UK prime minister elections/debates

[punisa]

Who would you like to see as the next UK PM?
Anyone from the UK wanna comment on the candidates?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not endorsing anyone in the capitalist system :lol:, just wish to learn a little bit about what is going on in the UK considering the elections.
And what's the big story with the debates? I though that this is a regular practice in the EU?

[Revolutionary Pseudonym]

I'm supporting Labour … don't shoot me RevLefters.
I believe that gradual change to the left, starting with Third Way policies, culminating in an ultimately government supported revolution is best.
I think Labour are the best party to be in right now, although I am hoping for a LibLab coalition. I think that Labours policies are what is best for Britain right now - anythings better than the Torries.
I think: Third Way is the first step to the final goal (anarchy/communism).

With the debates - this is the first televised debate between the major party leaders in the UK pre-election.

[Sam_b]

I believe that gradual change to the left, starting with Third Way policies, culminating in an ultimately government supported revolution is reformist.


Fixed.

I couldn't particularly care about who gets PM because all will result in savage cuts to public services and job losses. In my constituency i'm reluctantly voting SNP as the left-of-labour candidate can challenge the party, and has a track record as an anti-war spokesperson. Still not thrilled though.

[Mendax]

Who would you like to see as the next UK PM?
Clegg would be nice - Browns hated and theres too much blatan homphobia within the conservatives
And what's the big story with the debates?
Completely new to the UK - first time it's ever been done and it meant that instead of it just being "Conservatives are gonna win" its turned into a three horse race after Clegg gained a shit load of support after the first debate.

[Sam_b]

Completely new to England

*coughs*

[punisa]

Anyone care to do or link some "who is who" bits?
Again, sorry for my lack of knowledge.

Brown is labour, correct?
What is the labourist stance anyway? It's center-left, how does it differ from social democracy?
I'm asking cause just last week a newly found labourist party was organized here in Croatia and I'm somewhat clueless as to what they actually stand for.

I was watching UK PM debates LIVE on CNN just now, seems like they are all very close in approval numbers, it's going to be a tight election.

[Revolutionary Pseudonym]

Clegg's economic policy is totaly unviable as they simply cannot afford it all. I do not like is idea of selling off the Post Office, or his changes to education (they've budgeted only 20 billion for increasing the size of every school in the country by about a third, in their attempt to lower class sizes - although smaller classes would be nice I don't really think it matters that much).
Clegg's other policies however, I'm quite fond of, so I would like to see the influence on the winning party, but I wouldn't like them in power.

[Sam_b]

So instead you want to vote for a Labour party that promises cuts which will be "more aggressive than Thatcher"?

[Revolutionary Pseudonym]

Anyone care to do or link some "who is who" bits?
Again, sorry for my lack of knowledge.

Brown is labour, correct?
What is the labourist stance anyway? It's center-left, how does it differ from social democracy?
I'm asking cause just last week a newly found labourist party was organized here in Croatia and I'm somewhat clueless as to what they actually stand for.

I was watching UK PM debates LIVE on CNN just now, seems like they are all very close in approval numbers, it's going to be a tight election.

Brown is Labour, Clegg is LibDem and Cameron is Conservative.
The Labour Party is centre left but they come from a socialist background.
The British Labour Party and your Labour party are probaly quite different though as Labour Parties typicaly are socialist and basicly a union of unions in party form whereas the British one has adopted a third way stance - kindof neo-lib crossed with socialism.

[Sam_b]

The Labour Party is centre left but they come from a socialist background.

How after a series of aggressve imperialist exploits, racist immigration and asylum controls, cutting jobs and public services, maintaining nuclear weaponry, bailing out the bankers, imposing controls on civil liberties, can you call Labour "Centre Left"?

[Revolutionary Pseudonym]

*coughs*

I don't believe that will be the case; Labour aim to make cuts in their funding of certain groups whilst improving the capicty of the welfare services.
Clegg wants to make the cuts in miliatry and post. Cameron wants to make the cuts in healthcare and education.
It's a clear choice if you ask me.

[Revolutionary Pseudonym]

So instead you want to vote for a Labour party that promises cuts which will be "more aggressive than Thatcher"?

I don't believe that will be the case; Labour aim to make cuts in their funding of certain groups whilst improving the capicty of the welfare services.
Clegg wants to make the cuts in miliatry and post. Cameron wants to make the cuts in healthcare and education.
It's a clear choice if you ask me.

[Sam_b]

Edited after you changed the quote.

Why do you believe it will 'not be the case'? You sound like someone who has never been on the dole, has never experienced the jobs massacre that has happened under Labour and the savage cuts in public spending.

