over a range of issues, is the most likely to get my vote in a General Election. In a local election it can be different for me though. I've voted on candidates from all parties in the past in local elections- I base that decision strictly on which candidate I personally happen to prefer for whatever area I'm living in.

I don't think Labour would be necessarily 'doomed' if they go with Milliband, anymore than with Blears (if that were the scenario). What I think could screw them is if they end up entering into the same kind of division and lack of direction the Tories went though after they got crushed by Labour in 1997. Which could possibly happen.

[wakeyboy]

I think they would be doomed with Milliband, and yes, they'd be doomed if they lacked direction too. The problem with Milliband is that he's TOO New Labour and the new labour doctrine seems to have run out of steam.
----------

I find voting quite difficult sometimes. Its a case of the less of several evils a lot of the time!

When I'm voting at a local level I tend to vote Liberal Democrat. My local council is dominated by Labour and its very difficult for any other party to get elected. Because of this, I believe that they get complacent and dont even try to do anything productive because they know their jobs are safe. I will keep voting for any party other than Labour, even if it seems hopeless. Its important people vote according to their conscience and not who they think will or wont win. - that said its a different ball game when it comes to a General Election.

At the General Election I look at the candidates standing in my constituency and tend to go with the one that best represents my views. (so far I have gone with the liberal democrats - to no use. Ed Balls still got in ).

When I've thought about what the candidates stand for, I also think about the general policies of their party at that time. I also consider the party leader to some extent. Then I go with my instinct and usually 'hold my nose' while voting.

As for European parliamentary elections (theres one this June). I read what each candidate stands for. I usually go for a eurosceptic party OR a party that seeks to create more democratic accountability in Europe. Last time I think we had two or three votes? and works on a proportional representation scheme. I think its only one vote this year. Anyway, I voted for the Conservative that seemed best, and a UKIP candidate. I either voted for a Lib Dem or gave them due consideration too.
---

I dont consider myself partisan but I would say I'm anything in the region of centre-left, libertarian, sometimes flirt with the socialist left, particularly when it comes to the NHS.

One of my biggest concerns is corruption and sleaze. Labour are full to the brim with it and the tories were too last time they were in. Nothing turns me off more than political corruption and those that 'feather their own nest' whether operating within the rules or not.

[eddie2003]

Could you explain further what the mayor of London has implimented that is particularly important? Because the only thing that comes to mind off the bat is the driving tax thing that I believe Livingstone put in.

From the little I have seen of Boris Johnson, I have liked. I believe he has some tie to America...Either he is an American or his parents were American. I just don't think he is influential...or at least one of the 100 most influential people on the planet. Although the list states Kate Winslet is influential, so take that with a grain of salt.

Breaking News: Tony Blair has started a singing career, and here is his first single...Enjoy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dOszwPVCNo

[mr dragon]

Could you explain further what the mayor of London has implimented that is particularly important? Because the only thing that comes to mind off the bat is the driving tax thing that I believe Livingstone put in.

Lol, no. I can't explain further because I already explained what he does as a job. I was abstracting on why he could be considered 'influential' in general because of that. As I already said, you're gonna have to ask the people who put the list together if you want an answer to that one. Or, if it's the Time magazine list for 2009, you're gonna have to ask their readership who voted on it. I can't answer for something I'm not responsible for...

Incidentely I had a look at the Time magazine list for 2009- if that's the one? It actually puts Johnson in at 143- but not within the top 100. Then you've got the Jonas Brothers in at 33, and T-Pain at 34....So, I definitely would take that particular list with a pinch of salt....!

[eddie2003]

I have the Time issue right here, and it lists Boris Johnson as one of the top 100...What you might be seeing is the list voted on on-line....

[mr dragon]

Aye, that's the one. It gives the votes up to 203 people. I had a flick through it, there's some pretty daft ones in there. It's got Lil' Wayne at 12! But then the public voted on it sooo........*Dragon shrugs his shoulders and says meh*

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packa ... 41,00.html

[eddie2003]

That's an unfortunate background...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/p ... 229529.ece

[eddie2003]

I see the top tax rate in the UK will now be 61.5%...

Ok, bend over.

[mr dragon]

Yeah, they've pushed the higher income tax bracket (your earnings over £150,000 pa) to 50 per cent. The other 11.5 per cent I assume is health care and state pension contributions after that threshold- if that information's right. The Labour government are trying to recoup some of the astronomical amount of money they've borrowed. I think it's a mistake. Labour always stuck to the credo, until now, that they wouldn't tax people more in income tax, including high earners. The most likely outcome of this is that it will make higher earners want to work elsewhere, and also less people in the higher earning bracket will want to come and work in the UK- or be based here. That in turn effects business and the economy, and so forth. I suppose some people will see this as a punishment for the high earning, bonus junkie, city players in the money market and banking system for what's happened recently, but they aren't the only people in that upper tax bracket. Again, this is another example of the death throes of New Labour. A Government that was once supposed to be business friendly.

[eddie2003]

Big long article on the political situation in Britain this morning...Holy balls, 18% approval for Labour.

Mr Brown may not survive the month.

[wakeyboy]

Big long article on the political situation in Britain this morning...Holy balls, 18% approval for Labour.

Mr Brown may not survive the month.

Hopefully not.

I've voted and its fingers crossed now for sunday when we get the results of the European Parliamentary elections.

For those who had local aouthority elections, they'll get the results by tomorrow hopefully.

[mr dragon]

Big long article on the political situation in Britain this morning...Holy balls, 18% approval for Labour.

Mr Brown may not survive the month.

