Guardian Utd (May 3): Poll reveals fragility of Labour lead

From the Guardian Unlimited (UK)
Dated Tuesday May 3

Poll reveals fragility of Labour lead
By Alan Travis and Michael White

Labour's claim to be at greater risk in its key battleground seats than the national opinion polls suggest is true, according to a Guardian/ICM marginals survey today.

As all three main parties manoeuvre for last minute advantage 48 hours from polling day, ICM's campaign polls data shows that Labour's vote share in 108 key seats where it faces a strong Tory challenge is down from 47% in 2001 to 41%.

The Tories have maintained their share of the vote at around 36%, suggesting their strategy of focusing money and personnel on re-winning lost marginals may inflict damage deep within Labour's post-1997 comfort zone.

The prospect of a cliff-hanging outcome to the campaign is underlined by today's Mori poll for the Financial Times. While giving Labour a solid 39%-29%-22% lead among those certain to vote, it claims that 36% of voters may yet change their mind, compared with just 21% still undecided in the final week last time . . . .

. . . ICM's findings suggest that Labour's 160-seat Commons majority could be cut to below 80, despite its comfortable leads of around six percentage points in the national polls.

Read more.

:rofl: Blair you weasel! :rofl:
.............:nuke:............

UK isn't like the US; the cits are not voting for a person, they're voting for a party.

The Tories are VERY pro-bush, they were VERY pro-war on Iraq and they still are. We do NOT want Labour to lose and the Tories to win.

A win by Labour WOULD NOT be an endorsement of bLiar!

I hope Labour wins...and then replace the bLiar.

reelection (or re-selection as in the USA). Blair should have been removed by Labour when the lies emerged but no, Labour just piled more lies upon the original ones. Blair must lose as punishment to Labour and all the cowards who failed to stand up (my hat's off to the brave few who did before the declaration). The difference between Blair and Howard is that Blair did it, he's the criminal. Howard won't last long if he wins and Labour will never be such a collection of arrogant bastards. As for me, I prefer the Liberal Democrats Kennedy. I almost always agree with you but this time, I regret to disagree.

A win by the Labour party IS NOT REWARDING BLIAR. I wish more Americans understood the vast and very important differences between US and UK political system.

We'll agree to disagree on this issue, especially as it's pretty certain Labour will win (thank God!) altho with a reduced majority (also thank God!) and will in turn call for bLiar to resign (thank God!).

It was the TORIES who supported bLiar's illegal invasion of Iraq; God forbid they end up rewarded.

in Britain. I know the difference, but being PM is a reward that the foul one does not deserve (love that bLiar, good stuff). His pal Brown is a bum also for marching lock step with bLair.

Blair=Johnson
Howard=Nixon
Kennedy=the next PM
:hi:

in Britain. I know the difference, but being PM is a reward that the foul one does not deserve (love that bLiar, good stuff). His pal Brown is a bum also for marching lock step with bLair.

Blair=Johnson
Howard=Nixon
Kennedy=the next PM
:hi:

but now, were I in the UK, I'd vote Lib Dem.

And I can't stand Brown either. Funny his name is a colour, coz he's one colourless individual.

The bLiar thing happened one day last year and was just a typo (or so I thought)...then suddenly I heard God's voice say "FINALLY, my girl! You've spelt it correctly after all this time!"

:D :D :D

:rofl: That's such a good story, I'm going to agree with you position for 24 hours!

:rofl:

Hey, maybe rightwingnuts would actually believe it...I see vast possibilities! LOL!

Get something on Bliar and blackmail him. Force him to get totally involved in the Iraq war. The lies, the mayhem, everything.
Boosh** hits the Trifecta again!

1. He gains an ally, the only real one in this clusterfuck.
2. He destroys Tony Blair politically, reducing him to the status of "Bush's poodle"...
3. ...and take the Labor party down with him, ushering in another generation of Thatcherite Tory rule
(guaranteed by the immediate introduction by the Tories of some American "innovations" in voting technology).

From here, the fact that Bliar had to call in Bill Clinton, and Clinton
was actually willing to come, means that they both know that Labour is
in very serious trouble.

The Labour Party is, not bLiar. Brits aren't voting for the bLiar, they're voting for the Labour Party.

