UK Election results 2010

[The Idler]

Green won their first MP, Caroline Lucas in Brighton out of 300 seats in which they stood.
Respect lost one MP, George Galloway and lost in all three seats in which they stood.
TUSC won no seats out of 42 seats they were standing in, but around 12,000 votes.

[rednordman]

So all in all a bit of a democratic disaster for the left. Parlament wise.:(

[A.J.]

Absolutely no change whatsoever in Scotland from the previous election;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/region/7.stm

As an aside, with regard to the tory gains in Ye Olde not-so-merry England, it has to be said, a sizeable chunk of the English working class -especially in the south - have a bit of a serf-mentality. Marx & Engels commented upon it on numerous occasions back in the day.

They "know their station in life", as they say down there. :rolleyes:

The best argument for an indepedent Scotland I think of.

[zubovskyblvd]

Very small number of votes for all the left-of-Labour parties, the one exception being Respect who got a good number of votes despite not doing as well as many people had expected here. Ho-hum.

[Wanted Man]

Well, I don't think anyone was really expecting parties left of labour to win anything. Except for the Greens, apparently.

[Jazzratt]

I would have been surprised if the greens didn't win in their seat to be honest. Even though the region generally is a depressingly blue Brighton Pavillion has a lot of young voters and voted green in the european elections.

The really depressing thing, and the reason I'm going to be spending a lot more time in a drunken stupor, is that with these massive gains for the tories it seems that britain's public mood is currently right-wing or at least influenced by the right's propaganda (I think certain rags with "daily" in their titles spreading FUD about hung parliments helped secure a stronger tory vote).

[RedAnarchist]

If Brown is going to make an announcement around an hour before Cameron makes an announcement, could he be about to announce his resignation, as it's usually no more than a hour between Prime Ministers?

[I.Drink.Your.Milkshake]

i voted Labour in the end, got to say im disappointed. All that talk about exit polls being unreliable because they were so off the mark 20 years ago is codshite - theyve been refined since then.

Still, to lose 307-255 after going 3-0 up early on.... youve got to ask questions.

[Spawn of Stalin]

I'm very happy for Caroline Lucas, although obviously not a Marxist she is a very progressive individual, hopefully this, combined with some sort of electoral and parliamentary reform will result in more Green MPs in the future. Good on her and her party, I'm sure she will do good things for Brighton, the most progressive city in England.

[Spawn of Stalin]

If Brown is going to make an announcement around an hour before Cameron makes an announcement, could he be about to announce his resignation, as it's usually no more than a hour between Prime Ministers?

Hopefully! That would really make my day.

[Proletarian Ultra]

These results are spectacular on all fronts.

All three bourgeois parties failed utterly. Labour failed to retain its majority, the Tories failed to gain one, the LibDems failed to gain seats - they actually fell below their performance last election. SNP didn't do shit, nor did Plaid Cymru. No significant section of the working class crossed over to the Conservatives. Lord Mandelson's death-grip on the parliamentary Labour Party is over.

In short, it was a comprehensive rejection of British parliamentarism as presently constituted - one could hardly ask for a more favorable launching point for agitation.

EDIT: Oh, and TUSC fail. Who could have predicted!?!?!? Seriously, it was dead from the start.

[Revy]

TUSC got 0.0%.

Britain needs a socialist party, not a socialist "coalition".

[Spawn of Stalin]

Agreed, especially not a coalition that changes its name for every election. Nellist got one of the best socialist results in Coventry NE, 1,500, about 3.5%, which is nothing considering how popular he is in the city. Time for the parties involved in these coalitions to take a very serious look at themselves in the mirror, because their performance is absolutely pathetic.

[RebelDog]

Whilst it is just a spectacle, and I refuse to take part, it is depressing that so many do engage in it and are deluded in their thinking that voting changes anything. The capitalists have the electoral process sown-up.

[Sam_b]

Oh, and TUSC fail. Who could have predicted!?!?!? Seriously, it was dead from the start

Did you think that TUSC was really about winning seats?

[scarletghoul]

These results are spectacular on all fronts.

All three bourgeois parties failed utterly. Labour failed to retain its majority, the Tories failed to gain one, the LibDems failed to gain seats - they actually fell below their performance last election. SNP didn't do shit, nor did Plaid Cymru. No significant section of the working class crossed over to the Conservatives. Lord Mandelson's death-grip on the parliamentary Labour Party is over.

In short, it was a comprehensive rejection of British parliamentarism as presently constituted - one could hardly ask for a more favorable launching point for agitation.
The results do not reflect a rejection of british parliamentarism. The parties all failed, yes, but only in relation to one another. In fact voting rate was up from last time, many people are/were enthusiastically supporting a bourgeois party. It just happens that this support is more evenly distributed among parties. People have not rejected the bourgeois parliament system at all

[Proletarian Ultra]

Did you think that TUSC was really about winning seats?

Well, if it was about coming up with a better name than no2eu, TUSC succeeded.
If it was about designing an attractive logo for SPEW and SWP candidates to use in their separate campaigns, TUSC succeeded.

If it was about posting consistent, half-credible results - not majorities, but respectable single-digit numbers, TUSC did not succeed.
If it was about presenting a united front on a common programme, TUSC did not succeed - you had SPEW issuing its own manifesto FFS.
If it was about showing that the left can get its shit together, TUSC did not succeed. It was very late out of the starting gate, after a very bureaucratic process. It's not as if the need for an independent working-class left alternative wasn't apparent for years in advance. Many candidates were still on the Socialist Alliance ballot line.

My above post was just slagging you off, which wasn't very comradely. This one is meant as semi-constructive criticism.

[Crux]

General election 2010

www.socialistworld.net, 07/05/2010
website of the committee for a workers' international, CWI
TUSC stands for socialism...and prepares for the battles ahead
Hannah Sell, Socialist Party (CWI England and Wales