His Government appears to be falling apart. As Wakey says, a lot of whether this ongoing issue for Brown escalates will be indicated by the election results today. But it also depends on his party. It's quite difficult to unseat a Labour leader via their on party, and Brown may try to fight for his position. There's going to have to be a very strong demand by Labour MP's for the process of unseating Brown to take place. So we shall see.

There's a lot of turmoil in British politics right now, I haven't seen anything like this for years. People are really angry with our current Government and all the main parties right now. However the good news is Jacqui 'Jackboot' Smith is going to stand down as the Home Secretary next week. Hurrah! That woman has embarrassed this country enough on the international stage- so good riddance.

[SilverMiniCooperS]

BBCNews America did a long piece on this last night. It does look pretty glum for Mr. Brown!

[mr dragon]

Well, I saw several more high profile cabinet members quit today, including Caroline Flint- who went on to give Brown a slagging. So far this bunch have resigned:

John Hutton
James Purnell
Jacqui Smith
Hazel Blears
Geoff Hoon
Caroline Flint
Paul Murphy
Tony McNulty
Margaret Beckett

That's a lot of senior Labour MP's to resign in a very short space of time! I think it's unprecedented.

Two things that interest me about this. Sir Alan Sugar came out in defence of Gordon Brown a couple of times recently. Sugar's no idiot when it comes to business and he actually believes Brown did the right thing over the economy. The other is there are indicators that the UK economy is slowly starting to pick up again. So I wonder if Brown will keep fighting for his position all the way to the end. He's not going to want to bow out when he may have the chance to still be PM if the UK economy picks up by next year (if it does pick up). I assume that way he may feel vindicated if it happens. The problem is, he so unpopular with the electorate right now and the media seriously have their knives stuck in already, that none of that may matter. They'll just want blood regardless. It's an interesting time in UK politics, I haven't seen a shift of hatred toward a governing party like this since the mid nineties. They only difference being, this time around the Tories aren't as popular as Labour were, when they were in opposition, in the mid nineties. I'm wondering if we possibly either end up with a hung Parliament next year, or a Tory government which isn't very strong in seats. It's a possibility, but anything can happen between know and then.

[wakeyboy]

The results...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/e ... _99999.stm

Labour were annihilated.

[mr dragon]

It didn't surprise me over the last couple of days Wakey. People often use local elections to punish the governing party- though technically they shouldn't. The current poll for a GE are Conservatives on 38%, Labour on 23% - a historic low - the Lib Dems on 28% and other parties on 11%. They still have a year to to deal with the situation. If the Cons' work really hard at it they may gain extra momentum, but a 15 per cent lead in the polls against a current Government that has become so unpopular isn't actually as big as it should be. The Tories have lead before in the polls coming up to an election though by a smaller margin, but still failed to get voted in once the GE comes around.

[iamyoungnotstupid]

i am too young to vote but this is a big deal for me. I have no issue with their being a change in power, but it seems the public are in confusion about the expenses, some believe it was just labour or labour had claimed the most.

also from what i read and see on the news labour is getting blamed for the expenses and the financial crisis and either of them were labours fault.

so so answer the is it time for labour to go? Then maybe if the public are told the truth and not fulled with all the non sence

[wakeyboy]

Fascist success at the European elections.

The BNP won two seats and now represent the UK in Europe, among other MEPs.

One was elected in my region, 'Yorkshire and the Humber', and the other, the party leader (or the Fuhrer!) Nick Griffin in the North West region.

Those who refused to vote - I hope you're proud of yourselves.

[mr dragon]

I was gonna put up a post today to tease you about the significant Yorkshire BNP vote Wakey, but you already mentioned it. Seriously though, people are rightly concerned about this and it is a really bad day for the reputation of this country. You look around Europe with this particular issue and by comparison we had a pretty good reputation for not having extreme far right parties have any position in any form of government. However as you noted- the only reason they got those two seats in Yorkshire and the North East was either because hundreds of Labour voters didn't vote, as well as some Labour voters actually going out and voting BNP instead. I don't think the BNP actually increased it's voting share in the country, indeed in Yorkshire it went down from 2004. You can literally blame this situation happening on Labour and the mess they're in right now.

You know what cracks me up though. All these people (I don't know where they come from) defending the BNP, as if there is anything defensible about the BNP in anyway at all. They are the National Front in suits. They wont allow black people to join their party and they want to repatriate immigrants back to their respective countries. If that's not racism then I'm a purple alien from Venus. If a person's got that much of a problem with immigration in this country they can vote for UKIP, they don't have to go to the fascists and vote BNP.

Either way, it make this country look bad. I'm pretty ashamed today.

[eddie2003]

I see the Conservatives across Europe did very well...Is there a particular reason for this? I wouldn't think there would be trans-national voting patterns in Europe.

[mr dragon]

