UK voting tectonic, not tactical, with Lib Dems

Here's a fine description of the tectonic, not tactical, shift that has happened in the UK:

What we've seen over the past 48 hours is the possibility of a genuinely new approach. Instead of playing by the political establishment's rules, we have a real chance now of doing something genuinely disruptive. Not only would more it lead to more Lib Dem MPs voting for a genuinely democratic political system, a high Lib Dem share of the vote will illustrate perfectly why one is so badly needed.

Tories and Labour are going on about how the system is not going to let the Lib Dems win anyway, as they are still stuck in their tactical mindset of how many seats will give them a plurality. They've missed that the plurality of people have already accepted a hung Parliament as a good thing--- that of disrupting the status quo.

As James Graham point out, its going to lead to an even larger disruption, when the results kick in; especially if Labour in 3rd, has the most seats. The "result as a travesty" is actually a great thing for true reform to happen.

.....if you want a "well" hung parliament, your strategy should be very simple indeed: vote Lib Dem. Not only will that guarantee a Lib Dem bloc in parliament holding the balance of power, it will discredit the electoral system itself.

...That is why I suspect the far simpler message of the Rage Against the Machine/Vote Lib Dem Facebook group is having more resonance amongst the public. What is needed at this stage is not nuanced psephological arguments but a clear, disruptive, brutal message: vote Liberal Democrat and change the system.

Indeed, the call by Cameron that voting for Clegg will lead to political chaos for his class is probably giving more reason to the Gen x and younger voters to continue the move to voting Lib Dems.

The Lib Dems are starting to show some distance now between themselves and both Labour and Conservatives with the use of internet mobilizing and viral persuasion. As Mark Pack points out, the Lib Dem group linked above on Facebook now has more members than any establishment UK political group, a first he thinks.

From a US perspective, that seems odd, because our volunteer campaigns start so much earlier than do the official ones. Its the shortened time-span of the UK politics. With just under three weeks till the election, the Lib Dems fortunes have wildly reversed.

With the surge of Clegg, some are pointing to the 18 or so days left, as more than enough time for Clegg to fade and go right back to where the Lib Dems were. Again, that seems totally odd from a US perspective-- that such momentum would dissipate almost as quickly as it happened. When we see a peak like this in the US, with 2-3 weeks out to the election, its usually too late for the opposition to stall it, much less make it go away; late adopters and laggards bring it out a month. It seems more likely that Clegg's numbers go even higher rather than fade back.

Here's the Sunday night roundup of the polls and projections.

Tags: Lib Dems, uk, uk (all tags)



FYI: here's the latest "uniform swing projection"

Which shows a hung parliament with Labour having the most seats:

by desmoinesdem 2010-04-18 02:33PM | 0 recs
RE: FYI: here's the latest "uniform swing projection"

Too topsy turvy, those numbers seem lagging. The You Guv poll out: 

According to Sky News it translates into these seats;-


Now, if Lib Dems continue the surge, they could go into the lead. Uncharted territory now:


Tonight’s YouGov poll shows the Lib Dem boost continuing. The topline figures are CON 32%(-1), LAB 26%(-3), LDEM 33%(+4), so following on from BPIX yesterday we now have YouGov putting the Lib Dems in the lead. The 32% is the lowest the Conservatives have been with YouGov since the election-that-never-was in 2007, 26% is the lowest Labour have been since the Conservative party conference boost last year.

The poll was conducted on Saturday and Sunday, so with the “Lib Dem breakthrough” dominating the media and the election narrative. It’s quite hard to guess what is going to happen next...

by Jerome Armstrong 2010-04-18 08:41PM | 0 recs
Lib Dem marginals in the South West

ComRes has crosstabs up for its April 16th-17th poll. The Tories have been targeting 11 Lib Dem marginals in the South West and things didn't look so good after the disappointing local and European election results.

Here's the results (page 7), which only include people who say they are likely to vote.

Wales and Southwest

  • Conservative: 24%
  • Labour: 14%
  • Lib Dem: 28%
  • Don't know: 23%

Here's how people report voting in 2005 (page 2). Some of these people, though, might not have lived in the same region in 2005, so it's not a strict apples-to-apples comparison.

