andrewducker: (Default)
andrewducker ([personal profile] andrewducker) wrote2003-09-19 11:57 pm
  • Add Memory
  • Share This Entry

Best news I've heard all week

At a by-election in London there's been a massive swing from Labour to the Lib-Dems.

2001 Results: Labour 63%, Conservatives 18%, Liberals 10%
2003 Results: Labour 33%, Conservatives 16%, Liberals 39%

I was expecting Labour's popularity to drop, but the fact that the Conservative's also dropped and people moved to the Liberals in massive quantities makes me rather happy. People have been avoiding voting Liberal because their seen as a wasted vote. This makes it quite clear that they're not.

More at the BBC.
Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[identity profile] wordofblake.livejournal.com 2003-09-20 04:46 am (UTC)(link)
I was disgusted to see all the people who voted Labour in 1997 "to get the Conservatives out", in a way I think they deserve the shitty government they have now for being so short sighted.

I dont see why I have to suffer though. I voted sensibly
andrewducker: (Default)

[personal profile] andrewducker 2003-09-20 04:52 am (UTC)(link)
Who did you vote for?

[identity profile] wordofblake.livejournal.com 2003-09-20 05:01 am (UTC)(link)
The Lib Dems obviously

I pursued a novel strategy of voting for the party I would like to win

[identity profile] allorin.livejournal.com 2003-09-21 10:47 am (UTC)(link)
That makes no sense. Labour were seen as the lesser of two evils. You'd rather the Tories were left in power? Would things have been better? Certainly, most people felt not, which is why Labour were voted in.

Sadly, Labour, or at least Tony Blair's Labour, are now almost a carbon-copy of the Tory government they replaced. It would have been difficult for anyone to see that coming. They have acheived soome good though.

Lib Dem wouldn't have gotten in in 1997. Next time round, they should do far better.

Now a vote for SNP - that's short-sighted.
andrewducker: (Default)

[personal profile] andrewducker 2003-09-21 11:27 am (UTC)(link)
I don't agree that they're a carbon copy. On many social issues they're miles ahead (the House of Lords, Gay issues, etc.)

Fiscally they seem to be Tory-like, but then they announced the end of Clause 4 long before they were elected and their new belief in market-driven solutions.

The war, on the other hand, was a shock for a lot of people...

[identity profile] allorin.livejournal.com 2003-09-22 03:48 am (UTC)(link)
Fiscally is the most important thing, IMHO. OK, so they're not a fascist as the Tories, but poor people are barely better off, if at all, under 'New Labour'. There's minimum wage, yeah, but the benefits system is still a shambles, and the unemployment figures they keep touting have been massaged to the nth degree.

Carbon copy was perhaps a little strong, but after winning a second term, I really hoped for a return to more traditional Labour values - spreading the wealth, and so on - that never materialised. I genuinely think Tony Blair is far more interested in retaining power for himself than he is in doing some good with it, when push comes to shove.
andrewducker: (Default)

[personal profile] andrewducker 2003-09-22 10:02 am (UTC)(link)
Yeah, you're right, I think.

Which means he's having a nasty time of it at the moment, what with the latest polls...

[identity profile] wordofblake.livejournal.com 2003-09-22 11:38 am (UTC)(link)
There weren't the lesser of two evils because it wasnt a binary system. But you are right, the Lib Dems wouldnt have got in in 1997, but only because people didnt vote for them instead of the Tories

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only