Hi from the States.

[SeanQuinn]

A question. Our liberalism and Democratic Party = your Labour party, correct? I know Tories = conservatives and Liberal Dems = middle men.

I am intrigued by UK politics, so please correct me if I am wrong.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

1. That's what it was in 1997, but things are more muddled now

On taxes and the economy, the Labour Party is to the left of the Democratic Party, it's economic policy is closer to the U.S. Green Party. The Liberal Democrats are also left of the Democratic Party and is closer to the U.S. Green Party economically. The Conservatives are the equivalent to the DLC economically.

On social policy, the Labour Party holds positions that Bill Clinton would typically hold. The Lib Dems holds positions that Howard Dean would hold. The Conservatives would be a close to what a standard Republican would hold (but short of banning abortion).

This is my estimate anyway.

[muriel_volestrangler]

2. As an example of the muddle - a retiring Labour MP has become a Lib Dem

because he thinks 'New' Labour is illiberal.

The idea and practice of Britain as a liberal country has always been under threat but it has taken a Labour prime minister to secure its demise. For Tony Blair, principles and ideas have become impediments to the continuance of his lust for power.

His scorn for liberal Britain is surprising for one who had an expensive liberal education and who entered politics as an aspirant liberal lawyer, an ardent member of CND and a standard-bearer for the left.

People such as myself should have realised the writing was on the wall when a Labour government twice tried to abolish trial by jury. From there, it was a short step for Blair (but a huge step for the rest of us) to get suppliant backbench Labour MPs to vote for an unlawful war, the setting up of a gulag at Belmarsh for foreigners and deprivation of liberty through "control orders" and "pass laws" for British citizens.

I voted against the war on Iraq and it becomes clearer every day that Blair decided to go to war after meeting Bush on his Texas ranch in 2002. After that he lied to persuade the country to support him.

http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=633038

[non sociopath skin]

4. So why leave to join another party which supported the war ...

... albeit after it actually started.

BTW I noticed, during the LibDem press conference yesterday, Kennedy was careful NOT to say (as the Spanish Socialists did) "Vote for us and the troops come home now." Lots of easy-to-get-out-of waffling about timetables and appropriateness which would be a convenient coalition get-out.

The Skin

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. Because the 'you broke it, you fix it' principle applies

Yes, I'd rather the British troops were back already (it was when Abu Ghraib became known that I decided remaining there was doing more harm than good), but once the invasion had started, pulling out the moment Saddam fled Baghdad would have been even worse. And before that, they took a standard line of "don't tell the troops they're dying for nothing " - common to nearly all politicians, and indeed people.

And Segdemore isn't just leaving over Iraq - it's the terror laws, foundation hospitals, topup fees etc.

[ben_packard]

3. Well summed up. NT

[T_i_B]

6. It used to be like that

but these days the rightward drift of UK politics has meant that we have the Tories on the Thatcherite right, New Labour on the right as well and the Liberal Democrats, who used to be the "centre party" are now on the left of the UK spectrum.

P.S. Anyone see the Peter Oborne programme on Channel 4 last night? Required viewing I tell ya! And very worrying to boot.

[muriel_volestrangler]

7. Yes, I saw the C4 programme

I agree the choices offered by the parties looks narrow, compared with earlier times, and that the targetting of likely-to-vote pensioners can produce a short term outlook. I was amazed at how hard the Labour party worked to keep Oborne away from Blair - and, living a few miles from Winchester, I wasn't at all surprised that no-one had heard that Howard was in town - it was news to me he'd been in the area.

I could spot the Labour slogans, though - they're the ones with verbs obviously missing. Maybe we should start a Literate Party.

[Apollo11]

8. US and UK parties

The most important political issue of the past 3 years has been the invasion of Iraq. Tony Blair strongly supported the invasion, standing shoulder-to-shoulder with Bush. In the UK, the Cabinet members are also members of Parliament, which means that all of the leading Labour Party politicians have to agree with Tony Blair (in public at least) all of the time. There is no clear split between the executive and the legislature. Even Blair still has a vote in Parliament as the MP (Congressman) for Sedgefield.

