Brent East siezed by Lib Dems

[Jon_in_london]

In a local by-election, the previously safe labour seat of Brent east has been taken by the Lib-Dems.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3121336.stm

Be afriad Tony, be very afraid. This may be an indicator of the way the next election will go; massive stay aways and lots of poeple voting lib-dem out of sheer desperation and disgust at Labour and the Tories.

Mind, you the voter turn-out was only 36.4%. Indicating that most labour supporters didnt vote (probably as a protest).

One thing I find starnge is that when the BNP take a seat in a low turn-out election, the Lib-Dems and Labour are often heard crying about how they only won due to low turn-out and bemoaning how the BNP 'stole' the election. Were I in the BNP (which Im not), I would find this a good time to return the favour.

 

[BillyTK]

I know I should have an opinion on this, but I (possibly along with many of the Brent (non) voters) just feel overwhelmed by apathy. Also it's kind of dangerous to assume that council results like this will translate into defeat for the government at the next election; anyone remember Kinnock's last defeat? I suspect that when it comes to the crunch, then people will at best choose the least worst out of all of them, and at worst vote tactically.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I know I should have an opinion on this, but I (possibly along with many of the Brent (non) voters) just feel overwhelmed by apathy. Also it's kind of dangerous to assume that council results like this will translate into defeat for the government at the next election; anyone remember Kinnock's last defeat? I suspect that when it comes to the crunch, then people will at best choose the least worst out of all of them, and at worst vote tactically.

Why "at worst" vote tactically? Is it worse to vote in a way that means you avoid the worst outcome (from your viewpoint) than to vote for what you would prefer in the certain knowledge they will not win?

 

[Shane Costello]

Yes but remember the rather steep decline in voter turnout between 1997 and 2001. The situation in Britain mirrors the one in Ireland: An unpopular government that's lost the trust of the people, probably for good, but with no feasible opposition to take their place. The next tow gneeral elections in the UK and Ireland are bound to be interesting.

 

[Tricky]

So THIS is what George Bush meant when he said he was "going to bring about a regime change."

 

[BillyTK]

Why "at worst" vote tactically? Is it worse to vote in a way that means you avoid the worst outcome (from your viewpoint) than to vote for what you would prefer in the certain knowledge they will not win?

'Cos in its ideal form, the democratic system is about selecting the people/party you'd like to see in power, not about trying to obstruct the people you'd not like to see in power. But on re-reading what I said, I think the choices are equally dismal...

 

[Jon_in_london]

'Cos in its ideal form, the democratic system is about selecting the people/party you'd like to see in power, not about trying to obstruct the people you'd not like to see in power. But on re-reading what I said, I think the choices are equally dismal...

I think a far better system would be to have a "plus vote" for whoever you want to win or a "negative vote" for whoever you dont want to win. I think there should also be a "F8ck-off vote" when you just think everyone is crap- like they are now.

 

[BillyTK]

Yes but remember the rather steep decline in voter turnout between 1997 and 2001. The situation in Britain mirrors the one in Ireland: An unpopular government that's lost the trust of the people, probably for good, but with no feasible opposition to take their place. The next tow gneeral elections in the UK and Ireland are bound to be interesting.

It's more a case of an unpopular leader rather than an unpopular party per se—I'm kind of reminded of the final years of Margaret Thatcher's leadership of the Conservative party—we do seem to prefer charismatic leaders over party politics, and we really love to build 'em up and knock 'em down. It'll be interesting to see how long before the knives come out for Tony Blair...

 

[BillyTK]

I think a far better system would be to have a "plus vote" for whoever you want to win or a "negative vote" for whoever you dont want to win. I think there should also be a "F8ck-off vote" when you just think everyone is crap- like they are now.

Inflatable rat for prime minister!

 

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by BillyTK:
It's more a case of an unpopular leader rather than an unpopular party per se—I'm kind of reminded of the final years of Margaret Thatcher's leadership of the Conservative party—we do seem to prefer charismatic leaders over party politics, and we really love to build 'em up and knock 'em down. It'll be interesting to see how long before the knives come out for Tony Blair...

True, but then the continuing unpopularity of the Tories suggests that popular antipathy towards wholle parties and political movements can take root. Not saying that's happening here, but it's a possibility.

Inflatable rat for prime minister!

Haven't they already elected a monkey as mayor of Hartlepool?

 

[BillyTK]

True, but then the continuing unpopularity of the Tories suggests that popular antipathy towards wholle parties and political movements can take root. Not saying that's happening here, but it's a possibility.

Excellent observation. I'd say it's not just a possibility, but it actually happens; I doubt anyone could have imagined Labour's re-election during Michael Foot's leadership, or the Tories' success in the eighties from the perspective of Ted Heath's leadership. I guess that for many people in the UK, it would be fair to say that the leader of a political party is the party. And judging by some of these leaders' conduct, so would they!