It seems you're buying into electioneering and propaganda rather than any working class politics at all. Like in the post above, where I highlight how this 'centre left' party is a party of the rich, capitalist class, which has continued in downtrodding workers for years and will continue after Brown says himself that cuts will be worse than Thatcher, that immigration will be tightened, that only yesterday with the 'bigoted woman' incident he buys into the xenophobia hurrar surrounding immigration - Labour are not fundamentally different from conservative policies of years ago. I think your analysis is naive at best, dangerous at worst.

[Dimentio]

Clegg's economic policy is totaly unviable as they simply cannot afford it all. I do not like is idea of selling off the Post Office, or his changes to education (they've budgeted only 20 billion for increasing the size of every school in the country by about a third, in their attempt to lower class sizes - although smaller classes would be nice I don't really think it matters that much).
Clegg's other policies however, I'm quite fond of, so I would like to see the influence on the winning party, but I wouldn't like them in power.

There could be worse things to privatise than the post office. It is not really a matter of life and death if you have to pick your mail in the local gasoline station. It is worse with things like healthcare, social security or unemployment offices.

After having seen the debate, Clegg is striking me as the apple-cheeked schoolboy who really wants to impress on the audience to get excellent grades and be loved by everyone. He is even worse than Obama in that aspect.

[Revolutionary Pseudonym]

How after a series of aggressve imperialist exploits What imperial exploits?


racist immigration and asylum control How is the immigration policy racist (although I do think any form of restriction on movement is wrong) and yes, I do agree, the way they treat asylum seekers is terrible, but it's better than what the other parties pledged.


cutting jobs and public services, maintaining nuclear weaponry, bailing out the bankers, imposing controls on civil liberties, can you call Labour "Centre Left"?
I must say I believe these to be nesesities of the time, plus I do believe that they have pledged to change their policies on these.
And yes these views, along with all the good they have done are Centre Left.
And just remember, it's now worth throwing your vote away on a fringe party and Labour are by far the better of the three, even if se aspects of them are pretty bad.

[Jazzratt]

I find it hard to actively want any of the bastards to win. I guess I could think of who I hate most and work my way down until I find out which slimy little fuck should get my vote but that sounds like too much effort when the lib dems are going to win in my constituancy from now until the heat death of the universe.

[Zanthorus]

Who would you like to see as the next UK PM?

Karl Marx or Pyotr Kropotkin.

Meanwhile back in the real world it's a choice between three capitalist politicians all of whom are promising "cuts deeper than thatcher" in which for some unfathomable reason a pasty faced moron with no charisma from a party which hasn't won an election in sixty five years is getting loads of attention.

I don't have any socialist candidates standing in my constituency as far as I'm aware and I can't stand the greens anti-science policies so I'll be abstaining and/or spoiling my ballot by writing "world socialism" on it.


And what's the big story with the debates? I though that this is a regular practice in the EU?

The UK has never had televised debates between the main party leaders before. Although I still don't see the fuss. I haven't cared enough to watch any of them.


The Labour Party is centre left but they come from a socialist background.

Wrong on both counts. The labour party is a centre-right party which has it's roots in the trade union beuracracies.


The British Labour Party and your Labour party are probaly quite different though as Labour Parties typicaly are socialist and basicly a union of unions in party form whereas the British one has adopted a third way stance - kindof neo-lib crossed with socialism.

The words "post-thatcherite consensus style neo-liberalism" spring to mind.


It's a clear choice if you ask me.

Yes, a clear choice between which faction of the bourgeoisie you support on the basis of "leftism".

[Sam_b]

What imperial exploits?

I would have thought Iraq and Afghanistan were obvious.


How is the immigration policy racist (although I do think any form of restriction on movement is wrong) and yes, I do agree, the way they treat asylum seekers is terrible, but it's better than what the other parties pledged.


So what if its subjectively 'better' than the other big parties? Would you like me to recant a few tales when myself and comrades have been at the doors of asylum seekers in Glasgow trying to stop immigration officials in their dawn raids, against people who are not allowed to hold jobs due to being asylum seekers, and live on pennies a day? What about the family who jumped to their deaths a few weeks ago in the Red Road flats in Glasgow, rather than be deported back to their own country? Or the cases where the racist immigration policy has deported immigrants back to countries where they have been abused, tortured, and died?

The way that Labour has gone about their immigration politics have allowed scapegoating which the party has bought into, such as in the case yesterday, and helped aid the Nazi BNP divide communities. Racial profiling and Islamophobia which has been perpetuated by this war government has helped fuel, and often protect, groups like the EDL.


I must say I believe these to be nesesities of the time, plus I do believe that they have pledged to change their policies on the

Bullshit and anti-class politics. Billions are pledged to bail out the banks, yet nothing, nothing, to keep jobs such as Diageo in Kilmarnock where thousands were made redundant at the start of the year. Every UK comrade could name dozens of examples. Is it necessary to spend billions on Trident and its replacement plans? Nonsense.


And yes these views, along with all the good they have done are Centre Left.

You're not a revolutionary, you are a reformist.