On the Iraq war, most registered Democrats opposed the invasion and think it was a mistake. Most think it was mostly about oil and that Bush lied about the reasons for starting the war. This viewpoint has been expressed by leading Democrats including Al Gore and Howard Dean.

In the UK, the politicians who have publicly opposed Blair and Bush on the Iraq war are a minority of left-leaning Labour members (including ex-members of Blair's Cabinet like Clare Short and Robin Cook) and the Liberal Democrats (third party).

So I would make the following comparisons:

The Conservatives are like the US Republicans (but thankfully not so good at stealing elections).

The Labour leadership are like "moderate" or "centrist" Democrats (except they are even closer to Bush on foreign policy).

The Liberal Democrats are like progressive Democrats (but lacking strong leaders like Gore, Dean, Boxer, etc.)

[ianrs]

9. didn't see it

but Oborne is a loathsome creature. He's always reminded me one of those attack dog Republicans our US brothers and sisters have to live with. Reality-resistant creep. Nothing he says is to be trusted.
Not really surprised they tried to keep him away from Blair. I would have in their shoes.
Sorry, this is more of a muse than a reply to your comment.

[muriel_volestrangler]

10. I thought he was quite reasonable in it

He was knocking all 3 main parties - and pointing out that responsible policies would mean things like stopping the expansion of air travel, and taxing aviation fuel (just as it's taxed for ground vehicles), to lessen global warming - but no party will do that, because the voters' first reaction is "tax, that must be bad" and parties only ever listen to initial reactions.

[Guy_Montag]

12. I felt he was quite reasonable in it too,

his main points (that everyone is squabbling over the middle ground, & no-one will deal with the big issues because they are unpopular) were very well put, and genuinely fair.

[mr blur]

14. Agreed,

and the "guess which party is promising this" section was priceless and summed the whole problem up. The old line "It doesn't matter who you vote for, the government always gets in" has never seemed more apposite.

[D-Notice]

11. It wasn't just him they tried to keep away

They showed him try to get to meet Bliar & the only people who knew where he was were a bunch of protestors who were fenced off from Bliar's view. As a result Bliar only saw the die-hard party activists

[T_i_B]

18. Ah yes

living a few miles from Winchester, I wasn't at all surprised that no-one had heard that Howard was in town - it was news to me he'd been in the area.

I would have to say that this does seem like the election which always happens somewhere else. I have to admit that I am surprised by how little the parties seem to be campaigning in my area, although we do hear in the local press about the likes of John Prescott queuing up to visit Braintree & Witham, which is the local marginal seat.

The parties seem only to be interested in talking to people in marginals, which means those of us in safe seats tend to get ignored. Oborne actually covered this very well with the Tory databases for finding floating & Tory voters. Politicians seem to be talking to narrower and narrower groups of people at present. Whatever happened to "the greatest happiness of the greatest number"?

[muriel_volestrangler]

21. The Tories were 4.9% behind the Lib Dems in my seat

(2370 votes) so you'd think they might make an effort here - so far I've just had a couple of leaflets through the door (though I've had a Lib Dem sign up for the last few days - perhaps that puts other canvassers off). Maybe the Tories' ambitions really are small.

[T_i_B]

25. I would have thought that...

having a Lib Dem sign up is a pretty good reason for other parties not to canvass your house! I think they might just work out who you are voting for!

Myself, I don't have a party sign up but I have had very little party political junk mail so far. What surprises me the most is that I have yet to have a single Labour party leaflet through my door, even though they are the main challengers in my constituency! Evidently Labour don't want my vote.

[mr blur]

13. There used to be a time,

when you didn't have anything in the US half as far to the left as the Labour Party. Those days have gone - the Labour Party is now a disgrace.

