smsmith40 Posted May 6, 2005 Share Posted May 6, 2005 Yeah! Apologies for letting JP and a couple of others get under my skin. Kilmer - If you read my above post you'll see why the war hurt TB. Three party politics makes it more complicated than you may realise. The Conservatives (Tories) have not increased their share of the vote significantly, some natural Labour supporters have deserted TB, probably due to the War. They have voted Liberal Democrat (anti-war) in some key seats which has allowed the Tories to win. The only totally anti-war party(Lib Dems) is the only party which has increased its share of the vote. The war is pretty unpopular here, what has been the big problem for TB is he has taken the country to War on what seems to at least have been a false premise, at worst, open dishonesty. It will now be politically impossible for ANY British politician to support the US in any military action with UK troops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted May 6, 2005 Share Posted May 6, 2005 Maybe I dont understand how this system works. But according to this http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,155664,00.html the Torries increased their number of seats by 30. Are the Torries not war supporters? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smsmith40 Posted May 6, 2005 Share Posted May 6, 2005 OK quick summary There are 3 main political parties in the UK (excluding the various nationalist parties). Tony Blair leads the Labour party which used to be a traditional socialist party untiil TB dragged it to the vcentre ground in the mid 90s. Tony Blair Supprted the war, largely against the wishes of his party. Michael Howard leads the Conservative party (Tories) which is the traditional right of centre party.They supported the war Charles Kennedy leads the Liberal Democrats which was the centrist party, equidistant to the others but has recently moved to the left into the political waters recently vacated by the Labour Party. They opposed the war TB made the decision to join the US in the War in Iraq, The Tories supported tht decision, the Lib Dems opposed it. The UK first-past-the-post electoral system is not designed for three party politics. It is essentially 646 separate elections which produces members of parliament. There are three kind of seats, SAfe Labour seats, Safe Tory seats and marginals. In the safe seats a monkey could stand for the dominant party and be elected. These seats NEVER change hands The election is decided in the 100 or so marginal seats in which the incumbent is challenged by one of the other parties. By virtue of having a large majority Labour up to yesterday held most of these marginal seats. They have now lost around 47 of those seats (around 30 to the Tories, 12ish to the Lib Dems and a couple to Nationalists and independents). This has largely happened, not because Labour supporters have started voting Conservative but because they have either not voted or voted Lib Dem and this has allowed the Tories to pick up seats. In the 2001 election the split was roughly Labour 41%, Conservative 32%, Lib Dems 19%, Others 8%. In this election the final share looks to be Labour 36%, Conservative 33%, Lib Dems 23%, Others 8%. As you can see, despite their popular vote staying pretty much the same, the Tories have picked up seats be cause the anti-war Lib Dems have picked up most of the decline in the Labour Vote. I hope this helps Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted May 6, 2005 Share Posted May 6, 2005 I wish it did. But it didnt. I can see that the Liberal Dems picked up seats, but from what you say, they picked them up from Labour. Which is a seat that was anti war to begin with, and stays that way. Whereas the Torries picked up seats that were anti-war, and are now pro-war. Not saying Im right, just confused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smsmith40 Posted May 6, 2005 Share Posted May 6, 2005 OK, I'll try again. I'll concentrate on marginal seats. Most marginals are Labour/Tory contest where the share of the vote looks someting like this. Labour 42% Conservative 38% Lib Dem 20% If 15% of Labour are so disgusted by TB taking the country to War thant they switch their alliegence to the Lib Dems then the share of the vote will look like this Labour 34% Conservative 38% Lib Dem 26%. The Tories have picked up a seat without increasing their sahre of the vote at all. This appears to have happened in about 30 cases. The antiwar sentiment in the country has helped the PRO-war Tory party. Perverse isn't it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted May 6, 2005 Share Posted May 6, 2005 But didnt the Torries increase there share 30 seats? Not just a percentage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smsmith40 Posted May 6, 2005 Share Posted May 6, 2005 The Tories have increased the number of seats they have won through the mechanism I have described. They have NOT increased significantly their share of the vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted May 6, 2005 Share Posted May 6, 2005 Okay, let's back up to square one. How many seats are there? How many did the Torries hold prior to this election. And how many did they win this time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted May 6, 2005 Share Posted May 6, 2005 Okay, I think I just got it. Do people in England vote for a specific candidate? (IE, do they vote for the equivalent of a Congressman?) Or just a party, and the party then chooses who sits in Parliament? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingtiger1013 Posted May 6, 2005 Share Posted May 6, 2005 Are you any of you watching "The History of Britain" on The History International Channel? Absolutely fascinating stuff, at least to me. I have learned more from this series in the past few months than I ever did in school. If you get a chance, treat yourself and watch it. You will learn a lot and that's more than can be said from watching American Idol....:puke: What a waste of time and brain cells that is...:2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smsmith40 Posted May 6, 2005 Share Posted May 6, 2005 AS I said earlier a general election is actually 646 individual elections for individual candidates Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted May 6, 2005 Share Posted May 6, 2005 Well then Im confused again. How can the Torries win an additional 30 elections and not be seen as gaining more power? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted May 6, 2005 Share Posted May 6, 2005 Originally posted by Kilmer17 Well then Im confused again. How can the Torries win an additional 30 elections and not be seen as gaining more power? I think his point is that they have gained more power, but it's not because they're more popular. The third party took votes away from the Labour Party in the individual parliament races, which allowed the Tories to win. It's like when people say that Perot took votes away from Bush I, allowing Clinton to win, or that Nader took votes away from Gore, allowing Bush II to win. The Tories haven't become more popular, the third party is the only one gaining votes. However, because the third party takes most of its votes from Labour, it is the Tories that are winning the seats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Punani2 Posted May 6, 2005 Share Posted May 6, 2005 Originally posted by smsmith40 It got you an enormous amount of sympathy and goodwill. Which the US government then spent like water. I'd at least expected some interest in the electoral fate of the US's staunchest ally... but apparently not. Given last night's results I wouldn't be expecting too much support from the UK for the next military adventure. Sympathy and goodwill didn't get us anything either. My statements have nothing to do with the UK elections that I AM INTERESTED in thank you very much. As for your other remarks over UK military support. That is a two way street. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted May 6, 2005 Share Posted May 6, 2005 Chris Dillow says that Labour will use the execuse that Iraq was the reason for their lloss, not their bad policy. I've also talked with some Torries who would agree with the saying 'war is the health of the State'. Further, I've heard rumor that the British Muslim population, which tends to be somewhat conservative on most internal issues, finds the war to be very distasteful. In the US, the neocons(neolibs) have succesfully(?) quieted anti-war right-wingers, or at least got them painted as left-wing nuts (of course, that's because the right-wing, anti-war crowd is so virulently anti-state as to be easily dubbed crazy, tin-foil hat types). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted May 6, 2005 Share Posted May 6, 2005 If we were talking percentages, Id agree. But the Torries gained 30 actual seats. Seats that before belonged to Labour. So while it's tru that the Lib Dem took MORE seats away. Clearly, the Torries took some as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrisbob74 Posted May 6, 2005 Author Share Posted May 6, 2005 Originally posted by Kilmer17 Okay, I think I just got it. Do people in England vote for a specific candidate? (IE, do they vote for the equivalent of a Congressman?) Or just a party, and the party then chooses who sits in Parliament? Yes, each party fields a candidate at each seat, whoever gets elected, becomes an MP in the house of commons. Blairs problem is not with the war itself, the split in this country is pretty much 50-50, I don't think it had so much to do with politics as much as just straight up for or against. The fact he lied, got a judge who was heading a report into how the war was lauched to change his mind and other such things are more his problem. A former Labour MP called George Galloway, who was deselected won a seat off Labour on a pure anti-war stance. The Libs are basically the party you vote for if you can't bring yourself to vote for the main two parties, last night, they had a lot of success vs Labour, not winning a lot of seats, but in some seats where Labour had large majorities they cut them significantly. The British public also don't like Blair for his concern with image and the way he appears to want to make his mark on history. If Gordon Brown takes over at some point befoe the next election, it's safe to say Labour should be heading for 4 on the bounce, but this election send out a strong message to them that althought no one is ready for the Tories again, Labour can not take it easy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smsmith40 Posted May 6, 2005 Share Posted May 6, 2005 THis is my last post tonight but I am hoping that we've cleared up some issues. My point still remains. It will be politically impossible for the new government to support any further US military action in the US with UK forces on the ground. If only the politicians on both sides of the pond had treated us like adults and talked about the issues rather than hide behind the fictional threat of WMDs perhaps ther could be a consensus about the way forward in the middle east and the response to religous fundamentalism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iheartskins Posted May 6, 2005 Share Posted May 6, 2005 Originally posted by smsmith40 My point still remains. It will be politically impossible for the new government to support any further US military action in the US with UK forces on the ground. Your just talking about Iraq right? You're not suggesting that if South Korea attacked the US that the UK wouldn't support us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted May 6, 2005 Share Posted May 6, 2005 Serious ?. Can anyone explain to me how the Torries gained actual seats and not be considered gaining? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smsmith40 Posted May 6, 2005 Share Posted May 6, 2005 Kilmer I'll try and say it again. The Tories share of the vote has been pretty much unchanged since the last two elections at which they gave up a majorities of 150. The reducton of Labour's majority and the increased number of Tory seats is almost entirely down to the sucess of the 3rd party (Lib DEms) No new peolpe are voting Tory, by and large votes are moving between the other two parties. Until the Tories improve their share of the vote into the high 30s low 40s there is no chance of a Conservative government. I may not be explaining myself well but at some point you may need to accept that I have a deeper understanding of this subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smsmith40 Posted May 6, 2005 Share Posted May 6, 2005 Iheartskins Clearly if the US were actually attacked the UK would stand with the US as it always has. What I'm talking about is if GWB decide that Iran or Syria are next on their list for liberation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iheartskins Posted May 6, 2005 Share Posted May 6, 2005 Originally posted by smsmith40 Iheartskins Clearly if the US were actually attacked the UK would stand with the US as it always has. What I'm talking about is if GWB decide that Iran or Syria are next on their list for liberation. Gotcha. That's what I thought you meant. I think the UK and the US share too much to not help each other out in dire circumstances such as those. I miss reading the Evening Standard everyday on my walk home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted May 6, 2005 Share Posted May 6, 2005 smith, I dont doubt you have more knowledge on it. Sorry if I seem like Im being obtuse, that's not the case at all. Can you see though where Im coming from? I see the Tories gaining 30 seats, and gaining the percent of seats. It just stands to reaon that more people voted for them this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smsmith40 Posted May 7, 2005 Share Posted May 7, 2005 No Kilmer, almost exactly the same number of people voted for the Tories as last time, they gained seats because Labour lost votes to the Lib Dems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.