Blair Calls May 5 UK Election as Lead Shrinks

[Placebo]

Prime Minister Tony Blair confirmed on Tuesday the worst-kept secret in British politics -- that an election will be held on May 5 -- as polls suggested a real contest for the first time since 1992.

With Iraq weighing heavily on his ratings, Blair put his government's economic credentials at the heart of the campaign.

------------

Public anger over the Iraq war could slash Blair's parliamentary majority -- five new opinion polls showed his party has lost support to the main opposition Conservatives.

Embarrassingly, one of the ruling Labour party's candidates, Stephen Wilkinson, said on Tuesday he was defecting to the Liberal Democrats, the only major British party to oppose the Iraq war.

"Who would have thought a Labour government would become a lap dog to George Bush's right wing Republican administration," Wilkinson said.


More...

I hope the British people throw this git out on his arse.

[Wat_Tyler]

1. No you don't.

Howard is worse.

[Maple]

2. Liberal Democrats

may surprise everybody this time

[Wat_Tyler]

7. No, they won't.

They won't crack 25% of the vote or 60 seats. Sad, but likely.

[PeaceProgProsp]

9. They're behind the Tories. I hope Tories don't surprise everyone.

I see people here saying they're happy that Labour isn't far ahead because it's good for lib dems. But it isn't the lib dems who are just behind Labour. It's the Tories.

In the UK, it's first past the post and not proportional representation. If enough Tories creep past Labour, you're going to be looking at PM Michael Howard and some real serious neoliberalism abroad and some serious squeezing the middle class pips 'till they squeak at home.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

10. Pollsters think that the Lib Dems can increase their number of seats

but they're expected to poll around 19-21% of the vote. To win the election the Lib Dems need about 45% of the vote to get a simple majority and that's not going to happen in a month.

It's going to take several election cycles before the Lib Dems have a realistic chance of winning.

[Wat_Tyler]

13. In 1983, they took 25% of the vote, but only 19 seats.

Horribly unfair, but that's First Past the Post for you.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

14. It could possibly be a strange one this time in statistical terms

I wonder if it is time for a PR system for the U.K. Parliament? The Scottish Parliament system looks to be working all right. We might see some UKIP nutcases elected though, but it means a fairer system.

[Wat_Tyler]

15. The Scots Parliament model seems good.

As does the similar New Zealand one. As far as UKIP/Veritas/BNP nutters getting in - if that's what people choose to vote for, then that's who they get. Sometimes it's better to have them inside the tent.

[Placebo]

4. Yes I do.

:)

[Wat_Tyler]

8. I suppose it's easy when you don't live there.

I for one, don't want to subject Britain to the return of the Tories.

[Fenris]

3. Hopefully, the British are smarter than the Americans.

We apparently are in love with the concept of failing upward.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

5. I agree with Wat Tyler

The other main left-of-centre alternative are the Liberal Democrats, but they have an unrealistic chance of winning.

Michael Howard (of the Tories) is a nasty race-baiting sonofabitch. He's far worse than Blair.

[Fenris]

6. Well Howard could be worse.

He could be a member of the National Front.;)

[PeaceProgProsp]

11. He isn't a member of the National Front?

I find that hard to believe!

;)

[Anarcho-Socialist]

12. Howard is half-Jewish, baptised as a Christian

That's why the National Front won't take him (for those who wished to know)

But he likes to stir up racial hatred against Travelling peoples and 'foreigners' in general.