View Full Version : General Election , Im Drinking gall and wormwood

Tartan Gannet
8th Jun 2001, 12:57
Well, apart from Ulster and a few rural seats that wont change the big picture, as I type this New Labour and Blair bask in their great victory. http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/frown.gif http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/frown.gif http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/frown.gif http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/frown.gif http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/frown.gif

Even a humourless old curmudgeon like myself cannot be so churlish as to fail to be impressed. I also must congratulate the re-elected Labour MP Martin Salter in my own Reading West who with a swing against the Tories of 7.4% has achieved the best result for his party in the country as far as I can ascertain and achieved a majority of 8849. I dont like the man but have to salute his victory.

The only good thing is that Hague wasted no time in falling upon his sword. Now while I wish the Tories to come to their senses and choose Ken Clarke, I know they will go for Michael Portillo.

In the end, despite what they may have said in the pubs, bus queues, canteens, the electorate rejected "Save the Pound" and anti Euro rhetoric. I trust the new Tory leader will flush this nonsense down the pan.

I do feel that, until Thatcher dies, her grey eminence will blight the Tories and make them unelectable.

As I have said on another thread, from Saturday 9th June for at least a week I will be at my father's house in Scotland and not have access to a computer, but, like General Mac Arthur, "I shall return".

tony draper
8th Jun 2001, 13:07
Now is the winter of our discontent made lousy bummer by this son offa bitch.

Lies and spin to expand exponetialy

I'm one of the none voters, and proud of it.

Stiff Lil' Fingers
8th Jun 2001, 14:25

I strongly agree with you re Thatcher (although she might not have to actually die to see her out of the picture, instead locked away with the other terminally insane!). She gets wheeled out at every election and whilst she is obviously still held in esteem by many older grassroot Tories, her involvement is totally counter-productive. Why? Because just wooing the grass roots vote and alienating everyone else will never get the Tories re-elected. They need to appeal to a far wider share of the electorate. Thatcher's involvement just a) makes the leader seem like her puppet and b) rekindles memories (in those over 20) of how the economy and society went totally pear-shaped in the latter part of her 'rule'.

She is obviously an extremely bitter woman. Vitriol and bitterness will not sway the general public. Its time the Tories moved on and well and truly resigned her to the past.

I myself am not totally convinced yet that Portillo will get the nod. Sure he has the profile but he also has a track record of well and truly putting his foot in his mouth. I think Maude has a chance.

Regrettably I don't think Ken will figure seriously in the running which is a shame as I like and respect the guy (although I am prepared to admit that this maybe because he like a beer and a curry and also because, as the MP for Rushcliffe - the constituency in which I grew up - he sent me a card on my 18th Birthday!) :)

Tartan Gannet
8th Jun 2001, 14:52
Looks like you and me are of the same viewpoint, Stiff. I do however feel that it WILL take the death and decomposition or cremation of the old bitch to purge the Tory Party. I feel her so called help during this campaign was the kiss of death. I will raise my glass when the news of her eventual demise is proclaimed so the Tories can have closure on the Thatcher years.

Baring any really revolting scandal of a sexual nature involving Blair personally, I see there being a Labour Government now for the next 8 to 10 years, that's two General Elections. God alone knows what political parties will then exist?

8th Jun 2001, 16:21
Sad Sad news. Why is the electorate so immune to the sleeze and slander of this government. The Tories need to wipe the slate clean. They need to reinvent themselves and get rid of the old guard, like the sleezy arrogant Con MP's in my part of Lincs.

God help the Armed forces they are definately going to take a hit. As if they aren't overstretched as it is.

Voting with my feet...Staying in bed.

8th Jun 2001, 17:22
Margaret Thatcher was on balance good for the country - compare the state of the UK in 1979 with 1990; she turned the country around. That said, the Tories ditched her at the right time and it is a mistake to wheel her out at each election, thus alienating those who loathe her.

I like Hague, but he was the right person in the right place at the wrong time - Jesus Christ couldn't have led the Tories to victory yesterday, after only 4 years in opposition. And we all love boozin' and smokin' Ken, apart from the Tory Party that is.

Iain Duncan Smith is one of the few politicians I have believed to be a normal, sensible member of the public when I heard him on the radio, without knowing who he was. I don't trust old Rubber Lips, although apparently for some unfathomable reason women are attracted to him. So maybe the Tories should opt for him, as that's how the average moron decides how to vote these days.

