The UK General Election 2005 Thread

KP's comments on health insurance are interesting. In Canadia, many of the "social programs" were instituted by the Tories, always desparate to break through the eternal Liberal majority. They would co-opt left-wing parties like CCF or NDP by offering variants of the social programs demanded by those parties, and then hold the Liberals up to ridicule for not providing what the people needed. When they did manage to get elected by such ploys, or formed minority governments, they pushed through social programs much on the order of what KP offers as a replacement for the National Health. Therefore, private practitioners abound in Canadia (despite what American conservative propaganda claims), because those who can afford it pay extra for special attention, or more immediate service in non-emergency situations. But health insurance is required for all citizens, and employers are likely to use full payment of health insurance premiums as a lure for new employees, or a perquisite for existing employees.

Greed will never go away, but we've come a long way toward civilizing individuals and their social attitudes, so greed can be harnessed as mere ambition for a better life--as in doctors who work hard and provide good service because they wish to live well.

0 Replies

Quote:

Lib Dems seek donations in the US

Tom Happold
Tuesday April 19, 2005

The Liberal Democrats are appealing to liberal Americans who opposed the war in Iraq to help bankroll their general election campaign.

The party has asked American supporters to contribute up to $400 (£208.76) to its electoral war chest to attend a fundraising dinner in downtown Washington on April 21.

While political parties are prohibited from accepting donations of more than £200 from non-EU foreign nationals, a Liberal Democrat spokesman insisted that they were not breaking electoral law.

Article continues

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He explained the discrepancy between the allowed £200 and the greater amount of $400 by saying some of the money would go towards the cost of the dinner.
"We are seeking to raise money principally among expats," he told Guardian Unlimited, "but British citizens living in America often have friends, family and partners who share their political convictions."

"This is not a unique political event; parties have historically raised money from outside the UK. But we will ensure that we will comply with all laws on foreign donation."

Labour, however, condemned the Liberal Democrats' fundraising drive and insisted it did not solicit campaign donations from foreign nationals.

Labour's campaign spokesman, Fraser Kemp, told Guardian Unlimited: "It is disgraceful that the Liberal Democrats are actively seeking money from foreigners to fund their election campaign."

"This dinner is yet another sign of their hypocrisy. It should be cancelled and all the money raised in this way paid back," he added.

The fundraising dinner has been organised by Harpinder Athwal, who stood for the party in the 2001 general election and is now a director of the Washington-based pressure group Citizens for Global Solutions.

Publicity from the pressure group seeks to contrast Tony Blair's close relationship with George Bush with the Liberal Democrats' opposition to the war in Iraq and the party's commitment to civil liberties and multilateral international cooperation.

"Tony Blair ignored the will of the British people when he chose to join George Bush's invasion of Iraq," it says. "The Liberal Democrats are the only party to stand up for the people of Britain and the world.

"The only party to oppose the Iraq war. The 'only mainstream party consistently concerned with civil liberties' according to the Economist. The only party committed to multilateral engagement and cooperation in Europe and the rest of the world."

The publicity goes on to urge "citizens of the UK and the world" to help the people of Britain "send a message to the world". "Show your support for open societies, civil liberties and a safer world for all."

Source

0 Replies

The Lib Dems sound a lot more strident in American English than in English English...

Kitchenpete wrote:

For example, I believe that the provision of health services is fundamentally flawed by the fact that no profit motive operates and would therefore do away with the NHS, to be replaced by a compulsory insurance scheme to be provided through deduction at source for all employees (in the same way as PAYE income tax). For those unemployed or long-term sick/disabled, the government could pay for such care through social security.

I think that's pretty much exactly how it works here in Holland.

Grand Duke wrote:

Well, you got me there, nimh! Nice work. Out of interest, have you tried a similar process for yourself?

Its kinda hard to fill in the survey purely on what would be in my personal interest because I dont live in England ... so I dont know how it would all work out for me personally.

Meanwhile, this story is a week or two old, but an interesting side-perspective ...