I agree Labour should have booted bLiar long ago, but they had no one to replace him with & feared such a move would cause them to lose to the Tories (a fate worse than bLiar).

Howard may last far too long if he won, and a week is too long for that bastard.

Labour party weren't "arrogant bastards", too many voted no to bLiar's war. Had any number of Howard's warmongering rightwingnut bastards voted no then bLiar wouldn't have got his war. As it was, bLiar had to lie his arse off to his own party, as we now all know officially.

Now we do agree re the Lib Dems. I'd LOVE to see them sweep this election, but it just ain't gonna happen. I think they'll grab a few more seats though, and that's a very good thing. :)

...Labour candidates are simply Blairite lickspittles. Of course there are a minority who do think for themselves but the majority of Labour MP's are Blairite lackey's I'm afraid.

Gotta give them credit for that. Sure beats hell out of our SOBs.

Quite frankly, you are far more likely to have a Labour candidate who thinks the sun shines out of the PM's arse then a decent halfway independent voice.

bLiar's war of aggression.

I'd rather have Lib Dems than Labour...I'd rather have Labour than the Tories.

And I'd really like to see bLiar (and bush and Straw and rice, powell, cheny, rummy etc) in the dock at the Hague. :)

He will continue to be the Bush Criminal and NeoCon LAP-DOG.

seem to think. I hope they are correct. But I think they are just wishing in one hand. And defecating in the other.
Peace
Wildman
Al Gore is My President

they will not form a govt unless they get an absolute majority or enough seats to form a coalition with the Ulster Unionists. This will not happen! The Ulster Unionists are on the verge of a major collapse and the Tories are stuck in the low thirties. The only two possible govt.s are Lab or a Lab-Lib Dem coalition.


:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

Another couple of decades of Tory rule is a heavy price to pay to get rid of the Bliar.

I can't wait to see him sobingly testify that it was Bush that forced him to do it and he didn't have a choice.
:rofl:

The Tories were right behind Blair in his march to war. They are just as criminal as he and should not be the beneficiaries of his actions. It will be a terrible loss for the liberal cause in the UK.

they have committed it is worth celebrating.

i see no difference between the elite parties right now on both sides of the 'pond'

peace

UK is NOT THE SAME as the USA.

In the UK they vote for a party, NOT for a person. A win by the Tories would be devastating and would be a WIN FOR BUSH.

I hope Labour wins...and then they can boot the bLiar.

are sorry.

the corporate 'third way' is not much better imo.

i hope they LOSE and learn a lesson.

peace

In the US we elect a person for a president; ie bush (laf). bush is with the republican party. The party cannot simply boot bush & replace him with someone else because in the USA we elect a PERSON.

The UK doesn't. They elect by PARTY.

The Labour Party IS NOT NEOCON. The majority of the Labour party OPPOSED bLiar's illegal war.

The tories winning WOULD BE A HUGE WIN FOR BUSH & THE NEOCONS.

The Labour party can boot bLiar after the elections.

A win by Labour WOULD NOT be a win for bLiar. It would be a win for the Labour Party. A loss by Labour would be, as another poster pointed out, a HUGE LOSS FOR THE LIBERAL CAUSE.

for NOT getting rid of him the fucking war criminal wanker.

peace

Kinda cutting off your head to spite your nose.

just as i hope they do to the neoCONs here at home and i hope the DEMS learned a freakin lesson after 4 fucking years of FAILURE against the most wicked and inept leaders of my beloved country in our history who are setting a course towards WWIII... yes, i sure do!

weTHEpeople need to WAKE UP our leaders! by any means necessary.


http://news.globalfreepress.com

peace

cartel a huge win by tossing Labour and voting in the Tories.

Go look into how many of bLiar's own party DID NOT support bLiar's illegal war on Iraq...and how many in the Tory party did and still do.

This is the same shit as saying Kerry supported the invasion of Iraq so all Dems should vote for the republican party.

and besides it is the ONLY moral choice.

FYI: do you actually realize the signal we are sending if we support this illegal PRECEDENT especially after knowing about their LIES?!?

only then, could it get fucking WORSE, bet.


http://images.globalfreepress.com

peace

alright. That would be a huge win for bush, having the Tories win. I wish you could understand that.