May 2010 will probably remembered by history not for the British general election, but as the start of a heroic mass struggle of the Greek working class. This is a fight to defend their living conditions against the savage onslaught of capitalism. Faced with generalised cuts in living standards of 20-30%, the Greek working class showed their defiance with a gigantic general strike and the biggest demonstrations since the overthrow of the military dictatorship in 1974. In Athens 300,000 workers took to the streets in the largest ever trade union protests.
Beside the events in Greece the general election in Britain seems a mundane affair. Nonetheless, it opens up a period of instability which will, at a certain stage, lead to Greece coming to Britain. This was an election of losers; no party has come out of it with a mandate to govern. It may be days, or even weeks, before the political stripes of the next government is known – but it is already certain that it will jump to the tune of the markets – that is capitalism – and will carry out brutal attacks on the public sector and the living conditions of the working class. Cuts, as Darling put it, “deeper and tougher than Thatcher” are our future.
For this reason the Socialist Party argued that it was vital to have a socialist challenge in this election as preparation for the mighty struggles ahead. We helped to found the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition (TUSC) which stood in 41 general election seats across Britain. TUSC declared opposition to all cuts in public services and put the case for a socialist alternative to capitalism. Everywhere TUSC candidates stood we had enthusiastic support – particularly from young people and public sector workers. TUSC election meetings were successful – with significant numbers of people coming along because they had picked up a leaflet and wanted to find out about a socialist alternative. At the largest, in Coventry, 110 people attended, around half of whom had never been to a socialist meeting before.
Although TUSC candidates got some creditable votes - notably Dave Nellist’s 1,592 votes in Coventry North East, 1,057 for Jenny Sutton in Tottenham and 931 for Tommy Sheridan in Glasgow South West - TUSC’s support was not generally reflected in the votes it received. In part this was because of the capitalist media’s virtual blackout of TUSC. This made it difficult to establish a national profile for TUSC in the short time between it being founded and the election being called. However, the major factor, as we predicted, was that many workers who would have voted for us felt they had no choice but to vote New Labour in order to stop the Tories. This also affected all other parties beyond the ‘big two’, even the Liberal Democrats.
There were, however, a few candidates that managed to stand against this trend. Green candidate Caroline Lucas won the parliamentary seat in Brighton Pavilion. This shows the number of people who will vote for a candidate to the left of the establishment parties, if they are perceived as having a chance of winning the election. Caroline Lucas stood on a programme of defending public services and attacking the bankers, so her election is a potentially positive step. However, the Green’s have a history, at local level in Britain and on a national level in other countries, of entering into power-sharing governing bodies and making attacks on workers’ living standards. it is therefore also possible that the Greens will move to the right, and therefore cease to be seen as left in workers’ eyes. In addition Salma Yaqoob, standing for Respect in Birmingham Hall Green, did very well, winning over 12,000 votes.
Smaller parties squeezed

The general trend, however, was for smaller parties to be squeezed by New Labour and the Tories. The memory of the brutal class war that Thatcher and the Tories carried out against the working class runs deep. This meant that in Coventry St Michaels ward, where Socialist Party councillor Rob Windsor was defending his seat, Rob got the highest ever vote for the Socialist Party in the ward, with 1,783 votes – more than 500 up on last time he stood – and yet still lost the seat as a result of the higher turnout created by the general election. The large increase in our vote puts us in a strong position to come back and rewin the seat next year. Socialist Party councillors were also defending their seats in Lewisham and Kirklees. At the timing of writing we are still waiting for the results, but the same factor will have had an effect on our percentage of the vote.
Nationally, the turnout has increased from the last general election, partly as a result of the anti-Tory mood. In Scotland, in the inner-city working class constituencies in London, and in the big cities of the North and Midlands, as workers, some of whom had not voted New Labour for two general elections, came out to try and stop the axe-man Cameron. This did not represent support for New Labour, but perhaps the hope that the cuts would be a little gentler under a Labour government. As we have explained, while the timing of cuts might have been a bit slower under a New Labour government, there is no fundamental difference between the three big capitalist parties on the need to carry out the biggest cuts in public spending since the 1920s.
If a Labour/Liberal coalition is formed our analysis will unfortunately be confirmed. If a Tory minority government takes the power it will be looking over its shoulder at Greece as it embarks on a huge cuts programme with little popular support and huge, ingrained hostility to it across large swathes of the country. It is doubtful how long the next government – of whatever stripe - will last. The task of socialists will be to argue for a mass united working class movement – starting with a massive national trade union led demonstration against all cuts in public services. Twenty years ago our party (then the Militant) led the 18 million-strong movement that brought down Thatcher – the Iron Lady – and her hated poll tax. The next prime minister will be no ‘Iron Man’, but we will need a similar movement to defeat him and his government’s cuts.
Need to build a positive, political alternative

However, this also needs to be linked to building a positive, political alternative. The struggle for a mass party of the working class – which stands for a socialist alternative to the profit system – is a crucial part of our tasks. TUSC is a modest, but very important, step towards such a goal. While still only early beginnings, the number of trade union organisations that backed TUSC is significant. Branches and regions of the fire brigades union FBU, the communications workers’ union CWU, the prison officers’ union POA, and the transport workers’ union RMT, have supported TUSC candidates. Twenty TUSC candidates were officially backed by the RMT national council of executives. National trade union leaders, including Bob Crow RMT general secretary, Chris Baugh PCS assistant general secretary, Brian Caton POA general secretary and Nina Franklin president of the NUT, sit on the steering committee of TUSC. It is important that we continue to develop TUSC beyond the general election. To do this successfully means recognising the early stage of development of this formation, which still has a limited number of activists. However, it also means understanding that most significant aspect of TUSC is that it has involved sections of militant trade unionists, and is therefore a real step towards independent working class representation. It is the federal, inclusive approach adopted by TUSC that has made this possible. All future developments will need to build on this method.

[Lyev]

Well, if it was about coming up with a better name than no2eu, TUSC succeeded.What on earth do you think you're getting at here? The success of a party is not dictated by how "good" its name is. This is a totally irrelevant point.

If it was about designing an attractive logo for SPEW and SWP candidates to use in their separate campaigns, TUSC succeeded.It is all very well to make assumptions, but where is your evidence? What do you mean by separate campaigns?

If it was about posting consistent, half-credible results - not majorities, but respectable single-digit numbers, TUSC did not succeed. (1) The coalition formed a matter of months ago.
(2) TUSC got virtually no media coverage.
(3) There was a huge fear of a Conservative majority in this election; many voted tactically to keep Cameron away.

If it was about presenting a united front on a common programme, TUSC did not succeed - you had SPEW issuing its own manifesto FFS.If you bothered to read up on any of this you would find that SPEW (http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/partydoc/Socialist_Party_manifesto_2010)'s manifesto shares many things in common with that of TUSC (http://www.tusc.org.uk/policy.php).

If it was about showing that the left can get its shit together, TUSC did not succeed. It was very late out of the starting gate, after a very bureaucratic process. It's not as if the need for an independent working-class left alternative wasn't apparent for years in advance. Many candidates were still on the Socialist Alliance ballot line.We have got our "shit together" in my opinion. Or at least we're some way there to building a bigger movement. To complain that the British left hasn't got itself organised seems a bit harsh too. What the fuck have you been doing in the run up to the election? Sitting on your arse complaining how Lib-Dem haven't done as well as you suspected? I was out canvassing in Bristol on the Sunday before the election and we managed to cover about 1,000 different houses; sounds like a fairly respectable number to me. It annoys me that you want to criticize so readily. How would you have us organise a campaign? TUSC is meant to serve as a platform for agitation, education and organisation. Whilst the number of actual votes go some way to indicate how a party has done, as mentioned, lots of people will have voted tactically. There's going to be an almost unprecedented tirade of cuts to public services, "worse than Thatcher". At least we have gone some way to constructing a credible, left movement to oppose this.