Wales and South West

  • Conservative: 22%
  • Labour: 15%
  • Lib Dem: 19%
  • Did not vote: 29%

Because of the "Did not vote" and "Don't know" categories, the percentages aren't directly comparable. However, back in 2005 the Lib Dems trailed the Tories by a couple points among poll respondents. Now, they've pulled ahead. Hopefully, this translates into safe seats for the Lib Dem incumbents in the South West.

by tsunado 2010-04-18 11:23PM | 0 recs
RE: Lib Dem marginals in the South West

I think so-- that it takes them off the table from losing. I've read that Lib Dems had been weak so far this GE, compared with '05, in Scotland, which I thought was surprising (I guess the Brown factor). I havent' seen a follow up on it, or whether its changed in the polling.

by Jerome Armstrong 2010-04-19 09:03AM | 0 recs
Here's an angle on the UK election that should be considered if not debated.

I personally can't agree or disagree with it because I don't know British politics...but:

"The Israel lobby dominates Labour and owns most Conservative MPs and other politicians"

By Stuart Littlewood*

"We can already see how disastrously the US election turned out, not just for Americans but the rest of us also. "The US president is simply the voice of the Zionist parasite," writes a friend in Norway. "It is sickening and frightening that Obama is seen toeing the Zionist line."

"Zionism has the US administration and other western governments by the balls."

Well, that's certainly the way it looks. Last month Israel's prime minister Netanyahu slapped America in the face by approving more illegal settlements during vice-president Joe Biden's visit. What did Secretary of State Hillary Clinton do? She repeated the pathetic mantra: "We have an absolute commitment to Israel's security. We have a close unshakeable bond between the United States and Israel and between the American and Israeli people".

Clinton completed her surrender to the Israeli terror machine by sharing the AIPAC Conference platform with a triumphant Netanyahu.

Whereupon over half of America's lawmakers topped Clinton's performance by signing a letter committing to the US's "unbreakable" bond with the racist regime.

Nine months earlier, speaking in a BBC interview, Obama said he believed the US was "able to get serious negotiations back on track" between Israel and the Palestinians. And when asked about Israel's defiance when called on to halt construction of Jewish settlements in the West Bank, he urged patience. "Diplomacy is always a matter of a long hard slog. It's never a matter of quick results."

The fact is, diplomacy doesn't work with the Israelis. Everyone knows the problem: Israel's contempt for international law and UN resolutions. And now we see Obama's contempt too. In this wobbly leader's mind Israel is somehow exempt from the laws, conventions, codes of conduct and respect for the rights of others that apply to everyone else in the civilised world.

Forcing negotiations is immoral

And Obama should know better than to keep harping on about peace negotiations. It is absurd to put a weak party and a strong party together and expect fair results when the strong party is in permanent occupation and has its military boot on the weak party's neck.

It is immoral to expect the weak party to negotiate while the strong party is in flagrant breach of international law, commits acts of piracy, maintains a crippling blockade, carries out daily air strikes on civilians and continues to steal the weak party's land and resources.

It is immoral for sponsors of negotiations to be so partisan as to refuse to recognize the democratically elected representatives of the weak party or its right to self-determination and territorial integrity.

It is immoral to force negotiations without first establishing a level playing field and ensuring both sides are compliant with international law. The international community has shirked this responsibility for decades, not because the peoples of the community of nations lack the will but because their leaders are gutless and corrupt.

Then there's the scandal of the US government's aid to Israel which runs at nearly $3 billion annually and totals well over $100 billion since 1949. The money helps pay for Israel's costly occupation of Palestinian territory, its F-16s, helicopter gun-ships, tanks, ordnance, Caterpillar bulldozers, and all the other tools of military oppression and territorial grand theft.

Israel gets more $billions in indirect aid – military support, loan write-offs, rich technology transfers and special grants. Before George W Bush left office he agreed an assistance package of $30 billion over the next ten years.

So the US taxpayer has been cheerfully funding Israeli operations to destroy Palestinian infrastructure (which in many cases has been paid for by British, EU and – yes – US taxpayers) and bring the whole civil society to its knees.

Most of this aid violates US laws that stipulate US-supplied weapons can only be used for "legitimate self-defense" and military assistance is prohibited to any country that engages in "a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights". Military assistance is also banned to any government that refuses to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty or allow inspection of its nuclear facilities. But thanks to the "unbreakable" bond with Israel these inconvenient laws might as well not exist.

Israelis fiercely attack any attempt to 'de-legitimise' their ill-gotten gains while more and more people argue that the state of Israel had no legitimacy in the first place. Nevertheless the Zionist menace now has nuclear fangs and the capability to target most European cities… and, as we have seen, has no sense of restraint whatever.

Gee, thanks, America. Before you go accepting any more peace prizes, Obama, how about bringing to heel this monster the US has been nurturing?

