Blair wins third term - reduced majority

[Iain]

Not all the results are in, but Labour have made the finishing post.

The prediction is that the majority will be reduced from 167 after the 2001 election to 66. Still a reasonable majority, but perhaps Blair will have to battle things out internally with his Labour rebels on issues like ID cards rather than being able to just march things through on the basis that several hundred heads will nod as they always have.

Important points -

It seems that three party politics may be upon us. The Liberal Democrats have had the best result since the Liberal results of 1929. It's all about the war my friends, the Lib Dem's were the only major party to oppose the war. - underlined for emphasis, it has been a big issue.

Despite it being a good result for the Lib Dems, they mostly did well against Labour, but the Conservatives took a seat or two off them, and the Conservatives did well-ish against Labour too. Perhaps my prediction that Michael Howard would resign this morning was a little hasty. Maybe someone has got the heart started again and the Conservatives are getting to their feet for the first time since 1997. If anyone has done that though I'd suggest it was inadvertant on the part of Mr Blair.

Independent Labour candidate was elected in a very safe Labour seat in Wales. He stood to protest the imposition of a Labour party all-women shortlist. Congratulations to him. I predict a return to the party fold at the latest a year before the next election to contest the seat safely as a whipped Labour MP.

I'd say from what I saw last night the BNP (British National Party) did pretty well. The leader took 10% of the vote in his constituency. I doubt it was their policy on compulsory national service and rifles in the homes of all that have served a la Suisse, that did it.

In my constituency our Independent MP was re-elected, albeit with a somewhat reduced majority. Labour and Conservative voters both went back to their own parties after the protest vote over the local hospital that got him elected in 2001, but enough stayed with him, including myself.

[Ron]

So what direction do you feel the nation is heading?

I am happy that a leader who is a strong friend of the US is still in office.  But at what cost to liberty in the UK?

Is the nation on whole trending more liberal/socialist or conservative/nationalist?

I would hate to see you lose your soverignty to the EU.

[Iain]

The one thing that appears to be true about this election is that there are no real trends.

In one seat there may have been a 15 or even 20% increase in vote share for the liberal democrats, but in a neighbouring constituency they may have polled worse than 2001. On the whole the lib dem's have done well, but they have lost seats, gained more, but lost important ones. That may go against them if there is no protest vote over Iraq at the next election.

There are definite concerns in my mind over the liberties of the UK citizen but Blair's reduced majority may well make it harder for him to push through bills like this years Anti-Terrorism Bill (deep concerns over the use of house arrest) and the ID cards bill (which only failed because it ran out of time, and Blair stated that it would be re-introduced if Labour were re-elected)

Definitely can see the advantage of Blair from your point of view. I doubt that a Conservative Prime Minister would be a enemy in any way. You may also find that Blair stands down for Gordon Brown the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I'm not so sure that Brown will be to the US what Blair has been.

The next election will more likely be about Europe. The UK Independence Party fielded a lot of candidates at this election, but by and large they did poorly. Except in some traditionally Liberal Democrat (very pro-Europe) seats in the South-West, but here they merely kept their deposits. As far as nationalism goes, I expect the good BNP vote stems from one or two things - asylum and immigration as a big issue, and voter turnout is generally poor (around 60%) but I expect the BNP seriously mobilise their support base.

[BillBlank]

So what direction do you feel the nation is heading?

More targets, less achievement in public services. Higher tax bills, shaky economy for a couple of years minimum. Restriction of personal liberty in the name of security. Europe non issue due to rejection of constitution on continent. Three years down the line who knows.

Is the nation on whole trending more liberal/socialist or conservative/nationalist?

God knows, very little in the way of substansively different ideaologys from the two main parties.  More public money going to the private sector and sod all return for it. Socialist tax policies for the benefit of big business, ironic. Immigration was an issue, not nicely handled by either main party.

The Liberal Democrats are the only socialist party we have and they're brand of honesty seems to be slowly catching on. They are rabidly pro european so I didn't vote for them this time.

Help me Iain, I voted tory, aaaargh.

I must be getting old but I share the concerns for our liberties and dislike and distrust intensely our involvement in the european project. Possibly driven by my xenophobic leanings. Hey, would YOU trust the french?

