British Labour Party faces Electoral Massacre

[Guardsman Bass]

The Guardian

Gordon Brown is set to lead Labour into an election bloodbath so crushing it could take his party a decade to recover, according to the largest ever poll of marginal seats which predicts a landslide victory for David Cameron.

Eight cabinet ministers, including the Home Secretary and the Justice Secretary, would be swept away in the rout as the Tories marched into Downing Street with a majority of 146, says the poll, conducted for PoliticsHome.com and exclusively revealed to The Observer. Seats that have been Labour since the First World War would fall.

The sheer scale of the humiliation is almost as bad as that endured by the Tories in 1997, suggesting it could take Labour a similar time to claw its way back to power. The party would be virtually extinguished in southern England and left with only its hardcore redoubts in northern England, the Welsh valleys and deprived inner-city areas.

The stark findings from the survey of almost 35,000 voters across 238 seats, published on the PoliticsHome website today, are likely to fuel the stalled insurrection against Brown. A third of potential Labour voters in marginal seats would be more likely to back the party if he were replaced.

Intriguingly, the findings also suggest David Miliband's hopes of leading Labour may depend on him challenging Brown before the election.

While the Foreign Secretary would survive the rout, his power base would be decimated, making it much harder for him to get elected in a party likely to have shifted to the left: cabinet allies James Purnell and John Hutton would have gone, along with senior Blairites Alan Milburn and Charles Clarke. Jacqui Smith, Ruth Kelly, John Denham, Des Browne, Geoff Hoon and Jack Straw are projected to lose their seats. In Scotland, the poll predicts the SNP will win next month's Glenrothes by-election

Yesterday as MPs gathered in Manchester for the annual party conference Brown began a fightback, pledging free part-time nursery places for two-year-olds in a move towards universal childcare for pre-school children. He told the Sunday Telegraph he wanted to see 'more choice for women and for families'.

However, even as Brown was being cheered onto the conference stage, Clarke was urging MPs to confront him. In an article for the Sunday Times he said prevarication was 'actually the most dangerous course of all'.

Today's poll shows how Labour's progressive face would be scarred by the projected defeat, with women disproportionately more likely to be defeated and five of its 13 black and Asian MPs, including three ministers, voted out. By contrast, Cameron's new intake would include a lesbian businesswoman, a 'chick-lit' novelist and a single mother turned farmer.

He could claim he had transformed the Conservatives into a modern and multicultural party, potentially tripling the number of women in the ranks and adding five new ethnic minority and three openly gay MPs. It comes amid signs of clear momentum building behind Miliband, who uses an interview in October's issue of Prospect magazine - to be published during the conference - to attack the 'abuse of market power' by failing executives paying themselves unjustified salaries.

The Foreign Secretary was also boosted when the Health Secretary, Alan Johnson, his biggest rival for the leadership, publicly ruled himself out and warmly praised Miliband. Continued . . .

I'm curious if we have any resident Brits here who would like to comment on this. Some of the other politically interested ones I've met on other forums, even those who usually support Labour, are completely p***ed at both them and Brown.

In any case, it would be quite a catastrophic blow to Labour if this turned out to be true.

Edited September 21, 2008 by Guardsman Bass

[ships-cat]

Well, the poll is certainly in line with my social circles. It is not just frustration or disappointment with the labour party, it is a sense of outright betrayal. I know several people who where lifelong labour voters, who will now no longer vote for labour under ANY circumstances. Several have stated an intention to vote for the BNP; not in any expectation of electoral success, or even necessarily an agreement with their policies, but simply as the most extreme way of "kicking" the labour party. THAT is how bitter some people are.

Labour's woe's may go deeper even than this poll suggests. The party owes almost £20 million (around $35 million dollars) in loans to various banks and individuals. All of these are falling due. Party membership has collapsed, so funds are not coming in to cover these loans. We face the possibility of the British Labour Party going into liquidation (e.g. bankruptcy) whilst still being in government. If this happens, then many senior members - including (I believe) the Prime Minister, could be held personally responsible to the lenders, and could be forced into personal bankruptcy themselves, meaning that they can no longer speak - or vote - in parliament.

That is somewhat of an 'ultimate armageddon' scenario. Either way, the View from the Catbasket is that the poll is realistic, and may even understate the electoral annhialation that is about to envelope the Labour Party.

Meow Purr

[stevewinn]

They're going to get such a kicking in the next general election, and i hope they can never recover from such a beating and as a result fall into oblivion never to raise their ugle heads ever again,

It doesnt matter what gordon does between now and the next election, the truth is there is nothing they can do or say, that will save them,

Edited September 21, 2008 by stevewinn

[Tiggs]

THe only thing that could possibly save them - and I hesitate to say this - is if Tony Blair was reinstated as Prime Minister, a couple of months prior to the elections.

[chemical-licker]

THe only thing that could possibly save them - and I hesitate to say this - is if Tony Blair was reinstated as Prime Minister, a couple of months prior to the elections.