A win by Labour IS NOT a vindication for bLiar. It would be IF the UK had the same political process as the USA does but it DOESN'T.

And that's it for me on this; please google and research UK parliamentary processes to better understand why the majority of Brits opposed and still oppose the invasion of Iraq yet will vote NOT for bLair but for the LABOUR party.

Yes, Mr. Pilgrim, I agree: Tony Blair should stand trial in The Hague. And, I'm sure you'll agree, it would be unfair to Mr. Blair if Mr. Bush were not also standing trial.

However, his defeat Thursday will not assure that he will paying a visit to the Palace of Peace anytime soon. Labour's victory won't necessarily protect him forever, either.

Also, Lynn, Michael Howard has challenged the Prime Minister's veracity over Iraq quite bluntly in a way that displeased the White House. Relations between Howard and Bush are strained. Contrary to what you are saying, a Tory victory will not be greeted with three cheers from the White House.

Were I British, I would vote for the Liberal Democrats this Thursday. The idea of voting for Labour after they failed to repudiate Blair is reprehensible. My idea of an ideal outcome would be a Liberal Democratic victory.

However, Labour has 160 seats to give in this election and that is an awful lot. The best anyone can hope for is a reduced Labour majority with the Liberal Democrats picking up a sizable number of the seats that Labour loses. Ideally, Labour will lose enough seats to force its hand and push Blair out before Christmas.

There can be no mistake that the reason for Labour's humbling next Thursday will be distrust of the man who led his nation into war behind G. W. Bush. Labour may not be defeated, but Blair is not going to come out with a whole skin.

Hopefully, he will be replaced soon.

a coalition gov may be whats called for now that way whoever is at the helm they will have to govern by consensus rather than majority rule which has been a disaster.

well said, as usual, thanks for sharing :toast:

peace

force Labour to work with the Liberal Democrats to stay in power and force Labour left at the same time. Labour would drop Blair like a hot potato shortly after, I have little doubt.

Rather than demand Blair's proverbial head on a silver platter, Kennedy could simply insist that the government cease supporting the US neoconservative wars in Iraq and elsewhere. Blair couldn't continue under those circumstances. He's squandered too much of his credibility (such as it was) supporting Bush's war.

Howard SUPPORTED bush's invasion and 3 days ago he said:

"I still support this war".

What he also said is he hates that bLiar LIED the UK to war and that "he could have gone to war without that {the lying}."

Even though Blair lied, no one believed him. The British people did not support the war, period. And they still don't.

Does Howard seriously think it would have made any difference if he had been PM and said, "No, there's no good reason to invade Iraq; they're not a threat; Saddam couldn't beat a drill team from a boys' military academy; and he and Osama haven't been on speaking terms for years. But we're going to invade for no good reason and I think you, the British people, will support me. For no good reason."

It sounds like something out of Monty Python.

On the other hand, telling the truth would have given even the most naive the real facts to digest. And the British people would have rejected war anyway.

witnessed the past 4 years.

If that is the case why are the Republicans helping the Tories?

After all, the GOP has more in common with the Tories than with Labour.

I don't know what support the Republicans are giving to the Tories. Maybe you can fill me in on that. Is it just a few consultants acting on their own or is it directed from the White House? I'm sure if the White House were openly supporting the Tories, it would be a campaign issue. On this side of the Pond, those of us following real news sources have the idea that a British candidate would do better to have an endorsement from the Devil himself than from Bush.

The rift between Howard and the White House is real. The Bushies are rank ideologues who demand total loyalty. They didn't like it when Howard called Tony Blair a liar; if Blair lied, then Bush lied. They would prefer that Howard stick to the official fantasy and say that the intelligence had it all wrong, but that it all worked out for the best in the end because anything that isn't Saddam must be democracy.

The person they elect is their local representative, who may or may not represent a particular party.

That's in theory, in actual practice the campaign is presidential in style. People really vote on who they want to be Prime Minister. A lot of people would be hardpressed to know who their local candidates are, but they know who the leaders of the parties are.

It is not as if Labour = Democrats, Conservatives = Republicans. There was a good quote from James Rubin recently where he said that Labour, Lib Dems and Tories would all fit somewhere within the Democratic Party, they're all Democrats.