[Jazzratt]

What imperial exploits?
You must be joking. When we sent our forces into the various wars we're involved in do you think we did we do it:
a) To bring democracy to the middle east.
b) To strengthen, expand and defend our imperialist interests.
c) For shits and giggles?


How is the immigration policy racist (although I do think any form of restriction on movement is wrong) and yes, I do agree, the way they treat asylum seekers is terrible, but it's better than what the other parties pledged. To be honest the whole "debate" on immigration seems to be a game of who can be the most outrageously racist without actually being the BNP. Just because Labour hasn't won the race to the bottom doesn't mean that they're good or, indeed, not racist.


I must say I believe these to be nesesities of the time, plus I do believe that they have pledged to change their policies on these. They became necessary because just like every other party out there labour is in the pocket of big businesses, quite happy to offer tax breaks and chunks of public services to anyone that will give them money. Tax breaks cost money, as does pumping money into things like our imperial adventures. To be honest recently labour's policy on NHS funding seems a step away from sending a few burly MPs round to each hospital in order to nick whatever isn't nailed down.


And yes these views, along with all the good they have done are Centre Left. Who gives a flying toss about the centre left?


And just remember, it's now worth throwing your vote away on a fringe party and Labour are by far the better of the three, even if se aspects of them are pretty bad.You're throwing your vote away anyway. The whole thing means fuck all, whoever wins it'll be the bourgeoisie laughing at us all the way to the bank.

EDIT: Bollocks, my typing is slow :P

[Spawn of Stalin]

What imperial exploits?

How is the immigration policy racist (although I do think any form of restriction on movement is wrong) and yes, I do agree, the way they treat asylum seekers is terrible, but it's better than what the other parties pledged.


I must say I believe these to be nesesities of the time, plus I do believe that they have pledged to change their policies on these.
And yes these views, along with all the good they have done are Centre Left.
And just remember, it's now worth throwing your vote away on a fringe party and Labour are by far the better of the three, even if se aspects of them are pretty bad.

Are you sure you're an anarchist?

[Zanthorus]

Are you sure you're an anarchist?

Doubtful considering one of the posts on his blog praises the anti-democratic, racist, neo-liberal european super state.

[Spawn of Stalin]

I won't be voting in this election as there is simply nobody for me to vote for. I do however, hope that the smaller parties (Respect, Greens) do as well as they possibly can, although I am not a supporter, they are undeniably better than Labour. Most of all I am hoping for good nationalist results in the six counties, Scotland, and Wales.

[Sam_b]

If anyone's interested in what Zanthorus is talking about:


The EU is very important and should be, at this stage, supported by all communists and by all those who want a better life for all.
It will help to bring around the idea of internationalism and co-operation between peoples and countries.
The EU will bring about more freedoms to us - for example the freedom of movement between member nations - which we may not of been able to enjoy had it not been for the EU. Combine this with a growing liberal trend across Europe then all people across Europe should soon enjoy much more freedom and be much closer to our free and equal goal.
Should a 'Federal Europe' ever come into existence then I am sure it will be the closest to a communist state that Europe has ever seen, and if not, with the ability for much unity between the revolutionary groups across Europe will certainly be worth fighting for.
With the adoption of the Euro across Europe should one country fall then they'll all fall thus putting in a revolutionary spirit across an entire continent, something certainly worth our while.

I this particular member needs restricted.

[Spawn of Stalin]

Holy shit...Revolutionary Pseudonym, you do know that socialism is illegal under EU law right? Because the constitution requires that member states undergo mass privatisations. You know this.....yes?

[Sam_b]

My favourite bit was 'growing liberal trend'.

[(A)narcho-Matt]

I could go on and on about why it is pointless and a waste of time for revolutionaries to engage in bourgeois politics. But what is interesting to note is the sheer stupidity of these "primeministerial" debates. As someone who had to study the UK constitution, it seems like the political class and everyone else has completely forgotten that britain is a monarchy. These debates mean nothing, those 3 men arnt potential PMs their just the heads of the 3 main parties. The UK doesnt have a presidential system. The queen still has the power to invite anyone she wishes to form a government. The election is just a nice formality that lets the prols think they have a say in who runs the country. If we want to build revolutionary politics we have to argue against participation in bourgeois elections.

[Die Rote Fahne]

I'm supporting Labour … don't shoot me RevLefters.
I believe that gradual change to the left, starting with Third Way policies, culminating in an ultimately government supported revolution is best.
I think Labour are the best party to be in right now, although I am hoping for a LibLab coalition. I think that Labours policies are what is best for Britain right now - anythings better than the Torries.
I think: Third Way is the first step to the final goal (anarchy/communism).

With the debates - this is the first televised debate between the major party leaders in the UK pre-election.

You, sir, are an idiot.

Also, you should an hero.

[Sam_b]

Also, you should an hero

Absolutely no need for that.

