Breaking News: British Exit Poll predicts Labour Win by 66 seats

[brooklynite]

Live coverage on C-SPAN 2

[Jacobin]

1. Okay, that's a lot fewer than the 120 predicted, right?

If so, a good outcome. Make Blair squirm enough that he's asked to step down and a new Labour guy gets in who can withdraw the troops from IraqNam

[grytpype]

10. A lot lower.

This is a rebuke to Blair, no question about it.

[Jacobin]

15. Excellent

Blair needed a major slap in the face, without giving over to the Tories.

[AP]

19. Whose faced gets slapped by giving 40 seats to Tories and 3 to LibDems?

[Jacobin]

45. So, what's your take on it?

80% of brits are against IraqNam. Brits are pissed about having been lied to about invading IraqNam.

Tories are in favor of invasion.

Liberal Dems are not.

Labour by and large is against it, but Blair does it anyway.

If you can parse this shit, make sense of the outcome, I'd love to see it.

I'm glad Blair got fewer than the 120 seats that were projected yesterday.

Why? Because he enabled Bush* to invade Iraq and I have two almost draft age sons that I would prefer not to see turned into pulp (or to turn Iraqis into pulp).

Does that help?

[AP]

59. My take on it:

Blair had no choice but to participate in Iraq, and the reasons go so far beyond anything that people could come to understand in an environment in which the public debate is so fucked up.

Had he not participated, Labour probably would have lost the last election in a mood dominated by (1) the idea that Blair had harmed Britain's sense of its place in the world -- that Blair marginalized Britain, (2) the idea that he wasn't committed to fighting terrorism (what if there had been a terrorist attack in the UK? What if Richard Reid succeeded?), and (3) he would have been blamed for the economic malaise caused by total US domination of Iraq in the ME and the intended chaos that would have ensued.

I feel that this is obvious, but I realize most people don't see the world the way I see it. I think it would have been impossible to convince the British public that this shit would have happened. But I also think Blair had almost no choice but to get involved in Iraq unless (1) he wanted to be a one-termer, and (2) he didn't care about the long term economic impact total US domination of Iraq would have had on Europe and the UK.

So, he gets involved in Iraq. And now the trick is to keep people focussed on the big picture for Labour, which is all about reversing the fascism that a century of conservativism has imposed on Britain. He got the UK into the 20th century just before the 20th century ended. He's dismantling the fascism at home. It's practically a losing battle to do these things at home when the talk is so dominated by Iraq. Nonetheless, Labour is hanging on, persuing its agenda, and the Tories are not in power.

Hopefully, in five years, we'll be 1.5 years into a Democratic President who will create a mood whereby nobody wants to punish anyone for Iraq, and Labour can continue its mission to bury Tory fascism and leap another 100 years into the 21st century only 8 years after it started.

[Jacobin]

65. Okay, I'm having a problem understanding this

Your post is clear and eloquent, but I recall the massive protests of Brits prior to the invasion....at least 80% were against the invasion.

How would that translate to the voters being upset with a PM who stood up to the U.S. warmongers? Why is it pissing them off now (that Blair joined in the quagmire) but would piss them off (not getting involved) then? This does not compute with me.

Further, the very idea that somehow America's involvement in IraqNam will contribute to world domination, economic booms, or otherwise increase Britain's role in world affairs completely baffles me. I mean COMPLETELY beffles me.

The invasion is an unmitigated disaster from the point of view of cost, success, theft of the oil, world opinion and any other measure that anyone could possible envision.

I'm not buying your explanation at all. I don't think it squares with the facts.

[DrDebug]

70. May I add a little point in your defense

The London demonstration was the BIGGEST peace demonstration the world has ever seen. And I agree with you that not listening to that is very strange. Once again, there have never been demonstrations which were bigger EVER ANYWHERE in the world. That day London set a world record.

[AP]

74. We had massive protests in the US too, and when it came down to it...

...voters decided that in frightening times they'd rather have a guy who shoots first and asks questions later (even if he's wrong most of the time) then I guy who asks questions first and shoots only if it's necessary (because you only need to be wrong once for there to be incredibly bad consequences).

Such is the nature of fear. And what Liberals do to win in times of fear is to (1) not give anyone any ammunition to use against them (like a no vote on the IWR) and (2) they focus the debate on progressive values, like flowing power to people who work for a living (which is EXACTLY what the Labour party has changed in Britian since 1997).

So, there might have been a lot of people against the war in the UK, just as in the US -- but once the campaign wheels start turning, where are they? Where were they in the US?

The UK is not so far from the days of voting against their best interests simply because of a fear of a bunch of Catholics in NI. Was Blair really going to take a chance that those impulses receded beyond even distant memories?

As for your second point -- have you ever thought that maybe the invasion is SUPPOSED to be an unmitigated disaster? Gulf War 1 ended and then did nothing for the Republicans. Perpetuating the fear and anxiety (1) keeps the war on the front page, which keeps progressive values OFF the front page, and (2) perpetuates the mood that we need shoot-first leaders.

Also, have you noticed the price of oil? Don't you think that that's part of the plan.

Have you seen Life & Debt? In the early '70s we had a gas crisis which forced developing countries to borrow money at unfavorable rates from banks in NYC. Basically, private banks got a HUGE cut of the money that changed hands as countries tried to develop their economies.

Well, in the early 21st century we're at a moment when the EU, Russia, China and Asia are ready to really grow their economies (to say nothing of all of Central America and Mexico which are on the verge of getting their own FDR-style middle class boomin' new deal).

Is this good for the US? No. It challenges our hegemony. What's the best thing to do about it? Jack up oil prices to (1) slow down economic growth in developing countries, and (2) ensure that oil companies get a huge cut of the growing economies -- even if it means it will cause ecomies to grow at a slower rate.

Know what the difference is between 1973 and 2005? In '73, moderate Republicans like the Rockefellers controlled the world, so it was the banks that got the biggest profits from foreign countries' attempt to develop economies. Today it's the Bush family and their oil friends who have the power, so it'll be the oil companies that are making all the money.

This is what Blair is fighting. The UK and the Labour party is so obviously not a part of that. They want Europe to develop. They want commonwealth nations to develop. The don't want ridiculously high oil prices. They don't want chaos in the ME. This is the reason -- I am so certain -- that Blair had no choice but to participate. It was to stop economic chaos from sweeping Europe after blowing through the ME (which was the precursor to WW2, by the way, and like in the 30s, surely would have resulted in liberal european governments loosing to conservative parties, and would have meant the end of the EU as a functioning unit which generally exists to create wealth for people who work and not for monopoly corporations).

There's a much bigger picture here to look at than "Poodle."

[Jacobin]

85. The polls on the invasion of IraqNam

in the U.S. pre-invasion were a majority in favor of, due in large part to the media whooping it up like a really fun superbowl and implied connectins to 9/11, which for a time, most people believed.

There is no comparison to the intensity of opposition to the invasion between Britain and the U.S.