And also, your point about Socialist Alternative still being on the ballot line, this is because of the Socialist Party of Great Britain; I'm fairly sure that we're legally not allowed to put "Socialist Party" instead, because they had the name SP before us.

[mosfeld]

How did Sinn Fein do?

[Madvillainy]

How did Sinn Fein do?

They replaced the DUP as the largest party in Northern Ireland...

[Revy]

Well, if it was about coming up with a better name than no2eu, TUSC succeeded.

If it was about designing an attractive logo for SPEW and SWP candidates to use in their separate campaigns, TUSC succeeded.


by mere aesthetics alone, TUSC did not succeed. The name is completely uninspiring and the logo looks almost like a Venn diagram.

[Mendax]

The really depressing thing, and the reason I'm going to be spending a lot more time in a drunken stupor, is that with these massive gains for the tories it seems that britain's public mood is currently right-wing or at least influenced by the right's propaganda (I think certain rags with "daily" in their titles spreading FUD about hung parliments helped secure a stronger tory vote).
Some rags named after that shiny thing in the sky had a good time fear mongering aswell.
T'will be intresting to see if dems and cons come to a deal - condem has a suitable ring to it.

[Proletarian Ultra]

What on earth do you think you're getting at here? The success of a party is not dictated by how "good" its name is. This is a totally irrelevant point.

I wanted to say something positive.


It is all very well to make assumptions, but where is your evidence?

Here:


(1) The coalition formed a matter of months ago.


That's what I'd call 'not having your shit together' - or SPEW/SWP/RMT leadership not having its shit together, anyway. It's been clear for more than a matter of months that an election was coming in 2010 and that an independent socialist alternative was necessary.


If you bothered to read up on any of this you would find that SPEW (http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/partydoc/Socialist_Party_manifesto_2010)'s manifesto shares many things in common with that of TUSC (http://www.tusc.org.uk/policy.php).


Why have a separate manifesto at all? It's confusing. "Oh, who am I voting for? The Socialist Party? TUSC? Socialist Alliance? WTF?" It's not just a one-off on the manifesto either. Lookit this post-election statement posted by Mayakovsky:


General election 2010

www.socialistworld.net, 07/05/2010
website of the committee for a workers' international, CWI
TUSC stands for socialism...and prepares for the battles ahead
Hannah Sell, Socialist Party (CWI England and Wales

Why is CWI issuing statements on the future of TUSC unilaterally? You have that steering committee with representatives of all sort of socialist groups and trades unions - if that's so valuable why does CWI leapfrog over it? A statement should have been issued promptly in the name of the steering committee or an officer of TUSC as a whole.


What the fuck have you been doing in the run up to the election?

I don't live in the UK. But I'm impressed by your hard work, comrade.


And also, your point about Socialist Alternative still being on the ballot line, this is because of the Socialist Party of Great Britain; I'm fairly sure that we're legally not allowed to put "Socialist Party" instead, because they had the name SP before us.

Why weren't the candidates running as TUSC? The proliferation of names, the separately issued manifestos and statements are an obstacle to effective agitprop and organization. I'm not (just) second-guessing; if TUSC is to continue and grow these are issues that need to be resolved.

[Spawn of Stalin]

Just to clarify, what was the aim of TUSC in this election? To be fair I know the SWP don't stand in elections to win seats, credit to them. I think the point that TUSC detractors, myself included, are trying to make lies in three key questions: What was the aim of the campaign? Was it achieved? And are TUSC now in a better position to stand in more elections?

[The Idler]

Oh yeah, I nearly forgot, Workers' Power/Call for a New Anti-Capitalist Party (WP/CNACP) actually stood against the Socialist Party of Great Britain (SPGB) in Vauxhall (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/constituency/e83.stm). Both lost, but the SPGB got 143 to Workers' Power's 109. Kate Hoey won for Labour with 21,498. The Socialist Labour Party (SLP) stood in 24 seats, losing all of them. So much for unity.

[I.Drink.Your.Milkshake]

In short, it was a comprehensive rejection of British parliamentarism as presently constituted - one could hardly ask for a more favorable launching point for agitation.



Ive heard similar comments to this on the radio today - one Lib Dem candidate said the election "proved the british public want electoral reform" - and unless ive misunderstood im not sure its entirely true. No party gained a majority, but thats only because Labour didnt do as badly as had been predicted. 4 months ago the Tories would have got in. It isnt as if the electorate conspired en-masse to ensure no party gained an overall majority; it happened by accident rather than design. The actual turn out was up on the last election at around 66% i think. In my own constituency turnout was almost doubled (38% last time around, 68% this time). I think the increased turnout shows a willingness on behalf of the british public to engage in the current system. Or at least it betrays an accepting indifference.

[Lyev]

That's what I'd call 'not having your shit together' - or SPEW/SWP/RMT leadership not having its shit together, anyway. It's been clear for more than a matter of months that an election was coming in 2010 and that an independent socialist alternative was necessary.Well, as for the SWP there has been a recent number of schisms in the party, hence why they didn't field nearly as many candidates as SPEW. As regards why we haven't got our "shit together" earlier, I honestly don't know. As I have said, all things considered, I think there was 51 candidates including those in Scotland. Some 14,200 is not an absolutely dreadful amount; I was reasonably pleased with it.


Why have a separate manifesto at all? It's confusing. "Oh, who am I voting for? The Socialist Party? TUSC? Socialist Alliance? WTF?" It's not just a one-off on the manifesto either.I think the electorate are clever enough to work it out for themselves. SPEW is TUSC, SWP is TUSC; i.e. a vote for TUSC is a vote for SPEW or SWP. It's fairly simple.

Why is CWI issuing statements on the future of TUSC unilaterally? You have that steering committee with representatives of all sort of socialist groups and trades unions - if that's so valuable why does CWI leapfrog over it? A statement should have been issued promptly in the name of the steering committee or an officer of TUSC as a whole.I honestly don't know about this one either. It's a sticky situation when we have all the myriad of different far-left parties, and then on top of that all their international affiliations.


Why weren't the candidates running as TUSC? The proliferation of names, the separately issued manifestos and statements are an obstacle to effective agitprop and organization. I'm not (just) second-guessing; if TUSC is to continue and grow these are issues that need to be resolved.Well we have to remember that TUSC was a coalition; not a unified party. Not yet, at least. It's probably because each party wants to remain individual or something like that, and not have their policies confused with any other party. If that's the reason then it's slightly sectarian. As I'm typing this, although I acknowledge TUSC is definitely a progressive step forward, as mentioned earlier in the thread: we need a unified party, not a loose coalition. I am proud of the work we've put in, but there's still a huge hill to climb.