Probably shows how extreme the Republican party in the US has become more than anything.

EDITED for typing

The more that majority is reduced, the more likely Blair will leave Number 10 sooner rather than later.

So from your lips to God's ears, fingers crossed!

Surveys have also shown that Labour would have done much better if Blair had stepped aside in this election and allowed the party to be lead by Gordon Brown. Labour's problem in this election is Blair, and Blair's problem is Bush. Lay down with dogs and wake up with fleas and all that.

he would be a "clean slate" and not stained with blood as bLiar is.

God help us all tho if the Tories win. :scared:

a head of gov can make, and Blair muffed it--with a good bit of dishonesty on top.

Despite the moderate policies I appreciate, fact is, he has to pay the price.

The Brits should be glad that their troops are coming home to some extent. Bush has kept the exact same numbers as the day he declared victory. At least Blair didn't sign up for the permanent occupation.

If Tony gets less than 50% of the seats, he will have to form a government with the Liberal Democrats. This would be a pretty good result. Blair could be thrown out.




www.timnews.com

He's very likely to be tossed after the elections. But yes, a Labour minority with the Lib Dems would be a very good thing. Probably too much to hope for but I'm going to hope anyways.

They deserve losing.

Facts are always your friend. Google for info on how many of bLiar's own party -that would be Labour- did not support bLiar's illegal invasion.

The Tories, on the other hand, the party you seem to feel should win, DID support bLiar's invasion wholeheartedly and still do. And WOW what a win for bush & the neocons should the Tories win.

they couldn't muster enough support to get rid of the creep and got the NERVE to support him again?

i don't think so...

peace

Dissent within the Labour Party over Iraq has grown significantly in recent months. Among the 160 backbench Members of Parliament (MPs) who signed a Commons motion opposing military action in Iraq are 133 from Blair's own Labour Party, all 18 Liberal Democrats, and all nationalist party MPs from Scotland and Wales. The motion was sponsored by left-wing activist MP Alice Mahon, who is unstinting in her condemnation of U.S. policy. For example, she responded to reports of the Pentagon's Nuclear Posture Review by exclaiming that "lunatics have taken over the White House."

A BBC poll of 100 Labour MPs found that nearly 90 percent believe there is insufficient evidence to justify military action against Iraq. A survey of Labour constituency chairmen in the party's 100 most vulnerable parliamentary seats found that an overwhelming majority opposed such a war.

A deep-seated hatred of the current Bush Administration is evident in some quarters of the Labour Party, and the United States should be under no illusions that the party led by Tony Blair shares his pro-American stance.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/bg1596.cfm

Britons Oppose War against Iraq

122 Labour MPs - close to a third of his caucus - voted against Blair's Iraq war.
http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=M1ARTM0012449

You're looking at UK political processes as you do US political processes; they are vastly different. Learn how the UK parliamentary system works. Learn how the TORIES supported bLiar's war and still do.

And again, you're saying in effect that as Kerry supported invading Iraq, we should all vote for republicans to "punish" the Dems.

From the Guardian Unlimited (UK)
Dated Tuesday May 3
(Subtitle from the home page of the Guardian's politics section)

Once more with feeling
Re-elect Labour with an increased Liberal Democrat presence

The 2005 general election campaign has been a defective democratic event in many ways. Yet beneath the surface there has echoed a national conversation of passion and seriousness. Thoughtful people have debated for months with families, friends and colleagues - and with themselves - about how to vote in this contest. Much of the electorate is still undecided. It is an imperfect choice conducted under the imperfect electoral system which is nevertheless the only one that we have got. What to do on Thursday? Let's be honest: it is difficult.

This newspaper's answer to this unshirkable question involves taking the long and broad view. While 2005 will be remembered as Tony Blair's Iraq election, May 5 is not a referendum on that one decision, however fateful, or on the person who led it, however controversial. Like all others, this election must in the end come down to a verdict between the candidates and parties that will produce a parliament and a government.

Yet Iraq overhangs this election for many. It is the issue that makes them most squeamish about voting Labour. The decision to bend this country's foreign and defence policy quite so pliantly to US imperatives has taken a terrible toll on public confidence in the way this country is run. It has been a dreadful distraction from other priorities, of which climate change is the most important. It is the root cause of an equally destructive toll on Mr Blair's public standing and of a wounded anger that has haunted this campaign all the way to May 5.