As for the theories you put forward on hegemony, price of oil, banking interests, etc., I'm undecided. Most of american wealth by a huge margin is now in paper...stocks of companies that do better when the economy does better (oil prices low). The percentage of wealth connected to oil prices is quite small, due in large part to the fact that over 60% of oil is purchased from other countries. I don't buy the politically correct view that BushCo wants oil prices higher for personal gain. Most of Bush's wealth which he will inherit will come from Poppy's interest in the Carlyle Group which makes money making war. Cheney's already got his from Halliburton whether oil goes up or down.

Besides which fact, the real aphrodesiac to the maniacs in control of this country is power....unadulterated, unchallenged power. Starting a war was critical for Bush to get re-elected, since his polls prior to the invasion were tanking.

The fact remains that anyone who looked at the invasion of Iraq before it happened with any sense of history, practicality, or geo-political insight of any reasonable competence would have seen the disaster coming. I remember Smirk's father's book explaining that to invade Iraq and topple Saddam would be an unmitigated disaster that would have bogged the country down for decades. However, Smirk getting re-elected was more important than what was good for the country, so the invasion took place.

Blair is not stupid. Before IraqNam I admired him greatly as a communicator, policy maker and politician. My view of his judgment now is completely demolished. Iraq has not in any sense of the word increased his power, increased the power of his party or helped Britain. In fact, it has diminished his party to a large degree...behold the elections.

I think we simply disagree

[AP]

87. By November 2004, most Americans thought it was a mistake and they

still voted for Bush.

All I can do is shake my head when I read your third paragraph. I think I've explained that oil prices are about getting a piece of the cost of developing economies, and are even about slowing down that development, and if you can't see how both of those things help people like Bush and US Republicans and not people in the UK Labour party, then I don't know what more I can say, other than, perhaps, I understand why you're so angry at Blair.

[sonicx]

88. Bush got an increase in Congress. Blair will get a decrease in parliment

explain.

[AP]

91. Because NOBODY is on the side of progressives. The media doesn't like

progressives. Even progressives can be easily convinced not to like progressives.

Blair was fucked the minute George Bush got elected.

The US and the UK have always moved together. Liberals win the US, they win in the UK. Conservatives win here, and they win there.

And Iraq shows us how that happens.

But Blair is surviving Bush, which is remarkable. That's there's some bloodletting in the process is inevitable.

[Jacobin]

102. By a small margin in 11/04.....not so in Britain

If bankers were interested in putting economic chains on developing nations (which I grant that you are), how would it benefit the U.S. bnakers to get their asses kicked in IraqNam. Somehow I get the feeling that you think that the U.S. will eventually conquer Iraq. I am positively convinced that that will never ever happen.....anymore than Israel will ever successfully conquer and peacefully occupy Palistinian land.

I think our disagreement stems from a basic difference of how we perceive facts in the world....some of which are subject to some debate at the moment, i.e. whether the U.S. will successfully conquer Iraq.

[AP]

104. The bankers come behind the oil companies (bush is an oil man)

What in the world makes you think I think we'll conquer Iraq?

I think it's inevitable that Iraq will someday be in control of it's own destiny. The question is how long that takes and how chaotic it will be up to that point.

I think Bush's goal is to hang on as long as possible, keeping things chaotic, keeping oil prices high. I think Blair would work with a Democratic president to smooth the transition to a democratic Iraq that didn't operate according to the Liberterian/neoliberal wet dream of consititution the US has put in place. I think that's probably the reason the UK is involved, since they don't seem to be using it to go into deficit spending handing out overpriced contracts left and right to private corporations, and they definitely don't seem as interested as the US is in creating conflict and chaos.

[Jacobin]

112. I know that what I am saying goes against DU orthodoxy

Bush is no more an 'oil man' than I am the King of Siam. His pitiful failed attempts at discovering and producing oil are legendary. While his father started Zapata Petroleum in the 1950's and 60's their wealth has LONG since been shifted into the war industry through Carlyle Group.

Over 60% of oil comes from overseas. The percentage of the U.S. GDP attributable to oil has fallen dramatically over the last 20 years and has been replaced by corporate stock in multinational companies, most of whom are hurt by high oil prices, not helped. The petrochemical industry SUFFERS with high oil prices because oil is the feedstock for chemicals, fertilizers and so forth.

In fact Saudi Arabia has a difficult balancing act with pricing, because much of the wealth of the princes is in American stocks, which suffer when oil prices rise.

I don't ascribe to the theory that Bush invaded Iraq to make oil less plentiful to raise its price for his oil buddies. The Bush family craves power far more than money from oil....besides which fact Carlyle thrives on war, not oil.

If what you are saying is true, then why would Blair join in the march to make oil more expensive, create chaos in the M.E.?

How woould that help Britain.

[AP]

113. So record oil co profits have been a coincidence? Just because Bush wasn't

good at it doesn't mean it's not his most favorite industry in America and that it's the industry all his friends and his VP make a ton of money off of.

Again, I can't beleive I have to explain this, but my suspicion is that if the UK were not involved, the fact that the US had control of the whole country would mean even more chaos, and it would mean that the point at which chaos would come to an end would pushed even farhter into the future, and it would reduce the influence of ANYONE else in the region, especially nations which are so concerned about reducing the chance of future instability that they're doing everything they can to negotiate with Iran, remove Khaddafy as threat, and promote peace between Israel and the Palestinians (and I guarnatee that those are not Tory Party priorities).

[Jacobin]

117. As I say

the orthodoxy that Bush and those influencing him are 'oil men' is a popular myth, in my opinion. Cheney gets his money from Halliburton regardless of whether oil prices are high or not. Bush's small fortune comes from a baseball team he 'invested in' through Rainwater's outfit in Dallas, using the Bush family name to ram through a stadium in Richardson paid for by taxpayers but owned by the team.

Poppy's fortune is in Carlyle, an arms manufacturing conglomerate, NOT oil.

The neo-cons are driving the train to (they hope) exterminate one of Israel's enemies in the M.E., and to attempt to control oil for world hegemony. Unfortunately for them, the world is having none of it.

Our economy is in tatters and we will be run out of Iraq on a rail and our standing in the world has been greatly diminished.

[AP]

122. Bush represents the interests of oil and oil service companies.

They are making money hand over fist.

It's not a coincidence.

It's going to be hard to convince me otherwise.

Oil is literally the fuel of economic development. Many areas of the world are developing. That presents a problem: what if they develop into economies that threaten US hegemony? It presents an opportunity: to make money off economic development.

The economics is no different than student loans or IMF loans: people are trying to increase their wealth, and there's a chance to make money off of the wealth they make.

You can't have development without fuel, so one great way to make money off of development is to have privately- (not OPEC-) owned oil companies. You can also use your control over oil as a way to turn up and down economic development.

If progressives (non-fascists/non-ramptant neoliberals) win elections, then turn down the spigot. You remember how Enron did this to California (and then the bond raters gave them the one-two punch by downgrading their debt). Remember how that got Arnold elected? Remember Chile? Remember the America banks and companies and the US Aid loans and the farm subsidies being turned off so that people would vote out Allende?

Yes, private control of industry is a great tool for controlling governments and making money.

