UK: In wake of expenses scandal, Labour falls into third place

FUCK THE POLICE

911 EVERY DAY
This hasn't happened since the 80's.


http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2009/0601/1224247817523.html

Brown in deeper trouble as poll puts Labour third
In this section »

* Elegant gentleman thief lifts €6.6m of jewellery in Paris
* Boyle-mania set to roll on despite 'Talent' loss

FRANK MILLAR, London Editor

THE SENSE of crisis surrounding the leadership of British prime minister Gordon Brown deepened yesterday with a new poll warning that Labour could fall to third place behind the Liberal Democrats in a general election.

Renewed speculation about Mr Brown’s position already seemed the inevitable result of Labour’s predicted heavy defeats in this week’s European and English county council elections.

However, the remaining loyalty of ministers and backbenchers will be further tested by the knowledge that Labour could now be heading for an even greater general election defeat than it suffered under Michael Foot’s disastrous leadership in 1983.

During a major interview on the BBC’s Andrew Marr programme yesterday, Mr Brown signalled his determination to remain in office, suggesting that he would ignore calls for him to stand down, even if they came from members of his cabinet.

The prime minister said he had been “shocked” by the abuses that had been uncovered. “To be honest, what I’ve seen offends my Presbyterian conscience,” he said. “What I’ve seen is something that is appalling. There are clear cases which may have to be answered for fraud.”

Mr Brown is expected to announce a major cabinet reshuffle immediately after the European election results – in which ICM projects Labour on a record low of just 17 per cent of the vote.

The continuing impact of the Westminster expenses scandal, meanwhile – and the difficulties Mr Brown and Conservative leader David Cameron face in deciding which offenders should fall and which survive – was dramatically underlined when the widely respected Liberal Democrat treasury spokesman, Vince Cable, called on chancellor Alistair Darling to resign or be sacked.

Mr Cable said he believed Mr Darling’s “moral authority had vanished with the revelation that he “flipped” the designation of his main and second homes four times in four years to maximise his benefit from expenses, while also using taxpayers’ money to pay his accountancy bills.

“Here is the company finance director caught with his fingers in the till,” Mr Cable wrote in his Mail on Sunday column.

“He doesn’t explain, he doesn’t apologise, he just blames his colleagues for not stopping him [by changing the system]. His moral authority has vanished. He must go.

“We need a chancellor focusing on the national accounts rather than his own,” Mr Cable added.

A radical reinvention of his government would be seen as Mr Brown’s last throw of the dice in an effort to reconnect with the British public ahead of the election now drawing ever closer.

However, the extent to which he enjoys a free hand is open to question following veiled warnings that senior Blairites would resist any attempt to sack communities secretary Hazel Blears following her embarrassment over expenses, while other ministers similarly accused of tax avoidance – like Jeff Hoon and James Purnell – would be retained.

Mr Cameron, meanwhile, has signalled he will back proposals by Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg to give voters the power to “recall” or sack their MP if Mr Brown does not call an early general election.

Mr Cameron – who has faced renewed attention on his own mortgage interest claims for his constituency home – resisted the suggestion that he should encourage discredited MPs such as Andrew Mackay and his wife Julie Kirkbride, to leave parliament immediately.

The Conservative leader suggested that “a rash of byelections” would actually deflect from the widespread feeling that the general election should not be delayed now beyond late July or early September.

According to the ICM poll for the Sunday Telegraph, Mr Cameron’s Conservatives are on course for a general election victory with 40 per cent support, trailed by the Liberal Democrats on 25 per cent and Labour on 22 per cent.
 
It's not all bad news for Labour though.

Monday's Daily Telegraph has yet another poll, this time from YouGov. Holding onto second place there but still contemplating electoral Armageddon.

CON 39% (no change)
LAB 22% (-1)
LIB DEM 18% (-1)
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/

Maybe the Lib Dems sudden loss of support in that 24 hour period had something to do with this.

Liberal Democrats have apologised after a campaign leaflet was sent out which uses a swear word to describe a Cornish nationalist candidate.

The paperwork was distributed on behalf of Anna Pascoe, Lib Dem candidate for Cornwall Council elections on 4 June.