[Lyev]

What was the aim of the campaign? Was it achieved?From the TUSC (http://tusc.org.uk/policy.php) website.
The working class and peoples of Britain face a ruling class offensive which will intensify over the coming period.

It is an offensive against public services, incomes, living standards and trade union rights in order to boost monopoly profit. Not content with the banks receiving the biggest bail-out in the history of British capitalism, big business aims to make workers and their families pay to serve the interests, first and foremost, of the City of London's financial institutions.

It is also an offensive which will be stepped up regardless of which party wins the forthcoming General Election. The likelihood is that a Tory government will make earlier and deeper cuts in public spending than a New Labour one. A Labour government may also be more vulnerable to trade union pressure not to outlaw industrial action in 'essential' services.

But both main parties intend to prolong the imperialist occupation of Afghanistan and to maintain the expansion of nuclear power and a new generation of British nuclear weapons.

Therefore this coalition is contesting the General Election to show that there is a clear left-wing alternative to policies of public sector cuts, privatisation, militarism and environmental degradation.

We recognise that there will be Labour and non-Labour candidates standing in the general election who agree with our policies, who share our socialist aspirations and who will be supported by left and labour movement organisations participating in our coalition.

We also recognise that there are different strategic views about the way forward for the left in Britain, whether the Labour Party can be reclaimed by the labour movement, or whether a new workers' party needs to be established.
And are TUSC now in a better position to stand in more elections?Yes I think we are. In a situation like this, any progress is most definitely good progress. With the campaigning that has happened in something like 40 or 50 odd constituencies, TUSC will have already started getting their names about, and getting known. In places like Coventry and Lewisham where SPEW is already quite known, and people know our names and faces it is so much easier to campaign there. Campaigning somewhere where we've never been before is like trying to climb without any footholds or ropes. We need something already there to cling onto, to have a chance at striking a chord with people. With TUSC and every party under its banner, we have started giving ourselves footholds and ropes. Hopefully, at least to an extent, the main parties drive more and more people into our arms, as the electorate starts to realise "change" and "fairness" will never be delivered by the three mainstream parties. So, yes, I think if we carry on like we are now, I see no reason why things won't start to look up for the left.

[Lyev]

Oh yeah, I nearly forgot, Workers' Power/Call for a New Anti-Capitalist Party (WP/CNACP) actually stood against the Socialist Party of Great Britain (SPGB) in Vauxhall (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/constituency/e83.stm). Both lost, but the SPGB got 143 to Workers' Power's 109. Kate Hoey won for Labour with 21,498. The Socialist Labour Party (SLP) stood in 24 seats, losing all of them. So much for unity.It was a similar story in Hackney South and Shoreditch (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/constituency/b93.stm). Nusret Sen stood for Direct Democracy (Communist) Party with 202, beaten Paul Davies of the Communist League with 110. Labour candidate Meg Hiller won with a big majority of 14,288.

[Dimentio]

by mere aesthetics alone, TUSC did not succeed. The name is completely uninspiring and the logo looks almost like a Venn diagram.

TUSC is in fact a quite inspiring name. Imagine like an elephant's tusk.

[Jolly Red Giant]

Why is CWI issuing statements on the future of TUSC unilaterally?
The CWI is analysing the election result and expressing an opinion - it did not issue any statement on behalf of the TUSC, it issued a statement on behalf of the CWI.


You have that steering committee with representatives of all sort of socialist groups and trades unions - if that's so valuable why does CWI leapfrog over it? A statement should have been issued promptly in the name of the steering committee or an officer of TUSC as a whole.
I am sure that the TUSC will issue a statement - as, in all likelihood will the other components of the TUSC.



Why weren't the candidates running as TUSC?
The name Socialist Alternative is well known in Coventry and Lewisham where the CWI has had local councillors for years. It would have been silly for candidates to dump a well known name and replace it with a name that was unknown up to a few weeks ago. In areas where the SA name was not known to the same degree the TUSC name was used - as with CWI member Jackie Grunsell in Colne Valley who is a local councillor, but who was elected to the council on a 'Save Huddersfield NHS' ticket.


The proliferation of names, the separately issued manifestos and statements are an obstacle to effective agitprop and organization. I'm not (just) second-guessing; if TUSC is to continue and grow these are issues that need to be resolved.
Nonsense really - you are making a sweeping statement that suggests that in every constituency there was a large number of conflicting leaflets, statements and names being issued. This was not the case. Each candidate identified with the TUSC - where the CWI used the SA name it clearly indicated that the candidates were standing as part of the TUSC.

[Sam_b]

TBH i'm not going to get into this TUSC argument with those who sat on their arses having the nerve to criticise the formation for not being good enough for the bourgeoisie's electoral process. However, on the subject of the election I would like to say one more thing:

"HAHAHAHA FUCK YOU, PETER ROBINSON!"

[Dr Mindbender]

Well at least the BNP are still out of the commons.

Maybe in the long term this will be a good thing, hopefully this is the start of the boot up the arse that the Labour party needs to go back to its left roots and put clear red water between them and the tories. Starting with getting that stumblefuck brown out of the leadership.

[Crux]

Well at least the BNP are still out of the commons.

Maybe in the long term this will be a good thing, hopefully this is the start of the boot up the arse that the Labour party needs to go back to its left roots and put clear red water between them and the tories. Starting with getting that stumblefuck brown out of the leadership.
Well, I was more thinking along the lines of instead holding your breath waiting for Labour to change, to build an actual alternative and not just in the electoral arena.

[RebelDog]

i voted Labour in the end, got to say im disappointed. All that talk about exit polls being unreliable because they were so off the mark 20 years ago is codshite - theyve been refined since then.

Still, to lose 307-255 after going 3-0 up early on.... youve got to ask questions.

Are you serious? You voted for murderers?

[Crux]

Are you serious? You voted for murderers?Hyperbole much?

[RebelDog]

Hyperbole much?

If your relative died, you'd call them the same.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/staffordshire/7948293.stm

They stood for election when they should have been on trial. I suppose there is also the small matter of 1million Iraqi dead due to British government policy and action. Justice is about power. the more power you hold the less justice you face, the more justice you need the less power you have.

[Crux]

If your relative died, you'd call them the same.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/staffordshire/7948293.stm

They stood for election when they should have been on trial. I suppose there is also the small matter of 1million Iraqi dead due to British government policy and action. Justice is about power. the more power you hold the less justice you face, the more justice you need the less power you have.
Sorry, man. But you're comment seemed a bit out of the blue, but yeah. I get what you're saying.