Quote:

SNP leader campaigns for Welsh nationalists

Matthew Tempest and agencies
Monday April 11, 2005

The Scottish National party leader, Alex Salmond, took his electioneering to Wales today, in an unusual move to show solidarity with Plaid Cymru, the Welsh nationalists.

Mr Salmond is campaigning in the Labour marginal of Ynys Mon - also known as Anglesey - on behalf of Plaid Cymru's Eurig Wyn. The SNP leader - only last year relected to the post he formerly held after John Swinney stepped down - said voting for Plaid or the SNP was the only way to "make Wales and Scotland matter" at Westminster.

He said: "As Wales and Scotland's parties, Plaid Cymru and the SNP will make Wales and Scotland matter in this election, because when we win, Wales and Scotland win.

"While the other three parties are focused on voters in England, Plaid Cymru and the SNP put Wales and Scotland first."

He said Plaid's candidate in Ynys Mon, former MEP Eurig Wyn, had been "a good friend of Scotland".

Ynys Mon was one of only two Labour gains at the 2001 election, with a majority of 800 over Plaid Cymru, who formerly held the island seat. Sixty-two per cent of Ynys Mon's constituents are Welsh speakers. Before 2001 it was the seat of the then party leader, Ieuan Wynn Jones.

Plaid's Westminster leader Elfyn Llwyd said: "Plaid Cymru and the SNP work together extremely well as a team in parliament, and every additional elected MP will boost our power to stand up for Wales and Scotland on key issues that really matter to our people, such as fair pensions and extra police.

"A strong presence for our two parties will be a constant reminder to the London parties that they will ignore the needs of Scotland and Wales at their peril."

0 Replies

LOL, stealing this joke from the Blair Witch Project - it's all about combining the caption with the image :-P

Quote:

Blair outlines Labour's election strategy

0 Replies

Then there's this one of course, the Brits will already have seen some version of it: the photographers had a field day with Labour's choice of slogan ("Forward not Back").

http://photos8.flickr.com/9326036_e37f177696.jpg

And by the way, did you Google for "liar" lately? Watch the first four or so results closely ...

Finally, talking of Plaid Cymru and Internet pranks - this aint quite funny, but curious. Story from previous elections that someone digged back up.

Quote:

New Labour's Internet dirty tricks campaign exposed

By Kieren McCarthy
Tuesday 30th January 2001
The Register (URL)

The Labour Party has been heavily implicated in a political dirty tricks campaign carried out over the Internet. Thousands of anti-Plaid Cymru messages posted to various political newsgroups have been traced back to the Labour Party's communications headquarters in Millbank, London.

The messages, which attack Plaid Cymru (the Welsh nationalist party) councils and policies, were posted mainly on the wales.politics.assembly newsgroup and purported to be from members of the public. However, users of the newsgroup grew suspicious of "David Currie" and "Hairy Melon Jones" - a reference to Plaid Cymru assembly member Helen Mary Jones - and accused them of working for the Labour party, a charge that was denied online.

However, newsgroup members traced the messages over the Internet and found they had come from Millbank. Welsh national paper Wales on Sunday, ran its own investigation into the claims and came to the same conclusion. Confronted by evidence, Labour admitted the postings had come from its machines but said it was the work of a "volunteer" working in his own time.

Considering that David Currie has so far managed to post 2,971 messages* on 27 different newsgroups, since the middle of November - an average of 37 messages a day - you could be forgiven for thinking that Millbank knew exactly what was going on. Hairy Melon Jones has posted far fewer with only 38 messages since July last year, but they tend to be far more provocative.

Among the postings were accusations that Plaid Cymru was racist, wanted to put controls on English immigrants, was propping up Tory administrations, was responsible for future industrial action and was full of hypocrites.

Plaid Cymru representatives are furious and have filed a motion in the Welsh National Assembly asking the first minister to distance himself from the messages. The party has also called for the resignation of Adrian McMenamin, a "special advisor" to Welsh secretary Paul Murphy. McMenamin - a protégé of fallen Labour spin supremo Peter Mandelson - has been heavily implicated in ongoing investigations. [..]

The position in Wales makes Labour particularly sensitive to Plaid Cymru. Of the 60 elected assembly members, 28 are Labour, 17 Plaid Cymru, 9 Conservative and 6 Liberal Democrat. Despite a coalition between Labour and the Lib Dems, the nationalist Plaid Cymru poses a significant threat to Labour's power in Wales. [..]

0 Replies

Who should I vote for?
Your expected outcome:
Conservative

Your actual outcome:

Labour 6
Conservative -3
Liberal Democrat 22
UK Independence Party 9
Green 14

You should vote: Liberal Democrat
The LibDems take a strong stand against tax cuts and a strong one in favour of public services: they would make long-term residential care for the elderly free across the UK, and scrap university tuition fees. They are in favour of a ban on smoking in public places, but would relax laws on cannabis. They propose to change vehicle taxation to be based on usage rather than ownership.

0 Replies

the prince wrote:

Your actual outcome:

Labour 6
Conservative -3
Liberal Democrat 22
UK Independence Party 9
Green 14

Interesting, G. Enough to make you reconsider your choice?

0 Replies

It's interesting really - most of my responses were "neutral"....

I think like everyone, I like certain aspects of each parties manifesto..

0 Replies

I'd like to see an end to the Party system. Each MP is Independent, and choses their own manifesto.

For example, they could be pro-Europe like Labour/LibDem, but strong on immigation and crime like the Tories claim to be. Pro/anti NHS, Taxes up/down, even bloody fox-hunting could be in there, all mixed up. Come election time, everyone reads the personal manifesto of the candidates in their constituency, and picks the one they. This would allow for enough variation to please people like you and me who like aspects of each party's policies.

All Bills/Acts in parliament are proposed by any member, and the vote should go the way of the majority.

The main downside to this that I can see that is that there would be no "Government" any more. Perhaps the Prime Minister and Cabinet could be elected from amongst the Independents by a vote amongst themselves.

Does anyone with a better sense of politics have any opinions on whether this system could work?

0 Replies

sounds like a recipe for anarchy. So lets give it a go.

0 Replies

Hm, here's an argument against that model:

The government wouldnt be able to make any long-term plans anymore, because it would have no way of knowing whether it would get a majority for anywhich point, when voting time comes. That could lead to an impasse.

For example: better education is needed, but to fund it a tax increase is necessary. With a party-based parliament, the government can (mostly) count on the party or parties it's made up of to accept the quid-pro-quo and loyally vote for both extra funding and extra tax. With a parliament of individual MPs however, the temptation for each member, unbound by any party discipline, to vote for every nice thing and against every unpleasantness becomes much bigger. So they'd vote for the extra education funding and then against the tax increase, fearing for their personal popularity. Their fear would be justified enough because personal popularity would be the only ground a MP woulda been elected on - not because they were Labour or Tory, but because people thought he was a nice guy.

The result could well either be a bunch of irresponsible policies, or (eventually) a government unwilling to undertake any risks, extra investments, etc anymore because it had no way of knowing that the required costs would be OK'd as well.

It's kind of the same dilemma as with referendums. Referendums, according to many (me included) are a great way to increase the democratic calibre of decision-making; direct democracy. But they have a downside; voters decide on each individual item that's up for a vote, rather than on what is needed to make the whole of government still work. California I think is the American state that has the most referenda, and the pitfall has shown up there. From what I understand, voters systematically vote for funding increases and quality obligations (obliging schools or hospitals or whatever to meet such and so standards) - but also vote against most every new proposed tax, even voted to limit taxing to a certain maximum. Californians among you may correct me, but I gather that the state's near-bankruptcy has as much to do with that as with mismanagement.

I realise that this line of argument against your idea is fundamentally an argument against democracy: a motion of distrust of sorts about people's ability to make responsible decisions ... I dunno. But the pitfall seems real enough.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Hm, here's an argument against that model:

The government wouldnt be able to make any long-term plans anymore, because it would have no way of knowing whether it would get a majority for anywhich point, when voting time comes. That could lead to an impasse.