It calls Mebyon Kernow candidate Stuart Cullimore a "greasy-haired twat". He is considering what action to take.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cornwall/8077101.stm
 
"twat" is a swear word?

Well, if i were to slip it in to the conversation, while being interviewed on daytime telly, i'd probably be cut off mid-sentence and a host of apologies would be proffered by red-faced presenters fretting about corrupted children.

However, it's not that bad, probably slightly worse than "bastard" but not as bad as "fuck".
 
It's not all bad news for Labour though.

Monday's Daily Telegraph has yet another poll, this time from YouGov. Holding onto second place there but still contemplating electoral Armageddon.

CON 39% (no change)
LAB 22% (-1)
LIB DEM 18% (-1)
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/

Maybe the Lib Dems sudden loss of support in that 24 hour period had something to do with this.

Well this poll showed the Lib Dems support way up to 25% and Labour at electoral armeggedon. Others are showing Labour at electoral armegeddon but Lib Dem support still the same as it ever was; this seems to be an outlier for the Lib Dems.

The main point is, Labour is going to be annihilated.
 
Well this poll showed the Lib Dems support way up to 25% and Labour at electoral armeggedon. Others are showing Labour at electoral armegeddon but Lib Dem support still the same as it ever was; this seems to be an outlier for the Lib Dems.

The main point is, Labour is going to be annihilated.

It just gets worse and worse...and worse.

Ipsos/MORI for the Independent:

Conservative 40% (-1)
Labour 18% (-10)
Lib Dem 18% (-4)
http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/tories-open-up-22-lead-in-new-poll-1694430.html

Voting on Thursday and a prediction Labour could lose control of every county council and see a record low vote in the European elections, in which they could conceivably finish in 4th place. Still, Gordon is putting his faith in a cabinet reshuffle in which a collection of incompetent crooks is replaced by a collection incompetent crooks. Then it's just a question of keeping his fingers crossed that the economy grows by some 50% in the first quarter of 2010 and he's home and dry.

11 months and counting...
 
Meh. I'm not even sure I consider the annihlation of the labor party a good thing. What do you get out of it? A bunch of UKIP and BNP MP's? Maybe a few Green's who want the NIH to fund acupunture?

Hopefully what mainly happens is that Brown and the corrupt New Labour MP's get driven out, and that Labour can emerge as a stronger force after finishing at 10%-5% in the next election. Or the Lib Dems actually start meaning something.
 
Meh. I'm not even sure I consider the annihlation of the labor party a good thing. What do you get out of it? A bunch of UKIP and BNP MP's? Maybe a few Green's who want the NIH to fund acupunture?

Hopefully what mainly happens is that Brown and the corrupt New Labour MP's get driven out, and that Labour can emerge as a stronger force after finishing at 10%-5% in the next election. Or the Lib Dems actually start meaning something.

We'll get a few more UKIP and maybe a Green or two elected as MEP's but they've not got a chance at election to Westminster. The BNP are talking big but, despite the expenses scandal, they don't seem to be moving in the polls at all. Maybe we're not all closet nazis after all.

Labour have been rotten for years and a new leader, a whole new set of MP's and a focus away from authoritarianism and discredited Thatcherite policies would be a good start. There is talk of a possible cabinet revolt forcing the dear leader to step down. Kind of ironic seeing as that's exactly how Gordon came to power himself. To be honest all the replacements look pretty shoddy stuff but Alan Johnson's probably the best of the lot. He's the only contender i'd hesitate about before pushing them head-first into a threshing machine.

However, i really don't fancy the prospect of a Tory government with a large enough majority to do as they please regardless. I remember what that was like last time.
 
The BNP got a seat in London, which was a bit scary.

And any part with a majority has a majority big enough to do anything they want in the Westminster system.

I have a feeling, though, that Labour may actually be starting to take PR seriously now that they are even with the Lib Dems in the polls. Of course, they are probably still going to get at least 5-10 times more MP's than the Lib Dems even if they do finish even in the popular vote, but they know it would deny the Conservatives a majority.
 
The BNP got a seat in London, which was a bit scary.

And any part with a majority has a majority big enough to do anything they want in the Westminster system.