[Revy]

Right now in Britain if you are a socialist you are probably voting Green or Labour. And Caroline Lucas was elected as MP, the Green Party's first MP, an achievement that dwarfs anything that socialists did. But apparently winning seats is something only reformists can aim for. If TUSC did not run in elections with the aim of winning a seat, then, pray tell, why did they run at all? If running in elections is a chance to educate, agitate, and organize, surely being elected exponentially allows one to increase one's standing and agitate for one's cause.

"TUSC tapping anger against Labour" reads the title of a Socialist Worker article. Then you read about how two TUSC candidates got 1.7% and 1.8% of the vote respectively. Two seats in which the Labour incumbents were re-elected. It is unfortunate that our standards are so low to consider that an achievement to gloat over.

this is a tactical argument, not a sectarian one.....the revolutionary left needs real energy, not "paper unity".

[Proletarian Ultra]

this is a tactical argument, not a sectarian one.....the revolutionary left needs real energy, not "paper unity".

Paper unity would be a good start. Like for example, next time around The Socialist might run profiles of SWP candidates and vice versa Socialist Worker SPEW ones. Or TUSC central might have a designated spokesperson so that a day after the election results we wouldn't still be waiting for an official statement on the TUSC website when the constituent parties had issued their own almost immediately. Or TUSC might follow basic advertising/PR principles and stick to a single manifesto.

You know, one time I was fishing with a friend. Our boat sprung a leak. We spent several hours discussing what to do and then started bailing water with a couple of sieves. A stranger on another boat started laughing at us; he said we'd wasted time on pointless discussions and the method we settled upon was ineffective. We told him indignantly that we'd been working really hard - and anyway who was he to say anything, just sitting on his arse over there.

The stranger was a dick. He wasn't wrong, though.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Every progressive person I know completely forgot the Iraq war, the anti-terrorism laws when voting. Leftists said they voted Labor to keep the Tories out. How anyone brought themselves to do this I don't know.

On the TUSC, throughout their campaign have they denounced the system itself as illegitimate?

[Revy]

Paper unity would be a good start. Like for example, next time around The Socialist might run profiles of SWP candidates and vice versa Socialist Worker SPEW ones. Or TUSC central might have a designated spokesperson so that a day after the election results we wouldn't still be waiting for an official statement on the TUSC website when the constituent parties had issued their own almost immediately. Or TUSC might follow basic advertising/PR principles and stick to a single manifesto.

You know, one time I was fishing with a friend. Our boat sprung a leak. We spent several hours discussing what to do and then started bailing water with a couple of sieves. A stranger on another boat started laughing at us; he said we'd wasted time on pointless discussions and the method we settled upon was ineffective. We told him indignantly that we'd been working really hard - and anyway who was he to say anything, just sitting on his arse over there.

The stranger was a dick. He wasn't wrong, though.

By "paper unity" I mean unity only on paper and not real unity, not newspapers. lol :p

[Red Commissar]

Most I can comment on is from two perspectives,

From a strictly mainstream political interpretation,

-Labour was already on its way to a loss. After serving this long with economic conditions the way they are, it was a matter of time until they lost the government. At this point the goal was to minimize the amount of seats they would lose, and in that regard they can still remain a presence in Parliament.

At any rate, I am curious whether Labour will continue on this route of "New Labour", or rethink its approach. Though they will probably continue drifting to the centre and to the centre-right in the political game with the tories.

-The Tories a few months ago felt confident that they would get a strong victory from these elections. In that regard, while they gained a good amount of seats they still failed to get a majority. I think that in itself is a failure, as it seemed to them just a few months ago victory would be in their grasp.

It is amusing to me however from the campaign promises that the Tories had, trying to embrace the concept of "change" and distancing itself from the Thatcherite legacy.

-With all the hubub the LibDems were getting, they, in my opinion, got a disappointing result. While they are in the position to help the Tories get a majority, I think it will show their supporters how willing they will be to sell their goals in exchange for a position of power in the cabinet.

Like PT said this was a failure for all involved, including the leftists. It's obvious there was no real coherent campaigning by the left-wing groups, with all the divisions and sectarianism going on.

It's also another representation of how idiotic the first past the post system is, in my opinion. A Hung parliament despite the turn out and overall share of votes per party, due to the way that performance district by district matters more.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

wait the TUSC got 12,000 votes TOTAL across the entire country of like 50.000,000 voters?

Oh dear god that is depressing news.

The fact that we're quite so irrelevant really does depress me? What are we doing wrong to get such piss poor 0.0 percent results? Surely we can't all just be idiots clinging onto some old ideology which everyone else can see is utterly flawed? How can we be doing so much wrong?

[RedAnarchist]

About 44 million people were eligible to vote in this election. Not counting the one seat where the election has been delayed due to the death of one of the candidates, 29.6 million people voted.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/

[The Idler]

Of course New Labour will carry on being New Labour, they will simply swap the old face (Brown) for a new face (Milliband). Most people in the country see Labour's woes as a personality problem not a policy problem. Even David Cameron's campaign was mainly about personality and they broadly agreed in the debate about cuts, education, health etc.

Never mind, with proportional representation, the far left will have a better chance of getting a seat rather than being content with keeping Tories/BNP out.

[Magdalen]

Absolutely no change whatsoever in Scotland from the previous election;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/region/7.stm

As an aside, with regard to the tory gains in Ye Olde not-so-merry England, it has to be said, a sizeable chunk of the English working class -especially in the south - have a bit of a serf-mentality. Marx & Engels commented upon it on numerous occasions back in the day.

They "know their station in life", as they say down there. :rolleyes:

The best argument for an indepedent Scotland I think of.

Perhaps the Tories might unwittingly provide coals for the locomotive of Scottish independence?

All in all, the election seems to have been of little importance to socialists - whoever wins, attacks on the working class and on immigrants will continue - although no doubt a significant section of the left will decide to run back to a Labour Party promising 'bigger cuts than Thatcher' when it ends up in Opposition.

I did take a fair bit of pleasure from seeing Peter Robinson get the boot though.

[Lyev]

I would just like to put this into perspective slightly. There has been a number of criticisms from people on this thread who don't even live in the UK, from people who were totally external to the whole campaign process. How can you possibly know how the campaign went, and that there was a lack of coherence? I am not defending TUSC simply for the sake of dogmatism; where there is genuine mistakes I will accept them, but I find some people's ability to critique from the outside extraordinary.

Bear in mind the following facts: Rupert Murdoch owns approximately 40% of the media in Britain. Also, Lord Ashcroft has spent absolutely millions funding Tory campaigns in the crucial marginal seats. He pays no UK tax, by the way. City financiers have given the Conservatives £16 million since 2006. Also, Unite have given Labour something like £11 million since 2007. Another target for the left in Britain (which we have been working on: see Roger Bannister (http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/8941/03-03-2010/unison-general-secretary-election-nominate-roger-bannister)'s activity in Unison) is trying to take Labour-affiliated unions out of the hands of the bourgeoisie, and put them into the hands of the workers.

To add, when the Labour party was first founded, in 1900, and while they were still a worker's party, they stood 15 candidates, of which only 2 were elected. They got a mere 3% of the vote, roughly 60,000 people in the end. If Labour started like this, then I see no reason why TUSC can't become stronger. Having said that, there are still a number of tiny (even smaller than SPEW and SWP) far-left parties in Britain that ignored the coalition. I cannot fathom why. There are also a couple quite progressive Labour-affiliated politicians hanging around. Plus there is Respect. With a bit of work, I see no reason why we can't collaborate with some of these people.

Anyway, it just annoys that people will criticise so easily, especially when they don't even live in the UK. That's not to say I think non UK-residents can't comment; but they don't have first-hand experiences, nor do they know the feelings (of frustration, disillusionment, anger, and desperation) of working-class people here.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I'm in the US. As I understand it the British ruling class wants to impose severe neo-liberal cutbacks. All three parties have signed on to this with, I believe, the Tories being the most aggressively explicit on this. In light of this is it positive for the working class and the left that there's a hung Parliament? Will the future government be weaker?

Also, a dumb question -is it certain Cameron will be PM in coalition w/the Liberals or could there be a different configuration? What are the ramifications for the radical left?

[Revy]

I would just like to put this into perspective slightly. There has been a number of criticisms from people on this thread who don't even live in the UK, from people who were totally external to the whole campaign process. How can you possibly know how the campaign went, and that there was a lack of coherence? I am not defending TUSC simply for the sake of dogmatism; where there is genuine mistakes I will accept them, but I find some people's ability to critique from the outside extraordinary.

Bear in mind the following facts: Rupert Murdoch owns approximately 40% of the media in Britain. Also, Lord Ashcroft has spent absolutely millions funding Tory campaigns in the crucial marginal seats. He pays no UK tax, by the way. City financiers have given the Conservatives £16 million since 2006. Also, Unite have given Labour something like £11 million since 2007. Another target for the left in Britain (which we have been working on: see Roger Bannister (http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/8941/03-03-2010/unison-general-secretary-election-nominate-roger-bannister)'s activity in Unison) is trying to take Labour-affiliated unions out of the hands of the bourgeoisie, and put them into the hands of the workers.

To add, when the Labour party was first founded, in 1900, and while they were still a worker's party, they stood 15 candidates, of which only 2 were elected. They got a mere 3% of the vote, roughly 60,000 people in the end. If Labour started like this, then I see no reason why TUSC can't become stronger. Having said that, there are still a number of tiny (even smaller than SPEW and SWP) far-left parties in Britain that ignored the coalition. I cannot fathom why. There are also a couple quite progressive Labour-affiliated politicians hanging around. Plus there is Respect. With a bit of work, I see no reason why we can't collaborate with some of these people.

Anyway, it just annoys that people will criticise so easily, especially when they don't even live in the UK. That's not to say I think non UK-residents can't comment; but they don't have first-hand experiences, nor do they know the feelings (of frustration, disillusionment, anger, and desperation) of working-class people here.

I am sorry if I sounded too negative, comrade. I have a problem making what I view as constructive criticism actually sound that way.

Well I am not from the UK but I have taken quite an interest in your politics I guess since a lot of you here are from the UK. and I feel like socialism is not misunderstood as much there, so there is more potential for revolutionary politics to succeed in the near-future. that is why I seem to take such an interest.

TUSC said that it did not take a position on whether to reclaim the Labour Party, which is something to be concerned about ideologically especially since TUSC is supposed to be trying to create an alternative to Labour. I am of the opinion that the Labour Party will never be controlled by revolutionaries.

I feel that the issue of workers' political action isn't confined to trade unionism. There are workers that are not part of unions. I think linking the idea of workers' representation to the representation of trade unions leaves too much leeway for bureaucracy. I feel that the solution is moving beyond the ideology that led to the creation of the Labour Party, not re-enacting it. A party should be built that is a revolutionary workers' party, and even if no unions support it, it can still be a revolutionary workers' party. I would think the most important feature of a workers' party is not the influence of trade unions but the degree to which it represents the class interests of the working class over the exploitative interests of the capitalist system.

[bailey_187]

so are the TUSC going to stay as the TUSC and actually begin to build up support, or will we see their return next year under a new name? (left list? left alliacne? socialist alliance?)

[Die Neue Zeit]

I feel that the issue of workers' political action isn't confined to trade unionism. There are workers that are not part of unions. I think linking the idea of workers' representation to the representation of trade unions leaves too much leeway for bureaucracy. I feel that the solution is moving beyond the ideology that led to the creation of the Labour Party, not re-enacting it. A party should be built that is a revolutionary workers' party, and even if no unions support it, it can still be a revolutionary workers' party. I would think the most important feature of a workers' party is not the influence of trade unions but the degree to which it represents the class interests of the working class over the exploitative interests of the capitalist system.

If you recall past conversations on this, you'd realize that "the degree to which it represents the class interests of the working class over the exploitative interests of the capitalist system" still sounds a tad weak. :p

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

To add, when the Labour party was first founded, in 1900, and while they were still a worker's party, they stood 15 candidates, of which only 2 were elected. They got a mere 3% of the vote, roughly 60,000 people in the end. If Labour started like this, then I see no reason why TUSC can't become stronger. Having said that, there are still a number of tiny (even smaller than SPEW and SWP) far-left parties in Britain that ignored the coalition. I cannot fathom why. There are also a couple quite progressive Labour-affiliated politicians hanging around. Plus there is Respect. With a bit of work, I see no reason why we can't collaborate with some of these people.


Because the labour party, what it was, and what it represented, was an actually new thing then.

There have been socialist parties in the same vein as the TUSC for the past 100 years, and this is one of the worst results of the lot. Thats the difference.

btw I live in the UK, but go easy on those abroad, its hardly their fault, and we shouldn't expect them just to swallow exactly what anyone "on the ground" says.

[Devrim]

Anyway, it just annoys that people will criticise so easily, especially when they don't even live in the UK. That's not to say I think non UK-residents can't comment; but they don't have first-hand experiences, nor do they know the feelings (of frustration, disillusionment, anger, and desperation) of working-class people here.

I completely reject the idea that non-UK residents shouldn't be able to criticise. I also think that those people bring in a wider perspective with their own 'first hand experiences', and knowledge of the working class in other countries.

Devrim

[Lyev]

I completely reject the idea that non-UK residents shouldn't be able to criticise. I also think that those people bring in a wider perspective with their own 'first hand experiences', and knowledge of the working class in other countries.

DevrimYes, I know, I find opinions from other countries interesting. I don't think I said non-UK residents can't criticize. But, I think it's fair to assume that non-UK residents won't have heard as much opinions on the election, (from actual voters) nor will they have been in the country at the time of the election.