[sweetheart]

15. There is as well an emerging right

Like how the american and french left have splintered in past polls,
perhaps the pressure of losing elections forcing in-fighting (like nader),
the british right is going through this. This is not just the tory
party, who are the traditionals of the monarchy (and empire), but a
whole set of parties are also on this bandwagon of small-minded
nationalism, bigotry and general ignorance of the right.

These parties are closet racists packaged in fancy clothes:
British National Party
Torys
Scottish Nazional Party

If plaid Cyrimnu (sp), is anything like the SNP, then they're just
the welsh torys displacing the torys in a new small minded party.
The SNP, for example, holds seats in the scottish parliament and is
a significant force with their frontman sean connery. THey are pro
europe and anti war thank god, but that does not prevent the small
mindedness of people who revel in tiny nationalism. The separatists
are ready to roll back the united kingdom entirely, and there is merit
to some of their ideas... but in US thinking, its like wanting to
break up the country back to states because bush's federal is
incompetent. It is the coward running away from the reality of our
global and integrated world, in to tiny thinking.

I like Alex Salmond's personality, but there is a less positive force
beneath the call for separatism. Blair is forcing people in to the
arms of the separatists with his abuse of the federal, all because the
traditional opposition has dropped the soap... (the torys are only
a party south of the border in england.. not in wales or their 1 seat
in scotland...) so there is no national opposition, and you must
reconcile these nationalist parties in to the equation.

[tjwmason]

16. I wouldn't call the S.N.P. right-wing

It is certainly nationalist (with many nasty under-currents as you mention), but apart from Scottish independence they're firmly progressive.

Also lumping the Tories in with the B.N.P. helps nobody - other than the B.N.P. Sure there are racists in the party - but I've found plenty of them in all parties.

If you're looking for the emerging right-wing see the double farce of the UKIP and Veritas ('Veritas, Veritas the party for the vain and crass') - there are some really nasty views and sub-current floating around there.

[sweetheart]

17. Thanks for correcting

As much as no party mentions its smaller-approaches, there is something
to the total absence of tory seats north of the border. ITs not exactly
like they've gone away.. no, rather the 30% of the population that
usually votes "conservative - name your party" is voting "something".
And along with them, the racist, small-fortress britain element.

The SNP has progressive policies, yet there is nothing progressive about
the breakup of the UK. As you correct, the schism does not reconcile,
and i'm confused about them. They are clearly much more right wing
than their surface presents, as they're trying to win votes on
labour's weaknesses. They want to keep the scottish regiments. That
is against modernization and defense of the country.. .progressive?
Seems keeping the defense forces effective and modern is more so.

I agree with the SNP social platform, however they are in the dark
ages about drugs, much as one could expect from the right wing. In
general, the SNP supporters i've met are mostly libdems who cannot vote
for incarcerating themselves for cannabis smoking... so they secretly
support the more progressive thinking of the SNP without actually "voting"
for them.

So then what is a party that is an amalgamation of Torys, closet lib
dems and closet racist elements going for, but opportunism. The best
they can find is sean connery, a fancy voice who himself won't live
in scotland due to the small mindedness.

Yes, sorry about the BNP. I was trying to point out, and got distracted,
that one of the reasons labout is so effective, is that they are the
ONLY party that actually exists in all the regions of the United
Kingdom. The torys are an "english" party, as are UKip and veritas.
So to see the whole nation and its greater political colour, one has
no choice but to include these re-branded torys who can say wahtever
they want as they're not in power.... leaving the marketing looking
far more progressive than what they represent.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

19. I think you're right about the make-up of the SNP

There's nothing progressive about breaking up a relatively-stable country like Britain. Add to this the hypocrisy of wanting to break up the U.K. but move further to integrate with the E.U. The SNP is the party of political opportunism north of the border.

I'm also not impressed about the pseudo-Socialism of the SSP (Scottish Socialists) and PC (Plaid Cymru). Socialism and nationalism are incompatible and attempts to marry these concepts bring disasterous results.

