UK: Kennedy liked more, more polls

Here's the "baby bounce" for Kennedy in the UK election:

Kennedy was quite the trooper, going ahead with the presentation of the Liberal Democrat Manifesto 2 days after the birth, despite under obvious sleep-deprivation. Anyone that's been there appreciates that effort-- alot more than the contrary-indicator of the press swipes toward his tiredness. More polls? The UK Polling Report has all the goodies on the latest polls just out. Most show a re-gaining of the strong lead by Labour (except the internet polling outfit), a backslide by the Conservatives, and an inching up by Liberal Democrats. Overall though, no one knows really what to expect given the seemingly unpredictable turnout.

Tags: Foreign Elections (all tags)

Comments

14 Comments

Tangental comment
... IMHO... if the Democrats continue their path of of out-GOPing the GOP ie War Chicken/Hawking ... we too shall see the SUBSTANTIAL increase to the rolls of Third Parties.
by Parker 2005-04-17 07:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Tangental comment
It's amazing. In Britain, arguably the most America-like nation in the world besides America, there is actually a major third party. Imagine.

This party actually holds nearly 10% of the parliament's seats. Amazing. And here in the U.S., third parties got a combined...1% of the vote.

Then again, that's fine with me - I wasn't very happy about Nader's presence costing Gore the White House.

by raginillinoian 2005-04-17 09:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Tangental comment
I'd say Australia and (english) Canada are more like the US.
by Ben P 2005-04-17 10:01PM | 0 recs
temporary boost?
Kennedy has been treated very well by the UK press this week, given that in his 7.30am press conference on Thursday he badly lost track of what he was saying during an explanation of tax policy. The birth of his child has made a large number of commmentators sympathetic - it'll be interesting to see how the polls pan out next week.

He's also the leader about whom the British public know the least - maybe we don't know him well enough to actively like or dislike him the way we dislike Howard and Blair.

by bookdrunk 2005-04-17 08:42AM | 0 recs
An Idea
Here's an idea for political junkies.
Make a game like 'splinter cell - chaos theory'.
and put it out there.

You would have to base it in britain,
however. Because you wouldn't want to actually
look around and see anything
that looks like.. reality.

Blair made a mistake thinking that Bush
was one person. As a man, I think he
could easily make that error. We shouldn't
blame him.

I'd say its our duty as americans to help
one of these fellows.  The papal conclave started
today. Maybe we could have the anglican
church and the catholic church converge
in a british appointment to the
papacy.

We could call him Pope Linus II

Do you think?

by turnerbroadcasting 2005-04-17 09:01AM | 0 recs
Who are the Lib Dems...really?

After spending a year abroad in Scotland, reading the Guardian pretty much every day, I still can't figure out the LibDem phenomenon.

Ideologically, people tell me they're the 'centrist' party (as opposed to New Labour, who are about two full generations away from socialism these days?), and their main demographic (besides antiwar movement folk) seems to be people who don't 'trust' Blair but wouldn't be dead voting conservative.

Ask the Democratic Party in 2004 how we did building a campaign built on the distrust of a national leader who ended up outpoliticking everyone anyway...

So who are the Liberal Democrats?

by CT Lex 2005-04-17 03:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Who are the Lib Dems...really?
I'm by no means an expert on British politics, but here goes:

The Liberal Democrats are the political descendents of the 19th century Liberal Party, and are the heirs of Gladstone. In 1900, the Labour Party was founded, and by 1922 it put the Liberals into the place of a 3rd Party, while Labour and the Tories became the two main parties. It has stayed that way ever since.

The election of Margaret Thatcher polarized British Politics very much, which gave the Liberals an opportunity. In Labour "safe seats" the Liberals became the main vehicle for opposition, and in Tory safe seats, the Liberals became the opposition. Imagine Utah Senate as a safe Tory seat, for example, and Rhode Island as a safe Labour seat - you have to have more centrist opposition if you want a hope of winning.

During the Thatcher years, some of the moderates from Labour started the Social Democratic Party. They practically worked with Labour, and in 1988 the Liberals and Social Democrats formally united, becoming the Liberal Democrats.