I think you are wrong at the very outset here. Our first President deplored what he referred to as faction (there were no political parties per se at that time), and an ideal, touted but not really aspired to, was that there be no faction, and that each representative do no more than represent the will of the majority of voters in his district. Similarly, in the days before the Glorious Revolution of 1688, there were not even identifiable factions in the Parliament which developed and furthered programs. The concept of a floor manager in the house only arises at the time of Horace Walpole.

Both the Parliament and the United States Congress have operated quite effectively without established political parties. Political parties mean little where self-interest is concerned, and the expression ". . . crossed party lines to vote for . . . " is common in the press on both sides of the pond. Washington's contempt for "faction" was foolish and naive, as people will associate in the attempt to futher common goals, or simply self-interest. The modern American political party was created by Andrew Jackson precisely because of the advantages which such organization conferred upon the members, and because so much is at stake in controlling the government, and especially the governments purse.

In Canada, public sentiment has been such that the Liberals have garnered the majority of votes in nearly every election which has been held. The Tories have only been able to form governments either as minority governments in coalition with other parties, or when the Liberal vote has been so diffused, and challenged by parties such as the CCF, the NDP, Social Credit or the Parti Québecois, that the seats in solidly Tory ridings are assured, and the Liberals have not taken all of their "safe" seats.

The very concept of minority government points to the use of self-interst or factional interest by otherwise minority parties negotiating with "fringe" parties.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Both the Parliament and the United States Congress have operated quite effectively without established political parties. [..] The modern American political party was created by Andrew Jackson

But I would suppose that the government, back in those days, had a much more limited scope of engagement than it does now? That it was, in comparison to modern days, of a near-libertarian modesty?

In extremis, if all government does is provide law and order and build roads, the dilemma I sketched will hardly come up. The more a government pitches on its fork (eh?), the more it will come up.

Setanta wrote:

In Canada, public sentiment has been such that the Liberals have garnered the majority of votes in nearly every election which has been held. The Tories have only been able to form governments either as minority governments in coalition with other parties, or when the Liberal vote has been so diffused, and challenged by parties such as the CCF, the NDP, Social Credit or the Parti Québecois, that the seats in solidly Tory ridings are assured, and the Liberals have not taken all of their "safe" seats.

The very concept of minority government points to the use of self-interst or factional interest by otherwise minority parties negotiating with "fringe" parties.

Not entirely sure of your point here; starting from whether with "the majority of votes" you mean an actual majority or just that it was the biggest party.

Yes, in multi-party democracies often coalitions of parties need to be formed to buttress a government. But those parties then do each pledge a commitment of sorts to an overall government programme. Of course MPs will still cross party lines ever so often, whether on the basis of self-interest or ideological dissent. But the notion of "crossing over" itself already indicates that it is supposed to be the exception rather than the rule. Here for example, the coalition parties sign a "government agreement" at the start, and though one or the other party will still occasionally "defect", their MPs are expected to conform to it, and most of the time do. Not least because the party leaderships have various ways to pressure them to.

In Britain, party loyalty is enforced with much greater zeal still ("Chief Whip", right?). Ask any leftist Labour MP and the scope of retaliation he felt when or after dissenting from the Tony line. From tongue-lashings to the taking away of campaign and policy-making positions, and ultimately there's the threat of being deselected as a candidate for the next elections, or sent to stand in a marginal ...

Now the zeal for enforced loyalty of New Labour is exactly the stuff that's disgusted folks, and leads one to consider alternative models like what GD proposes. It's gone overboard in the manically over-orchestrated Blair era. But party-politics does have its uses, in that it inherently implies some sort of pledged loyalty to programmes as a whole, where a completely vote-by-vote freedom to drift makes it hard to implement the more ambitious government policies/programmes that we are used to in our time.

0 Replies

Government in early nineteenth century America was commensurate in the scope of its interests with the population of the nation in those days. It regulated trade, both international and interstate, and derived, in the absence of an income tax, the bulk of its income from two sources: the tariff, and land sales. Unclaimed land, which is to say land owned by the government, accounted for the majority of the territory of the United States before 1890. The regulation of land claims and land sales and transfers was an enormous undertaking--frequently, very little specie circulated in frontier areas, and bills of sale for land were treated much as bank notes would be. The government was smaller, but so was the population--the government was kept quite busy in those times.

Similarly, in the era of Horace Walpole, Parliament regulated a growing empire which included, in addition to the North American territories the islands of Barbados, St. Kitts, Nevis and Jamaica in the West Indies, a small but profitable colony of British Honduras on the mainland of central America, the colony of British Guyana on the South American coast, the colony at the Cape of Good Hope, the cities of Gibraltar in Spain and Tangiers opposite Gibraltar in Morroco (a present to Charles II by the Portugese after his marriage to the Portugese infanta, Catherine of Braganza), several cities on the Carnatic and Malabar coasts of India, and a host of small islands in the world's oceans. Additionally, in those days when social statisticians were just appearing, the government was responsible for the Poor Laws, the Union Workhouses, the Corn Laws and the vagrancy laws. Many of the functions of modern municipalities or counties were then in the hands of Parliament.

I would suggest that one could adduce a law that government expands to fill the space implied by the population it governs and the revenue it derives thereby.

There are party whips in the United States as well. Each house of Congress had a Majority Leader and a Majority Whip as well as a Minority Leader and a Minority Whip. The principle difference would be that American voters choose an individual, whereas European voters often choose a party rather than an individual. Where self-interest or factional interest are at stake, the politician will always look first to their prospects for re-election or government appointment.

0 Replies

Quote:

Tory candidates in marginal seats stir up storm by playing race card

By Colin Brown, Nigel Morris and Marie Woolf
22 April 2005

Conservative candidatesin marginal seats across Britain are raising fears about the impact of immigration and asylum on council tax, schools and hospitals to swing the populist vote behind the Tories.

A survey by The Independent reveals Tory candidates from the south coast to the Scottish Highlands are playing the immigration card to win over undecided voters dissatisfied with Labour.

One Tory leaflet from Andrew Pelling, standing in Croydon Central, where Lunar House, the Home Office immigration assessment office, is based, depicts a world map under the headline "Unlimited Immigration". It has an arrow pointing to Croydon.

A Labour campaigner said: "The message is pretty clear the world's immigrants are heading to Croydon."

A leading Tory in the area confirmed the policy was attracting support. "Immigration is still running very strongly here. I went campaigning in a Labour area last night and we couldn't get rid of our leaflets fast enough. This issue has been talked about for months at Westminster, but the public are just waking up to it," he said.

In other Conservative election literature, Nick de Bois, candidate in Enfield North, warns of "the strain put on local schools by bogus asylum-seekers". Anne Main, standing in St Albans, says five "illegal immigrants" were arrested and freed in the area although "nobody knows if these people were criminals, carrying diseases". Alan Milburn, Labour's campaign co-ordinator, said: "This confirms the Tory strategy is to exploit these issues, not to deal with them."

Tauhid Pasha, legal policy director of the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, said: "It's plain and simple scaremongering. Foreign nationals don't pose a threat to resources and public services." Some senior Tory figures are appalled at the tone of the campaign and an advertisement by Bob Spink, a Tory candidate in Castle Point, south Essex, targeting failed asylum-seekers, which calls on Tony Blair to "send them back".

One former minister who is standing as a Tory candidate in the South said: "Spink is a complete idiot. It is redolent of John Townend [a former Tory MP] at the last election but I don't think Michael will lift a finger ... I think Michael Howard could do himself a power of good by sounding as if he is the prime minister in waiting but he hasn't done that."

Mr Blair will answer the Tories in a speech today, where he will pledge strict controls on immigration and the speedier removal of failed asylum-seekers. But he will reject the Tory demand for an annual limit on the number of immigrants.

Immigration is one of the few issues on which the Tories have a substantial lead over Labour, and the Conservative campaign director, Lynton Crosby, has a reputation for hard-hitting attacks in his native Australia. The Tory campaign leadership has authorised leaflets and advertisements, which stay within the law but link local asylum costs to the soaring cost of the council tax. Others claim that the "bogus asylum-seekers" could bring diseases into this country, or put extra pressure on schools.