It's a good question. The Conservatives probably did well with the regard to the UK because of the current problems with the Labour Government, the recession, etc within Britain. But there are other reasons in the UK as well purely regarding the EU- a significant proportion of British people feel cheated out of a referendum on the Lisbon treaty for the EU, by Labour. Also quite a lot of traditional Labour voters didn't vote this time - purely because they're sick of their party, and the expenses row, amongst other issues - these issues also probably came more to the fore with other voters who did vote in the UK. Some of it was also a protest vote- like in the recent local UK elections. We've had a Labour Government for over ten years now, we've been hit by an awful recession in the last year, Gordon Brown was the Chancellor during that time- people now want to move on. The political landscape in the UK is starting to change for that, and other reasons. The Tories are also finally starting to look like they're actually electable, more than they have been for a very long time for a much more significant proportion (but by no means all) of the UK population. There are other reasons for the UK as well. One of the reasons Labour got voted in by a landslide in 1997 was because the Tories had previously left much of our public services (from schools, to hospitals, to policing etc) in a mess, and massively under funded. Labour have acted on their manifesto promises to deal with that in the last ten years (and in some ways they've done a good job), but many of us also feel that they went too far with expenditure over the years. While things have improved greatly since then, they've also become sometimes overly bureaucratic, wasteful, and often inefficient with the way they spend our money. The fact that we walked into a recession as big as this particular one, after we had such a prolonged, unprecedented and substantial boom in the UK- I mean we are talking a very solid economic boom of 12 years or so, yet the Government had also spent way too much of our public money over that time (sometimes also badly) and we didn't have the money in the kitty to protect the country in the way we should have been able to do so- is unforgivable for a lot of Brits. The Tories are campaigning on a manifesto of better value for our taxes spent, so people are starting to turn to them. Whether they can deliver that effectively remains to be seen. None of that particular issue has anything to do with the EU, but people like to punish a Government they're not happy with.

There is a slight difference with continental Europe. The current main centre right grouping for EU MP's in the European Parliament (or coalition of all MP's for the centre right within the EU) is called the EPP. However the Tories here haven't decided which part of the EU parliament political spectrum grouping they are going to coalesce with yet. At present they haven't decided to join the EPP. The two other largest EU countries (France and Germany) have been shifting to the centre right politically at home for a few years now (as you can see by the present Merkel and Sarkozy governments), and that also shows in the European elections and the current strength of the EPP. The EPP is the single most powerful voting bloc at present for the EU Parliament, and was in 2004 as well. However, despite that even though the EPP is centre right and the Tories are also currently centre right politically, French and German centre right EU MP's are still to some degrees EU federalist (more to the left on that issue- but not as 'left' as their older more 'socialist' Governments of the Chirac/Schroeder era), whilst the British Tories are much less EU federalist and want some of the EU 'thing' to be re-negotiated. They're not quite the same kind of 'Conservative', but there are similarities. What I'm trying to say here is that some of the reasons why some countries have shifted to a more Conservative stance in Europe can be for different reasons, than for others. Another example- most French and German people don't blame they're own current centre right governments for the recession, because they haven't been in power for same amount of time that Labour have been in the UK. Whether rightly or wrongly, a lot of Brits also blame Labour for this recession. However, New Labour is mainly also a centre right Government- economically speaking at least. That sounds strange to say after all the recent bail outs, and the recent upper end tax increase, and Labour's stealth taxation over time, but most of their business related policies over the years are probably slightly more to the right (ie more laissez faire and free market) of even the current German and French government's.

I can speculate on some of the other more general reasons merely objectively. For a while, a few years ago, some of the main EU countries tended to be to the left politically with their governments. I'll use France and Germany, again, as an example. In recent years the largest continental EU countries, like France and Germany (and now also Italy), have shifted back to the right again, and you can see that shift in the EU elections again this year. That seems to be the slant right now. It's just the way it goes in politics. For a while politics goes left, and for a while it goes right- in most modern democratic countries. You've just seen the same thing in the US, only in reverse. People try one thing for a while in a democracy, but once they get fed up with it they'll change. Then change over time again, and back again and so forth. Another reason for a shift to the right (within the EU) is probably down to immigration. All the main western European countries within the EU, from the Netherlands to Germany to Britain and others, have suffered consequences from some (but by no means all) badly thought through immigration policies over the years. Some of the more far right parties like to play on that issue, and when you have a mass recession going on around Europe and people are loosing their jobs, immigration becomes a hot topic (rightly or wrongly) with more people. In general people who are more inclined to the right of politics can sometimes tend to have more of an issue with immigration than people on the left. I think the immigration issue has played a part in some of the shift to the right in Europe recently- I know it has partly with some voters in the UK. Because anti-immigration issues tend to be more of an issue for people further to the right of the political spectrum (though they're not really centre right issues) it also has an effect of pulling the weighting towards the right politically overall in terms of representation if it becomes more of an issue- which it is bound to do in a recession. For example, in the UK you have UKIP to the right of the Tories, and then the BNP who are on the extreme right. The Tories haven't really gained many votes over any serious anti-immigration issues (though a reassesment of some immigration policies- might appeal to some Tory voters), but UKIP and, sadly the BNP have. I fundamentally entirely disagree with UKIP over this issue (and the BNP are beyond the pale in my view) over both their obsession with being anti-immigration, but even if you're pro-immigration and to the centre right of politics you can have some issues with immigration- which in Europe does need to be looked into in some aspects. Though, ironically it's not immigration within the EU that's the problem- personally I believe, by and large, it works very well. It's the factor that you can sometimes get- where some (and by no means the majority) people from some cultures outside of Europe don't integrate into European society at all that has become an issue (more so during a recession). A lot of western European countries are slowly waking up to that factor. Sadly the far right in some European countries are using the 'issue' for their own platform. Which in the case of the BNP in the UK is down to racism, and in the case of UKIP in the UK is down to a slightly backward and Nationalistic 'little Englandism'. At least- that's my view.