[Proletarian Ultra]

I won't be voting in this election as there is simply nobody for me to vote for.

Does Britain allow write-in votes? If so you should write in Harpal.

BTW: What's going on with the Proletarian ballot designation?

[Obs]

I'm supporting Labour … don't shoot me RevLefters.
I believe that gradual change to the left, starting with Third Way policies, culminating in an ultimately government supported revolution is best.
I think Labour are the best party to be in right now, although I am hoping for a LibLab coalition. I think that Labours policies are what is best for Britain right now - anythings better than the Torries.
I think: Third Way is the first step to the final goal (anarchy/communism).

With the debates - this is the first televised debate between the major party leaders in the UK pre-election.

RevLeft Post of the Century.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Absolutely no need for that.

I'll agree that it was an overreaction to say that, however his or her level of stupidity is unbelieveable to the point of embarrassment.

[Devrim]

I was watching UK PM debates LIVE on CNN just now, seems like they are all very close in approval numbers, it's going to be a tight election.

Except that as people who know the British electoral system knows. It doesn't work at all like that. Even if the liberal democrats get the most votes they won't win. Clegg was talking about how he wouldn't support Labour if they came third in the votes, but won the most seats. This is very possible.

Devrim

[Dimentio]

Labour has followed through with a combination of authoritarianism and neoliberalism. Yet, that is not the reason why Brown's going to lose. The reason why he is going to lose is because he simply not appears as a likeable fellow. I think Brown share characteristics with such figures in history like Nixon and Tiberius, namely leaders who are competent administrators but simply not well-loved by their peoples.

[Spawn of Stalin]

Does Britain allow write-in votes? If so you should write in Harpal.

BTW: What's going on with the Proletarian ballot designation?

Unfortunately no, you can spoil your ballot, but no write-ins are recognised as legitimate candidates. The electoral name of the party is Proletarian, same as the party paper, because only the revisionist CPB are allowed to use the words "Communist Party" on the ballot paper.

[Proletarian Ultra]

Unfortunately no, you can spoil your ballot, but no write-ins are recognised as legitimate candidates. The electoral name of the party is Proletarian, same as the party paper, because only the revisionist CPB are allowed to use the words "Communist Party" on the ballot paper.

I gather from the Don't Vote Labour statement that you're not running candidates yet. What are the plans for that?

[Spawn of Stalin]

CPGB-ML won't be running candidates in this election, no. Frankly the party not strong enough yet, although almost every member is active the party is still in the low triple figures. It is however something that we are going to be seriously discussing at congress, which is this Summer, so I'll know more then.

[zimmerwald1915]

Sorry to troll, but I felt RevLeft ought to know that I believe my IQ dropped two points or more from reading this thread. Actual Brits are probably suffering rather more.

[Dr Mindbender]

Labour has followed through with a combination of authoritarianism and neoliberalism. Yet, that is not the reason why Brown's going to lose. The reason why he is going to lose is because he simply not appears as a likeable fellow. I think Brown share characteristics with such figures in history like Nixon and Tiberius, namely leaders who are competent administrators but simply not well-loved by their peoples.

another elephant in the room is the blatant celtophobia that is still rampant in the English home counties.

The English middle class (generally the archetypical voters) would rather have 'one of their own' in charge. This is in no small part why Labours popularity has plummeted since Blair resigned.

for what its worth, after recent events i dont think anything short of a miracle in the order of Cameron being ousted as a paedophile can prevent a tory landslide.

[Lyev]

I read somewhere recently that said how undemocratic British democracy is starting to become; it's starting to resemble more and more the same corporate-backed, capitalist politics of the USA. Labour: neoliberal. Conservative: neoliberal. Liberal Democrats: neoliberal, with vague social-democratic elements. In other words, you couldn't put a cigarette paper between any of them. Rupert Murdoch controls 40% of the media in Britain, whilst that wanker Ashcroft funds the Conservatives with millions upon millions, from his tax-free haven in Brazil.

I see a lot of people around my age (teenagers) thinking they're being really cool and progressive by wearing a LibDem t-shirt, and supporting Clegg, as the "New Obama" just because he can stare into the camera with puppy-dog eyes, and say "well, yes, that's what these two would do. Let's vote for change and fairness, guys". I am quickly starting to find LibDems even more infuriatingly reactionary than the Conservative party. At least with Tory you know exactly what you're getting: a big fat slab of bourgeois apologetics. However, with LibDem, they try to hide behind all these smoke screens of "let's give change a try". Fuck off Clegg.

Something else to add, at my school today, we had the representatives from all the 3 parties here (Tory, LibDem plus UKIP) in for a question-time style debate/Q&A session. The New Labour candidate was ill, so he couldn't come. I wish there was something more to say about it than "nothing much happened" but they all answered the question like politicians always do.