Israel's 'Voices' compete for British vote

Here in Britain we have our own version of AIPAC. The Foreign Office has been under Zionist influence for decades. Our most important security bodies – the Intelligence & Security Committee, the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Defence Committee – are headed by Israel flag-wavers. They have embedded themselves in nearly ever nook and cranny of parliamentary life.

Right now these stooges are battling for our votes in a general election.

Before the election campaign the main parties, Labour and the Conservatives, were so wedded to the Zionist cause that both wished to change our laws to protect Israeli leaders from arrest on war crimes charges and provide them with a safe haven in Britain.

Now they keep very quiet about their pro-Israel antics, no doubt hoping the question won't be brought under the public spotlight or need explaining.

Labour has been in power 13 years and is now under Blair's successor Gordon Brown, a Zionist sympathizer and patron of the Jewish National Fund. The party's 115-page manifesto barely mentions the fate of the Holy Land except to say: "We support the creation of a viable Palestinian state that can live alongside a secure Israel." Note that it's a secure Israel but only a viable Palestine. Israel must remain comfortably secure while continuing its ethnic cleansing and thieving.

The Conservative Party is favourite to win the election – or was until its leader, David "I'm-a-Zionist" Cameron, flunked a televised leaders' debate. Cameron too is a dutiful patron of the JNF. His party's 118-page manifesto says nothing about Britain's responsibility towards the Palestinians apart from promising support for a two state solution to the Middle East Peace Process. That's all, full stop.

80% of Conservative MPs and MEPs, it is claimed, are passionate admirers of racist Israel. But they don't shout it from the rooftops at election time. No, they are furtive because they know deep down that it is a grubby, indefensible position and the public would react with revulsion if the party's allegiance to a foreign military power that makes war of Christian communities was exposed in the mainstream media.

Sad to say, then, there is no sign of Labour or the Conservatives deviating from the path of betrayal.

Thankfully a third party, the Liberal Democrats, is emerging strongly. Its leader, Nick Clegg, is no rabid Zionist though readers will remember he recently sacked Baroness Jenny Tonge to appease the Israel lobby. However, the Liberal Democrats at least believe Britain and the EU must put pressure on Israel and Egypt to end the blockade of Gaza and talk of borders "which are secure and based on the situation before the 1967 conflict".

This party looks less corruptible than the others and less likely to worship at the altar of Zionism. Not being considered serious contenders till now, Clegg and his team probably haven't been groomed by the US administration's spivs and pimps. So we can expect big efforts to discredit them in the days ahead.

In my simple way I see a glimmer of hope here.

When a proper history comes to be written, Americans will struggle to explain how the most powerful nation on earth was so easily conned and mugged for countless billions of tax dollars to finance the ambitions of a bunch of extremists bent on defiling the Holy Land and spreading their tentacles into every crevice of the western world.

The British also will have some explaining to do."

* Stuart Littlewood is author of the book Radio Free Palestine, which tells the plight of the Palestinians under occupation. Read other articles by Stuart, or visit Stuart's website.

by MainStreet 2010-04-18 03:02PM | 0 recs
RE: Here's an angle on the UK election that should be considered if not debated.

Posting articles, verbatim, from other websites into the comment section is extraordinarliy obnoxious behavior. A link would suffice, along with a short excerpt of a few paragraphs, if you thought the article was relevant to the topic at hand.

by tsunado 2010-04-18 03:18PM | 0 recs
RE: Here's an angle on the UK election that should be considered if not debated.

Well here's the link anyway:


It did not appear to be that long initially, but much of it scopes American politics before breaking out the British aspect. If you know how to delete the comment, I will repost it with your suggestion. There was no intention here to be obnoxious, but it was from a British site and appeared relevant to the UK election.

by MainStreet 2010-04-18 03:22PM | 0 recs
RE: Here's an angle on the UK election that should be considered if not debated.

PS: I haven't seen you here before, so your assertive response seems kind of unusual. Was there anything in the comment per se that you objected to? As opposed that is to the length?>

by MainStreet 2010-04-18 09:02PM | 0 recs
RE: Here's an angle on the UK election that should be considered if not debated.

Please don't violate copyright standards. A link and an excerpt of a few paragraphs are fine, but not copying and pasting a whole article.

by desmoinesdem 2010-04-18 04:24PM | 0 recs
RE: Here's an angle on the UK election that should be considered if not debated.

The article did not indicate that it was copyrighted, or that copyright was applicable, and the site itself only indicated that "some" material on its site may be copyrighted, in which case the author's permission is required. I looked for that indication: there was none appended to this article, which is not unusual for writers about IP. It was also republished on several other sites obtained through Google where no copyright permission was indicated.


by MainStreet 2010-04-18 05:00PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads