UK Election Thread

[Provost Harrison]

Ian Paisley must be the least lovable man in politics...he just bawls and screams and shouts all the time...arsehole...

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Ian Paisley must be the least lovable man in politics...he just bawls and screams and shouts all the time...arsehole...

It's no surprise his 'doctorate' is one of those American send off and buy ones.


He's as lovable as his sectarian opponents.


God is love.

[Winston]

Originally posted by Drogue

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi

Not crack, just the sweet the thrill of victory. Three leaders ordered the invasion, three leaders re-elected All of the left's threats of electoral defeat for the coalitions have shown to add up to absolutely nothing!

Considering all leaders live in very safe seats, I can't remember the last time a leader of *any* party lost his seat. And the leftosty coalitions have managed to get George Galloway elected, a far far less likely thing than deposing any of the main party leaders.

Moreover, the votes in utterly safe Tory seats, like Howard, don't usually care about things like the Iraq war.

Um, Shi wasn't talking about British party leaders, but the three main leaders behind the Iraq war; Bush, Howard and Blair all got re-elected.

And also Anders Fogh Rasmussen as lotm was kind enough to point out.

[Sandman]

Ian Paisley reminds me of General Woundwart from Watership Down.

[CerberusIV]

The NI elections get more coverage here in Ireland than the British elections do - not surprising because they have more direct relevance.

the view here seems to be that it is a good thing Tony got back. Makes sense really as, if he is going to go in 2-3 years time, pushing hard for, and getting, a long term settlement in NI would be a memorable final achievement for him.

The DUP taking almost all the Unionist vote is actually not as bad as it looks. The political analysts here (or some of them at least) are beginning to make the point that the younger figures in the DUP who now have Westminster seats are likely to want to do more than just rant. Paisley may remain as the figurehead but a deal is likely regardless of his rhetoric.

Also, the DUP now have a clear mandate. When the UUP were the largest Unionist party the DUP could do little more than be obstructive. Now they have the power and the responsibility and there is nowhere to hide if they don't deliver. A similar argument applies to Sinn Fein.

It is going to be interesting. Peter Hain as NI Secretary (seen as a safe pair of hands) does suggest Tony is going to take an interest and want someone reliable on the spot to see things don't get messed up.

[child of Thor]

Peter Hain is also a welshman(if i've got the right guy ), which i've found counts for a lot when dealing with Irish folk, especialy in the south - celtic brotherhood and all that, so yes it seems a sensible post for getting a positive result from the westminster side of the equation.

[alva]

Originally posted by Whoha
Ok html people, why the gobs of space here?

You need to delete all the white space (quote this post to see what I mean and see the difference with yours)

UK NATIONAL RESULTS: IN DETAIL
Party	Seats	Gain	Loss	Net	Votes	%	+/-
Labour	354	0	47	-47	9,529,319	36.2	-5.8
Conservative	197	36	3	+33	8,737,150	33.2	+0.5
Lib Dem	62	16	5	+11	5,970,540	22.7	+3.8
SNP	6	2	0	+2	412,267	1.6	-0.2
Plaid Cymru	3	0	1	-1	174,838	0.7	-0.1
Respect	1	1	0	+1	68,065	0.3	+0.3
Ind Kid Hosp	1	0	0	0	18,739	0.1	0.0
UKIP	0	0	0	0	605,282	2.3	+0.8
Green	0	0	0	0	257,758	1.0	+0.3
BNP	0	0	0	0	191,573	0.7	+0.5
Scottish Soc	0	0	0	0	43,514	0.2	-0.1
Scottish Grn	0	0	0	0	25,760	0.1	+0.1
Liberal	0	0	0	0	19,068	0.1	0.0
Others	1	1	0	+1	234,006	0.6
Turnout					26,327,419	61.3	+2.2
After625 of 646 seats declared

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Winston
Um, Shi wasn't talking about British party leaders, but the three main leaders behind the Iraq war; Bush, Howard and Blair all got re-elected.

Ahh, sorry, I thought he meant Howard as in Michael Howard, the leader of the British opposition, who was also in favour of the war, and was refering to the fact that Howard and Blair both won their seats.

Since this is a British election thread, Howard would normally refer to Michael, as he is something of a prominent figure here.

[child of Thor]

Originally posted by Drogue

edit.....

Since this is a British election thread, Howard would normally refer to Michael, as he is something of a prominent figure here.

Your pic reminds me of him somehow?

[Provost Harrison]

It looks to me that the Lib Dems wouldn't need that much a larger proportion of the vote before they start taking quite hefty numbers of seats...same for the Tories...

[Alexander's Horse]

Tony Blah aside - fraternal congrats to Labour party members in the UK from Horse and all the other Aussie ALP members - we're cheering yah on comrades

You give us hope as we continue to patiently work to overthrow the Australian tory c^nts and all their works

[Zulu Elephant]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
It looks to me that the Lib Dems wouldn't need that much a larger proportion of the vote before they start taking quite hefty numbers of seats...same for the Tories...

I picture isnt quite as simple as that. Lib Dem support is scattered throughout the country and not concentrated enough to allow them to win a lot of seats without a MASSIVE swing.

Plus a lot of the Lib Dems extra votes this time came from Labour supporters pissed off about the war and tuition fees - this will fade over time, especially once Gordon Brown replaces Blair.

Zulu Elephant prediction 2009: Labour regains a lot of its support that it lost to the Lib Dems in 2005 and is returned with an increased majority.

[Winston]

For an outside observer, I think the most interesting thing is the low turnout of only ~60%. It would seem there could be a lot to gain, for both the parties and society as a whole, by getting more people interested in their country's state of affairs.

It really is amazing for me to see such a low participation of voters. Here we always have 85-88% turnout for general elections.

[Shi Huangdi]

Is it very likely when the boundary commision redraws constituencies it will be made so the distribution of seats better reflects the vote? In this election Labour only got 3% more votes then the Tories but got over 150 more seats.

[child of Thor]

Originally posted by Zulu Elephant


I picture isnt quite as simple as that. Lib Dem support is scattered throughout the country and not concentrated enough to allow them to win a lot of seats without a MASSIVE swing.

Plus a lot of the Lib Dems extra votes this time came from Labour supporters pissed off about the war and tuition fees - this will fade over time, especially once Gordon Brown replaces Blair.

Zulu Elephant prediction 2009: Labour regains a lot of its support that it lost to the Lib Dems in 2005 and is returned with an increased majority.

Most likely true, still i would hope the Lib Dems can grow from here - i just think it makes a more rounded and healthy democracy when you have more effective choice

As for the 2009 prediction, for me to come back to Labour i'll want to see Brown bring in a load of his own people - bye bye all the Jack straws/blunketts/Reids and spin doctors. Basicaly anyone who had their finger in this whole Iraq issue. Then i will know the taint has been removed and the world will remain safer

Edit as a side note - seems pressure is building on Tony Blair? or maybe its just the media hypeing?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4528009.stm