Tories paid for a newspaper advertisement covering the councils of Reading and Wokingham that linked the £17m spent on supporting asylum to the rise in council tax since 1997. Tory campaigners in Beaconsfield handed out leaflets saying immigration has tripled under Labour, "equivalent to a town the size of Peterborough arriving in the UK every year".

Douglas Taylor, who is contesting Perth, not an area of high immigration density, warns: "Voters face a clear choice at this election unlimited immigration under Labour or fair and controlled immigration with the Conservatives."

Oxford East Tories, where Virginia Morris is the Tory candidate, issued a leaflet saying only the Tories had the courage "to tell the truth about immigration and the courage to act". Highlighting the plight of immigrants exploited by people traffickers, it featured a mock job advertisement saying: "Girl trafficking raped 18 hours a day, no home leave, work for £1 per day, shame on your family."

Writing today in The Independent, Charles Kennedy, the Liberal Democrat leader, said Mr Howard should have sacked Mr Spink. Mr Kennedy accuses him of harping back to the kind of language used by Enoch Powell who once warned of rivers of blood in Britain. "I would disown him [Mr Spink]," said Mr Kennedy.

"Britain was "overwhelmingly a fair-minded, tolerant country but the use of language in the immigration debate was inflammatory," he added.

Where the parties stand

LABOUR

Points system for economic migrants, but no cap on numbers. Permanent residency for skilled workers with fluent English; "Britishness test". Will cut number of asylum applicationsthrough tougher controls. Asylum-seekers lose right to remain.

CONSERVATIVES

Annual quotas for refugees and economic migrants. Australian-style points system for economic migrants. Offshore asylum processing centres. New border police and 24-hour monitoring of some ports. Renegotiate UN convention on refugees.

LIBERAL DEMOCRATS

Annual quotas for economic migrants from outside the EU, based on economy's needs.

Common EU system to share refugees, but no annual limits. Asylum-seekers would be allowed to work; failed asylum-seekers could keep benefits.

UKIP

Zero net immigration. Points system for economic migrants, including from EU; border checks to enter or leave UK. 24-hour surveillance of all ports. "Welcome" for genuine refugees but faster removal of others. Citizenship to require a "Britishness" test.

BNP

Withdraw from refugee treaties; stop asylum-seekers entering United Kingdom. End immigration from "Third World" and EU unless Britons cannot fill jobs. Withdraw from EU.Stringent border controls. White foreigners such as Australians could still settle.

Source

0 Replies

Quote:

BNP publishes manifestoSaturday, 23 Apr 2005

The BNP has launched its 'Rebuilding British Democracy' manifesto today, calling for an end to immigration, reintroduction of the death sentence, and withdrawal from the EU.

The BNP are fielding more than one hundred candidates at this election, and have been emboldened in recent years by increased support in local and European elections.

In a planned clamp down on immigration, the manifesto proposes a life time ban on re-entry of people found to have violated immigration rules, and the party promised to withdraw troops from Iraq so as to station them at the Channel Tunnel and at ports in Kent.

The BNP claim that immigration leads to crime and says it would reverse historic immigration and give financial incentives to legal immigrants and their descendents to "to return to their lands of ethnic origin".

The manifesto sets out plans for criminal justice including a return of corporal punishment for petty criminals, and the use of capital punishment for paedophiles, terrorists and murderers.

Other proposals include "abolition of income tax", "a radical shift" in food production, and "abolishing multiculturalism". It also proposed eliminating "neo-Marxist egalitarianism" from education, to be replaced with acknowledgement of the "scientific fact" that people are "born with different abilities and potentials."

Source

0 Replies

The British on this thread probably already heard all about it, but one of the most interesting races going on these elections is taking place in London's East End. In the Bethnal Green and Bow constituency, of Brick Lane fame, George Galloway is challenging Labour's current MP, Oona King, as an independent.

Galloway, you may remember, is the dissenter Labour MP who became notorious for travelling to meet Saddam and publicly praise him in the mid-90s, and speaking up on Saddam's behalf again and again since: against the sanctions, against the war. There's been much fuzziness about the charity he founded to help the Iraqis and the lack of financial transparency around it. Much was made, after Saddam was chased out, of found documents that revealed Galloway had been paid by Saddam, but Galloway won at least one prolific libel case about them.