To me, this is so obviously what Bush is doing with Iraq and the ME and to me this is so obviously what the UK is trying to avoid in the ME because they know that that spigot -- if totally controlled by the US -- is going to be turned down to hurt progressives, and turned up to help neoliberals, just like in Chile, just like in Venezuela (with the strikes) and just like in California.

[Zynx]

153. I think you have part of this backward

The neocons (actual neocons like Pearl, not the general slur against all Republicans) want to directly control the ME oil for geostrategic reasons. It has nothing to do with economics - they want to be able to refuse to give China and India oil.

It's not mere cost.

High oil prices in general are bad, bad, bad for the US economy and pretty much good for no one, so we don't want high oil prices and the Republicans certainly don't want high gas prices - especially with no Democrats to blame.

Iraq has been massively stupid from an economic point of view. Which isn't surprising because its not about economics at all.

[Jack Rabbit]

92. Let me add this . . .

Mr. AP is essentially giving us the anti-democratic argument that people elect representatives to lead, not to represent them. He all but says in his argument that Blair knows better what is right than the British people do. He even suggests that he knows better than the rest of us: I feel that this is obvious, but I realize most people don't see the world the way I see it. I think it would have been impossible to convince the British public that this shit would have happened.

This is really the same argument Bush gives whenever he finds himself on the short end of the public opinion surveys. It is not an argument that wears at all well on the leader of a free people, but better on an arrogant dictator.

So, he is admitting in effect that Blair went against the wishes of the British people and now complains that in a free election the British people have punished him. What would one expect the voters to do?

Mr. AP's the argument rests on a good deal of speculation about what might have happened or even what Blair was thinking. I have yet to see anything that supports any of it. Indeed, contrary to Mr. AP's speculation, Blair has marginalized Britain in Europe by siding with Bush. There isn't a shred of evidence to suggest that had Britain not gone into Iraq that an economic malaise caused by US world domination would have resulted. Also, even if Richard Reid had succeeded, invading Iraq would not have saved Blair. The British people knew better than their American counterparts that invading Iraq had nothing to do with fighting terrorism and, consequently, did not prevent one terrorist act either before or after the Spring of 2003. They knew that it was a dirty little scheme by American neoconservatives to get their hands on natural resources that don't belong to them. They knew it was colonial piracy predicated on a pack of lies.

Mr. AP's argument, expressed in another thread, is that Blair is cleverly using his subservience to Bush to subvert neocon imperialism in Iraq. Here, he makes the statement "Blair had no choice but to participate," Can vassalage be a weapon of war? I find that a little hard to take seriously. Blair had every choice. He made the wrong one.

The British people were right to oppose the neocons' war in Iraq in and of itself and even more right to oppose British participation in it. This was not the British people's fight any more than it was, in reality, a fight in the interests of common Americans. For Blair to follow Bush into Iraq was nothing short of appeasement. It was an even more dishonorable appeasement than Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler. After all, Chamberlain did not assist Hitler in invading Poland.

It is not the fault of the British people that Tony Blair has been chastised today. If, for doing the bidding of a war criminal, having about a hundred seats shaved off his party's majority is the worst thing that happens to Blair, he should count himself a fortunate man. He deserves much worse. For his party's fortunes this evening, Blair has no one to blame but himself.

[AP]

96. Leadership involves both leading and following.

If following on Iraq means that the Tories are going to win the next election, or if it means Houston, Texas will have total control over the spigot of European economic development, then it might become time to lead rather than follow public opinion. Obviously, people elected Blair in order to look after the interests of working Brits, and it wouldn't be looking after their interests to allow the US to be in total control of an enclave in Iraq from which they can entrench fascism and watch it sweep across Europe.

[Jack Rabbit]

103. Then Blair should have told the British people the truth

He didn't.

I'm sorry, but I cannot accept this fantastic worldview you have in which Blair, contrary to all appearances, is like the boy with his finger in the dike hold back the floodwaters of neoconservative domination.

We are agreed that neoconservatism must be fought and that it probably cannot be taken on with direct brute force. The leaves resistence by non-cooperation. If Blair's intention is to resist by deception and subterfuge, then he has decieved his own people as much as anybody and the overall effect has not been worth the effort.

I've been comparing Blair to Chamberlain, which is how I see it. Looking at it from your point of view, he seems to compare more to Marshall Petain. Petain, after all, thought he was stopping the Nazis from going any further. He still asked "How high?" everytime the Germans said "Jump!" History has not been kind to him and he was tried for treason after the war. I don't think history will be much more kind to Tony Blair.

[AP]

107. Have you considered that resisting...

...by preserving a relatively calm region of the country is another possibility? And is that an evil thing?

Blair has indicated repeatedly that the UK is doing everything it can to prevent an invasion of Iran (which happens to be the UK's number one or two trading partner). Why is this even interesting? Because they are right there on Iraq's doorstep in Iran. Perhaps one of the big reasons the US hasn't moved on to Iran yet is because the British Army is right there saying no.

If the US did move on Iran, that would devestate the British economy (and would help the Tories win elections). Hey, maybe that's why Blair participated?

[muriel_volestrangler]

108. Does that post need editing?

Iraq and Iran confused once or twice?

Also, neither Iraq nor Iran is a major trading partner of the UK.

[AP]

111. Just heard last week that Iran is the UK's number one or two trading...

...partner.

Time to hit the google, I guess.

[Jack Rabbit]

114. Except it is not working

1. See Mr. Jacobin's post 106.

2. A rational person (such as your humble servant) would say that Bush can't go into Iran (I think you meant Iran at the beginning of your second paragraph) because he has so many troops tied up on occupation duty in Iraq and that situation is still not contained. Occupying Iran would be three or four times more difficult.

• Iran is a larger country geographically;
• Iran has about three times the population as Iraq;
• While an Islamic republic is by no stretch of the imagination a democratic form of government, neither is it the tyranny that Saddam's Iraq was; there is even less reason to believe foreign troops will be welcomed into Iran as liberators than there was to believe that hooey about Iraq.

3. Never mind what a rational person would do; what will Bush do? If he wants to invade Iran, he'll do it in spite of all the reasons against it in number 2. Tony Blair won't be able to persuade him otherwise.