8th Jun 2001, 19:30
Elections are won by men and women chiefly because most people vote against somebody rather than for somebody. - Franklin Pierce Adams

8th Jun 2001, 19:45
Here's your PM after the election...

"We need to make changes so that we are engaged, exerting influence, having the self belief not to turn our back on the world or retreat into isolationism," he told journalists."

Exactly what language is he trying to speak?

8th Jun 2001, 19:58
I think you will find it is a little known derivation of English called Bollox. Be ready to hear more of it in the coming months.....

The Mistress
8th Jun 2001, 20:40
William Hague was given "mission impossible". He worked hard, he fought hard and was very gracious in defeat.

I would like his replacement to be Iain Duncan-Smith.

8th Jun 2001, 21:10
Although the result was entirely predictable I couldn´t prevent a long, low groan when I woke up to the results.

The thought of another 4 years (at least) of virtually unchecked condescension, illiberalism and authoritarianism from New Labour is a little hard to bear.

Still, we can only be thankful that Labour won now rather than in '92 when they were still socialist- if they had got in then (it could so easily have happened)we´d be a good long way up the Swanee by now.

As for the Tories, I don´t think that it will be Ken Clarke who will lead the party. Although certainly a big-hitter, there would seem to be little point in getting a pro-EMU figure to lead the party against the grain of public opinion (and common sense, for that matter) at a time when EMU will, at long last, become important to Joe Public.

Blair is going to be in for a very tough time over EMU over the next few years. and it will be from now on that the Tories can make real political capital out of a balanced pro-Europe, anti-EMU approach.

The EMU will continue to be viewed as a dog currency by the markets as long as there is no real centralised government (and therefore, democracy) to back it up. Only Schröder wants a federal superstate, so a strong € would appear unlikely. Thus, a piss-poor € is hardly likely to to be a strong draw for the British electorate.

Sterling is said to need to depreciate between 10-20% before it reaches "fair value" to the €. Yet, Sterling is at a 15-year low against the $ (a "proper" currency) so it can hardly be said that Sterling is all that strong - it isn´t.

Whoever leads the Tories next (Portillo, I´ll wager) will need to sound a little less antagonistic to "Europe" but should harden the line on EMU membership. We don´t need it, and we won´t ever need it.

8th Jun 2001, 21:24
RT, sounds like Cretinspeak to me. :)

[This message has been edited by pigboat (edited 08 June 2001).]

8th Jun 2001, 21:30
I found the result of this general election most disappointing to say the least.

I think Blair and his mates are dangerous animals with a stonking majority such as they have with the opposition in a shambles.

I was quite happy to be part of the "common market" but economic and political union is quite another matter.

I think the next few years will be a roller coster ride - we have yet to see how Blair copes with a major crisis.

William Hague is an honourable man and I for one was sorry to see him go but I quite understand his reasons. The rabble put more credence on "pop-star" politicians who are more akin to guests on Big Brother or a star on some TV soap rather than voting for someone with statesmanlike qualities.

I am sick and tired of the spin and manipulation from the Blair administration and whatever your politics a greatly reduced majority would have given their arrogance a good kick in the proverbials!


Send Clowns
8th Jun 2001, 21:32
Bl**dy depressing. If it were not for people I do not want to leave behind I would leave the country. Weep for the democracy in this country, for the very people who exercise her yesterday dealt her fatal blow http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/frown.gif.

"...they're already here."

8th Jun 2001, 21:53
I don't usually comment on politics (a sure way to an argument!) but you echo my thoughts exactly Clowns, I have never felt so disconsolate for the future of our country. The people have voted for ruin! :mad:

8th Jun 2001, 22:33
I am, of course, pleased at the result. I would guess that about eighty percent of regular posters to PPRuNe are less so.

But if so many people are so fed up with Blair, where did all those votes come from?

My guess (and I am not the kind of bloke who supports a party in the same way as a fotball team) is that the electorate looked at a fairly decent economy, an Opposition that it did not fancy, and decided that to get public services improved Labour was a better bet then the other lot.

And all credit, on a personal basis, to Hague. He took lorryloads of sh*t, much of it based on his appearance rather than his policies. He kept it up long after he knew that he was doomed. He is very able, and still only 40. Good luck to him.

Good campaigns:- Charles Kennedy, Ffion Hague, Andrew Marr, and, amazingly John Prescott, whose straight left was approved by about two thirds of the public.

Where next? As a Labour supporter, I hope for Portillo, and dream of Widdecombe, as they are each unelectable. I fear Clarke, who is a giant among pygmies. Fortunately the Tories were, and probably will be, too stupid to choose him as leader.

Stiff Lil' Fingers
8th Jun 2001, 22:56
UR, interesting that you say Ffion Hague ran a good campaign. Firstly, she is not a politician and secondly she said next to nothing throughout the whole election build up. But there again that might be exactly why you say she had a good campaign! :)

[This message has been edited by Stiff Lil' Fingers (edited 08 June 2001).]

8th Jun 2001, 23:18
Perhaps a reminder that 62% of the electorate did not vote. I think that is more a sign of disillusionment than apathy.

Let us hope that Brown can manage the economy if a downturn comes, that Blair can manage the country when he has only himself to blame for the things, instead of whinging that he inherited the mess.

I have a feeling that the ones who didn't vote will be amongst those shouting the loudest when we are bounced into Europe, (yeah right you think a no vote will keep us out) suffer increasingly higher taxes and less and less attention paid to democratic processes such as parliamentary debate. He has been given a mandate to sleaze, cronyism, arrogance and a total disregard for the British public.

I admired Hague in his going, which was at least the honourable thing to do - more than can be said for any Labour politician in the Blair Government, many of whom have more reason to resign.

Incidentally, there was a whole Government of mostly men who were in power with Margaret Thatcher - are they not also responsible for what happened? Why does she alone come in for such vitriol and they escape.

8th Jun 2001, 23:51
Go git 'em, Velvet

8th Jun 2001, 23:59
Can anybody tell me why the female Rasputin - Mrs Blair was making speaches and visiting hospitals? I wonder who bangs the drum in No 10. What has she got to do with anything?

Does anybody know where the chancellor got to over the election period?

Why wouldn't Blair go head to head with Hague. We all know that Hague was far more eloquent, quick thinking and could destroy Blair. And his wife would probably get it!

Good look to him in the future...

Whoa there bigfella, whoa!

tony draper
9th Jun 2001, 00:14
I've come to the conclusion that the best result for the British people would have been a hung parliment, render them all impotent, the less those bastiges can do the better,
I do not differentiate between any political party now, they're all tosser's.
To me it seems that its the perminent civil service that runs the country anyway.

It's strange , politician you loathed thirty years ago, for their policies or whatever seem paragons of honesty and straight talking when you compare them to the appaling standard of the people in politics now.

[This message has been edited by tony draper (edited 08 June 2001).]

9th Jun 2001, 00:56
Whinge about Labour spin to your hearts content but remember that it all started with the tory "image manipulation techniques" as used by Saatchi & Saatchi, How quickly you forget.
What`s good for the goose etc.

But take heart from the results of the BNP in Oldham and Leeds, Saxon pride is not totally dead and burried after all.

Nil nos tremefacit
10th Jun 2001, 22:41
Oh well, so much for the traditions and values that we all hold dear. I understand where U-R is coming from, but tell me this:

If things are so brilliant under Labour and are only going to get better, why have an election a year early when there was no conceivable need?

Labour's majority was sufficient to stay in power until the very last minute. If things are expected to be even better next May and all the promises of the 1997 campaign are going to be filled at last why not complete the term of office and come out saying look we've done everything we planned and it's wonderful?

Call me a cynic, but I honestly believe the country is going to be up sh*t creek without a paddle by next May. Blair knows this, Brown knows this and in our hearts the rest of us know this.

In the last 20 years or more an election has always been followed shortly afterwards by an interest rate rise. My bet is on half a point within 2 months. Although there has been a lot of hype from the mortgage lenders about annual increases in house prices the truth is that in many places prices are indeed higher than they were a year ago, but have fallen since December (down 5% in Oxfordshire where a single person on an average income requires a multiple of 7 times income to get into the property market!). If unemployment takes a turn for the worst - as it must in order to achieve the convergence targets for the Euro - then we will be back to repossessions and all that that implies.