[sweetheart]

22. "Socialism and nationalism are incompatible"

That is the paradox of the SNP claiming to be progressive. They were
once a party that supported the German National Socialists in the last
century if i've read my history correct. In this regard, perhaps some
parties never quite leave behind their history.

Was not 1930's germany enough proof that nationalism and socialism are
not the best flavours of ice cream to mix together? In the end,
the good news that warms my heart, is that the libdems are the winner
in all this, as they look to be the party that picks up the most new
voters, regardless of the tactical bickering of the torys and labour.

[tjwmason]

23. They're incompatible in theory certainly

But there is the possibility of a case built on practicality. I'm not saying that either the S.N.P. or Plaid Cymru do this, but an independent Scotland or an independent Wales would certainly be pursuing policies far closer to socialism than with the more right-wing England thrown into the mix.

Do you think that it would be reasonable for a Scottish socialist to build upon that position? The exact nation state being pretty irrelevant to a socialist, Britain therefore being as irrelevant as Scotland.

I'm certainly not advocating it, nor have I seen any real evidence of it as a proposition.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

24. I don't see how true socialists can help unleash nationalist sentiment

because there's no guarantee the new independent countries will become 'socialist'. If there was an Independent Scotland and Wales, I doubt that the SNP and PC would remain centre-left parties. The SNP have been flirting with Neo-Liberalism in recent years for example.

I still don't understand how someone can be 'waving the flag' and saying that they're socialist at the same time. It indicates to me that they're not really socialist and are just using socialist language as a populist message to gain sympathy of the Left.

The more recent experiment of socalism and nationalism was with Milosevic and his Serbian Socialist Party, the results of which were disasterous.

[sweetheart]

26. Tax raising powers

As it stands, the measure is when they start to take fiscal control of
the country. There is this urban myth about how "north sea oil" belongs
to scotland, and the profits are taken to england... that if scotland
were independent, it would be rolling in dough.

In reality, scotland is an importer of taxpayer funds to fund a much
more generous welfare state than england. This is another demographic
change that increasingly sideswipes the SNP. English people retire to
scotland as the home-care is better, and you don't lose your house.
Well, hmmmm.. it seems a welfare state is all fine and good when the
english are paying most of the costs, but what happens when scotland
has to raise its own taxes to pay for all the freebies it gets from
south of the border? What taxes will 5 million people produce, most of
whom work for the public sector and are a net-tax-burden?

Its amazing how generous the socialists are when they don't have to
pay the bills, balance the books or have any of the headaches of actually
managing a competetive economy. The instant they have to put in place
the tax raising powers to fund their utopia, things'll look so much
different. Then people will balk at the taxes and there will be the
rise of the traditional anti-tax conservatism that is hardly present
in scotland.

The nation state is everything to do with this spending powers without
tax raising powers, and much more significant than you point out.

[LeftishBrit]

20. It's all pretty complicated!

All of our parties have a wide range of political opinion, and the two major ones are unfortunately led by their right-wing. I would say, in American terms:

Tories: range from Republicans (though mostly without the extreme theocratic aspect) to some who would correspond to moderate Democrats. Led by 'Republican' faction now for many years. Much more composed of right-wing 'Republicans' now than pre-Thatcher.

Labour: range enormously, from conservative Democrat/moderate Republican, to a left-wing that wouldn't be represented at all in mainstream American politics. Led by their conservative wing.

Liberal Democrats: roughly do correspond to American liberal Democrats, though that's not how they got the name. However, they range from individuals who would even be to the left of that, to those who are more like moderate-to-conservative Democrats.

Greens: environmentalist, left-wing on most issues, probably to the left of the main parties in America.

UKIP: started as a single-issue, Euro-sceptic party, but has managed to attract lots of the racists, right-of-the-Tories, and just-plain-nutters. Tends to take votes from the Tories, which is proably a good thing.