Last night saw many BULS members watching the results as they came in the new Joe’s Bar. Whatever you thought of the results, it was a great atmosphere. BUCF were nowhere to be found, but it was heard they were in a Suite in the Radisson Hotel, down with the students of course.
Anyways, the results were rather mixed as BULS members were met with as many disappointments as well as reliefs. Unfortunately, the likes of Jacqui Smith, Charles Clark and that Labour is no longer the single largest party were disappointments, but the fact that no seat in Birmingham turned blue and the likes of Ed Balls didn’t lose his seat is a huge conciliation. Yes, it’s not Labour best night but with so many local MPs staying red and given 9 months ago the Tories were heading for a landslide meant that this hung Parliament was a huge improvement.
BULS can also draw comfort from Wales where Labour only lost a handful of seats, in Scotland Labour’s share of the vote even rose by 3%, loosing not a single seat and containing the Tories to their sole seat and Labour has marge large gains in the local elections that were held on the same day.
In other words, disappointing but it could have been far worse.
Max
Labour’s worst night for nearly 80 years, yet the Tories still failed to win an overall majority. Shows, as much as people may not like us, they are not particularly enthralled by them either. 7% smaller share of vote (not like the 20% it was at times in 2009, or even a few months ago). People who a week ago were talking of Labour failing to get 200 seats, coming third or being sidelined from government for the forseeable future (all of which were predicted by some commentators), have all been proved wrong.
This is a defeat, and we should not pretend it isn’t. But it is not the humiliating one which many envisaged. The Tories may form a government, but there is a strong Labour opposition and a firm foundation for better success next time.
Is it really a defeat?
I don’t regard it as such.
labour did well. better than any party who ruled thru a recession ever did.
Thanks for the boost soopermouse
) I’m proud to say that we’ve done brilliantly in local elections, and not bad in the general considering everything! In the last hour or so there’ve been indications that we might get to stay in government as well…hold your colour everyone!
Though it may be considered blasphemy, I actually think the party would benefit in the longer term from standing aside and letting the Conservatives take office. I feel allying oneself with the Celtic fringes and promising that cuts will not hit Wales, Northern Ireland or Scotland, would frankly be unforgivable to many English voters. It is not in the national interest.
The Liberal Democrats quite frankly, remain marginal and they should not be holding the keys to power as they are. P.R is not a priority for the electorate and while I very much favour electoral reform of a sort, it being used as a deal breaker at a time of economic crisis is, quite frankly, distasteful.
I love this party and support it to the hilt, but I think that its interests are best served by going into constructive opposition. The Conservatives do not have a clear majority, and Labour has enough MPs to maintain good scrutiny over public affairs. This result, while a defeat, offers plenty of opportunity for Labour to return in the next election, whenever that is. But this clinging on to power will leave a bad taste in the mouth for many voters, and I fear that when this ‘Progressive Alliance’ falters, as it will, then the party will reap the whirlwind at the next election and, like the Tories, be doomed to a generation out of office.
Let the Conservatives ally with the Liberal Democrats. They are not natural bedfellows and will soon grow tired of each other, but let us not doom our party to another generation on the sidelines.
I am not alone in thinking this, David Blunkett and Dr John Reid also agree. The Conservatives, though not getting an overall majority, are the largest party, and it is only right that they should govern, as much as I disagree with them as a party.
Wait for it… I agree with Sean :O I don’t think a coalition is good for anyone, Tory or Labour, and the party that has the misfortune of governing with the inheritance left by Labour really needed an outright majority to be able to deal effectively with such gargantuan tasks. A hung parliament is the worst outcome the Conservatives could have hoped for.
Also “soopermouse” is waaaaaay off. Thatcher, after the early 1980′s recession, won landslides in 1983 and 1987, and Major won again in 1992 with the larest popular vote in history. So no. No matter how Labour jazz it up they got spanked. Big time.
Suzannah
I disagree. If it was any other party than the Tories, I’d agree wholeheartedly. Let them take some heat for conditions beyond control for a change.
But, we are talking Tories here. No offense, but they’re an evil bunch. The problems the country is facing now have a lot to do with Thatcher dismantling the bespoke manufacturing British industry in the 80′s. Give the Tory 6 months and they’re capable of cutting child benefits, fire half the NHS and give Cameron’s wife a no tax for life measure.
Regardless of what happens, Clegg is not going to see those kind of numbers again in his lifetime. He has shown his weaselly colours, and we’ve already seen how many of his voters regret.
The “celtic fringes”? I am sorry, but that is deeply insulting. Britain is more than England once, and Wales and Scotland and NI have the same right to be sat at the table and listened to as everyone else. Plus, this sort of categorizing creates a dangerous slippery slope- if you remove them from the table who’s next? immigrants like myself?
As for the “largest party”, let’s be serious. 35% is not a mandate for anything, and if labour can still hold its own after 3 years of recession that shows that our values are still the right ones.