[Jacobin]

106. Ah, but his gamble did not pay off, did it?

http://www.iags.org/iraqpipelinewatch.htm

2005
186. January 1 - attack on a pipeline from Kirkuk to Bayji.
187. January 1 - attack on a pipeline linking the southern cities of Karbala and Hillah, 46 miles south of Baghdad near the Musabayb power station.
188. January 7 - attack on gas pipeline 9 miles north of Tikrit.
189. January 8 - attack on an oil pipeline running from northern fields to Bayji in the Safra area, 43 miles southwest of Kirkuk. Two guard posts for an oil protection force were also blown up around the area and one guard was wounded.
190. January 8 - attack on a gas pipeline in the Fatha area near Bayji.
191. January 11 - 2:00am rocket attack on a gas pipeline that runs to Bayji near the Fatha production station.
192. January 11 - 6:30am attack on an oil pipeline that runs to Bayji in the Zegheitoun area, 35 miles southwest of Kirkuk. The pipeline had just been brought online on January 9th.
193. January 13 - 10:30pm attack on oil pipeline near Fatha.
194. January 14 - improvised explosive device detonated after midnight damaging an oil pipeline near Bayji and sparking a large fire.
195. January 14 - attack on a pipeline linking Kirkuk and the Daura refinery, near Samarra.
196. January 14 - rocket attack on pipeline complex near Fatha sparked large blaze.
197. January 17 - a bomb blew off a section of a pipeline in Fatha.
198. January 21 - 07:00am attack on pipeline in the al-Tharthar region 12 miles south of Samarra interrupted the flow of oil to the Bayji refinery.
199. February 2 - attack on oil pipeline connecting Bayji refinery to Daura refinery. The attack took place near Samarra.
200. Fabruary 5 - attack on a cluster of eight pipelines west of Samarra connecting the Bayji and Daura refineries.
201. February 6 - attack on pipeline carrying crude oil from Kirkuk to Bayji.
202. February 9 - attack on a gas pipeline before dawn in Fatha, about 15 miles north of Bayji.
203. February 9 - rocket attack on a pipeline linking Kirkuk to Bayji.
204. February 13 - 10:00pm attack on oil pipeline at the al-Dibbis oil field 31 miles north of Kirkuk.
205. February 14 - another attack on oil pipeline at al-Dibbis.
206. February 16 - attack on pipeline carrying crude from Kirkuk to Bayji near Fatha.
207. February 16 - attack on pipeline carrying crude from Kirkuk to Daura refinery.
208. February 16 - another attack on pipeline near Fatha.
209. February 16 - attack on pipeline in the Bajwan area, northwest of Kirkuk.
210. February 16 - gunmen killed Colonel Ibrahim Ahmed in charge of pipeline security. The killing took place at Ajeel west of Kirkuk.
211. February 25 - late night attack on a pipeline connecting the Dibbis oil fields with Kirkuk.
212. March 2 - 10pm attack on gas pipeline to Bayji near Al-Safra 30 miles west of Kirkuk caused the shutdown of two of the Bayji power station's four turbines.
213. March 3 - attack on a gas pipeline that links Kirkuk to Dibbis.
214. March 7 - attack on pipeline near Samarra, 60 miles northwest of Baghdad.
215. March 8 - 1pm attack on oil pipeline feeding Al-Daura refinery near Jorf al-Sakhr, 35 miles south of Baghdad.
216. March 9 - attack on oil pipeline feeding the Daura refinery in Jorf al-Sakhr, 46 miles south of Baghdad.
217. March 12 - attack on oil pipeline connecting Bayji and Daura in Al-Tharthar, near Samarra.
218. March 12 - Rocket-propelled grenades were launched at a pipeline running from Kirkuk to Daura.
219. March 15 - attack on oil pipeline in Fatha which carries crude from Kirkuk to Bayji.
220. March 25 - attack on oil pipeline which connects Iraq northern oilfields with the Daura refinery.
221. March 27 - 9:00am attack on oil pipeline which carries crude from Kirkuk to Bayji. Repairs on the line had just been completed the day before.
222. April 4 - attack on pipeline running through the Riyad area near Bayji.
223. April 13 - bomb on oil pipeline near Kirkuk killed an Iraqi oil security chief and eight of his men, who were in the process of defusing another explosive device, and sparked a fire on the pipeline.
224. April 17 - attack near Fatha on oil pipeline from Kirkuk to the Bayji refinery.
225. April 18 - twin blasts at an internal oil pipeline near Kirkuk.
226. April 25 - Insurgents blew up pumps used for domestic supplies near Bay Hassam, 19 miles west of Kirkuk.

These are the attacks on the oil infrastructure in IraqNam only since the beginning of the year.

Oil exports from Iraq are far below their pre-invasion levels.

Do I detect from your posts that you believed that America would actually be able to conquer these oil fields successfully, and that Britain had to follow to get its fair share? Then this demented, amoral and naive notion has been dashed against the rocks by reality, as the aboriginal peoples of the middle east do not suffer invasions by westerners quietly and anyone who has read the attempts of others to do so in the last two thousand years will see that we are in a long line of failed conquerers.

Blair's blunder belongs to Blair.

[AP]

110. I really don't think you understand what I'm saying.

I absolutely don't think the US is going to "conquer" oil fields and I don't think Britain is doing this to get their fair share.

I think the US wants chaos in Iraq. Chavez has said that the price of oil today does not reflect the supply and demand. It reflects fears about a chaotic middle east.

And look at the US-run elections. The way they played off the religious groups is like a text-book lesson for planting the seeds of chaos. Please don't try to tell me the US government has peopel who don't read history books. They know what they're doing. They want chaos.

The British are not there to conquer fields and keep them as their own. They're there, it appears, to preserve a relatively calm area so that the whole region isn't in chaos. And they're probably there to give the US second thoughts about invading Iran, one of their top trading partners.

[Jacobin]

115. If the idea was to calm the middle east

.....then how does creating chaos in the region (as I understand your earlier post as to what Bush is up to) achieve that end.

you are correct. I don't understand what you are saying. (I don't mean that in an insulting way, I just think we are coming from two entirely different understandings of facts/motivations)

The neo-cons pushing the WH around are not noted for their geo-political prowess or their understanding of history. They are noted for being naive ideologues.

I believe that that are both incompetent and corrupt.

[AP]

119. "the neo-cons...are not noted for their geo-political prowess." Oh really?

If you don't think that what's going on in the ME is primarily about controlling the spigot of economic development (so that you can turn it up and down at will when it satisfies corporate and geo-political needs) and about getting a huge cut of that economic development, then we really aren't on the same page.

Also, I tend to find the psychological interpretation of what are very obviously political motivations and actions the least useful of lenses through which to interpret the world.

Throughout DU today I see people trying to impute psychological motivations on political realities. Oh, he's just an inveterate liar. Oh, he just needs to please people. Uh, right. Money. That's what it's all about. The fascists want to concentrate wealth in the hands of a few people. The progressives want to harness industry to create wealth that is attainable by everyone on a level playing field (and they'll invest in a social safety net to catch the people who don't achieve wealth through work). Neoliberals don't have a psychological problem preventing them from seeing how to make money. They see how to make money for the wealthy. Progressives see how to give everyone else a chance for wealth and happiness. Some time the voters see it. Sometimes they don't.

[Kenneth ken]

137. allow me to jump in here with a question

in some of your posts, you're saying the neocons want chaos; in other of your posts you're saying they want to control the spigot.

How can they have both simultaneously?

[Jacobin]

139. that's what i've been wondering

I think it assumes eventual control, which I personally do not believe will happen, at least not militarily in IraqNam.

[AP]

143. Here's how:

Right now the US doesn't want to compete economically with Europe, and Europe is governed by mostly left and center-left parites and one or two center-right parties who all believe that a relatively progressive EU needs to be nurtured.

So now is the time to turn the spigot down (to have chaos and high oil prices).