When the topic got round to Afghanistan, all three of the candidates sidestepped the question, and all tried to link the invasion to 9/11, and "an international terrorist threat". I asked them about the direct links between the 7/7 and 9/11 terrorist attacks. They sidestepped the question, but Jeremy Brown (LibDem) acknowledged that the 7/7 bombers were from Luton (in the UK!!) and that there was "loose links" between Afghanistan's Al-Qaeda, and those attacks. He totally failed to mention anything about 9/11. The amount of money spent in Afghanistan so far has been a sickening amount of £12 billion: this seems like an awful amount to waste on "loose links".

Oh and also, the LibDem candidate took a petty little jibe at the Conservative candidate because he says they are going ravage public services. This is true, they always have and always will do, but I'm fairly sure Clegg has confessed to being a massive Thatcher fan, and has said cuts "worse than under Thatcher", or something to that effect, are needed if he gets into power. Anyway, there's my rant over. So much for democracy or fairness; these two things are evidently incompatible with capitalism.

[Mendax]

*coughs*
*Fix's post*

[Niccolò Rossi]

So instead you want to vote for a Labour party that promises cuts which will be "more aggressive than Thatcher"?


How after a series of aggressve imperialist exploits, racist immigration and asylum controls, cutting jobs and public services, maintaining nuclear weaponry, bailing out the bankers, imposing controls on civil liberties, can you call Labour "Centre Left"?



It seems you're buying into electioneering and propaganda rather than any working class politics at all. Like in the post above, where I highlight how this 'centre left' party is a party of the rich, capitalist class, which has continued in downtrodding workers for years and will continue after Brown says himself that cuts will be worse than Thatcher, that immigration will be tightened, that only yesterday with the 'bigoted woman' incident he buys into the xenophobia hurrar surrounding immigration - Labour are not fundamentally different from conservative policies of years ago. I think your analysis is naive at best, dangerous at worst.

Did I miss something or is the SWP no longer calling for a vote for Labour?

[Sam_b]

Did I miss something or is the SWP no longer calling for a vote for Labour?

What do you mean 'no longer'? We're standing as part of TUSC in some consituencies. Our line is to support (where there is no TUSC option) left-of-labour candidates, either Labour party members or not. This is outlined here:


Socialist Worker strongly urges votes for all Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition (TUSC) candidates.
A vote for TUSC is a vote against cuts, against workers paying for the crisis, and for resistance now and in the future.
After the election we hope TUSC can become part of a broader challenge, drawing in more support, particularly if unions such as the PCS make the decision to back trade union candidates at elections.
We support the idea of a TUSC conference to democratise the process and draw on wider experiences.
We also call for a vote for other socialists, left groups and individuals such as Respect (except where its standing against TUSC), Cambridge Socialists, Dai Davies in Blaenau Gwent and left Green Party members such as Caroline Lucas.
But that still leaves some 500 constituencies where there is no left candidate of any stripe standing.
In those areas Socialist Worker believes it’s best to vote Labour. This is not because we believe Labour’s policies will be essentially different to the Tories or the Liberal Democrats.
In truth we already have a semi-coalition in Britain, so limited are the differences between the parties.
Socialist Worker has been at the centre of resistance to Labour’s attacks. We have not and will not cover up its horrendous record or imperialist warmongering and attacks on its working class supporters.
But if the Tories win the election then every reactionary, racist and pro-capitalist throughout the land will rejoice. They will feel that bit more confident to attacks us.
The bullying boss, the police chief and the judge will all be even surer that the politicians will back them up.


Just because we're encouraging a vote in some areas does not mean we're in denial about the current state of the Labour party. "
Vote left where you can, vote Labour where there is no real left candidate – and organise to fight whoever wins."

[Devrim]

So instead you want to vote for a Labour party that promises cuts which will be "more aggressive than Thatcher"?


How after a series of aggressve imperialist exploits, racist immigration and asylum controls, cutting jobs and public services, maintaining nuclear weaponry, bailing out the bankers, imposing controls on civil liberties, can you call Labour "Centre Left"?


It seems you're buying into electioneering and propaganda rather than any working class politics at all. Like in the post above, where I highlight how this 'centre left' party is a party of the rich, capitalist class, which has continued in downtrodding workers for years and will continue after Brown says himself that cuts will be worse than Thatcher, that immigration will be tightened, that only yesterday with the 'bigoted woman' incident he buys into the xenophobia hurrar surrounding immigration - Labour are not fundamentally different from conservative policies of years ago. I think your analysis is naive at best, dangerous at worst.


Did I miss something or is the SWP no longer calling for a vote for Labour?


But that still leaves some 500 constituencies where there is no left candidate of any stripe standing.
In those areas Socialist Worker believes it’s best to vote Labour.

So in about 80% of the constituencies the SWP is calling for a vote for a 'aggressive imperialist racist job-cutting party'.

Well somebody has got to be there doing the bosses work and trying to keep workers interested in this farce.