I could probably go on a lot more. Sorry to write a long explanation- but the EU is pretty complicated. Too many countries with different agendas. Also some EU countries haven't shifted towards the right in this election, or necessarily become more Conservative. But some countries have more drastically than others- Poland and the UK, this time, for example have (though a shift to the right in Poland is very different from a shift to the right in the UK- Poland's become pretty right wing, way more so than the UK). Other main countries in the EU- France, Germany and Italy have been shifting to the right domestically for a while regardless, but in the case of France and Germany it's a mild shift to the centre right and has been that way for quite a while anyway. But also in France and Germany there was actually a pretty even spread between left and right voters for this election. You also have to remember that the weighting of power within the EU goes by population size of the countries. Britain, France and Germany have more influence over the EU, than say a country like Denmark. Denmark actually went more to the left in these EU elections. But then Hungary was also very much to the right, whilst Finland, Ireland and Sweden also went alternatively slightly more to the left overall per country- in varying degrees

We don't actually know what the actual left and right weightings are right now in the European Parliament. If you look at the current weightings, the left still out numbers the right- 351 seats to 313 seats respectively, but you also have 72 seats of newly elected members who haven't aligned themselves with a coalition (or grouping) all 72 still in a 'no group'. The British Tories (who are not fringe, but very distinct), UKIP and the BNP (ie many, still, in 'no group' parties) will all try to align themselves somewhere with one of the groupings somewhere within the spectrum on the right. I don't know what the other European 'no group' parties will do yet (I don't know what alignment all the votes for the rest of Europe with some these fringe 'no group- as of yet parties' are at. We potentially could end up with a fairly balanced left/right EU parliament or, as I suspect, an EU Parliament that's now slightly to the right, rather than being slightly to the left as it was in 2004. But we'll have to wait and see.

You can see all the groupings within the EU Parliament seatwise, and also look at all the different seats per individual country, on this simple (but quite useful) BBC graphic.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/e ... tml/eu.stm

[Caer Ibormeith]

It's interesting that when the US shifts left, the EU shifts right. Could it be causal, do you think, Ben?

I have to admit it's a bit scary to have a fascist party like the BNP gain a political foothold, and also that so many European countries seem to be headed in that direction with their elections to the EU Parliament as well. Groups like the BNP remind of the ultra-nationalists in this country, who are reviled by the major Conservative and Liberal parties here.

It's not that I'm wholly against Conservatives in general. Sarkozy and Merkel seem like pretty qualified, fair-minded leaders, even though I may disagree with them on some of their policies. What concerns me most that this will lead to a rise in the persection of immigrants and minorities in Europe, not so much by the elected governments, but the worst elements in the general population.

[ukus]

I have to admit it's a bit scary to have a fascist party like the BNP gain a political foothold,

Now that is scary. I guess we can't think of them as some loony fanatical jerks that we don't have to worry about anymore.... unbelievable!

[eddie2003]

From what I saw, turnout was extremely low...and somewhere in Europe, something called the Pirate Party won a seat...What will the representative dress up as, Johnny Depp? Throw in the BNP winning multiple seats, and the whole thing is a farce.

Then again, most people in Europe don't want a united Europe to begin with, so why take these elections that seriously?

[wakeyboy]

From what I saw, turnout was extremely low...and somewhere in Europe, something called the Pirate Party won a seat...What will the representative dress up as, Johnny Depp? Throw in the BNP winning multiple seats, and the whole thing is a farce.

Then again, most people in Europe don't want a united Europe to begin with, so why take these elections that seriously?

While it may be true that many people don't want a Federalist Europe it doesnt mean that the elections are any less serious. As long as we are members of the European Union, who gets elected in Europe matters a lot.

It also matters that the far right is strengthening accross Europe.

[wakeyboy]

For those interested the make up of the European parliament as it now stands.

The parliament has 736 seats and the political parties elected from each member state ally themselves with similar parties to make up the 8 groups of the European Parliament.

The groups, and the seats they now have...

European People's Party (EPP - made up of Christian Democrats and the centre-right): 264
Socialists (made up of the centre-left, e.g. the UK's Labour party): 183
Liberal (Liberals and libertarians. E.g. the UK's Liberal Democrats): 84
No Group (those that don't conform to one of the main groups. Including independents. The UK's conservative party joined this grouping after previously being part of the EPP): 72
Green (greens etc): 50
Union for Europe of the Nations(UEN - believe in national sovereignty. Some mainstream conservative parties e.g. Ireland's ruling party and some far right parties e.g. Poland's Law and Justice party): 28
Independence and Democracy (Ind/Dem - eurosceptics, EU-critics. Includes the UK's UKIP party): 21

See a nice pretty graphic of the above...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/e ... tml/eu.stm

[wakeyboy]

For those interested the make up of the European parliament as it now stands.

The parliament has 736 seats and the political parties elected from each member state ally themselves with similar parties to make up the 8 groups of the European Parliament.

The groups, and the seats they now have...

European People's Party (EPP - made up of Christian Democrats and the centre-right): 264
Socialists (made up of the centre-left, e.g. the UK's Labour party): 183
Liberal (Liberals and libertarians. E.g. the UK's Liberal Democrats): 84
Left (Far-left parties and communist parties): 34
No Group (those that don't conform to one of the main groups. Including independents. The UK's conservative party joined this grouping after previously being part of the EPP): 72
Green (greens etc): 50
Union for Europe of the Nations(UEN - believe in national sovereignty. Some mainstream conservative parties e.g. Ireland's ruling party and some far right parties e.g. Poland's Law and Justice party): 28
Independence and Democracy (Ind/Dem - eurosceptics, EU-critics. Includes the UK's UKIP party): 21

See a nice pretty graphic of the above...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/e ... tml/eu.stm


Here you can see all the UK political parties, the total votes and the number of MEPs elected...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/e ... 999999.stm

[Caer Ibormeith]

So, it looks like the EU parliament is controlled by the Centrists, both left and right, while everyone else is fairly marginalized.

[wakeyboy]

So, it looks like the EU parliament is controlled by the Centrists, both left and right, while everyone else is fairly marginalized.

The centre-right, while not being my political bosom buddies are reasonable, sensible sorts. The socialists too. The Liberals often hold the balance of power by choosing to side with either the centre-left or the centre-right on particular issues.