I for one would prefer new elections. I bet LibDems would fade into obscurity, and a lot of the Labour voters that stood home will come this time.
Dan, seriously?
We are still paying for Thatcher’s actions. I understand you came to gloat, but as of now you have nothing to gloat about.
It doesn’t look like there’s a Tory Government happening any time soon is there?
haha oh my. Some Labour supporters really are dangerously dilluded aren’t they. Tell me what exactly it is that “New Labour” did in terms of economic policy and wealth creation that was so different from Thatcherism and maybe just maybe i’ll take you seriously. And the fact is the Tories won 2 million more votes than Labour. They won the election. They won the popular vote. BUT there are flaws in our electoral system which mean this isn’t always accurately reflected in terms of seats and majorities.
Supermouse, I am not trying to insult Scots, Welsh or Northern Irish when I used those terms (my Mum is Welsh and lives in Cardiff, paternal grandmother Scottish whilst I have been to Northern Ireland on a number of occasions and like it). And of course, the UK is not just England.
But this ‘progressive alliance’ were it to form would be on the basis that Scotland and Wales as well as Northern Ireland took a lesser share of cuts than England. That, to me, is not fair. The SNP, Plaid Cymru and SDLP, with whom Labour would seem to align itself, were not majority parties in their own country (all together they only just got more votes than the BNP), let alone in the UK, so why should they have a large say in the UK’s government.
Labour has been beaten, though not spanked (as the Council elections and fact that we were only 7pc lower than Tories in national vote) but Labour is not dead and buried as I fear it may become should it proceed with this rainbow alliance.
and FYI I didn’t come to “gloat” and if you review my comment I said that it was a bad outcome for the Conservatives, although having said that the fact you seem to suggest ive got something to “gloat” about speaks volumes… freudian slip perhaps? ;P
They won the election. They won the popular vote. BUT there are flaws in our electoral system which mean this isn’t always accurately reflected in terms of seats and majorities.
But Dan, the Conservatives almost unaniimously oppose change to the electoral system, so have to accept this. They were happy to with Heath in 74, as they were happy to accept an unelected PM in 1992 with Major. You cannot have it both ways. Whilst I think the Tories should go into power, they cannot complain about deadlocks in the political system when they would naturally do nothing to change it.
Again Sean speaks sense. Besides I would hardly call the SNP and Plaid Cymru “progressive”, they are radicals that ultimately seek to break up the union. The SNP was ultimately rejected in Scotland. It would be an alliance of all the “losers” and Sean is right the public, English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish would punish Labour heavily for it. It would be best for Labour if they followed Browns example and bowed out with what little dignity they have left to muster.
No Sean I agree. Its an unfortunate situation we are in but I am wholly in favour of FPTP. PR and electoral reform is just a way for the insignificant little minor parties who can’t cut it on the national stage to grab more power for themselves. It would give fascists and fantasists too great a say on national issues as in countries with PR the “hung parliament” scenario is very common. Imagine if the BNP held the balance of power! FPTP isn’t perfect but it has produced strong, stable government up to present and every now and then due to a variety of factors we may once in a political generation end up with a hung parliament, but as a general rule FPTP is the best system.
That’s the third time you have agreed with me today Dan. Are you feeling ok? :p
Well for once you’re talking sense… perhaps you need a lie down lol ;P
Actually Dan
2 words
Minimal wage.
and frankly, while I do understand your attitude, you should remember that, with all the money Murdoch pumped into Tories and after 2 years of recession, and they still can’t win a real majority.
That’s NOT a good result.
Seems the majority of the country doesn’t want a Tory government after all.
But, we shall see. I find it amusing nobody wants to repeat the elections though. I bet the results would be different now.
3 words soopermouse; not good enough. The minimum wage is not about “wealth creation” it is about “wealth distribution”. I didn’t say New Labour and Thatcher didn’t differ on wealth distribution, Labour spent far more than Thatcher BUT my point is that in terms of wealth creation, i.e the money used to fund redistributive policies like the minimum wage, New Labour wholeheartedly embraced and capitulated to Thatcherism.
The great irony is that without Thatcher there could have been no minimum wage and record public investment because had she not made our economy wealthy and productive again then Britain quite simply would have been left behind and unable to afford such policies. Thatcher did the hard graft, Thatcher left the policies that made the money and Brown spent it. So ask yourself the question who does the country need more; the one who makes the money or the one who spends the money made by someone else?
The Tories did not win an outright majority but frankly you know as well as I do for them to have done so would have meant an enormous swing almost unprecedented in modern politics. They did bloody well to come so close. We still won the popular vote and we still took nearly 100 seats off Labour (even with their dodgy little boundary changes).
But you are right we didn’t win an outright majority, perhaps we didn’t convince the public enough or perhaps some voters thought “better the devil you know”, who knows. One thing is for sure; Labour lost. Badly. You bang on about “a recession” blah blah blah… but let me ask why Labour lost their 4th term after one recession with 2.5 million unemployed and interest rates in single digits but the Tories won their 4th term after record social upheaval, 2 recessions, double digit inflation and sleazy scandals?