With the rise of New Labour and Tony Blair, Labour shifted dramatically to the right. Because of the Labour shift, the Liberal Democrats are now at least arguably the most left-wing of the 3 national parties, without having much changed their positions. They are also of course the only party which opposed the Iraq debacle.

by demomatt 2005-04-17 05:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Who are the Lib Dems...really?
I am a member of the party, so I suppose I should say something:

Socially Liberal, Moderately Left Economically (but unfortunately also with a strain of free-market believing idealism that breaks out from time to time), Very Internationalist, Radical on Constitutional Change, Federalist.

(Note: I'm not sure Federalist is the right word to the describe this to a US audience, so I may be confusing you here)

Distressingly Middle-Class. Ferocious to the point of being at least perceived as utterly unprincipled in local election campaigning.  An unfortunate tendency to see compromise as good in itself.  No obvious underlying ideology so therefore seen as wishy-washy, weak, and again lacking in principle.

Haven't been in power nationally for eighty years.  Can't possibily win.  All you people in the US talking up our chances are quite, quite mad.

Being Federalist + Socially Liberal + Internationalist (and thus tending pro-Europe, and pro-immigration) pretty much rules us out.

The perceived mainstream -- i.e. 'Middle England' -- is Centralist + Moderate Social Authoritarianism + Isolationism/Imperialism (and thus tending anti-Europe, and anti-immigration).

Whenever there's a slow news period you'll get a least one editorialist currently disgruntled with their usual choice of either Labour or Tories, bemoaning the fact that they can't bring themselves to vote for us because we're just too enamoured with Europe, and don't seem committed to locking enough people up in prisons, or deporting enough 'bogus asylum seekers' and then going on to fantasise about themselves editorialising us into a landslide if we believed stuff more like them.  Which we don't.

Also our votes aren't geographically concentrated enough for the current electoral system, so at the last election it took on average to win a seat:

  • 26030 votes for Labour
  • 50338 votes for the Conservatives
  • 92337 votes for the Lib Dems

My Party Card quotes from the preamable to the party constitution.

'The Scottish [I'm in Scotland and it's a Federal Party] Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality, and community and in which no-one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity'

Hope that gives you some idea, but probably just leaves you more confused than ever :)

by yclept 2005-04-18 12:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Who are the Lib Dems...really?

Thanks for both of those posts!

Based on how you describe the history and general platform, the Lib Dems seem very reasonable and appealing to an American progressive like myself.

But it seems, then, that they are in a bit of an ideological muddle since the rightward lurch of 'New' Labour?

One nice thing about a two-party system, if all else fails, we can point at the other guys and say, "We're not THAT."

Thanks again...

by CT Lex 2005-04-19 04:38PM | 0 recs
jerome where have you been?
The current changes on MyDD seem at your expense.  Are you busy politicking or programming?  Will you be back?
by aiko 2005-04-17 04:08PM | 0 recs
Talked to my Dad today
back in England...

We talked briefly about the election. Something no one here is probably aware of, but a HUGE issue just broke that is really hurting labour.

Rover the last british car manufacturer just went under, after final desperate attempts to save it by selling it to the chinese.

It also appears that massive executive fraud might have taken place.

To contextualize, imagine if GM or ford went under over here under similar circumstances.

Might take a while for all this to take any polling effect, if at all. just thought i would mention it.

by Pounder 2005-04-17 06:48PM | 0 recs
BTW
I found a site with detailed analysis and statistics on the UK election:

electoralcalculus.co.uk

They currently predict the following:

Labour -21 seats = new total: 382
Conservatives +17 = new total: 182
Lib Dems +3 = new total: 54
Scottish Nationals +1 = new total: 9

Labour already has more or less lost a lot of seats because of the British version of redistricting that happened in Scotland (though their redistricting is much less political and more demographic). Scotland is heavily Labour, and so Labour is already going to be down from their 2001 total.

A loss of 21 seats is not good for Labour, but they will still have a huge majority. They seem to be recovering, too - last month many polls showed the Tories in the lead! And only earlier this week Electoral Calculus was predicting a loss of 26, not 21, seats for Labour, so Blair is doing better.

Anyhow, I am grudgingly supporting Labour. I mean, do we even want to think about a possible Tory Revolution and a reemergence of Thatcherism? Ick...

by raginillinoian 2005-04-17 08:54PM | 0 recs
by hpvv 2005-12-19 09:48PM | 0 recs
by hpvv 2005-12-19 09:49PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads