Linkage.

Gentlemen? Discuss

Yay! A political topic... ^_^

In fact, I'm pretty ignorant about British politics. I'm more interested in Canadian, American and international politics. All I know about Blair is that he's one of Bush's lapdogs, along with Stephen Harper and John Howard. As a result, I don't really like him, but I don't know enough to make a good judgement.

Interesting. I can't help but feel this is a political ploy for his party. By resigning now, his part won't be tied to Blair come the next election and people may be less inclined to not vote for them.

Unfortunately I don't follow British politics well enough to know if my instincts are correct.

Blair announced he would not stand for the next election ages ago. If anything, it would almost be better for Labour electorally if he had stayed: right now, there seems to be no doubt that he'll be succeeded as leader by Gordon Brown, who there is a great deal of pessimism and division about within Labour ranks, and who seems old and past his best in contrast with the current Conservative leader, David Cameron (who is dragging the Tories towards the centre, making a big thing of the environment, and is fresh-faced and young). An incumbent Brown would be Cameron's ideal choice of opponent: lacking in public trust, with no electoral mandate, little charisma, and still carrying all the political controversies of the Blair premiership on his shoulders.

I wouldn't dismiss Blair as Bush's lapdog, either. He's held office for a decade, he's an extremely intelligent and skilled politician, and he has made the country richer, as well as making huge progress in Northern Ireland. I don't like him, or approve of him - mainly for the continuous dishonesty of his administration, with all the spin and sleaze that has come to light, as well as the exploitative constitutional reforms and of course the War on Terror - but at the same time, I feel I have to admire him, which is more than I could say for Mr. Bush. And you get the feeling that he genuinely was doing what he thought was right.

Ah, thanks for the enlightenment, Chili. ;) I had already heard some good things about Blair's economical policies, but I must admit I don't know anything about them. If you say they're efficient, then I trust your word.

So was Bush: he's absolutely convinced that his War on Terror is right. That's what makes him all the more dangerous. One who is wrong while believing that he's right is much worse than one who is wrong and knows it.

The bad guy is Cheney, not Bush. Bush is just stupid.

.

I read the title and thought "I'm not resigning from anything, am I?"

Note: My real name is Blair.

Khrangar

Debatable, IMO: I always got the distinct impression that Bush was waging the War on Terror, not simply to make America safer, but to expand American military and economic power. The fact that he waged war on Iraq- which had absolutely NOTHING to do with Al Qaeda or terrorism-- simply strengthens this impression.

Of course, I've also heard a lot of crackpot theories that he already knew 911 was on the way and did nothing to stop it, since he wanted the war (hence the reason why he continued to read that story to that class instead of rushing into action). Of course, I've also heard theories that 911 was orchestrated by US warmongers all along, and that a plane hitting a tower's upper levels would not cause it to collapse from below, but I tend to ignore anything which has little or no realistic evidence behind it.

(from www.xkcd.com)

Bush does not rule alone: he has a whole load of ministers and political strategists. I get the feeling that it's his staff who want this war (like Cheney, who has links with the oil industry), and they give Bush delusions of leading a "crusade against evil". Still, Bush is one of the worst US presidents in modern history.

I never understood what Americans expect from their presidents. Carter, one of the most unpopular presidents, is also one of the most honest of them all, while Reagan, who is very popular, is in my opinion a devious and hypocritical sneak.

But now we're drifting away from the topic...

Sorry for the double post, but I have a few questions about British politics.


1. I heard there are elections coming. About when will they take place?

2. What are the main parties and their left/right, liberal/authoritarian positions?

3. Which are the parties that stand a good chance to win?

4. Out of curiosity, about what percentage of the vote does the British Nazi National Party usually get? They'll never win, of course, but I'd like to know how much of the British population is actually mad enough to vote for them.

1. There must be an general election once at the end of every term. The term is allowed to last up to five years: the Prime Minister can call the election whenever he wants within that time. The last election was in 2005. So Gordon Brown could decide to call one as soon as he becomes Prime Minister in June, to try and give himself some legitimacy: doesn't look like he will, though, in which case the election could be as late as May 2010.

2. The main parties are the Labour (now New Labour) party, the Conservative party (or Tories), and the Liberal Democrat party.

It's really a two-party contest, between Labour and the Conservatives: for most of the twentieth century, the baton has been passed back and forth between these two parties. Labour are traditionally left-wing unionists/socialists representing the working classes, the Tories are traditionally right-wing traditionalists representing the landed interest and the upper classes.

However, in '79 Thatcher changed what the Conservative Party was all about, turning it into an economically neoliberal and socially neoconservative party (a bit like today's Republicans, but more British, more downplayed and with an intelligent leader), and successfully trying to attract the votes of the working and middle classes en masse. Her extremely controversial rule changed the face of Britain a great deal: she dismantled Britain's industry, transforming the country into a service economy, cut taxes from the Keynesian tax-and-spend policies that had been the consensus between Labour and the old Conservative party, and smashed the extremely powerful unions, which sometimes led to violent conflict, and destroyed the powerbase of Old Labour. Plus there was the Falklands.