......................

[Tiggs]

I'm not saying that I'd approve...but resigning as PM after winning three terms to leave his Nemesis, Gordon Brown, to face the wrath of the voters whilst the economy crumbled, and then rushing back to save the party from the brink of utter oblivion and kicking Mr Brown into the backbenches to boot, just sounds like something Teflon Tony might well have planned...

[stevewinn]

Dont forget Tony was forced out by Brown. Brown and the Brownites stabbed Tony in the back, that's gratitude for ya, especially after Tony lead the the party to three election wins on the bounce,

but brown thought the job and title of Prime Minister was rightfully his, the self-righteous gob****e. and Tony had no choice but to step down before his time was up, he knew the daggers of the night were coming, but even the return of Tony wouldnt help labour infact it would make matters worse it wouldnt be the final nail in the labour coffin, it would be the whole shabang, dead and buried.

but it doesnt matter who we replace the current crop of Mp's with, their all a shower of ****e,

i believe Labours conference song for this year is >>

Edited September 21, 2008 by stevewinn

[hetrodoxly]

Yes it's all true and more, the Labour party are so out of touch they don't know why they're so unpopular they pandered to the extreme left and big business who ultimately wanted the same thing, the left wanted as many ethnic minorities in the country as possible in an attempt to make the English vote impotent (Prescot "there's no such thing as the English") big business wanted cheep labour,

'The Labour' party was born out of the need for the working man to earn himself a living, the labour party have let the working man down big time by whoring themselves out to the highest bidder.

The party who promises to redress the balance, answers the west lothian question, etc. will get my vote.

Edited September 21, 2008 by hetrodoxly

[chemical-licker]

BRILLIANT

[Moon Monkey]

Any change between the major parties would just bring in more of the same **** in a different coloured bucket.

[Bill Hill]

Good old London

I mean, why?

[chemical-licker]

the news didn't cover this, so i guess it didn't happen

[Guardsman Bass]

I'm surprised it hasn't had any mention yet in the American press.

[itsnotoutthere]

BNP or UKIP....hmmm I may have to flip a coin.

I used to work with a woman in her late 30's, & after one particular general election I asked her who she had voted for to which she replied

''well I don't know what his name was but I voted for him because he was wearing a nicer tie''

At the time I was amazed that someone could have such a shallow approach to politics, but i've since realised the this is probebly the approached that the majority of the british voting public adopt.

People seem to ignore the ten to fifteen years of poor government, corrupt arms deals, extra taxes on this & that, sleazy expenses claims, unfullfilled referendum promises..etc etc etc.

Edited September 21, 2008 by itsnotoutthere

[SilverCougar]

THe only thing that could possibly save them - and I hesitate to say this - is if Tony Blair was reinstated as Prime Minister, a couple of months prior to the elections.

Shame Tony's over here in the states teaching at Yale now. =P

[stevewinn]

BNP or UKIP....hmmm I may have to flip a coin.

Am going to vote Tory to make sure labour do get the boot, if we start voting for the BNP or UKIP we might end up spreading our votes to thin, and end up with labour staying in power by the skin of their teeth, (i cant see them winning but you never know so its best to make sure)

like i've said above am going to vote tory at the next election, and when it comes around to the local elections i might vote for UKIP, if i voted BNP it would be a protest vote and sadly thats the only way to protest at the ballot box, shame really. they should add a box with none of the above. then we might get a massive turn out with people turning up to use their protest vote, and such action might, i say might, but ain't holding my breath, make the politicians sit up and pay attention.

[Moon Monkey]

Shame Tony's over here in the states teaching at Yale now. =P

Hang on a mo...I thought he was a 'special envoy" sorting mid-east peace out......probably doesn't pay enough.

[stevewinn]

Hang on a mo...I thought he was a 'special envoy" sorting mid-east peace out......probably doesn't pay enough.

hes in yale, lecturing on globalisation and world faith or some crap, the middle-east is his Saturday job.

jobs hes done since leaving office

Political afterlife

June 2007 Appointed Middle East envoy on behalf of the Quartet, which is made up of the EU, UN, US and Russia

November 2007 Hired by Washington Speakers Bureau Inc for worldwide speaking tour. Blair reportedly received £300,000 in the first week of his tour of North America but was panned by the Chinese media after allegedly being paid £237,000 for a speech in Guangdong that revealed "nothing new"

January 2008 Retained by JP Morgan Chase & Co as part-time adviser; unlikely to be given an office, but will be on call when needed

January 2008 Advisory role on climate change and international politics to the Swiss insurer Zurich. Believed to be paid more than £500,000 a year to be accountable to chief executive and participate in seminars for Zurich's clients

January 2008 Appointed unpaid adviser to Rwandan government

February 2008 Linked with job of EU president, backed by the French president Nicolas Sarkozy. It is thought the German chancellor Angela Merkel is not so keen

am surprised i wouldnt have even given him a job organising a monkeys tea party,

Edited September 21, 2008 by stevewinn

[itsnotoutthere]

Am going to vote Tory to make sure labour do get the boot, if we start voting for the BNP or UKIP we might end up spreading our votes to thin, and end up with labour staying in power by the skin of their teeth, (i cant see them winning but you never know so its best to make sure)

like i've said above am going to vote tory at the next election, and when it comes around to the local elections i might vote for UKIP, if i voted BNP it would be a protest vote and sadly thats the only way to protest at the ballot box, shame really. they should add a box with none of the above. then we might get a massive turn out with people turning up to use their protest vote, and such action might, i say might, but ain't holding my breath, make the politicians sit up and pay attention.