I have a feeling, though, that Labour may actually be starting to take PR seriously now that they are even with the Lib Dems in the polls. Of course, they are probably still going to get at least 5-10 times more MP's than the Lib Dems even if they do finish even in the popular vote, but they know it would deny the Conservatives a majority.

That BNP prick, elected to the London assembly, just managed to get over the 5% threshold for a top up seat although the thought that around 70,000 people voted BNP as their first choice is a little scary.

Bearing in mind that almost all governments here have workable majorities it shouldn't be overlooked that there are significant numbers of rebel Labour and Tory backbenchers who will not go along with certain aspects of front bench policy. For example, European issues have the capacity to tear the Tories apart and Labour MP's aren't very happy about the current post office privatisation proposals.

Anyway, the PR thing may be a goer for Labour. There are rumours today, after the resignation of Hazel Blears timed to cause maximum embarrassment to Gordon, that there is a list going round Labour backbenchers calling for Alan Johnsons to challenge Gordon Browns. Mr Johnsons has stated he's not interested but privately the word is that if there's enough backing he'll wield the knife. Mr Johnsons has already stated a willingness to consider adopting PR.

Things are getting quite interesting (well, as interesting as British politics can get anyway).
 
Strictly speaking it is a lady's front bottom, although it can be used as a verb as in 'he twatted him' meaning violence or as an adverb as in 'he was twatted' meaning drunk.
I know what it meant. But it just doesn't seem like a swear word. Kind of like calling a penis a "dangler" or something. The story said they used a "swear". Maybe "twat" is like the British version of "c*nt"...
 
That BNP prick, elected to the London assembly, just managed to get over the 5% threshold for a top up seat although the thought that around 70,000 people voted BNP as their first choice is a little scary.

What's the threshold for European elections? Even though the vote average for the BNP is only around 4% and they aren't growing, 4% is 4% too much. At least you guys aren't like France, where a fascist won 20% of the vote.

I heard Labour is in serious danger of pulling fourth, or even fifth in the EU elections. I just want to see it because it would be so awesome.

Bearing in mind that almost all governments here have workable majorities it shouldn't be overlooked that there are significant numbers of rebel Labour and Tory backbenchers who will not go along with certain aspects of front bench policy. For example, European issues have the capacity to tear the Tories apart and Labour MP's aren't very happy about the current post office privatisation proposals.

Yeah, you did have the Maastricht Rebels. However, it's not something that happens all that often. Backbencher's and opposition parties are pretty much just there for show in your system.

Anyway, the PR thing may be a goer for Labour. There are rumours today, after the resignation of Hazel Blears timed to cause maximum embarrassment to Gordon, that there is a list going round Labour backbenchers calling for Alan Johnsons to challenge Gordon Browns. Mr Johnsons has stated he's not interested but privately the word is that if there's enough backing he'll wield the knife. Mr Johnsons has already stated a willingness to consider adopting PR.

I think the only real strategy that Labour has right now is to switch leaders, have him immediately reform commons, remove the whips from those who took ridiculous expenses, and call a new election to try and reassert his authority to rule (a third unelected PM governing for along amount of time would be unacceptable), possibly using PR.

Things are getting quite interesting (well, as interesting as British politics can get anyway).

You find a lot of British people who are interested in American politics. However, I imagine I'm the only American you've ever met on the internet with even a passing interesting in British politics.

WERE NUMBER #1

UK.gif
 
Last edited:
What's the threshold for European elections? Even though the vote average for the BNP is only around 4% and they aren't growing, 4% is 4% too much. At least you guys aren't like France, where a fascist won 20% of the vote.

I heard Labour is in serious danger of pulling fourth, or even fifth in the EU elections. I just want to see it because it would be so awesome.

I have to say i haven't a clue. You'll probably know more about the voting system than me, so if i say the vote is done under the d'Hondt* system i assume you'll have some clue. From what i can gather it depends on turnout and what is technically called 'other stuff'.

The turnout was only about 35% last time and the BNP managed around a 4% share, which netted them nothing. The expectations are that there will be a higher turnout this time (around 50% is the figure i've heard but i'm a little sceptical about that) so i'm assuming (and hoping) there's a good chance we'll remain sweet smelling and fascist free for some time to come. If the BNP do get a seat it will likely be in the North-West region, which means they'll be one of my MEP's.