Had Bush not been president since 1/01, I bet that Europe and Russian would be running economies on 12 cylinders, making it hard for American Republicans to guarantee wealth for their cronies. How could American businesses compete when our companies are built on a house of cards of faulty accounting?

The Republican hope for Iraq almost certainly was that chaos would result in economic malaise and that voters would reject their pro-EU liberal governments. Once the conservatives were in power, they could turn the EU into a corporations-coddling project (primarily by dismantling the anti-monopoly regulations, I'd guess). Those goverments would be rewarded with easy credit and cheap oil (think California -- what they did to Davis vs what they did for Arnold, and then think Chavez and Allende; this stuff all has precedent).

But you can't do any of that unless you control the spigot. If the UK hadn't participated, the US would be in total, unfettered control of the spigot. They may well be in 98% control right now. But at the very least, the UK has to be in there to even have a chance of not being the bitch of of the Texas oligarchs. People think Blair's Bush's poodle. Well, all of Europe could be Bush's bitch, especially if they spread this thing into Iran and Syria. And I know a few things: the UK is there, and the UK is the biggest voice speaking against hositilities in Iran, and the UK has tried to remove US excuses for militarism by normalizing relations with Libya and by pushing for an I-P resolution. I don't see France or Germany having any influence over any of those issues.

[Jacobin]

147. Texas is not where the oligarchs are

Look up in the NE corner of the country.

Also, you still can't have your chaos and eat your control, too, to mix a metaphor.

Anyway, its been fun and I'm going to bed.

cheers

[Kenneth ken]

148. mmm well, okay

I personally doubt your assertion/idea/theory that the US controls 98% of Iraqi oil at present, but set that aside.

How is UK participation beneficial to US hegemony in the scenario you pose? The memo published earlier this week in The london Times makes clear that the US was intent on invading, and sought cooperation from the UK. Yet, you are placing the UK in a position as something akin to false-ally - cosying up to the US to act as a brake on US plans, when in fact the UK did help to seek bolster the US case for invasion. Would it not have been much simpler for Blair to announce that the US was intent on invading with or without cause, and rally the world to his side in opposition to such a plan?

Given British popular opposition to the invasion, had he done that, he could now be in a position to win his 3rd term with perhaps a 200+ seat majority.

[AP]

150. Oppostion to Bush wouldn't have stopped Bush.

Bush was going into Iraq no matter what. So, if Blair had done what you suggest, he probably would have forever ended the special US-UK relationship (which would have continued with Democratic presidents) and he would have just given Americans a reason to feel OK about the US turning the spigot off for Europe.

[Kenneth ken]

152. I'll disagree and leave it at that

thanks for your replies.

:hi:

[Jack Rabbit]

121. This is where we differ

The neoconservative doctrine is based on American hegemony in three spheres: political, military and economic.

The neoconservatives really want to conquer (no glitches needed) oil fields. They want to control the world's oil supply so that no economic power will emerge to challenge the United States. If any foreign power gets too menacing, they just turn the oil spigot off.

That is why Iraq was invaded. These ideas were advanced by neoconservative intellectuals long before September 11. It has nothing to do with fighting terrorism, but they should send Osama a dozen roses everyday for giving them such a good smokescreen to carry out their plans. It certainly has nothing to do with bringing democracy to the Arab peoples; the neoconservatives' ideology is the antithesis of democracy.

I think Blair just believes this is too big to resist and thinks that by collaborating with Bush and the neocons, he'll get a piece of the action. Maybe he will, but I wouldn't bet on it and I certainly wouldn't take the word of a neocon if he gave it to me.

You might want to check out this website. It reads like a conspiracy theory (and believe me, I detest conspiracy theories), except that this one is put out by the conspirators themselves.

[AP]

126. I'm with you on the first two paragraphs...

...but I am definitely not convinced the labour party is under any delusions that the US wouldn't prefer to see the Tories in power.

The neoliberals have a lot of friends in British industry they'd like to do favors for and the Labour Party is clearly not on board with seeing wealth flow that direction. They are clearly not going into deficit spending to make the neoliberal industries rich, and notwithstanding their talk (without walk) in Zimbabwe, I don't see any place in the world outside Iraq where Labour is behaving like neoliberals; and in Iraq, it seems like they are definitely not acting like the US acts.

Yes, the Labour Party does work with industry in the UK, but it seems to be to harness the power of industry to transfer wealth to people who work for a living, and it doesn't seem like, in the US, to put a yoke around the working class's neck so that they can create wealth for the wealthy (as the Tories did).

So, I'm with you on paragraphs one and two, but my paragraph three would be that Blair knew that an Iraq dominated by the US would have been used to turn down the spigot of progressive governments (just like California, Venezuela, and Chile) and turn it up for the neoliberals, just like Nixon did for Pinochet, and Bush did for Arnold.

[sandnsea]

116. Then why not Lib Dems???

Why go Tory, if this is all about punishing Blair? If the British think the Tories would have done any different than Blair did, they're pretty stupid too. Maybe they think the Tories would be tough, keep them safe, but tell the truth about it. :shrug:

[Jacobin]

118. There is that racial issue of 'uncontrolled immigration'

So, if you aren't going to vote Labour because of IraqNam, and you don't like all those brown people moving in next door and taking your job, you vote Tory.....against your self interest of course, but for racial reasons,....same problem we have with the South in the U.S

[sandnsea]

136. Just for kicks

Racial reasons? Or tough response to security? Arresting 100 people in an al qaeda raid didn't make people think immigration was a little lax???

[Jacobin]

140. I'm not in Britain

It's what I've been reading between the lines......call it xenophobia if you like, but when former Laborites vote Torey and not LibDem, there's some of that deep south shit going on.

[Jack Rabbit]

123. The Lib Dems seem to have won 4% more votes than in 2001

And Labour is doing about 4% worse.

In marginal districts, that puts some Tories over the top.

The Tories really aren't doing that much better that four years ago.

The point is the people refused to vote for Labour because of Blair's decision to follow Bush into Iraq.

[sandnsea]

135. Oh I see

Have to think local. Moving lib allowed Tories to win locally. Looks like big shift to Tories nationally. Right?

Otherwise, I don't think it would be smart for the British to make those assumptions.

[Jack Rabbit]

144. Think of British elections as like congressional elections

and then imagine the President is a cenremonial position that can be filled by a big oaf and that the real prize is who gets to be Speaker of the House.

That's what a Parliamentary system is like.

[sandnsea]

145. I get that

I was just asking why the move to Tories, if it's all about Iraq, because the Libs aren't picking up seats. So it's the classic dividing the left vote with the Tories picking up the win. Not a shift to the right. But I bet they will try to convince everybody it's a shift to the right.

[Jack Rabbit]

151. Once again, there was no big move to the Tories

The move was to from Labour to the Liberal Democrats. However, since the Lib Dems are the number three party in most places, this simply put the Tories over the top in districts where they were close behind the Labour MP.

