British Expatriate Network

Well we're back in power, the working class again triumph over the middle class reactionary monarchist sycophants and capitalist apologists.

That said, the smaller majority is a wake up call, next election we'll do better and finally consign the Tories to the dustbin of political history.

Well done lads and lasses.

I've been rather surprized by the way this outcome is being portrayed. Yes the Labour majority has been cut, but this is a historic 3rd term in power. I fully understand that the majority is much smaller, but a win is a win is a win. Watching the coverage it almost seemed to be saying "Tony Blair suffered a huge defeat last night by winning the general election. Labour are in terrible shape after being voted in for the 3rd straight time." I get the striking feeling that as everyone knew the result before hand that some sort of major happening has been created out of this. Isn't this success being judged unfairly, say as compared to 1997?

Here's a case in point - Andrew Sullivan -
http//andrewsullivan.com/

"BLAIR ON THE ROPES The last minute CW was wrong Tony Blair has barely survived a brutal vote of no confidence by the British public. Yes, the war was a major reason. But it's important to understand that hostility to Blair was not simply about the decision to go to war, but how he did it, how he appeared to have been less than forthright, and how this characterological duplicity reflected broader discontent with his management style on domestic issues as well. But this was not a victory for the Tories either. They're back as a real opposition party and now have a real chance of forming the next government. But they failed to articulate a real, national theme or an argument about the future of Britain; and they barely increased their share of the vote over 2001. They gained by default; and witnessed real gains from the fiercely leftist anti-war Liberal Democrats. Blair's mandate is risible as I write, he will form a government with a mere 36 percent of the vote. That's a lower level of popular support than any parliamentary majority in history. The pressure on him to move aside will now grow. I doubt he will survive the next few months of internecine Labour warfare."

Blair clinging on? Tories right back in it? Really?

Doesn't mean I don't think Blair will pack it in within a year tho.

I think you are a little bit delusional or maybe just ironical, since Labour completely represent the "middle class reactionary manarchist sychophants" and are themselves "capitalist apologists".

And it's questionable how much they really represent the working class apart from lip service.

And for the record, the only major party that supports the message on your avatar is the Liberal Democrats

Interesting how the conservatives in this country are painting it 'Oh, look that shows that the British supported the Iraq war and is justification for Blair'....while at the same time saying 'Well, the conservatives gained support so that means that conservatism must be right'. roll They have even had the gall to say that the 'far left' Liberal Democrats got trounced because they didn't get many seats.

Just incredible how they try to spin everything towards their own idealogy.

I think there are a couple of things at play here though Bungle. Firstly, although it's still a comfortable majority, maybe because Britain's parliament is so huge, even to lose 30 plus seats in some key contituencies has to hurt.

Secondly remember that Blair insisted on going for a third term instead of, as he had apparently promised to do, hand over the reins to Gordon Brown. Some people saw that as arrogant. Now, he looks a bit like a tired cut down leader instead of victoriously winning a third term. I was amazed watching Blair win Sedgefield (also with a reduced majority) that both he and Cherie were practically grimacing, or at the very least looking ashen and shaken. So even he looked like someone genuinely eating humble pie.

Thirdly, there are left wing factions within the Labour Party dying to tear a strip off Tony Blair and justifiably or not, they are going to see this as a way of whittling away at his leadership. The Labour Party is still the Labour Party and is a factional church. There is now a lot of speculation that he will step down before the end of the third term to allow Brown to establish himself.

Finally, there is the trust factor. I've talked to friends and relatives in Britain who are vitriolic about Blair. People in Britain have taken years of spin followed by what many regard as deception over the Iraq War. One friend said to me "Now I think every single word that comes out of that man's mouth is a lie" and wasn't sure at the time where he was going to park his vote but admitted he might still vote for him.

There is a lot to agree with in what you say Gavin, on any other election this woyuld be a magnificent result; but I think in many ways it was a bad night for Labour and in particular for Blair (which paradoxically could be good if he gets all the blame and is dumped).

The Labour vote was appalling low and the result at the lower end of the scale; I'm an inveterate pessimist with elections and I expected a majority of around 70. I supect many of my comrades will have been expection somewhere between 80 and 100.

In part this result reflects an overdue balancing of the House of Commons. 1997 was a monumental backlash against the Tories that was wholly disproportionate (and highly enjoyable). The Tories should easily have picked up 20 seats in 2001; they didn't - but they came painfully close in many of their targets seats. Labour held a host of seats with tiny three figure majorities, these would have gove even without Iraq and even if Iain Duncan Smith had been Tory leader.