[mr dragon]

It's interesting that when the US shifts left, the EU shifts right. Could it be causal, do you think, Ben?

Lol. Could be Sandy. We're always trying to be different from our allies, and so are you guys....

But seriously. The US also had Clinton in during the nineties, and Europe seemed to go to the left during that time as well. We also elected a Labour Government under Blair in 1997 in the UK during Clinton's era, which 'technically' was to the left of previous the Tory Government. I guess things just change at different paces in different countries, or regions, because their own inner issues as countries, or areas, dictate which way they shift politically over time. There's also a difference between what is actually 'left and right' between all of these European countries, and also with the US. I'd actually say that, politically, a centre right Government in France or Germany is probably going to share similarity with a Democrat Government in the US- as a generalisation. That's also true in the UK, though it's harder to define with our two main parties today, the Libs are now actually the main centre/left wing party in the UK. New Labour has been pretty much both a centre right, and centre left party over the last ten years- it just depends on which area of policy. On business and economics it's been to the right, but on social issues it's been to the left, yet on security and to some extent crime, it's also been to the right. To be honest, Tony Blair was probably more a centrist Tory on certain issues, and on a few issues he was sometimes even slightly to the right of the Tory party at the time.

There was also a time when both Britain and the US went from left to right, more or less within a few years of one another, and stayed the same way for a long while- the Thatcher/Reagan era throughout the eighties. I don't think there is probably any consistent causal effect either side of the Atlantic. I just think countries vote in the way they need to in regard to their internal issues. At that time- in the late seventies/early eighties, both countries had been left in a mess by their then current left wing Governments at the same particular time in history. But later, Americans then also got fed up with their Republican Government, after Reagan, and went left again for 8 years with Clinton in the nineties, while it also took the UK a lot longer to vote Labour in, after the then Tories hegemony for so many years. You also have to take on board differences in election cycles per country. And also have to take on board that a badly functioning, left or right wing, mainstream government can also leave a country in a mess, and voters will react to that and over time shift the other way- either left or right to the whatever party available at the time. That's an internal issue for a country. At the end of the day, people in the middle people will vote for what they believe at the time is going to be a quality Government- regardless of left or right. We've had very bad left and right Governments here in the UK in the past, but we've also had fairly good left and right Governments as well. The people who decide which Government is voted in actually are, more often than not, middle class mainstream political shifter's who are somewhere around the centre, or independents, who all have no particular allegiance to any party or political ideology- like myself. I'm probably centre right politically, but I'll vote for either Labour or Conservative. I just want the most competent party - in my view - at the time, to get in. I'm not interested in partisanship- that's for the birds. That's actually the central core voting bloc in a country that a party, from either side, wants to persuade in an election.

I wouldn't worry too much over this election of two British far right individuals into the European Parliament this time around. They are in a minority within the EU Parliament, and the Green Party in the UK (which is alternately very left wing) also got two seats this time as well. Other countries also elected fringe left parties as well. Kind of cancels it out a little (nb. I don't like or agree with the UK Green Parties policies- they're about as economically as stupid as you can get, but I don't think they're a bunch of serious assholes like the BNP are). Also the only reason the BNP got two seats this time was because of a lack of a Labour vote amongst traditional Labour supporters because of the current circumstances here. The BNP actually got less votes this time in the UK than it did last time. So, I don't believe there is a shift towards facism or racism in this country from the fringes- even if it is a very, very sad day when the UK has to send two of these BNP wankers to Brussels to represent the UK as well. I know the Netherlands also seemed to go the same way as the UK as well (by also sending one or two far right parties this time) but I think the real internal problem, with the growth of the far right, is within some Eastern European countries- particularly Poland and Hungary (and Romania). And, unfortunately, what these groups will try to do is form coalitions within the EU Parliament, which is were I do think a more serious problem lies- though, they will still be in the minority and on the fringe. They'll have virtually no voting influence in the EU because of their minority seats, but sadly it will allow them more of a platform, and a presence, on the European stage. You wont see anything like a rise of fascism in Europe as you once did after the first world war- the conditions for that to occur don't exist anymore and times are very different. But what you might see is these minority groups organising more rallies that try to foment hatred. But you also have to remember, in most western European countries, these people are very, very much in the minority overall. It's some of the Eastern European countries- who have less developed democracies, more shaky economics and less recently developed societies to our standards, who have more of a problem with this issue currently.

Another worry is if the BNP actually get a seat in the UK Parliament in the next election. Again, it's nothing potentially serious. We have that fucktard George Galloway with a seat already- but no one takes him seriously. He has no power or influence on Government or the country, other than to shout his mouth off sometimes in a Parliamentary session. He actually got booted out of one Parliamentary session a while back- which I thought was funny. The BNP wont have any power either if they do get a seat. But, again, you just don't want the likes of these *people* within the political process at all. Another thing that might well stop the BNP gaining a seat in the UK Parliament is that our electoral system is based on 'first past the post', yet the European elections are based on 'proportional representation'. For years the Lib Dems and some of the political left, here in the UK, have argued that we should switch to 'PR- Proportional Representation' for our electoral process in the UK. I've had this argument so many times with people on the left in the UK over the years, yet they never get the actual reason why it's a not a good solution. This EU election shows exactly why PR's a bad idea as an electoral process. PR may *seem* more democratic, at least theoretically, but all you will probably get is more fringe extreme parties gaining seats.