Devrim

[I.Drink.Your.Milkshake]

The UK has never had televised debates between the main party leaders before. Although I still don't see the fuss. I haven't cared enough to watch any of them.


They have televised debates every week. Its called the house of commons but this is too complicated for most people to consider - too many people, no clearly defined boundaries between them. With the TV debates its nice and simple - three people, three different colours, Yellow Vs Blue Vs Red now who looks the most presentable?

I totally agree, though, i dont see the fuss either. The whole thing has been entirely manipulated into event status by the tv and newspapers to boost viewing figures and sales. Its all bullshit!

Im torn between voting labour, voting for my local independant or spoiling my ballot. Havnae fully decided yet.

[I.Drink.Your.Milkshake]

Labour arent centre-left either, they are centre-right. Right-left, maybe, but certainly centre-right. Theyre only marginally to the left of Major's tories.

I think the Greens are centre-left arent they?

[Sam_b]

But if the Tories win the election then every reactionary, racist and pro-capitalist throughout the land will rejoice. They will feel that bit more confident to attacks us.

Does the communist left disagree with this view?

[zimmerwald1915]

Does the communist left disagree with this view?
Yes. If the Tories win, very many reactionaries, racists and pro-capitalists throughout the land will rejoice. If Labour wins, many other reactionaries, racists and pro-capitalists throughout the land will rejoice.

[Sam_b]

That may be the case, but lets look at this from another angle as well. Political analysis is not as simple as the communist left often likes it to be, ie "they're all X and Y, so we take position Z". Although perhaps a noble position, one that doesn't materially change anything. I would rather have a labour government than a tory one. Why is that? Its not that I believe that labour are more 'progressive' or any less reactionary, but that I believe the current nature of the class is stonger than, say in 1997. In the past few years workers have started to fight back on a much more significant level than in the late 1990s, and reelection of a labour government continues the energy that the movement have placed into attacking labour on pro-worker and anti-imperialist fonts. I am of the belief that confidence in attacking the capitalist class has the potential to grow, as part of a mass movement against further privatisation and cuts.

[Lyev]

Something else I discussed with a comrade yesterday whilst out canvassing: Conservatives are incredibly mistrusted and infamous for their anti-working class sentiment. However, some people still have better faith in Labour, despite the past 13 years. They have faith that they're a pro-worker alternative, further to the left of Conservative. Many people think that Labour will go a lot softer on education and the health service, especially contrasted to the Tories. Imagine the recession as a knife: the only difference between Tory and Labour is that Labour is going to try and pull this knife out slowly and painfully, whilst Conservative will jerk it out quickly and violently. In other words, both will cut public services, but Labour will do so slower than the Conservatives. Also, because there's still widespread bitterness about Thatcher, I think lots of people are going to vote Labour simply to keep the Conservatives (and a second Thatcher) away. People won't be voting Labour because they actually want Labour in power; they'll be voting Labour because they don't want the Tories in power.

[Lyev]

Wow, just found this Zionist apologist bullshit. There's a similar group within Labour and Conservative. It's a group called "Liberal Democrat Friends of Israel". Apparently they want to "maximise support for the State of Israel" and to "promote policies which lead to peace and security for Israel within a Middle East peace settlement". Can be found here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Democrat_Friends_of_Israel).

[Sam_b]

In other words, both will cut public services, but Labour will do so slower than the Conservatives

Really?

TBH I was thinking about what I said ealier, scrap that. I would prefer a Labour government so I can hear all the IMT-bots squirm while trying to explain their analysis of "Labour winning the election will cause a fracture within the party resulting in socialist policies".

[Devrim]

In other words, both will cut public services, but Labour will do so slower than the Conservatives.

I don't see why at all. Both are constrained by the economy. They have to cut.


Its not that I believe that labour are more 'progressive' or any less reactionary, but that I believe the current nature of the class is stonger than, say in 1997. In the past few years workers have started to fight back on a much more significant level than in the late 1990s, and reelection of a labour government continues the energy that the movement have placed into attacking labour on pro-worker and anti-imperialist fonts. I am of the belief that confidence in attacking the capitalist class has the potential to grow, as part of a mass movement against further privatisation and cuts.

There will be cuts under both Labour and Conservative governments or any coalition that they come up with with the LibDems. The current level of class struggle is much higher than it was in 1997. The 90s were dreadful years for the working class. I don't think that this has anything to do with the fact that a Labour government has been in power though. I think that the relationship between them is casual.

Two points to consider. The same trend, which we identified in about 2003 has been an international one. In France where we have seen a similar, but stronger trend, the right has been in government. What does that say about the relationship.

The second is that there have been periods of mass struggle in England under Conservative governments, for example the early 1970s.

Devrim

[Proletarian Ultra]

The important thing about this election is not whom socialist organizations endorse (I mean really, what material difference does it make? Not none, but not much). And the important thing is not per se who wins the election. The important thing is what the election outcome means. Election returns can help us gauge the present state of the class struggle.