Oldham and Leeds are worrying. A few fanatics could ignite fires in Southall, Leicester, Birmingham, Coventry, Wolverhampton, West Bromwich, Bradford etc etc. and then Blair would have a real problem.

If anyone understands what has happened in Northern Ireland they will realise that we have released over 500 dangerous lunatics who should, in the main, have been hanged for their crimes. In return we've got a couple of firearms off a Loyalist group and nothing at all from the Republicans - indeed the Continuity/Real IRA are still at war and the bombs are going to get bigger and more harmful in the coming months. I give the Good Friday agreement weeks, not months. NI results were not good for moderates - Paisley leads the largest group of MPs. If the agreement fails, as it might, then we're going to see the Armed Forces totally uunable to cope under the strain. If 10000 troops return to the streets on 6 month long emergency tours we will have to find 40000 troops to cope (10K in theatre, 10K preparing to go, 10K having just returned and 10K reserve/returning to normality). Reservists, check your availability now.

Education and health are Blair's personal priorities, but both sectors are having manning problems. Nurses are being imported from all over the world and the shortage is unlikely to dissipate in the future. There are insufficient teachers and it will take years to train the numbers required.

The world situation is its usual unpredictable self. The Chinese are about to practice invading a Taiwanese controlled island - for what purpose? Saddam is still in place, North Korea is still 'iffy' and the Balkans war is now in Macedonia (which has a land border with a NATO country). I'd like to think that the Government is up to it - at least they've binned Cook - but only time will tell.

Back to the original point - there was no need for an election, but Tony knows what's coming in the next 12 months and we, the electorate, are not going to enjoy it!

11th Jun 2001, 00:10
Nil nos tremefacit, how I agree with your comments.

I feel increasingly insecure about what is going on in our land and that we will come close to civil disturbance within two years. Blair (and come to that the rest of us) will then have much to worry about.

I would suggest that real unemployment is much higher than the figures show. There are many who are "out of work" (me included!) who do not claim the "Job seekers" allowance because of all the obstacles which are put in the way to do so.

I note today that Blunkett has said that a green card system will be used for immigrants so that they may be allowed to work where there are shortages. This makes my blood go red and I feel it is the thin end of the wedge and an underhand way to suppress wages. If anything is going to incite unrest then this one will!

Oh well, time to go and cheer myself up and go and watch Rory Bremner taking the mickey out of them all!


Send Clowns
11th Jun 2001, 00:22
Did you all notice that to recieve his great landslide, a mandate for reform Princess Tony actually polled fewer votes than Neil Kinnock did in 1997?

'Me here at last on the ground, you in mid air'

Tarek Nor
11th Jun 2001, 00:23
Tony and his gang got back in with less votes than last time
and the lowest turnout since 1918 !

Sad statistics votes/MP

Lab : 26000
Con : 50000
Lib : 92000
SNP : 93000

Something is badly wrong with this.

11th Jun 2001, 00:53

There is something very wrong with the British First Past the Post system, but Send Clowns reckons any other system will be undemocratic. :rolleyes:

The low turnout is as much the fault of the opposition parties as it is "new" labour's. The Tory party is split 3 ways, and I dont see it becoming a strong and reasonable opposition for sometime yet, if ever. They were totally unelectable, and Hauge's dogged "Save the Pound (in this parliament)" strategy really wasnt a good idea. How many times did Billy say that this election was as much of a referendum on the Euro as it was the choice of government? Does this mean that the Tories will now accept the Euro? Somehow I doubt it.

As has been said before on this thread, I feel that some Bad Things are going to happen in the next couple of years, and it isn't going to be pretty. President Blair had better shape up his act or Britain will have a Liberal Democrat government before it knows what has happened to it.

Before Send Clowns accuses me of being so far up Tony Blairs ar*e etc etc, I didnt vote New Labour.

Luke SkyToddler
11th Jun 2001, 01:25
The pollies from both the Tories and Labour are as like as two peas in a pod ... but it doesn't really matter when you get down to it. The astonishing national apathy about the election, is due to the fact that democracy in this country is a hollow sham and people know it. If the 'elected' politicians wanted to do anything that actually rocked the boat - like reform section 28 for example - or indeed do anything at all that threatened the position of the privileged - then the ****** house of ****** lords would squash it in short order.

[This message has been edited by Luke SkyToddler (edited 10 June 2001).]