Labour Party's Journal|
[Most Recent Entries]
Below are the 6 most recent journal entries recorded in
Labour Party's LiveJournal:
|Tuesday, May 17th, 2005|
|Monday, April 11th, 2005|
|Friday, April 8th, 2005|
The Tube, as Londeners call the underground railway network that spans the capital, is currently a shambles.
It has been sold off, but sold of piecemeal. there is endless bickering over who should take responsibilty every time something goes wrong. Maintainance often over runs, and the system has been run down after years of neglect.
I do recall that the main line railways and the tube network both started life as private concerns, however, it is the way that they have been managed since that causes me concern.
personally, I feel that the government should aim for a fully intergrated and efficient public transport system, regardless of how it is owned. we put too much emphasis on building roads, when railways, busses and trams would be more efficient in terms of environmental costs as well as getting people to work.
In London recently, the latest move has been to open up a ferry service on the Thames, not to get people across, but to use the river as an alternative highway, carrying commuters to work.
I would be interested in hearing other people's comments on Transport issues.
X posted in tories
and several other political communities.
|Wednesday, April 6th, 2005|
Election fever grips Britain...
Well, maybe not. I was confused on who to vote for - call me old fashioned, but I did intend to. The problem was that the Sun - famous for being The One Wot Won It, can't make up it's mind. One may view this as a positive indication that Rupert Murdoch is asking his readers to think for themselves (it will be a novel experience for some, no doubt!) yet on the other hand, it could indicate that both parties are really as bad as each other and even a bigoted, reactionary right wing rag like the Sun cannot decide which is more deserving of the neo-con/facist vote. ( Read more...Collapse )
Still time to ditch Blair?
It seems that the only thing preventing another landslide victory for Labour is Blair himself. He's caused massive dissatisfaction in the party and the people simply don't believe him anymore.
Is there time to change our leader before the election and do we want to?
|Tuesday, April 5th, 2005|
There is an interesting piece in the Independent
this morning about the risks Tony Blair is taking over calling an election. According to this article, written by John Curtice, Labour's lead is shrinking faster than a cashmere sweater in a hot wash. Our latest NOP poll suggests that Labour's lead has fallen to three points, lower than at any time since last October. While such a lead might be sufficient to deliver Labour a majority of around 80, any further slippage over the next four weeks would probably mean that Mr Blair would no longer win the secure third term he is hoping to enjoy.
Our poll, the first to be taken since Mr Howard sacked his fellow MP, Howard Flight, suggests that Labour hopes - that the row over his decision had taken the wind out of the Conservatives' sails - are unfounded. Mr Howard's party has emerged from the affair just one point down on its previous reading in the middle of March. As is so often the case, what seemed to matter in the heady confines of the Westminster village has caused barely a ripple among the public.
Which begs the question - what exactly does matter to the British public? If you read the red-tops, the most common questions that come up are those of education, health, crime, asylum. Would it be churlish to suggest that the majority of the public are disinterested, or simply don't care, about the political wrangling over Flight?
Not exactly. Curtice insists that By a majority of three to two, the public feel the sacking was wrong. Even among those who say they intend to vote Conservative, only 59 per cent back their leader's decision. The affair has clearly caused dissension within the party's ranks. But so long as it does not re-emerge, it would not appear to have done much damage to the party's standing.
In other words, as long as Howard doesn't sack a constituency's candidate again without counsulting them first, its fine. But this implies that its Howard's behaviour that was objected to, not what Flight actually did.
This doesn't indicate that Sandra Howard should start planning to re-decorate Number 10 just yet. The number who switched from Conservative to Lib Dem from 2001 is not made clear, but Curtice insists that an equivalent of 3 have made the switch from Labour to Lib Dem. (Although, as he doesn't say what the statistic is for Con to Lib, this is fairly meaningless). Apparently, 59% of those surveyed have said they will actually vote. Which is a step in the right direction - ast least the country isn't sinking into a torpor of total apathy. However, it is a failrly standard truism of political science courses that Oppositions don't win elections; Governments lose them. The conclusion that can be drawn is that this will be a negative election - if people vote, it will be against the government, but not because they favour either the Tories or Lib Dems. And that's the real dilemma - both Howard and Kennedy have got a month to impress upon the voters that they are a worthy alternative to Labour, and not just a protest vote. And Blair has exactly the same amount of time to convince the electorate that Labour's policies are worthy of a third term in office, and not just a case "better the devil you know".