Well steve at one time I may have agreed, but to be honest I don't believe there's a hairs width difference between the leading parties.

Edited September 21, 2008 by itsnotoutthere

[stevewinn]

Well steve at one time I may have agreed, but to be honest I don't believe there's a hairs width difference between the leading parties.

i agree, but what else do we have, their all a shower of ****e, when it comes to voting were stuck between a rock and a hard place.

[Splodgenessabounds]

Am going to vote Tory to make sure labour do get the boot, if we start voting for the BNP or UKIP we might end up spreading our votes to thin, and end up with labour staying in power by the skin of their teeth, (i cant see them winning but you never know so its best to make sure)

like i've said above am going to vote tory at the next election, and when it comes around to the local elections i might vote for UKIP, if i voted BNP it would be a protest vote and sadly thats the only way to protest at the ballot box, shame really. they should add a box with none of the above. then we might get a massive turn out with people turning up to use their protest vote, and such action might, i say might, but ain't holding my breath, make the politicians sit up and pay attention.

Quick question, let's pick a random town.

Now in this random town you have the 4 or 5 candidates.

Gordon Brown (labour)

David Cameron (Tory)

Lib-Dem Guy (Lib Dem)

Fascist (BNP)

Who Cares (UKIP)

Now as you suggest there is a NONE OF THE ABOVE box implemented into the voting form. What if everyone in random town voted for NONE OF THE ABOVE? Who would become MP for random town? What if everyone in the country voted for NONE OF THE ABOVE?

I would love to have the choice to abstain on the form, but it doesn't work. The country would be in anarchy.

i agree, but what else do we have, their all a shower of ****e, when it comes to voting were stuck between a rock and a hard place

Downside of democracy i'm afraid. Let's try Communism, oh wait, we don't live in a theoretical world.

[stevewinn]

Quick question, let's pick a random town.

Now in this random town you have the 4 or 5 candidates.

Gordon Brown (labour)

David Cameron (Tory)

Lib-Dem Guy (Lib Dem)

Fascist (BNP)

Who Cares (UKIP)

Now as you suggest there is a NONE OF THE ABOVE box implemented into the voting form. What if everyone in random town voted for NONE OF THE ABOVE? Who would become MP for random town? What if everyone in the country voted for NONE OF THE ABOVE?

I would love to have the choice to abstain on the form, but it doesn't work. The country would be in anarchy.

Downside of democracy i'm afraid. Let's try Communism, oh wait, we don't live in a theoretical world.

i see where your coming from, selecting non of the above would throw a spanner in the works, but obviously in the real world, not everyone would vote non of the above, so someone would be elected, and maybe the unelected candidates at the next election would have a change in policy so when the next election comes around their new policies would appeal to the majority,

but if in the theoretical world everyone voted non of the above, we'd have to come up with some sort of rule on how to best go about it, maybe something along the lines of a hung parliament, am not sure but we need something which makes the politicians sit up and take notice, otherwise can you image what its going to be like in 20 years time, the country is already going down the pan, who'd of thought it 10 years ago you could get a criminal record for putting the wrong type of plastic/waste in your recycling wheelie bin, we have to do something,

have you any idea on what we could do? if we had the option to select non of the above?

Edited September 21, 2008 by stevewinn

[SilverCougar]

Hang on a mo...I thought he was a 'special envoy" sorting mid-east peace out......probably doesn't pay enough.

Just saw something about him being over here teaching at Yale. *shrugs* sooo

[itsnotoutthere]

Quick question, let's pick a random town.

Now in this random town you have the 4 or 5 candidates.

Gordon Brown (labour)

David Cameron (Tory)

Lib-Dem Guy (Lib Dem)

Fascist (BNP)

Who Cares (UKIP)

Now as you suggest there is a NONE OF THE ABOVE box implemented into the voting form. What if everyone in random town voted for NONE OF THE ABOVE? Who would become MP for random town? What if everyone in the country voted for NONE OF THE ABOVE?

I would love to have the choice to abstain on the form, but it doesn't work. The country would be in anarchy.

Downside of democracy i'm afraid. Let's try Communism, oh wait, we don't live in a theoretical world.

In your list you forgot :-

Mental (green party)

p.s. don't kid yourself that we live in a democracy.

Edited September 22, 2008 by itsnotoutthere

[Bill Hill]

^ it'snotouthere