*it sounds absolutely filthy doesn't it?


I think the only real strategy that Labour has right now is to switch leaders, have him immediately reform commons, remove the whips from those who took ridiculous expenses, and call a new election to try and reassert his authority to rule (a third unelected PM governing for along amount of time would be unacceptable), possibly using PR.

I think you're right about ditching Brown. Labour are now in a position where almost anybody else would be likely to produce a better general election result than Gordon Browns. The summer recess may come to Brown's aid as Parliament goes on holiday on July 23rd. The rebels would want to get shot as quickly as possible to avoid dragging things out until September. So if anything's going to happen it could happen very soon.


You find a lot of British people who are interested in American politics. However, I imagine I'm the only American you've ever met on the internet with even a passing interesting in British politics.

Strangely enough there is one other poster on the board who has expressed an interest in our filthy politics, but they shall remain shrouded in mystery ;)

It does make a nice change to talk about the UK every now and again but too much of it does tend to make one a little bilious, which maybe explains why i'm here. I'd have a scanners style head explosion if i frequented a UK politics board.
 
I know what it meant. But it just doesn't seem like a swear word. Kind of like calling a penis a "dangler" or something. The story said they used a "swear". Maybe "twat" is like the British version of "c*nt"...

Calling someone a twat is not nearly as offensive as calling them a cunt. I agree with you that it doesn't sound Anglo Saxon enough to be a serious swear word
 
That BNP prick, elected to the London assembly, just managed to get over the 5% threshold for a top up seat although the thought that around 70,000 people voted BNP as their first choice is a little scary.

Bearing in mind that almost all governments here have workable majorities it shouldn't be overlooked that there are significant numbers of rebel Labour and Tory backbenchers who will not go along with certain aspects of front bench policy. For example, European issues have the capacity to tear the Tories apart and Labour MP's aren't very happy about the current post office privatisation proposals.

Anyway, the PR thing may be a goer for Labour. There are rumours today, after the resignation of Hazel Blears timed to cause maximum embarrassment to Gordon, that there is a list going round Labour backbenchers calling for Alan Johnsons to challenge Gordon Browns. Mr Johnsons has stated he's not interested but privately the word is that if there's enough backing he'll wield the knife. Mr Johnsons has already stated a willingness to consider adopting PR.

Things are getting quite interesting (well, as interesting as British politics can get anyway).

Out of curiosity, Charver, does referring to individuals in the plural form have any specific grammar logic in the Queen's English, or is it just a means to be condecending, seeing as it is condecension that I infer when you speak of Gordon Browns, etc.?

Its actually had me wondering for about two years now, but I have to ask...
 
Out of curiosity, Charver, does referring to individuals in the plural form have any specific grammar logic in the Queen's English, or is it just a means to be condecending, seeing as it is condecension that I infer when you speak of Gordon Browns, etc.?

Its actually had me wondering for about two years now, but I have to ask...

No, it's not meant to be condescending. I have a habit of adding an 's' to names without one and removing the 's' from names which originally end with one. So if you see i've written Barack Obamas or Britney Spear, it's just because i'm mildly disturbed.

I picked it up from another website i visit (yes, the rumours of mystical lands beyond the JPP boundary are true, i tells you) and it's become ingrained in my writing. :)
 
No, it's not meant to be condescending. I have a habit of adding an 's' to names without one and removing the 's' from names which originally end with one. So if you see i've written Barack Obamas or Britney Spear, it's just because i'm mildly disturbed.

I picked it up from another website i visit (yes, the rumours of mystical lands beyond the JPP boundary are true, i tells you) and it's become ingrained in my writing. :)

Okay, that's refreshing, albeit blasphemous for the reference to lands beyond JPP. I try to take as many grammar tips from the original source as possible (minus the extra u's and the use of the 's' in favor of the 'z').
 
Okay, that's refreshing, albeit blasphemous for the reference to lands beyond JPP. I try to take as many grammar tips from the original source as possible (minus the extra u's and the use of the 's' in favor of the 'z').
And the odd need to add 'o's to words like diarrhea. It's mucked up enough, what's the 'o' for?
 
Back
Top