Formerly the Labour MP for the urban and very "red" district of Glasgow Govan, he was kicked out of the party unceremoniously, but since has gathered a new coalition of allies around him. In Bethnal Green and Bow, he is standing as the candidate of Respect!, a far-left coalition of socialist, communist and Trotskyite groups that has been making waves especially in local London politics. It is specifically making a blatant bid for the Muslim vote, campaiging primarily on opposition against the Iraq war. To fit the new target group, Galloway and Respect! have modified the traditional socialist rhetorics in some interesting ways. Galloway now for example makes much of his opposition to abortion, euthanasia and moral decay, catering to religious sensitivities. The campaign also focuses much on solidarity with the Palestinians and criticising Israel.

Oona King, meanwhile, is one of the "Blair Babes" who came into the House of Commons in '97 in a much-publicized injection of young women candidates (Labour now uses all-women shortlists in some constituencies and the number of female MPs has indeed been upped significantly). Oona is also the daughter of a Jewish mother and an African-American father, a civil rights activist who fled to Britain. She is also a loyal New Labour Blairite, however, and Galloway's other target group is the East End's traditional Labour constituency, those disappointed with the party's Blair-led lurch to the right. The district after all has a vigorous leftist tradition: its forbear even returned a Communist MP in 1945.

But its prolific political history hasn't featured only far-left radicals. It was also here that British fascist Oswald Mosley launched his party and marched the streets. In the 1997 elections, the British National Party candidate drew 7,5% of the vote.

King's background now appears to enable a two-in-one for Galloway and his appeal to the Muslim vote, with his campaign being accused of fostering anti-semitism. For example, when King attended a local commemoration for World War 2 victims and she and other guests were pelted with eggs, the Galloway campaign seemed to defend the egg-throwing, denying that it could have anything to do with anti-semitism.

The district is a volatile mix of backgrounds. A famous British working class stronghold where Muslim (and specifically, Bangladeshi) communities now make up half the electorate, it includes some of the most impoverished neighbourhoods of the country, but also an influx of yuppies and artists. (On Brick lane, streetsigns are bilingual, Hindi and English, and its shops a mix of colorful Asian and Arabic commerce and coffeehouses and galleries, as well as a famous and ancient bagel shop - this was also once a Jewish neighbourhood).

Galloway is playing its complex affinities expertly, having invested in face-to-face contact for a long time, talking with everyone. King on the other hand is seen as a "TV" MP: someone her constituents only see on TV. The outcome is very uncertain, but the race has already provoked some very interesting analysis.

Last weekend's Observer for example has two excellent pieces on the backgrounds:

- Things get bitter for the real Eastenders - Issues of faith could lose Labour one of its strongholds in the poorest borough of London,

- Comment: Following Mosley's East End footsteps - Appeals to communalism are once again echoing across the streets of Bow.

The Guardian has recent election results for the district.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Keep track of what six different opinion polls say in the BBC Poll Tracker.

Well, of course, it had to be coming: the feared nimh opinion polls graph.

Image converted to link because it would stretch the page:
Comparative overview of opinion poll (averages)

In case you're not sure what you're seeing:

RED is the Labour Party
BLUE is the Conservative Party
YELLOW are the Liberal Democrats
GREY is the other parties

Each of the thin lines represents one opinion poll's numbers for the party in question, taking the polls shown in the BBC poll tracker (ICM, MORI, Populus, YouGov, Communicate, NOP).

The fat linerepresents the average of all polls' numbers for the party in question.

Percentages are on the axis at the left.

0 Replies

Very good nimh.

as I am relying on you for a forecast, could you please tell me how many seats majority Labour will have, before I place my bet?

ps. Got 7:2 with William Hill on Ratzinger. Also had an each way bet, but still don't know who came second. Can you help?

0 Replies

IG index are offering 77-83 sell/buy. Think I will buy at 83... should I?

0 Replies

The UK General Election 2005 Thread

Related Topics