Theres one clear answer; no matter what mistakes the Tories made, no matter how bad some of the economic statistics looked, no matter how much social upheaval was endured the public still trusted in them and their policy programme to set the country on the right path. The public today simply do not trust Labour and they don’t want them and their brand of spin and sleaze anymore.
As for the prospect of another election; yes the results would be different…. the Tories would win an outright majority because in the heads of most floating voters they would know that the Tories “won” the first election. Theres alot to be said for the “bandwagon” effect…
I think an election at this time would not be to Labour’s advantage and would only make things tougher for them.
The minimum wage is one of the finest achievements of any government. I think the economy is in a lot better shape than it would have been had Labour done what the Conservatives would have done (or not done as in the case of Northern Rock) but one of the problems for Labour is that that is not a good enough argument for the public.
Saying “things could have been worse” does not have the same effect with voters that saying “we will make things better” which is what the Tories have been saying. That is a criticism of the Labour campaign not of their policies. I think Tory policies would make things worse, as do the Liberal Democrats and a number of other developed countries are following similar policies of keeping investment going until the recovery is secure. I think that, combined with what seems like contempt for the electorate which permeates from the cabinet, has caused this result.
The Labour party has lost a lot of trust with the public, which stems partly from Iraq but also from the election that never was in 2007. Gordon Brown came in with tremendous goodwill and I think gained popularity points for his handling of crises in that summer. Unfortunately, he backed away from calling that election which meant he ran out of time after the recession. I am convinced that his policies for dealing with the recession, were right and would have got Britain out of it. But he got that call in 2007 wrong which means that there was not time for this to become self-evident to the electorate which is why I think his stepping down, was the right decision.
But I think what this election has shown, is that the public is not particularly won over by any political party, unlike in 1997, when it was clear which way the public wanted to go.
My point is that the public perceive that Labour has become arrogant and contemptuous in power, which this plan for a rainbow alliance will make worse. This was caused by Brown not gaining the legitimacy an election in 2007 (which we would have won) would have given him. My other point is that the campaign message was wholly negative “things will get worse under the tories” rather than positive, which I think did us no favours.
God help us. Thats 4 times I’ve been inclined to agree with you Sean. Now I need a lie down… lol
50 emails later….I’m wishing I hadn’t blogged this, lol
haha… 50? I think you’ll find its 21. Labour mathematics in action!! lol
A bit like a teenage pregnancy rate of 5.2 percent becoming 52% eh Dan?
Dan
see, that’s the difference between you and I. I regard people being fairly paid for work as wealth creation- for the people. But it’s OK, you’re a Tory.
Fair play Sean lol…. but “soopermouse” where does the money come from to fund the minimum wage? and what did Peter Mandelson “the rock of New Labour” (according to Gordon Brown) mean when he said “We’re all Thatcherites now”. Some Labourite really are dilluded aren’t they. They think if they ignore it enough it’ll go away. Truth is without Thatcher there could have been no New Labour. They only were electable because Tony Blair pledged to follow her economic path with a renewed emphasis on social justice. He would use her economic policies to fund social programmes but thats the point without her economic policies there would be no money to fund these policies. Thats the problem with some Labourites – they just don’t get that good intentions aren’t enough, its cold hard cash that makes a difference.
David Cameron has said that the conservatives shouldn’t blame the electoral system and perhaps he’s right. The argument that the conservatives would have needed a huge swing for a majority wrests on the assumption of a uniform national swing. It would have been perfectly possible to have achieved a majority on a swing of only 4% if the Tories had reached out more broadly.
But FPTP has only provided a transition from one government with a stable majority to another government with a stable majority on one occasion since 1945. (1970). FPTP provides long periods of weak and unstable government.
Dan, you’re stuck with that dilemma again. You want to claim that Labour has followed Thatcherite policies but also want to claim that Labour’s policies have been ineffective. Of course making these claims simultaneously doesn’t really work. If the minimum wage was so compatible with Thatcherism why did the Tories claim that it would bankrupt the nation in 1997?
You also erroneously claim that Labour spent more than Thatcher, when in fact TME averaged 44.7% of GDP between 1979 and 1990 and only 38.9% of GDP between 1997 and 2008. The reality is that Thatcher was a big spender especially when it came to social security.
”we still took nearly 100 seats off Labour (even with their dodgy little boundary changes). ”
Of course boundary changes don’t hand victory to one party over another. Perhaps I should demonstrate with an example: Birmingham Edgbaston’s boundary changes saw a reduction in the required swing for a tory gain, from about 3% to 2%.
“…where does the money come from to fund the minimum wage ”
Where does the money come from to drive profits in a business? Often it comes form consumers, a group which comprises, among others, minimum wage earners. A minimum wage in the 1920s might have saved the world a lot of misery. I think you are confusing money with wealth.