So in some ways what has happened is that the Tories have taken the expected gains of two elections in one. The Tories will be feeling good about last night, they are now in a far more realistic position to win the next election and to be an effective opposition. It will be harder for opponents to characterize them as a spent force; although this may also mean they are less inclined to reform their policies, which remain unpopular. However it is not all good news, quite aside from the obvious (they lost) they failed to pick up some seats they really should have taken easily - Hove for example.

The real losers in my opinion are the Lib Dems. They really still haven't made a breakthrough, they picked up seats against Labour on a protest vote and may find those seats difficult to defend long term. Meanwhile they lost ground to the Tories - hardly the results befitting a party that thinks it will be the 'effective opposition'.

Thank you for posting the Andrew Sullivan link, it served to confirm my suspicions about his ignorance. From his perspective the LibDems may seem ultra leftist, but as anyone who knows anything about British politics knows, they are mainly ultra opportunist. At a local level they we ally themselves with anyone to get a vote. In Tower Hamlets and in Shoreditch in the 1990s they were quite happy to get into bed with the BNP.

The remaining question is of course when will Tony go and who will replace him? I suspect it will now be sooner rather than later, but probably not until next year. The CW is Brown will takes over; but Labour is notionally a democracy and Brown isn't universally popular. Others will be putting their names forward and one should never underestimate any political party's ability to shoot itself in the foot.

Thats the odd thing. When I first started to pay attention to politicals, the Lib Dems used to be the centre party. Is it that they just didn't move and Labour has moved to the right of them, so they seem like the left party, or have they actually moved to the left to distinguish themselves from Labour? IMO, they haven't really moved any, just everything around them has.

From the POV of American politics, I can see why they are considered 'ultra left'. Probably the Tories are considered a left party in American terms. If you're looking from Britian, the Republicans must be 'ultra right'.

The LibDems have always been the movable feast of British Politics. I fought camapigns against them in the south, midlands and in London. They portray themselves as the "local party" - which is often accurate, at least to the extent that they tailor policies and campaigns to local prejudices.

This is fine to an extent, but in parts of London where the local Labour party membership has a significant representation of visible minorities; the vote the LDs go after is the disaffected white working class vote. To my certain knowledge the LDs did informal deals with the National Front/BNP in east London, in at least one case a BNP supporter ran under the LD flag.

Obviously the LDs nationally aren't inveterate racists - but if the BNP infiltrated either Labour or the Tories, the National Party would intervene. The LDs chose not to.

Overall the LDs are a party of opportunism; I'm not sure they are simply left or right - they just look for groups of disaffected voters and try to appeal to them as best they can.

I don't know how to do a link, but for those interested, on the BBC site there is a video clip of Paxman and Gorgeous Gearge haveing an argument.

Classic Paxman, except that Galloway clearly decides that attack is the best form of defense.

Edited to add
http//news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/england/4520121.stm

If you go down to the picture of Galloway and King and click on "Galloway & Paxman" it should show the clip...

It's like this.

5 years ago Liverpool beat Crystal Palace 16-0

last night Liverpool beat Crystal Palace 6-0, but according to the press Liverpool are crap.

That's not a beating that's a slaughter.

To complete the analogy, Liverpool were told that the four goals previously scored by scotish players would be automatically disallowed in the later game...

Some excellent points made so far that I had not previously considered.

Regarding the Liberal Democrats, as the only party that consistenly were against Britain's involvement in the Iraq war, I thought they might do better. They seem happy with the results (8 gains) anyway and doing consistently better in elections but I take the point that some seats may not be held easily, next time around.

I would think that the dynamic in Parliament will change, either way. Labour lost seats and although it retains the majority, the Government's handling of the Iraq situation cost them this time.

I think the big problem for the LibDems is that they lost half a dozen seats to the Conservatives - more than they gained from the Tories. Some, particularly Newbury, should have been safely entrenched for the LibDems. It could be that their anti war strategy actually backfired in those areas, but I suspect that it was in fact a resurgent Conservative base plus some Tories who may not have voted since 1992.

I agree though that the dynamic in Parliament is going to change; Blair will need to negotiate and do deals to get legislation through - I suspect that could be difficult for him as he has not needed to do so before. For everyone else it might be healthier, however there are many things left undone from the past 8 years that will now be difficult (reform of the Lords for example) and Blair may rue the wasted opportunity.

I emailed Andrew Sullivan
I told him he was talking bollocks on 2 counts.

a) Fiercely Leftist Liberal Democrats - more like Fiercely middle of the road Liberal Democrats.

b) When John Major won the election, he had a majority of like 20 and the Tories were dancing in the streets.