[Lyev]

I am sorry if I sounded too negative, comrade. I have a problem making what I view as constructive criticism actually sound that way.

Well I am not from the UK but I have taken quite an interest in your politics I guess since a lot of you here are from the UK. and I feel like socialism is not misunderstood as much there, so there is more potential for revolutionary politics to succeed in the near-future. that is why I seem to take such an interest.

TUSC said that it did not take a position on whether to reclaim the Labour Party, which is something to be concerned about ideologically especially since TUSC is supposed to be trying to create an alternative to Labour. I am of the opinion that the Labour Party will never be controlled by revolutionaries.Don't worry about sounding negative, I think I often come across as rather grumpy, too. And your right about leftism in the UK; I am reminded of how luck I am to live here whenever I see Glenn Beck or the Teabaggers. Something else about the US is the bloody size of it. Helping out with comrades in other branches or vital areas must be an absolute nightmare for some Americans.

As regards reclaiming the Labour Party, I think most leftists have given up. There's no point anymore. It's too far gone into the hands of big business. It's why we make doubly sure to call them "New" Labour instead. Gordon Brown called the recent BA strikes here as "deplorable". There are still a number of trade-unions in the hands of Labour. Anyway, for a campaign, albeit a rather small and under-publicized one, see the Campaign For a New Workers' Party (http://www.cnwp.org.uk/), affiliated to SPEW. It was initiated as a response to the debate on Labour's position within the trade-unionist and socialist movement. Here's what they have to say:
A century ago trade unionists and socialist came together to fight for independent representation for the working class: the result was the Labour Party. In the past the Labour Party, however imperfectly, provided a voice for the working class. Today, however, New Labour is a party of the giant corporations, its policies a continuation of Margaret Thatcher’s attacks on the lives and living conditions of working-class people. Public services are being sold off; the occupation of Iraq has led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and thousands of ‘coalition’ soldiers; democratic rights are being undermined in the name of fighting terrorism; and the Tory anti-trade union laws, the most repressive in the European Union, have been left almost completely intact.

At Labour Party conference after Labour Party conference the trade unions succeed in winning votes against New Labour policies. However, the Labour Party conference no longer has any power and its decisions are brushed aside by the party leadership. Gordon Brown has made it absolutely clear that this will not change under his leadership and that there will be no ‘shift to the left’. We believe that the chance to reclaim the Labour Party has long past and there is no point in continuing to fuel false hopes. We pledge to do all in our power to bring a new workers’ party into being in England and Wales. (emphasis mine)

However, as I quickly mentioned, there are still quite a few progressive minds in the Labour Party. They obviously don't have very power, or a strong voice, to influence the a "shift to the left". It just won't happen.

I feel that the issue of workers' political action isn't confined to trade unionism. There are workers that are not part of unions. I think linking the idea of workers' representation to the representation of trade unions leaves too much leeway for bureaucracy. I feel that the solution is moving beyond the ideology that led to the creation of the Labour Party, not re-enacting it. A party should be built that is a revolutionary workers' party, and even if no unions support it, it can still be a revolutionary workers' party. I would think the most important feature of a workers' party is not the influence of trade unions but the degree to which it represents the class interests of the working class over the exploitative interests of the capitalist system.On the question of trade-unionism, and workers' politics being confined to them, I'm not sure there was ever anything that alluded to this, in what I've said, and in what TUSC, SPEW and the SWP have said. As a result of the fragmentation of the left in Britain at the moment, plus since people like Bob Crow and Roger Bannister* have put their weight behind TUSC, I see no reason why we trade-unionism can't play a big role. I think the trade-union membership in Britain at the moment is something like 7 or 8 million; if we can get a least a sizable portion of these workers behind us it would be a huge boost. Of course I don't want to substitute trade-unionism for revolutionary worker's politics, but having the weight of at least some trade-union membership behind the coalition, or party, would be a great impetus. Also, trade-union members are likely to be more accepting of socialist ideas. It's not that I want to subordinate all socialist and working-class political activity to the trade-union movement, I just think that the trade-unions are a potential ingredient to add the workers' movement on a whole.

*There's also Brian Caton of the POA, but there is contention over his position in the leftist movement as a whole.

[Lyev]

so are the TUSC going to stay as the TUSC and actually begin to build up support, or will we see their return next year under a new name? (left list? left alliacne? socialist alliance?)I don't know. I assume we will stay the same and start to "build up support", there will most likely be another election in a year or so anyway, judging from the way these "discussions" are going. The three main parties vacillation over coalitions and alliances, and forsaking the "national interest" as Clegg called it, could be a good springboard from which to start our agitprop. They're not going to sort out the economy by arguing amongst themselves.

[Proletarian Ultra]

I don't know. I assume we will stay the same and start to "build up support", there will most likely be another election in a year or so anyway, judging from the way these "discussions" are going. The three main parties vacillation over coalitions and alliances, and forsaking the "national interest" as Clegg called it, could be a good springboard from which to start our agitprop. They're not going to sort out the economy by arguing amongst themselves.

I've been pretty harsh on TUSC's media and PR strategy in this past campaign, but FOR GOD'S SAKE STICK WITH THAT NAME AND CONTINUE!!! :thumbup1:

[here for the revolution]

It's virtually concrete now-Liberal Democrat/Conservative coalition. Dark days are upon us. Whilst all parties planned the usual damaging cuts to the public sector, none will go as far in their attempts as the Conservative party led by their privileged nob of a leader.

[Mendax]

David Cameron is now the PM - someone say something witty so I can put it on facebook and claim it as my own.

Wel aslong as the queen doesn't just clap him or something.

[Spawn of Stalin]

Bring on the strikes is all I'll say

[howblackisyourflag]

Anyone hear camerons speech? At the start he said, 'because of the last government this country is more open at home and more peaceful abroad than it was 10 years ago'.

How do people believe this shit? I dont know if many even do anymore.

[Wanted Man]

Expected. Of course some people in Labour and LibDem tried to form a "progressive" (:rolleyes:) coalition, but it stands to reason that LibDem would prefer this option. It's easier to explain to your electorate that you are going to work with the winners of the election, with whom you only have a few social differences, than that you are going to cooperate with the losers and that you're going to have to make "disproportionate" concessions to Scottish and Welsh nationalists.

[Argument]

What's the difference between Tories and Labour? They seem really similar to me, both wants to increase surveillance and anti-terrorist laws.

[Spawn of Stalin]

One is red the other is blue.

[ed miliband]

One is better at 'helping the vulnerable' apparently. Of course, the last 13 years show the opposite is true.

[brigadista]

stupid lib dems stitched RIGHT up by the tories - but I am in agreement with auflkeben here

[Joesky]

Mass protest in parliament square anyone?
The workers need to mobilize. We need to show them that we will put up a fight!