In a district where in 2001 Labour won with 36% against 34 for the Tories and 25 for the Liberal Democrat, and minor parties carrying the balance, a 4% shift from Labour to Liberal Democrat without any change whatsoever in the other votes would give the Tories the seat with 34%, Labour 32 and the Liberal Democrats 29.

That's an oversimplified version of what happened in many districts today.

[sandnsea]

154. #135

I said that a couple of posts ago.

[Jack Rabbit]

158. According to the British Forum thread, BBC is projecting a 10 st LD gain

And Labour is going to lose seats, but not as many as first thought.

It looks like the Tories will be held to under 200 seats.

Blair is still severely chastised by the voters.

[Zhade]

124. I'm sorry, I cannot fucking BELIEVE I read these words from you.

Hopefully, in five years, we'll be 1.5 years into a Democratic President who will create a mood whereby nobody wants to punish anyone for Iraq,

You can't seriously mean this, can you? You're hoping for a time when war criminals get away with illegally invading a nonthreatening country and killing 100,000+ innocent civilians?

Have you gone mad?

[TolstoyAndy]

127. Iraq and terrorism are not related

AP: "Had he not participated, Labour probably would have lost the last election in a mood dominated by (SNIP) the idea that he wasn't committed to fighting terrorism (what if there had been a terrorist attack in the UK? What if Richard Reid succeeded?)"

CNN.com - Shoe bomb suspect to remain in custody - December 25, 2001
The attempted shoe bombing was in late 2001. Blair committed to fellating the pretzeldent and following him into an unwinnable war by April 2002, as we now know, and of course the push for the unwinnable war began in fall 2002, because you don't roll out a new product before Labor Day.

Due to the order of these events, the Brits would never have had the chance to see a) Bliar refuse to be Bush's fig leaf and b) the shoe bomber succeed.

With respect, I don't buy your defense of Bliar, because no terrorist attack had occurred in the UK for him to be responding to. His argument was always the same as Bush's: if we don't attack Iraq, there will be terrorist attacks. Bliar couldn't even say "we've been attacked and have to hit back". The Brits didn't even get a chance to reject such an argument.

Reid and Iraq are 2 different things, as are terrorism and Iraq.

[rpannier]

133. The significant problem I have with your post

(and a problem that many Brits I work with here in Korea have with it as well) is that he would NOT have been harmed politically if he had refused to join. The Brits (like the Aussies, when they voted Howard) voted pocket book when they voted FOR Labour. Iraq was of little to no significance in their voting. Those that voted against Labor, for the most part, did so because of Iraq.

[moggie]

142. Let's see whether I've understood you

You're saying that, if the UK hadn't participated in the Iraq adventure, Labour would somehow have lost the last election (which took place in 2001, before 9/11)? How does that work?

Also, "he got the UK into the 20th century just before the 20th century ended"? Could you explain what you mean by that? Because, to me, it sounds pretty fucking insulting to the entire country.

[Jack Rabbit]

56. Answer: a certain flea-bitten poodle

He got those fleas when laying down in the Bushes. He deserves a good scrubbing.

On June 7, 2001 Labour was returned to power with a 167-seat majority (down slightly from 179 seats in 1997). In 2001, Labour got 41% of the vote, the Tories 32 and the Liberal Democrats 18. This time, if the projections hold up, Labour gets 37%, the Tories 33 and the Lib Dems 22. The Tories remained virtually stagnant while the Liberal Democrats picked up about as many votes as Labour lost.

Perhaps this has resulted in more gains for the Tories than it has for the Lib Dems. However, Labour has lost almost 50 seats, and two things are certain: It lost them because they are led by a man the British people for good reason cannot trust, and it lost them because the Liberal Democrats got votes in 2005 that Labour got in 2001.

Blair could not have lost this election going into it with a 167-seat majority in Commons. But he has been given the bloody nose (Mr. Sedgemore's words) that he deserves and the voters' chosen instrument was the Lib Dems, not the Tories.

This is the best result for which war dissenters could have hoped. We can hope that Blair will be removed from Number 10 sooner rather than later as a result of the flea powder with which the voters doused Labour today. And we can hope that if a third time a tyrant asks to be appeased in a foreign misadventure, the British prime minister will say, "No, we will stand firm against you."

[grytpype]

57. I think it's a function of turnout.

I don't think Labor voters were switching to Tory, I think they just didn't turn out.

[Jacobin]

58. BBC just said there was a record turn out

They are spanking the poodle.

[grytpype]

61. I should have said "turnout of Labor voters"

[Jacobin]

68. Why would they not turn out?

If they saw weakness in the dominant party, and Brits upset with IraqNam, wouldn't Lib Dem be the logical choice?

[Jack Rabbit]

95. Yes, and I think that's really what happened

See post 56.

[Jacobin]

131. Yes, I'm seeing that on the BBC talkathon thing, right now

Blair's little speech was quite reserved and only mentioned IraqNam in passing after he was hooted at.

He is limping politically

[Jack Rabbit]

24. Blair will be gone sooner rather than later, thankfully

This is definitely a chastening.

He should get a lot worse than this for following the neocons into Iraq.

[autorank]

2. Last one I saw was 80 seats which was low. Hope they're humiliated.

:rofl: Labour Rebuffed by Voters

[Anarcho-Socialist]

3. It's good news

A Tory win would have been disasterous and a big Labour majority would have been awful too. It's a good result if it turns out to be true.

[Henny Penny]

4. sorry to dupe you.

How do we combine these?

[sonicx]

5. a mod will do it.

[Pithy Cherub]

6. Brits to Blair: We already have a monarch. You are replaceable - See!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: for good measure :rofl:

[1956]

8. well we all know how good the "polls" are!

Why shouldn't it be rigged over there as well. Watch-Blair will come out on top again.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

9. It's a paper ballot, don't worry n/t

[Pithy Cherub]

11. Ah but Blair is horribly weakened

from within his own Labour Party. Want him to win just enough to have to compromise every single hardline stance he has taken on Iraq.

To add: Welcome to DU 1956! :applause:

[Anarcho-Socialist]

14. The Labour MPs who are due to lose their seats are predominantly

Blairite Neoliberals, this means the Social Democratic wing of the Labour Party is now stronger in the next Parliament.

[brooklynite]

7. Poll Details

Labour 37%
Conservatives 33%
Lib-Dems 22%
Others 8%

MOE 2-3%

Projected seats:
Labour 356
Conservatives209
Lib-Dems 53

[sonicx]

12. ack, tories did too good.

:( what happened to the LDs?

[AP]

17. Nobody should be surprised if Tories pick up over 40 seats and LDs only 3

That's what happens when you tell people that the only issue that matters was whether Blair participated in Iraq and you argue that you should vote LD no matter what -- even if LDs are third place behind Tories in your district.

[communerd]

25. they're doing about the same as last time in terms of vote share

they'll pick up a few seats because of the Labour vote going down, but touch wood this looks like being another resounding FUCK YOU to the Tories and their bigotted whacko agenda.

[AP]

13. My dream is that Blair gets 1.5 years as PM with a good Dem in the WH.

May 1997 to November 2000 so far have been the best 3.5 years of my life. I think it's no accident that it was when Bill Clinton was president and Tony Blair was PM.

