Election Special

Jesse Walker | May 5, 2005

The Brits are having an election today. I'm cheering for these guys.

Comments

|5.5.05 @ 10:07AM|#

I'm cheering for these guys.

Whoa, I didn't realize there was a British version of the LP!

|5.5.05 @ 10:19AM|#

Never mind those guys; vote for Jethro Q. Walrustitty of the Silly Party.

|5.5.05 @ 10:30AM|#

The Monster Raving Loonies are old hat. Now the Church of the Militant Elvis Party, that's where all the heat is.

Nothing, however, will ever beat the Cheap-Royalty-White-Rat-Catching-And-Safe-Sewage Residents Party.

|5.5.05 @ 10:31AM|#

Or the Standing-At-The-Back-Dressed-Stupidly-And-Looking-Stupid Party for that matter.

|5.5.05 @ 10:34AM|#

Nathan, quit reading my mind!

A few policy points of the S.I.T.B.D.S.A.L.S.P.:

1. The compulsory serving of asparagus at every meal
2. Free corsets for the under-5's
3. The abolition of slavery (apparently this was just extremist nonsense they put in for a joke)

|5.5.05 @ 11:05AM|#

I'm cheering for these guys.

I dunno. Don't you think it's time for a change of government over there?

|5.5.05 @ 11:31AM|#

Now the Church of the Militant Elvis Party, that's where all the heat is.

I disavow any connection with that fraudulent use of my estate's name. I might have once been in the military, but the most militant I get is shooting my TV.

|5.5.05 @ 11:49AM|#

What's with the May-December Gay couple. Shouldn't the tag line be "Thanks Sugar Daddy."

This is creepier than Carpet Humping Man!

|5.5.05 @ 12:16PM|#

Which party supports the "Oasis are the greatest band in the world!" platform?

|5.5.05 @ 1:02PM|#

Josh,

Possibly it's the Wonderwall Party.

Incidentally, I'm flying to London this weekend (for business, sadly). I might be able to get some individual reaction to the post-election outcome.

|5.5.05 @ 1:25PM|#

Hmm. I support the Lemon Party!!

|5.5.05 @ 1:33PM|#

The Official Monster Raving Loony Party

Given a real choice I suppose I would vote for The Official Normal-sized Quiet-spoken Sane Party but sadly no such organization exists. Anywhere.

|5.5.05 @ 1:38PM|#

Damn double post. I was sure I clicked only once.

|5.5.05 @ 2:43PM|#

Maybe the Jedi folks could have their own party. Personally, I'm in favor of a costume party but I've heard a tea party can be quite a riot.

|5.5.05 @ 2:46PM|#

If I knew it was gonna be this kind of party, I'd have stuck my dick in the mashed potatoes!

|5.5.05 @ 4:57PM|#

My hypothetical vote goes to the Lib Dems for 2 reasons:
1. They are far better than their major party opponents on civil liberties and immigration, in my opinion.
2. While I don't care too much for their economic agenda, they are in favor of entering the Eurozone yesterday, which would force the UK into greater long-term fiscal discipline under Maastricht.

Now, why have I been unable to find leaked exit poll data all day?

|5.5.05 @ 5:38PM|#

Well, we now have the initial exit poll data:
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/election/story/0,15803,1477676,00.html

|5.5.05 @ 6:02PM|#

It looks like Labour is going to win again, but with a loss of nearly 100 seats in Parliament, according to the BBC.

The percentages are expected to be as follows, going by exit polls:
Labour: 37%
Conservative: 33%
Lib-Dem: 22%
Other: 8%

The seats are expected to be as follows:
Labour: 354
Conservative: 206
Lib-Dem: 56

While this is a victory for the Labour party as a whole, it is little more than that. This is the lowest number of seats they have held after the landslide victory of 1997, in which they had over 400- a number that was maintained after the re-election of 2001. The question now is exactly how long Blair will stay in office before he steps down (or is forced out by his own party) and is replaced by someone much more popular- specifically Gordon Brown, who has basically been groomed by the public and the press for the role since the campaign began.

|5.5.05 @ 6:39PM|#

At the time of writing, Labour is on course to win but with a much smaller majority. On balance, here in a country that has had a monstrous assault on its civil liberties by Blair, that has to be good news.

|5.5.05 @ 8:10PM|#

Rick,

Blair is a collectivist? What do you think collectivism means? Or were you aware that words are supposed to mean something? See, Mao or, say, Stalin, were collectivists. Don't you think we need a word for Blair that reflects some distinction between the policies he advocates and the policies of Mao and Stalin? Or maybe collectivist just means "bad." Blair bad! But that's the way children talk. Language is such a precise tool. It's a shame to see it used as a blunt ideological cudgel. Work on learning some more words. Look up "nuance."

|5.6.05 @ 7:34AM|#

No,Rick, calling Blair a collectivis does represent an inflation of meaning that robs your politics of common sense It's similar to the practice some far-left zealots have of calling everyone they disagree with fascists. Alas, it's not the only quirk you share with them, but I'm not calling you a communist, am I? In any case, Mr. Blair has presided over a booming capitalist economy. Quite a feat for a collectivist, eh? But you go back to your verbal lollypops. Just remember that a steady diet of them will make you mentally flabby.