We have the same here with all the three main political parties (Con, Lab, Lib) as you do in the US, Sandy. None of them will have anything to do with extremist parties like the BNP, and they denounce them very vocally at every oppurtunity. They actually have an agreement/strategy between all three main parties in Britain, that if any one of those parties is weak in a region of the UK in an upcoming election, and it looks like the BNP (or any other extremist party) might get a foothold, they deliberately field more candidates to try to push them out. They'd all rather have one of the main opposition win if any one of them can't, than a party like the BNP get anywhere. I also read an interesting article by Glenda Jackson today. I'm absolutely no fan of her politics in anyway- she's what we call a Champaign Socialist. But like many others, she was doggedly out campaigning on the streets against the BNP during this election in her area. She rightly pointed out that the only way to beat and silence these idiots is by showing them up for what they actually are in debate. The only real way you can do that is to debate them into a corner and show how fallacious their arguments actually are. Some protesters tried to 'attack' Nick Griffin (the head of the BNP) today outside Parliament while he was giving a small speech- which he then couldn't give and had to leave. It was pretty funny, someone through an egg at him, and they were very loudly chanting Nazi scum- but that isn't the way to do it. The BNP try to make out they aren't racist by giving disingenuous statements, as a front, for their agenda, but once you break their arguments down it's clear for every one to see exactly what they are. That's how a strong democracy deals with extremists on both the left and right (two sides of the same coin in my view). That's why even Mosley's Black Shirts could never get a political foot hold in the UK prior to the second world war. The best they ever got was a few marches with hardly a notable column of supporters. In a stable democracy you can keep these characters on the fringes by showing them up in a debate. I noticed all the news channels in the UK (from Sky, to Channel 4, to the Beeb) have been taking that line since the elections with the two BNP candidates in interviews.

Also you have to see that, really, all the EU Parliament has probably done is shift slightly from centre left to centre right in this election. There may be one or two more nutters on the fringes of the far right this time around, rather than one or two more nutters on the fringes of far left- as of last time, but the actual main voting bloc is still the EPP- which is centre right and main stream. What may change the situation is our Tory party EU MP's not joining the EPP- not because they are fairly politically similar, in general, in regard to internal home policies- but because the Conservative Brits are much less federalist than the Conservative French or Germans. But then the Tories trying to form their own coalition bloc with some more dubious groups, like the Polish Freedom and Justice party (who are also anti-gay!), purely because they share the same anti EU federalist sentiment is a strange idea. I'm not sure what the Tories plans are with this yet, but that seems to be the idea. I think it's possibly a mistake (you don't go to bed with the devil to get another goal- unless you have no other options left), but we'll have to see how they go about this. It could also be a clever political move to help re-shape some of the existing problems with the EU. We'll have to see.

[mr dragon]

So, it looks like the EU parliament is controlled by the Centrists, both left and right, while everyone else is fairly marginalized.

Correct Sandy. That's the truth of it- at least currently. Though we need to wait and see what the Tories and the other 'no group' parties will now do, as the Tories have left the EPP but also haven't formed or joined a new group yet. This could change things slightly more, so we'll have to see. But it was also more or less the same in the 2004 election as well, regarding where the most weighting went with the votes- basically the majority to the centre right. As I mentioned in my very long 'Dragon style post' , the centre right is still the strongest and major voting bloc in the EU. What we have now is slightly more extreme fringe right wing seats acting as a minority, rather than slightly more extreme fringe left wing seats acting as a minority in the past. The actual overall shift (at least right now) has been a very slight strengthening of the centre right currently, because of the 'weight' of a few extra seats this time- that these more extreme fringe/minority right wing nutjobs bring - from the far right. The actual central majority within the EU Parliament hasn't changed that much.

[SilverMiniCooperS]

I really didn't know too much about the BNP until this happened and the BBCNews America explained it very well. When Matt Fry was through I was almost scared!! ...I thought the KKK was going out of style!

[mr dragon]

BNP = NF + Suits. And 'apparent aura of *respect*.

I almost wanted to throw my guts when the BNP started using pictures of Spitfires from WW2 in their recent campaign. It was a horrendous slur, and deep insult, to every British fighter pilot from my Grandfather's generation, who defended these Isles just over sixty years ago in order to fight for true freedom and values, for them to have done that.

Matt Frei (I assume you mean that particular journalist) is very good to read Jenn. I always enjoy reading his views or observations.

[SilverMiniCooperS]

Yes - I guess I misspelled his name. He presents the news on BBC World News America - on Beelzebub. I really like him. They have another one - female named Katy Kay (sp) - pronounced 'catty', and I cannot stand her. Fortunately she only does it once a week on Fridays. I guess Matt likes a long weekend!

[mr dragon]

That's probably Katty Kay! You might enjoy to know Jenn- Matt Frei is a German born and descent/ though a Brit journalist, who works out of Washington for the Beeb. I don't always entirely agree with him, but he does give pretty interesting coverage between the US and the UK. I also like the way he adds other links fairly to what he's reporting (both left and right) to some of his political observations, he likes to also give another point of view. He's reasonably fair to both sides in the way he reports issues and can be interesting to read as an observer- though probably, by American political journalistic standards, he would still be slightly to the 'left'! I do like reading his reports though. He's quite perceptive.

[eddie2003]

The BNP thing is really a black eye for Britain. That's really awful.

Katty Kay is awful. How many different ways can she come up with to explain how awesome Barack Obama is? I don't mind if that is your opinion, but try and hide it if you are a journalist. Matt Frei isn't much better.

[SilverMiniCooperS]

You might enjoy to know Jenn- Matt Frei is a German born and descent

I knew there must be a reason why I like him so much!!

Eddie - Katty Kay is quite dreadful - a couple of months or so ago she had Jimmy Carter in the studio for an interview. I was quite embarrassed for her - I thought at one point she would lean over the desk and give him a BJ - she was that gushing over him. At the end of it she said she wanted him back again soon, but thankfully that hasn't happened.