I know it can happen again beginning January 2009. My dream is that it happens again.

[Synnical]

16. BBC5 - Streaming Radio

http://www.bbc.co.uk/fivelive/election2005/election_special.shtml?rhppromo

[GreenArrow]

26. my dream is that Blair gets frog marched to the Tower

of London.

[AP]

52. Whatever.

http://us.news3.yimg.com/img.news.yahoo.com/util/anysize/380,http%3A%2F%2Fus.news2.yimg.com%2Fus.yimg.com%2Fp%2Fafp%2F20050505%2Fcapt.sge.mup66.050505141249.photo01.photo.default-384x305.jpg

[GreenArrow]

67. whatever, "whatever"

He's a lying PIG.

[AP]

82. He's probably a better politician than Clinton.

[GreenArrow]

141. I don't dispute his political ability

It's his character I find lacking.

[goodboy]

18. So, is Blair finished as PM?

[DrDebug]

20. It's mostlikely 5 more wars eh. years n/t

[goodboy]

22. unbelievable...especially with that leaked memo?!?!

[dolstein]

23. Nope -- Blair made history tonight

He's the first Labor PM in history to lead his party to victory in three consecutive elections. I can't imagine Blair stepping down and handing the very same paleo-leftists who nearly destroyed the Labour Party in the 70s and 80s a symbolic victory. He'll serve a few more years and hand the reigns of government over to Gordon Brown. Of course, it won't be long before the paleo-leftists turn on Brown, too. Believe me, the paleo-leftist's argument with Blair runs far deeper than Iraq. Even if Iraq had never happened, they'd still detest Blair for weaning the party way from its socialist roots. In that regard, Gordon Brown is as much a Blairite as Blair himself.

[goodboy]

48. Hmm...(nt)

[Zhade]

125. Two words: supported Lieberman.

Two more words: for president.

'Nuff said!

[alcibiades_mystery]

49. Oh my!

That is an interesting read of the situation...in much the same way that a tumor would be an interesting medical specimen. Nice spin, boyo.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

51. You say "socialist roots"

as if that's a bad thing. :-)

[communerd]

21. this would be a very good result

Clear Labour win, and a clear continuing rejection of the Tories and their vile, reactioanry agenda- but enough of a reduction in the Labour majority to chasten Blair and force him to build bridges with the left of the party- and probably to step aside in favour of Gordon Brown fairly soon.

[Henny Penny]

27. bbc exit poll gives Lab majority of 66

no link yet!

[BamaLefty]

28. Blair Win?

Oh my Lord...

[Henny Penny]

29. yes if he keeps his seat!

but no actual results in yet.

[Jacobin]

30. He was expected to

but he was expected to win by 120 seats, so this is a nice blow to the blowhard

[okieinpain]

32. yeah, get ready for it. bushies will swear this is a direct result of

the uk's love for bush.

[still_one]

40. the brits didn't have much choice

but how much control he has will be the issue

[muriel_volestrangler]

31. Link the BBC results page

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/default.stm

exit poll is included on it

[yvr girl]

33. CNN's analysis is such crap

A 66 seat majority is still a majority government. They're making it sound like the government could fall at any time with such a small 'majority.' Not going to happen.

What the Brits did is give Blair a significant slap.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

39. It is significant because a lot of the Labour MPs due to lose

their seats are Blairite Neoliberals, which means in the next Parliamentary Labour Party the balance of power switches back to the Social Democratic wing of Labour.

[yvr girl]

42. I'm not saying it isn't significant

But we have a real minority government in Canada.

It's very different when they're fighting in Caucus and when they're fighting in the House.

[Jack Rabbit]

34. I'll be very happy with a chastened Labour

That will dump Blair sooner rather than later.

[DrDebug]

35. Exit poll suggests Labour victory

Tony Blair is on course to win an historic third term for Labour but with a much reduced majority, according to a joint BBC/ITV exit poll.

The poll suggests Mr Blair's majority will be reduced from 160 to 66.

The findings - based on 13,000 voters from 320 polling stations in marginal seats - were announced as polls closed in the 2005 general election.

Counting is now underway with the first results of the night expected shortly after 2300 BST.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/vote2005/html/ticker.html

[Pharaoh]

36. exit polls in UK and ukraine

are good............

exit polls in US are bad...........:party:

[DrDebug]

37. The US exit poll was very good

Until they adjusted it... :silly:

[montanacowboy]

38. Exit Polls?

do they believe in Exit Polls over there? Gee, I wish we did.

If that is true it's a big come down for the poodle and hopefully will significantly weaken him.

[joeybee12]

41. 66 will be spun as a major defeat!

Good! Good-bye Tony--take your lies and leave!

[non sociopath skin]

44. And so far the main beneficiaries are the racist, Neocon pro-warTories.

Does that give you a warm glow, Joey?

The Skin

[Zhade]

128. See #56. This is not all Tory gains.

In fact, it's more a LibDem gain than Tory, and as noted elsewhere, the deserving Social Democrat wing of Labour is picking up seats, while neoliberal Labour members are losing.

This is a pretty workable outcome, actually.

[Henny Penny]

43. chris mullins gets just 17900

and the exit poll predicted 19500!

[ikri]

50. Wouldn't base much on that result

Sunderland South is a very very safe Labour seat that gave a lot of scope for protest votes.

We'll not know how the election is really going until we get results in from the seats with small majorities.

[Henny Penny]

62. yes it is a very safe labour seat,

but shows swing of I think 4% to the tories... in a seat that they had absolutely no chance in.

Also I meant to point out that it could be used as a benchmark for the acuracy of the exit poll.

[DrDebug]

64. Sunderland North 5.1% from LAB to CON

The second result also shows a swing towards Conservatives.

Still think the turn out is low though at 49.7% I expected a lot higher turnout

Edit: My spelling is getting worse LMAO

[bluestateguy]

46. exit polls

Let's wait on the actual returns. K?

[DrDebug]

47. First result

Sunderland South
Labour 58.6%
Conservative 22.5%
Liberal Democrat 14.6%
Monster Raving Loony Party* 0.5%
Swing: 3.9% from LAB to CON

Turnout 49.3 (not much)

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/vote2005/inc/f_scorecard1.html

*Mad Cow Girl Warner gets 149 votes! I feel a Monty Python coming up

Edit: Monster Raving Loony Party added

[brooklynite]

53. Lower count for Labour than the Exit Poll suggested

According to the BBC commentators

[redsoxliberal]

54. yep... and higher for lib dems! :D

[Robeson]

55. Yep, I heard that, too!

[lovuian]

60. Told ya so!!!

Liberal Dems are kicking Butt!!!

[sonicx]

63. Sunderland North Results

Labour 54.4 -8.3
Conservative 19.8 +1.9
Liberal Democrat 14.8 +2.7
Independent 7.1 +2.0
British National Party 3.9 +1.6

Swing: 5.1% from LAB to CON

CON vote up 1.9% from 2001, LDs up 2.7%

[communerd]

66. DOUBLE the swing to Tories suggested by exit poll!!

This is NOT GOOD.