Thatcher reigned from '79 to 1990, after which she was brought down by internal party feuding: surprisingly, the Conservatives won another election under 'boring' John Major, who led a lame duck Thatcherite government for another full term, before Tony Blair's 'New Labour' took over in 1997 after an unprecedented 18 years of Conservative rule. Labour had re-branded themselves to deal with how totally Old Labour had been defeated by Thatcherism: abandoning traditional union-aligned, high-taxes high-spending social democracy, they became a middle-of-the-road party, believing, as Mr. Blair put it, in "what works". A very powerful, well-spun and charismatic election campaign contrasted against a divided Conservative party splattered with sleaze and generally disliked after 18 years of increasingly disliked government led to New Labour gaining power by a landslide in '97, and for most of his reign Mr Blair has held a large majority in the Commons: in that time he has poured a great deal of money into the public health system and education (although with debatable results, and with a number of controversial public-private partnerships, such as the Vardy Academies), has partially enacted liberalising constitutional reforms (such as the Human Rights Act, reform of the Lords and devolution to Wales and Scotland), and introduced a minimum wage - but at the same time he joined and supported the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, continued the trend of privatisation that started under Thatcher, has been friendly to big business and has continued to try and keep taxes down (with the aid of the very competent chancellor, Gordon Brown). There are other achievements that feel worth mentioning, like Kosovo, Sierra Leone and Northern Ireland, but they don't really fit on the left-right axis very well.

The Conservative Party became a joke after Blair took power: it has gone through four party leaders since 1997, and until recently did not look like presenting a real challenge to New Labour. Now, however, with New Labour unpopular after Iraq and increasing revelations about sleaze and dishonesty in the high corridors of power, they look to have a chance under David Cameron - who has also re-branded his party, attempting to pull them towards the centre with a heavy emphasis on the environment and the National Health Service. It's yet to be seen whether he'll succeed, but if the trend continues, it'll soon be difficult to tell the difference between the two main parties' points of view.

The Liberal Democrats are the third party, and always have been: they're a relic of the old Liberal Party, which held Labour's place during the 19th Century and the early 20th century, finally fading from existence when Labour took over after World War Two. Traditionally very liberal, and certainly more left-wing than New Labour, they are not really socialist however: they are the party of principled opposition, which some critics say they have the luxury of indulging in because they know they will not get into power - traditional voting blocs and the First Past the Post electoral system being slanted heavily against them. They have benefited greatly from sentiment against the war in Iraq, which they were the only party to oppose, but they still will not win this election, or the one after, or for the forseeable future. If they ever did, it would mean a big change for British politics, as they would introduce proportional representation in the Commons - a suggestion that has been strongly resisted by Labour and the Conservatives.

So, in summary, I suppose you could say that we used to have a liberal party, a socialist party, and a conservative party, and we now have a centrist liberal party, a centre-right party, and a centre-left party, with barely a visible inch between them, but each carrying all that historical baggage about their political leanings: they each have bases of traditonal voters, and can't deviate too far from the traditional model without losing their 'safe' constituencies, and plummeting out of the contest altogether.

3. Suppose I already covered that: Labour or Conservative.

4. Not sure about percentages, but they've never won a seat in the Commons. The electoral system tends to keep fringe parties out.

Two things of interest there. One, that you don't have proportional voting. Two, that your major parties have barely a split hair between them. I note that modern Labour and Liberal* in Australia are the same.

Tangentially interesting, our minority parties never get into the House of Representatives (or if they do, rarely), but usually have members in the Senate. Do the fringe elements of British politics have Lord sympathisers?



*Confusingly, the right-centre party.

I think all of Bush's Posse are doomed ASAP. At the moment, Australians are predicting a thrashing for Howard at the next election. His opponent is charismatic, and new (in that he doesn't have the decades of lies behind him). I'm hearing similar stuff from the US, and if you say Blair's party is doomed as well.

It makes you think if the Iraq thing (which all leaders strongly supported against the will of its countrymen) has just blown up in their faces.

New Labour aren't doomed. It's just that they're facing a serious competition this time, whereas the other elections since '97 have been foregone conclusions.

Also, the British public were in favour of the War on Iraq before the WMDs stuff came out. Unlike the U.S., Canada or Australia, we were actually in range of the supposed weapons... it scared most of us into supporting it (myself included, although I was lukewarm and changed my mind pretty quickly, in the fine tradition of all pinko liberal patriot-haters everywhere). It was only after the WMDs thing was exposed as a hoax that public opinion swung decidedly against the war.

EDIT: Regarding Benedictus' House of Lords question - no, not really. Lords are either hereditaries (who there are far less of now, thanks to the reforms) who tend towards a Tory point of view, or appointed, in which case they have been appointed by a panel set up by Mr. Blair, which selects from a fixed ratio of the three main parties as well as independents. If anything, members of the House of Lords have a tendency to be individualist, as they have their seats for life, and thus don't have to worry much about what the whips are saying.

Unfortunately, the Conservative Party of Canada isn't doomed either. Their only serious opponent, the Liberal Party (a right-of-center party, just like New Labour and the Australian Liberal Party), doesn't have very good chances to win elections with their current leader. Besides, the next elections are in quite a bit of time.

That's comforting. At least they don't have as much power as France's Front National.