Friday, May 06, 2005


I'm still gearing up to starting full-scale recriminations against those who betrayed the cause during this election. Watch this space.

But - as an inital fusilade, I'd like to start with all of the tossers who have spent recent months saying that there is very little difference between any of the main parties and that the election would be boring and pointless.

Let's start with an idiot's guide to the strategy that the centre-left has adopted in the UK over the past decade (read my version, or the ex-New Statesman diarist Mat Coward's version in the Independent letters page last week)

In this election, we wanted to win a majority similar to the last one. This would have demolished any remaining credibility that the Conservatives had as an electoral force. It may even have caused them to fragment.

New Labour has always been clear that it's defining feature is it's ability to win elections. This means being able to defend it's flanks against it's most credible rival.

If a centre-right rival is neutralised, it follows that the Labour Party would be freer to adopt some of the policies that it's core supporters would support rather than the policies foisted on it by the necessity of beating the Tories.

This is a credible strategy designed to bring some meaning back to a system that (for us,in the Labour Party) was completely meaningless during the 18 years of Conservative Government.

Of course, this strategy has suffered a major setback now that loads of middle class dweebs chose a vanity-vote for the lib-dems to show that the Iraq was was prosecuted 'not in their name'. If these poor didums had been able to bring themselves to hold their quivering aqualine noses in the polling booth and vote Labour, the result would have been remarkably similar to 2001. John Cryer, Oona King and Callum MacDonald (to name but a few) would still be MPs and the Tories would have been scratching around for yet another leader.

There has always been a fairly vocal minority in the Labour Party (John Harris is the latest example) who haven't understood the need for patience, but the tens-of-thousands of activists who have spent recent weeks knocking on doors are not among them.

I'm not even close to finessing this rant yet. More l8r.


Anonymous said...

You just called me a tosser. Very ignorant considering you do not know me.

If you can bear to pay attention to a voice other than your own for a few minutes this is what I have to say.

I have been a Labour voter all my life.

I chose to vote Lib Dem this time round because my conscience dictated I vote that way.

Presumably you vote to your consience? Or do you vote for another reason?

I did not like the way Blair blatantly lead us to a war outside of the framework of international institutions and law.

I also did not like the way he blindly ignores the environmental issues at hand.

I am also extremely uncomfortable with GWB and Blairs unwavering support for such a greedy selfish psychopath.

If the Labour party can address social justice issues (cannot even believe I need to ask the Labour party to address that) AS WELL AS environmental concerns...and I mean really address them then I will vote Labour next time round.

Labour achieved much good in the last 8 years. But is the world a better, healthier, safer place? I think not!

Don't blame the people for not voting Labour...blame Labour.

You have a lot of anger...why is that? Emotion is normally the stamping ground of the Tories and the Republicans.

Anonymous said...

You are spot on...if only New Labour would have had the same result they had in 2001 they would have been able to pursue the same radical agenda they pursued from 01 to 05....hang on a minute...what radical agenda? New Labour is about as radical as a 16 year old dope-smoking upper middle class twat!

Which one of the following four definitions of radical does New Labour fit into? None! Radical my arse!

1. Arising from or going to a root or source; basic: proposed a radical solution to the problem.
2. Departing markedly from the usual or customary; extreme: radical opinions on education.
3. Favoring or effecting fundamental or revolutionary changes in current practices, conditions, or institutions: radical political views.
4. One who advocates fundamental or revolutionary changes in current practices, conditions, or institutions: radicals seeking to overthrow the social order.

Anonymous said...

Paulie, I agree with most of what you say. However it is not the fault of the people who voted Lib Dem instead of Labour who have put the political mission of New Labour at risk. These voters, admittedly gave the Tories about half of their gains since the last election, in marginal seats. It is surely the fault of Blair and others who led us into an illegal and unjust war (waged on unjust grounds, and in an unjust fashion). He has also undermined the confidence of the electorate in government, and he should have followed through on his initial decision to step down last summer. His failure to do so has resulted in the result we see today.

Gale Heth said...

It''s quite impressive.