[NogginGrog]

Another reason for Labour getting more of a hammering than the Tories in the recent elections, is going to be down to public cultural expectation.

For example in the expenses row Douglas Hurd's moat probably raised few eyebrows. After all he is an old time Tory (people might expect him to have a moat) and he was in the last Tory government that became dogged with accusation of sleaze - having been caught with his hand in the jar so to speak he offered to pay and go gracefully without much of a fuss. Therefore people were not so surpised to find a few conservatives who had been taking more than might be seen as acceptable from the expenses and those that have been found out are tending to be eased out without much fuss. In that respect David Cameron could be seen to trying to do the final cleansing of a part in opposition that had a tainted past.

In contrast however a number of those in the Labour party who have been revealed to be taking more than is reasonable have been quick to defend their position, claim they were only obeying the rules and more resistant to leaving public office. What of course makes this so much worse for Labour is that when they were elected in 1997 one of Blur's great claims was they were going to be a Sleaze Free Zone unlike the Tories New Labour was going to be whiter than white with an ethical foreign policy also (that one did not last long). Since then Labour's White Hat has picked up quite a few dirty stains over the past decade and this expenses issue has now made it look even more dirty. I think for this reason along with all the other ones already mentioned, like the economy has resulted in the electorate feeling even more bitter. They were told "Things can only get better" and an end to Slease and now they feel they are right back where they were in the Major, Lamont & Hamilton era. I think this reaction is one of "You told us you were going to be different not like the previous mob and you are just as bad" as a consequence the people feel betrayed, like they have been fooled twice in a row.

I am sure that if there was a general election and if there was truly a viable party that could form a governemtnt other than Labour or the Tories then people would vote for it. There has not yet been a massive swing back to the Tories. What has probably happened is that their long time base supporters have dug in to support them and a few wandering voters who gave Blur the benefit of the doubt in previous elections have sort of returned to the Tory fold but their has been no seismic shift in the Tory direction. There are a lot of cynical people out there who just wish a plague on the whole of the Westminster Establisment and if they vote at all simply want to vote for "shock value" to make the political elite wake up and take notice and stop taking their votes for granted.

[mr dragon]

What of course makes this so much worse for Labour is that when they were elected in 1997 one of Blur's great claims was they were going to be a Sleaze Free Zone unlike the Tories New Labour was going to be whiter than white with an ethical foreign policy also (that one did not last long). Since then Labour's White Hat has picked up quite a few dirty stains over the past decade and this expenses issue has now made it look even more dirty.

You're on the nail Bro. But then are you surprised. I said this a long while ago- I thought Labour would end up in the dock sooner or later, somehow in the same way the Tories did back in 1997. This is why I find all the 'partisan' arguments so daft. Sooner or later, a government that's been in power for that long is going to trip over it's feet. If Cameron's 'New' Tories get elected in 2010, they'll fall foul to this issue sooner or later again themselves. Though I question whether they will get the same majority as Labour did in 1997, or back in 1979 when the Tories were also elected in also on a similar though slightly lesser landslide.

I think the real issue/problem here for Labour is inertia over time- the same as what happened with the Tory party in the end, years ago. If you're honest, despite how much people want to blame Gordon Brown for the recession happening- a lot of it probably also justifiable, it actually seems right now that he's done a pretty good job in dealing with it in the circumstances. Flick back a few years and you have a Tory party on it's dieing legs, yet despite the mistakes that were made in the last few years of the Tories, they did actually start to deliver a 'green shoot' economy that was finally turning around after they had also made the economy a success- but also then went and crashed and burned it. People just got sick of them after a long time time and lost faith, but also their own inherent faults as a party, much in the same way with Labour right now. As soon as Labour got voted into power on this 'anti- sleaze' agenda back in 1997, it wasn't much longer after that there was that whole thing with Bernie Ecclestone and the Labour donations issue- to me that kind of made it obvious that something inherently hadn't 'changed'. But if that situation happened now, they would be utterly slayed for it. However, the electorate at the time didn't want to punish them over it at back in 1997, they wanted to give them a chance, much like they did with the Tories in the eighties- despite all their shenanigans as well.

It's the same old cookie in the end, it just crumbles a different way slightly.

[NogginGrog]

However, the electorate at the time didn't want to punish them over it at back in 1997, they wanted to give them a chance, much like they did with the Tories in the eighties- despite all their shenanigans as well.

It's the same old cookie in the end, it just crumbles a different way slightly.

Of course you are correct there. Those of us with a more longer view of history and politics with a lower cynicism threshold were not surprised by the Formula 1 get out of jail free card for tobacco advertising or the sale of military aircraft to Indonesia. But the broader public and surprisingly much of the media seemed to want to believe that New Labour was going to be different. This time around I feel that more people have caught up with me on the cynical level, next time no party is going to enjoy the sort of blind adoration that Blur enjoyed during his early years whoever gets elected next time is going to be judged very critically right from the start. Maybe just Maybe one can hope against hope that perhaps people are going to start demanding that those we elect act as our servants not our masters. The pressure needs to be kept up to make politicians think of themselves as people who are simply doing service for the community and not members of some exclusive and privileged club. That they are simply a necessary evil to make a society function but not its saviours.

[wakeyboy]

We definately need constitutional and/or electoral reform.

As well as making the expenses system tighter and more transparent I'd like to see fixed terms so that the government know that no matter what there will be a fixed GE every four years.

The party leader should be elected by members of their party, after a proper leadership contest involving several candidates. If a PM resigns before the end of his term then a deputy PM should be leader in the interim until a proper contest is held.