[muriel_volestrangler]

71. Or: swing of 5.5% from Labour to Lib Dems

There, doesn't that sound better?

[sonicx]

69. Houghton & Washington East results

7.2% from LAB to LD

Labour 64.3%
Liberal Democrat 18.0%
Conservative 13.8%

[non sociopath skin]

72. If the pattern is repeated you got a Neocon UK ...

... without the Tories even improving their vote.

While you guys were eulogising abour voting for the LibDems some of us were warning you about this.

And don't forget. If it's a hung parliament, the LibDems are at least as likely to work with the Tories as they are with Labour.

The Skin

[sonicx]

73. It's a safe seat. it seems to me that protest votes are more likely there

Like voting for Nader in New York.

[sonicx]

75. Rutherglen & Hamilton West result

5.4% from LAB to LD

Labour 55.6%
Liberal Democrat 18.4%
SNP 13.9%

just another safer

[Spazito]

76. Blair won the last election with 161 seats over the minimum

needed to form a majority government. If the exit polls are correct and he will only have a 66 seat majority, that is a 95 seat loss, whoa! If the numbers hold, this is a major slap in the face to Blair's leadership, imo.

Edited to correct numerical error.

[AP]

77. Tories expect to gain 50 more MPs

The Conservatives are on course to win 50 more seats than at the last election, their campaign chief Lynton Crosby has predicted.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4518805.stm

So, people send a message to Blair by voting for Lib Dems, which allows the Tories to do so well that Michael Howard is smiling?

[Henny Penny]

78. he's not smiling!

50 seats won't do it for the Tories... but early days.

[understandinglife]

79. So, when do you think Blair hands the leadership to Mr Brown?

It does seem that had Mr Brown not provided last moment support, that Labor would have done even worse (and, it's looking bad enough, just now, anyway).

Peace.


www.missionnotaccomplished.us

[Obviousman]

80. things are too up in the air to make sense of anything yet

they've only called 3 seats, all safe labour, and labour is losing votes to the lib dems, not torries

[non sociopath skin]

83. But if this is replicated, as it seems it will be, in marginal seats ...

... the Tories will do well without even gaining votes. Frightening and depressing.

The Skin

[sonicx]

84. All we have so far are safe seat results

It makes sense to see more protest votes in safe seats.

If you are in New York, it's semi-safe to vote Nader. in Ohio or Michigan, not so much.

[Spazito]

81. If the exit polls are relatively accurate...

Blair will retain a majority government but with a sharply reduced 66 seat cushion. In the last election Labour had a whopping 167 or 161 different articles have a different number) cushion which would mean Labour has lost around 95 to 100 seats. Blair will not be popular with his own party if this turns out to be correct.

[sonicx]

86. Barnsley Central is a Labour hold

5.2% from LAB to LD

Labour 61.1%
Liberal Democrat 16.6%
Conservative 13.3%

just another safe seat.

[Henny Penny]

90. all the early declarations..

will be safe labour seats as they tend to be in cities and easier to count.

[sonicx]

89. Labour holds Rotherham

just a another safer. 8.8% from LAB to LD

Labour 52.8%
Liberal Democrat 17.2%
Conservative 16.6%

[Henny Penny]

93. Tories have gained Putney.

[sonicx]

94. 6.5% from LAB to CON

Conservative 42.4%
Labour 37.5%
Liberal Democrat 16.3%

Lab lost 9, Tories gained 4, LB gained 2.7

[AP]

97. Green and LibDem swing gives seat to Tories.

[non sociopath skin]

100. We're likely to see a lot of that tonight.

The Skin

[sonicx]

98. a few more safers in, tally is 18 LAB , 1 CON

LAB had a swing up in Islwyn.

[sonicx]

99. 26 LAB, 2 LD, 1 CON

more LAB safes and 2 LD safes.

[non sociopath skin]

101. Join the official UK Election Strand upstairs at ....

...http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=191&topic_id=3796#3802

The Skin

[brettdale]

105. BBC world- Blair to only win by 30-50 seats

According to BBC World, Blair will only win the election by between 30-50 seat, not the 65-70 once thought.

That is because the media has underestimated the Iraq issue, there has been a swing in some seats away from Labour by 10%.

[Jacobin]

134. Wow.....The poodle is getting a shave tonight

[Henny Penny]

109. Tories take Ilford

possible recount in Battersea!

[Henny Penny]

120. "5 times a night for amnesty"????

What on earth did I miss by not reading the Sun?

[Jack Rabbit]

129. BBC One now estimates Labour's majority will be 76

Source: Our British friends at DU.

[AlCzervik]

130. i've been watching for about 2 hours now

it's a really interesting battle.

[AlCzervik]

132. Hey Galloway just won, thats a big victory for him

[Jack Rabbit]

138. BBC Online: 352 seats declared at 7 pm PDT

LAB: 255
CON:. 58
LDEM: 29

[Whoa_Nelly]

146. Who the hell here remembers Blair at Camp David in 2001?

I remember seeing Blair at Camp David with the shrub, and wondering, "What the hell is the PM of England doing at Camp David so early in the "game"?" Seemed weird then, but now with hindsight, makes complete sense.

Blair is a sophomoric sycophant. Fuck him and the Yankee-Doodle wHorse he rode in on.:rant:

[cal04]

149. Labour in no mood to party

THERE were no celebrations at Labour Party headquarters in London today, despite exit polls showing Tony Blair was set to be elected Britain's prime minister for a third straight term. "No, there's no party, the results are not good," a Labour official at the door told a couple of party supporters, who had turned up expecting to join in a celebration to mark the historic occasion.

Many opinion polls had tipped Labour to win an absolute majority in the House of Commons of more than 100 seats, but a BBC-ITV exit poll released after voting ended predicted the figure would be just 66. While comfortable by historical standards, that would still be well down on the 167-seat margin Labour secured at the last election in 2001.




http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,15196529%255E1702,00.html

[Jack Rabbit]

155. Labour has earned the right to form the next government

Labour has been declared the winner in 329 our 646 seats
The Tories have 154 and the Lib Dems 51.

One hundred seat remain outstanding.

[AlCzervik]

156. George Galloway just kicked blair in the ass and accused labour

of election fraud in his district.

[lonestarnot]

157. Ok...I don't understand their politics...am I supposed to be happy to see

the poodle go? Is this accurate? The poodle is gonzo? And is Labour a con? Because I thought poodle was a lib?

[Anarcho-Socialist]

159. Labour are to the left of the U.S. Democratic Party

It's good news because Labour's majority isn't big and means Blair will leave sooner rather than later. It's also good that the Conservatives didn't win (GOP UK).

[lonestarnot]

160. Alrightie then going to celebrate!

:toast: :party:

[Jack Rabbit]

161. Polly Toynbee (Guardian Utd): Tony Blair alone bears the blame

From the Guardian Unlimited (UK)
Dated Friday May 6

Tony Blair alone bears the blame
The prime minister cannot long survive this election
By Polly Toynbee

Discussion in Editorials