Look: if the election results in a hung parliament as predicted, this will represent a massive vote of no confidence in the ruling class of all "parties". We will have to be on guard against the media counternarrative that it represents a sudden upsurge of love for Nick Clegg or some such shit.

If the election results in a hung parliament, the ruling class will be forced against its will to democratize the election system further, opening the way for revolutionaries to seize a parliamentary platform for themselves. Or otherwise, it will be faced with massive and growing extra-parliamentary opposition. Or both.

A hung parliament, in short, would be a step forward for socialism. With that in mind, a vote for "anyone but the Tories" - including for LibDems or Labour where that would frustrate an overall majority in Parliament - is a valid revolutionary position - so long as it is a vote for a hung parliament and not a positive endorsement of Labour or LibDem politics.

[Sam_b]

There will be cuts under both Labour and Conservative governments or any coalition that they come up with with the LibDems. The current level of class struggle is much higher than it was in 1997. The 90s were dreadful years for the working class. I don't think that this has anything to do with the fact that a Labour government has been in power though. I think that the relationship between them is casual.

Oh I agree, absolutely. My point would be the sense of defeat many workers felt with the Tory re-election of 1992, and that reinstating a Labour government allows us to continue the momentum we've built up opposing cuts since 1997. I don't believe it to be the brand of particular capitalist ideology they follow.

[empiredestoryer]

there is no diffience between new labour and the conservatives both are one and the same in the pocket of big businesses

[Lyev]

As regards Labour attacking public services slower than the Conservatives, here's what their manifestos have to say about it:
Ensuring macroeconomic stability
Cut waste. Labour’s own plans have identified billions of pounds of waste. Instead of cutting this now, they would wait a year and then increase tax at the end of it.It is possible that I'm reading through their rhetoric in the wrong way, but this sounds, to me, as if they want to put the axe in straight away. And:
The Tories would threaten recovery with cuts this year, and fail to invest in our economic future...The Tories argue that public spending should be cut immediately, but this position is out of step with every other G20 government, right or left.Having said this, politicians tend to lie and deceive, just for the sake of scraping a few votes here and there. Some of what their manifestos purport could just be nonsense.

[Devrim]

Oh I agree, absolutely. My point would be the sense of defeat many workers felt with the Tory re-election of 1992, and that reinstating a Labour government allows us to continue the momentum we've built up opposing cuts since 1997.

Again though I think you fail to look at things in their international context. The terrible years that were the 1990s were not terrible in the UK alone. It was an international experience. If that is the case then the idea that it all comes from the Tory government being re-elected in 1992 would seem a bit absurd. I would say that the demoralisation in the working class in the 1990s was more a result of the defeats of the 80s, which were international than an election in 1982. To only look at the situation in England, Stockport Messenger, The miners' strike, Wapping, seamen, dockers, were all major defeats in the 80s, and these are just the ones that spring to mind at the moment. Do you really think that the key to it is an election in 1992.


that reinstating a Labour government allows us to continue the momentum we've built up opposing cuts since 1997.

Why would a change of government change this momentum?


I don't believe it to be the brand of particular capitalist ideology they follow.

But you argue for a vote for one above the other. To be honest I feel that the SWP is spreading disorientation in the working class.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Having said this, politicians tend to lie and deceive, just for the sake of scraping a few votes here and there. Some of what their manifestos purport could just be nonsense.

Every party has to attack the working class. It is not because they are bad people. It is because the economy dictates it. All parties in this election have said that there will have to be cuts. None of them is prepared to talk about details. It is because cuts aren't vote winners.

Devrim

[Spawn of Stalin]

They have televised debates every week. Its called the house of commons but this is too complicated for most people to consider - too many people, no clearly defined boundaries between them. With the TV debates its nice and simple - three people, three different colours, Yellow Vs Blue Vs Red now who looks the most presentable?

I totally agree, though, i dont see the fuss either. The whole thing has been entirely manipulated into event status by the tv and newspapers to boost viewing figures and sales. Its all bullshit!

Im torn between voting labour, voting for my local independant or spoiling my ballot. Havnae fully decided yet.

Comrade I would do anything to have a good independent stand in my constituency, if they are against war and for the strengthening of the welfare state I would definitely say you should vote for them. Otherwise, spoiling your ballot sounds like a plan!

[rednordman]

I really do not know why there has been such a discussion on the election debates. All it is imo is a way for the media to turn the UK system to be exactly the same as the USA.

Yes it has had a degree of success democratically as N Clegg would never had been this popular otherwise. But then again, all three parties are virtually the same. If SkyTV (the one who put the notion across) really wanted this to be good for democracy, than they would have invited alot more parties to the debate.

As for the election itself, i think that its more a case of a capitalist party getting replaced....by an even more capitalist party. Infact it really wouldnt surprise me if we dont notice any difference in the way of the country. If we do than its time to really start worrying. As is the case usually with concervatives.

[brigadista]

The important thing about this election is not whom socialist organizations endorse (I mean really, what material difference does it make? Not none, but not much). And the important thing is not per se who wins the election. The important thing is what the election outcome means. Election returns can help us gauge the present state of the class struggle.

Look: if the election results in a hung parliament as predicted, this will represent a massive vote of no confidence in the ruling class of all "parties". We will have to be on guard against the media counternarrative that it represents a sudden upsurge of love for Nick Clegg or some such shit.

If the election results in a hung parliament, the ruling class will be forced against its will to democratize the election system further, opening the way for revolutionaries to seize a parliamentary platform for themselves. Or otherwise, it will be faced with massive and growing extra-parliamentary opposition. Or both.

A hung parliament, in short, would be a step forward for socialism. With that in mind, a vote for "anyone but the Tories" - including for LibDems or Labour where that would frustrate an overall majority in Parliament - is a valid revolutionary position - so long as it is a vote for a hung parliament and not a positive endorsement of Labour or LibDem politics.

surely only depending on the turnout ?

[Leonid Brozhnev]

If SkyTV (the one who put the notion across) really wanted this to be good for democracy, than they would have invited alot more parties to the debate.

If Sky really wanted this to be good for democracy, then it should've fucked off... you think Murdoch would give Socialists or Communists a platform to speak from? Much better to line up Cap, Capp and Cappie under a corporate banner and let them argue about how best to screw everybody over.

That said... the Lib Dems are the lesser of 3 evils. I might not agree with them, but currently the best we can hope for is to keep the Tories out of office.

[I.Drink.Your.Milkshake]

If SkyTV (the one who put the notion across) really wanted this to be good for democracy, than they would have invited alot more parties to the debate.


This was never, ever the point though. The parties debate EVERY WEEK in the house of commons (during term time, of course) but it has no commercial angle to it. This whole thing is a media invention to sell a shit load of papers, grab a shit load of viewers and put arses on seats in front of the fucking television.

THAT said i know a few people who watched the debates who had absolutely no interest in politics before now. Also, if the polls are to be believed, then this could well be the end of the tory-labour power stranglehold. It (obviously) depends on thursday; as well as the Lib Dems have done in the polls their figures have been boosted by the 18-30 age group, traditionally the least likely to bother voting. But as i said there are a few people i know whose interest has been piqued by the debates and have expressed interest in voting. Looking at the figures the last two elections have had the lowest turn outs since 1945 (59% and 61% repectivelly). Its usually around 70%-75% and i expect it to be somewhere around that figure again.

[Devrim]

But as i said there are a few people i know whose interest has been piqued by the debates and have expressed interest in voting. Looking at the figures the last two elections have had the lowest turn outs since 1945 (59% and 61% repectivelly). Its usually around 70%-75% and i expect it to be somewhere around that figure again.

I think that a lot of the 'election fever' has been more in the media than the country at large. For all the hype around TV debates, it should be remembered that they got lower average viewing figures than the average for Premier league football.

I expect some increase in turnout, but I don't think it will be in the 70%s.

Devrim

[rednordman]

I expect some increase in turnout, but I don't think it will be in the 70%s.

DevrimI agree. I Think if anything, it will favour the libdems slightly. But what is interesting is how now all the prediction polls have shown support to be going back in the tories favour after 'bigotgate'. Before then, it really was looking like a hung parlament. Also, why is it getting put across to us that a hung p is a bad thing? All I hear is how its better to vote tory than risk the perils having one. Is this just another case of our traditionally spineless media scaremongering people into voting conservative?

[Poppytry]

'Election fever' only exists in the marginal constituencies such as mine. In safe zones people receive no literature from parties or see public presence of the candidates as opposing parties don't want to waste resources in a constituency which is another parties safe zone. Instead money and resources are funnelled in to the constituencies which could swing either way due to undecided voters.

It is a sham of an electoral system and is very undemocratic. Just check this website out which can calculate how powerful each voter is because of which post code they live in. Voting power depends on the size of the constituency and how marginal it is. Bigger and more marginal = more power. Small and safe = voting power up to 300 times below the average. http://www.voterpower.org.uk/

As I despise all three candidates I'm unsure how to use my vote. A part of me wants to vote tactically and vote Labour in my constituency as they are the key rivals to the conservatives. Nationally I would like to see the Libdems come out strong so we can finally see some electoral reform to ensure a fairer system where smaller parties can get in, i.e. socialists as under the current system they stand NO chance.

Another part of me just wants to ruin the ballot with a nice commie message to the person counting ;)

BTW, to the guy who said that labour was centre-left. You are very very wrong my friend. You only have to look at some of their policies since 1997 to see this. http://www.politicalcompass.org/ukparties2010