A PM should only be allowed to serve two terms (as does the President of the USA). That way we dont see the meltdowns that are common in British goverments when in power too long.

The number of MPs should be cut slightly by slightly enlargening the constituencies.

[wakeyboy]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8099408.stm

- Apparently the UK's economy is in better shape than any other country in Europe.

Professor Krugman, who won the 2008 Nobel prize for economics, said that the UK's economic policies had been "pretty good" and called them "intelligent".

He also believes that if Labour hold out until next year before the GE then people might credit Labour with getting the UK out of recession and that the voters will return Labour to government.

[mr dragon]

It's an interesting article. I'm no expert on this at all (though I like to comment on it!), but I'm more cautious than he is. I think you have to wait until sometime next year to really see what the effects are. However, I do think things are starting to get a little better here, or at least they seemed to have stopped spiraling down and seem to be easing. I saw recently that a lot of small businesses have been reporting an upturn in profits compared last year, and early this year. I always said I thought the re-capitalisation, using preferential shares, of the banks 'method' pioneered and used by Brown and Darling was the best option as a temporary measure to deal with the problem- instead of actual full nationalisation (which is a bad idea). I see Lloyds has already started to pay the Government back a fair chunk of our money recently, so hopefully over time we'll get most of all that money put into banks as preferential shares back into the Government coffers, and the future tax burden for all this wont be as high over the next ten years. Having said that, I think we still don't know right now what will happen over time. We could be heading for a big inflation and interest rate bubble because of what they had to do. Cautious but wary confidence is my position! Though I was never worried about the loss of the value of the pound on the world markets. Seen it happen several times in my life time, and it's always bounced back. Though I think a rate of about 1.7/1.8 for the dollar against the pound is where it realistically should be in the future, if things recover. It's nice when it goes over 2 dollars to the pound (as it did) for a British consumer who wants to go to the US, but that's out of kilter with reality, and it effects British exports on the flip side. The same with Europe with the Euro exchange rate/ to actual real monetary value. Hopefully that will stabilise itself within the next two years, for the pound, and we're back to some kind of normality. Mind you, it does show, at least to me- once again, why it's better for Britain not to join the Euro. We need to adjust our monetary policy in accordance to our own economic situation- via the Bank of England, even if there's crises.

Problem for me is, even though I did agree with the way the Government dealt with the actual banking crises here in the UK (though they made some mistakes as well: Lloyds-HBOS merging), they still can't escape the fact that if they hadn't spent such a large amount of our tax dosh during those many boom years they wouldn't have had to borrow as insanely as they have done to stop the system from collapsing in the last year. For years Brown kept banging on about 'prudence' while he was Chancellor, but let's be honest here- we all know Labour haven't been prudent over the years. Even when I had more support for Labour a few years ago, that was always my own major criticism about them. Brown has a major mountain to climb for me to want to vote Labour again while he is leader. And frankly, they need to get rid this stupid shit in Labour over half acting like they are a 'nanny' Government on certain issues. That daft stuff with Jacqui Smith as Home Secretary telling us what we should or shouldn't listen to in terms of who comes into this country probably helped the BNP get elected into the EU Parliament. She's gone now, but Labour have to dump that philosophy- it's not British. We have a robust enough free speech system here (that's been around for longer than she has been on this planet) to deal with people with offensive views, just as long as they don't incite violence.

The pressure needs to be kept up to make politicians think of themselves as people who are simply doing service for the community and not members of some exclusive and privileged club. That they are simply a necessary evil to make a society function but not its saviours.

I don't think they're a necessary evil, but entirely agree with the rest Nog. At the end of the day, Labour got voted in on the premise that they were a 'party of the people', and 'in touch with the man/woman on the street' ie a party that wasn't seen as elitist or 'privileged' as the Tories (fairly or unfairly) have often have been viewed as. I think we can now see, that after all this time in power, power can corrupt the Labour party as much as it can with the Tories.

I've always been against the idea of limited terms for the UK Government with their leaders (and also limit the Government to a time scale for when elections are held)- as in the US, because they also have their associated problems as a side effect as well. But maybe you are right Wakey. Perhaps it's better to not just have to go through the pain of knowing that sooner or later if a party stays in power for too long, or even a leader for too long (Maggie T for example) it's inevitably all going to come crashing down anyway and regardless by it's own inertia, and a new Government is needed. Though I'm still not fully sold on the idea as of yet...

[eddie2003]

I saw an interview with David Miliband yesterday...What is he, 7 years old? When I was his age, I had a paper route.

[wakeyboy]

The Lib Dems are the "true progressives"...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8261382.stm

[wakeyboy]

The Lib Dems are the "true progressives"...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8261382.stm

Lib Dems lay out their plans re spending cuts. they want to reduce the size of government, break up the quangos, sack the spin doctors and give NHS ward staff more control over their budgets, among other things...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8264994.stm

[mr dragon]

Something quite interesting is happening in British politics with all three parties at the moment, as they're gearing up for the GE next year. They're all proposing cutting major costs in Government spending. The reasons are obvious, everyone knows this is what we need to do now going forward to reduce the level of debt that's been accrued. But I've never seen that before from all three parties. So, I guess part of this election is going to be a fight over who has the smartest and most efficient spending cuts, which don't effect core services too much. I also think the Lib Dems have gotten a lot better since Nick Clegg and Vince Cable gained prominence. I'm still not convinced I'd ever vote for them yet though, but it's going to be interesting. I also wonder if we're heading for a hung Parliament. I don't think that's going to happen because I think Labour seems finished right now as a political force with the electorate, but you never know.