[howblackisyourflag]

Mass protest in parliament square anyone?
The workers need to mobilize. We need to show them that we will put up a fight!

Your party helped do it outside the Irish Parliament tonight, why not the British one too!

[Leonid Brozhnev]

Hopefully the anger and dissent will rise when the working class start to get ass fucked by Tory policy.

[cyu]

When you have an election in any capitalist "democracy" it's like a boxing match. One the one side, you have the gangster's boxer and on the other side, you have the challenger that is supposed to represent the little guy. What the audience doesn't know, of course, is that the challenger has already been paid to throw the fight in the 3rd round, after making it look like he put up a good fight and was trying "as hard as he could".

[The Grey Blur]

a marxist analysis:

http://www.marxist.com/britains-contradictory-election-results.htm

[Devrim]

Expected. Of course some people in Labour and LibDem tried to form a "progressive" (:rolleyes:) coalition, but it stands to reason that LibDem would prefer this option. It's easier to explain to your electorate that you are going to work with the winners of the election, with whom you only have a few social differences, than that you are going to cooperate with the losers and that you're going to have to make "disproportionate" concessions to Scottish and Welsh nationalists.

To be honest I am surprised about the LibDems going into coalition with the Tories. With relation to the line highlighted above, I think that it shows how little they are 'in tune' with their own politics. They are a party promoting proportional representation. In countries that have this type of system, the winner of an election is not the party that won the most seats, but the one that manages to form a government. The Conservative party, with its 36.1% of the vote, would not be considered as winners until they formed a government.


with whom you only have a few social differences

I am not sure what you mean here. If you are referring to their actual social differences, they are all members of the same class. If it is social policy, I think that the LibDems are certainly closer to the Labour party.

Devrim

[RebelDog]

To be honest I am surprised about the LibDems going into coalition with the Tories. With relation to the line highlighted above, I think that it shows how little they are 'in tune' with their own politics. They are a party promoting proportional representation. In countries that have this type of system, the winner of an election is not the party that won the most seats, but the one that manages to form a government. The Conservative party, with its 36.1% of the vote, would not be considered as winners until they formed a government.

When top jobs and chauffeur-driven cars are on offer, anything is possible.

I don't know why they didn't go for a Labour-Tory-Liberal coalition. I mean, they all agree on the main economic point: the working-class are to pay for the bailout for the rich.

Throughout this spectacle I've seen unelected lords on Sky News talking about the right to govern, polititians lying through their teeth about doing what is in the 'national interest' and constant updates about what the money markets want to see happen. Phrases like 'new politics' are now doing the rounds. I wish they would take away the right to vote and leave the working class to channel their total energy and aggression in fruitful directions, away from farcical bourgeois games.

[ed miliband]

Yeah, 'national interest' must have been said five hundred or so times daily. I still haven't worked out who/what is meant by 'national interest' but I have a pretty good idea.

[RebelDog]

Yeah, 'national interest' must have been said five hundred or so times daily. I still haven't worked out who/what is meant by 'national interest' but I have a pretty good idea.

All states are made up of opposing classes, so by definition there is no such thing as the 'national interest'. Its a euphemism for whats best for the business class.

[ed miliband]

All states are made up of opposing classes, so by definition there is no such thing as the 'national interest'. Its a euphemism for whats best for the business class.

That's what I meant with the last part of my latter sentence...

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

It's virtually concrete now-Liberal Democrat/Conservative coalition. Dark days are upon us. Whilst all parties planned the usual damaging cuts to the public sector, none will go as far in their attempts as the Conservative party led by their privileged nob of a leader.

Indeed, he really is a disgusting person. Just seeing him makes me cringe, such sleaze and arrogant snobbery his visage alone radiate... I remember even the first time I saw the fellow, some speech clip on YouTube several years ago where from his mouth burst forth clichés of "free-enterprise" and the "market", and some weak attacks at New Labour for not being enough like the Tories-such a horrible sight.

If this was an election based on personalities, and some thought that Brown was an annoying uncharismatic character, how in the world can they find this sordid twat preferable?

[Leonid Brozhnev]

If this was an election based on personalities, and some thought that Brown was an annoying uncharismatic character, how in the world can they find this sordid twat preferable?

That's what baffles me. I think the problem is that the public can be so easily manipulated through the media... the media that's owned by corporate billionaire bastards who act in their own interests.

[ed miliband]

I don't think the public are that easily manipulated and this election is proof of that. If they public were so easily manipulated by the media the Conservatives would have stormed into Parliament last Friday - they didn't.

[Che G]

Well Clegg sucked up to Cameron. Lib Dem's are the same as the Tories. WE need a left wing revolution in Britain. Who's up for it? :confused ;)

[Argument]

Well Clegg sucked up to Cameron. Lib Dem's are the same as the Tories. WE need a left wing revolution in Britain. Who's up for it? :confused ;)Pretty much all political parties are more or less the same deal. They desire power, that's their objective. "Socialist" politicians tend not to be that socialistic.

[Spawn of Stalin]

I think that this is a very bleak outlook on humanity, that anyone and everyone who gets into politics only does it for the power, that they can not possibly care about the greater good.

[Argument]

I think that this is a very bleak outlook on humanity, that anyone and everyone who gets into politics only does it for the power, that they can not possibly care about the greater good.I'm not saying that they get into politics for power, I'm saying that they get corrupted by the power, by the system. If they don't, then they are not likely to get a very good position in the party. The "good guys" aren't given high posts by the corrupted leaders. Politics doesn't run on altruism, politics runs on power.

[cyu]

I don't think the public are that easily manipulated and this election is proof of that. If they public were so easily manipulated by the media the Conservatives would have stormed into Parliament last Friday - they didn't.


Two kinds of people that vote for pro-capitalists:

1) Rich liars
2) Poor dupes

...if you're not in one of those groups, then you wouldn't have voted Conservative. Then again, this isn't to say that by voting Lib Dem or Labour, you haven't been duped by pro-capitalists anyway.

[ed miliband]

What I mean is I don't think men and women wake up and decide to vote for the Tories because The Sun or The Mail told them too. I genuinely don't believe that people are stupid enough to decide who to vote for based on what 'THE MEDIA!' says, and I know plenty of people who read The Sun and hate the Tories. I think the media is often blamed for the failings of the left, and while it obviously plays a role, I think the left itself is just as much to blame.

People vote for capitalist parties not necessarily because they have been duped, but because they have never really been exposed to anything else, and they've probably never heard any convincing and coherent arguments about why they shouldn't vote for such parties. Information isn't widely available, and when it is it tends to cater for the already 'converted'... The Sun, The Mail and whatever other papers are going to be far more convincing than The Weekly Worker, The Morning Star, or Freedom.