But does this mean that we recommend a vote against Labour? No . . . .

In that general sense . . . we would not be true to this newspaper's deep traditions if we saw anything wrong in principle with a switch of allegiance between the two progressive parties in 2005. People must vote their conscience, and there are powerful reasons for casting one's vote for the Liberal Democrats this time. This is especially the case because the Liberal Democrats opposed the Iraq war, as this newspaper also did. But it is also because the Liberal Democrats have been vigilant and rational in their defence of individual liberty since September 11 2001. The party at least grasps, as many in Labour do not, that fairness, liberty and the law are not merely pieces on a political chessboard, to be sacrificed in some cold-blooded trade-off with the need for security, but are also part of the soul and identity of this nation.

Read more.

As near to perfection as one coould get in politics. :)

cracking down when you add it all up.

i guess it ain't as bad as the ME and other parts of the world... yet.

both our parties have no one to blame but themselves for ALL their current problems. trouble is, and it's serious, is that NO-ONE wants to take responsibility anymore.

if Blair really cared about his party he should step aside IMO.

well, who the hell am i to talk, anyways... i supported KERRY.

good night

peace

AGREED.

And there is a movement within Labour to force him out after the elections. bLair is NOT popular with the British people, his ratings last I saw were in the 30s. Labour tho is still a good party and heads above the Tories.

Myself, I'd be voting Lib Dems.

Good night, sleep tight. :)

It won't be before Christmas unfortunately, but I'm sure I heard that he plans on standing down before the next general election. IF he lasts long enough to stand down. I don't think he should be allowed to get out on his own terms; he should be forced out. Make him do the perp walk to the Hague, show Bush** what fate awaits murderous liars.

But we'll have to wait and see.

A reduced Labour majority and more seats to the LibDems would be BRILL!! Kennedy may not be much splash and color, but his party talks common sense. Which is a helluva lot more than can be said of lying Labour or the thieving Tories.

Liberal Democrat candidate!!!


Blair has brought down the Labour Party in England

Its going to happen!!!

is that Labour will still get in because most people trust Gordon Brown as a safe pair of hands with the economy.

If Blair steps aside after the election and Gordon Brown takes over then Labour will get the leader it always dreamed of (i.e. a traditional born and bred centre-left Labour man, but who is also electable).

The monied interests do this just about everywhere in the world nowadays. Pump and dump, but in political realm. The monied corporatist don't give a rats ass about the players, they just want the weakest ones in so they can have their way with them. The rural and small town southern folks in the US call em the Good Ole Boys or Gentleman Jim.

In the marginal constituencies, only about seven are Labour held and seriously challenged by the Lib Dems. But nearly 30 are held by the Tories who could be toppled by a successful Lib Dem bid. All Bliar wants is a huge majority so he can continue to betray his Old Labour heritage and so secure his "legacy". If that means Tories are returned who could have been defeated by the Lib Dems - he doesn't care.

Whenever an established party is challenged from one of its flanks and make the leadership desperate, they try to blame their own problems on the rank and file for defecting. If the leadership were effective, the rank and file wouldn't have defected.

In the US, we have seen this with Democrats blaming Nader for Gore's defeat in 2000 and, with even less reason, the Republicans blaming Ross Perot for President Bush's defeat in 1992. In 1980, President Carter's campaign chanted the mantra A vote for John Anderson is a vote for Ronald Reagan, although in the end it was clear that Reagan would have defeated Carter anyway.

The Liberal Democratic party was formed because Labour had no clue how to defeat Margaret Thatcher. If the LibDems take votes away from Labour now, it is because Labour has no clue how to defeat the war criminal Tony Blair in their own party caucuses.

Blair did not need to follow Bush into this illegal colonial war. If Blair has put Labour in jeopardy, Blair and Labour have no one to blame but each other.

See also the discussion on Gary Younge's piece in the Guardian from earlier this week.

Please click here.

Labour: 39%
Conservative: 29%
Liberal Democratic: 22%
Others: 10%

The MORI poll is commissioned by the Financial Times.

And Bush will use Blair's victory as an affirmation that Britian supports the war.