[Sean Smith]

With 622 out of 646 reporting, 353 went to Labour, 196 Conservative, 61 Liberal Democrats, and 12 to assorted others.  Since they only needed 324 total, Labour clearly wins.  Turnout was 61%, up 2% from 2001 (still crappy by UK standards).

According to the BBC, the total breakdown of votes cast was 37% Labour, 33% Conservative, 22% Liberal Democrat, and 8% "Other."

[Sean Smith]

"Definitely can see the advantage of Blair from your point of view. I doubt that a Conservative Prime Minister would be a enemy in any way. You may also find that Blair stands down for Gordon Brown the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I'm not so sure that Brown will be to the US what Blair has been."

Well, yeah, but I don't think any UK election outcome would really bother the US that much.  We tend to operate on the assumption of positive relations with the UK, regardless of your government, unless something drastic happens, and then we tend to forget about it anyway.  Forum posts on specific issues notwithstanding, there is a huge amount of "positive inertia" when it comes to perceptions of US-UK relations in the US.  Unlike the French, who tend to be seen in a negative light by default over here.  The irony is that we at least somewhat pay attention to UK politics (for instance, the election results are prominently reported & commented on in the newspapers & news websites I've seen), even though we don't really get worked up about the outcome either way, and ignore French politics completely.

[Zundfolge]

I remember the good old days when conservatives here in the US hated Blair because he was "Clinton's Lap Dog"

[Bemidjiblade]

I'm just glad to see that both Bush and Blair were re-elected despite all the lib idiot press nattering on about the war and how evil we all are for it.

[Wildalaska]

he was Clintons lap dog, but he wasnt nuetered at least

WildstillhereAlaska

[Waitone]

Did immigration (legal or illegal) play a part in the election??

[BillBlank]

Yes, lot's of rhetoric and subtle accusations of racism. Very dignified.

[Iain]

Did immigration (legal or illegal) play a part in the election??

As Bill said it was all very dignified, on that issue at least.

I was very amused by Michael Howard's party election broadcast that ran something like 'We should look at the issue of immigration. People accuse me of racism, but my grandfather (or some other relative, can't remembe, but Howard is late 60's) died at Auschwitz so how can I be a racist?'

Weak.

The asylum issue is the real one here. At some point the popular press has managed to subvert the meaning of asylum seeker. As I understand it, it means 'person who is claiming asylum, and the veracity of this claim has to be established.' The popular definition appears to be 'foreign person come here to steal our jobs and murder our babies.'

To be honest though I'm sick of hearing British people whine about things that 'asylum seekers' are supposed to be doing, when they actually mean 'illegal immigrants who come here and engage in yet further criminal behaviour.' They are a problem, but then again we grow enough criminals here that I don't wonder if 'blaming the foreigners first' isn't a symptom of casual racism.

[Iapetus]

There are definite concerns in my mind over the liberties of the UK citizen but Blair's reduced majority may well make it harder for him to push through bills like this years Anti-Terrorism Bill (deep concerns over the use of house arrest) and the ID cards bill (which only failed because it ran out of time, and Blair stated that it would be re-introduced if Labour were re-elected)

Do you know much they won the ID card vote?  

Because I know a lot of the Lib and Con MPs who "opposed" it abstained / didn't turn up (and they complain about our apethy?), so hopefully if they actually stand up for their beliefs, and get support from the new Lib MPs, they will may be able to put it down.


As for the BNP - I doubt they will get much further than they have, and if they do, they'll probably end up getting arrested for bar-fighting or similar, as they normally do shortly after they managed to convince people they'd become "respectable".  I hadn't heard they were supporting gun rights, but even if they were, I wouldn't vote for the people I would most likely have to take arms against.  


On a more humorous note, and in the words of a recent Post Office advertising slogon, "I saw this, and thought of you..."

(From the Independent, 6/5/05)

In a polling station in Kelmness, one voter startled the officials by coming in dressed in combat uniform, with a balaclava helmet on his head.  Having got a voting form, he crept around the wall, using every bit of cover, dashed into the voting booth, voted instantly and then made a rapid retreat by rolling across the floor to the door and shooting out.

Later he said: "I was voting tactically".

[Iain]

Classic