Political instability follows inconclusive British elections

[Hannah Bell]

The ballot saw Labour lose votes heavily, with its share declining to 29.1 percent—a post-war low. Its seat loss would have been higher had not sections of workers in the major urban centres held their noses to cast a vote against the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats...

National turnout was up from 61.4 percent in 2005 to 64.6 percent. Even so, this is a significant decline on the 71.4 percent turnout in 1997 when New Labour first came to power...

A key factor in these results is the overwhelming dependence of the economies in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, and large parts of the north of England, on the public sector. To some effect, Labour claimed that Cameron’s pledge to immediately take the axe to public spending would “endanger the recovery” and lead to mass layoffs and wage cuts. This also enabled Labour to hold off a potential challenge to its position in inner-city London...

In reality, all the official parties have concealed plans for major cuts that have been drawn up behind the scenes by civil servants. The Independent reported Friday that “Senior Whitehall civil servants have been working on secret options for cuts going far beyond those disclosed by the three main party leaders before the voters went to the polls—despite a backlash from public sector workers...”

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/may2010/elec-m08.shtml

[leftstreet]

1. 'petty bourgeois ex-left tendencies'

Interesting note re: the Socialist Equality Party:

We were the only party that did not join in the stampede behind Labour that characterised all of the petty bourgeois ex-left tendencies, such as the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition. Rather, we insisted that the crucial task was the “preparation of an independent political movement of the working class against austerity, militarism and war” through the building of a new socialist party for working people.

:thumbsup:

[muriel_volestrangler]

6. That's just the same old in-fighting in the far left

Several socialist parties agreed to form a coalition to stand candidates; the WSWS's Socialist Equality Party didn't, and so are obliged to slag the others off, by tradition. The others were considerably more successful - TUSC got over 12,000 votes, compared to SEP's couple of hundred.

And they're wrong about a Labour post-war low; it was lower in 1983 (27.6% of the whole UK vote, which is what the 29.1% is of too). But that was probably the most left wing Labour has been, and that doesn't fit in with the WSWS narrative, so they've pretended it never happened.

See here for a list of the other socialist candidates: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=191x29670#29843

[Warpy]

2. This is what happens when the party to the left of center turns right

First, there's a complete lack of enthusiasm on the left. Second, people who are to the right will vote for the real thing.

Nobody likes the Tories after the stench Thatcher left behind. Nobody much likes Labour any more after the stench Blair left behind. Unfortunately there, as here, the leftists have been branded "loony," thus decreasing their chances with people who don't want to take big chances.

I think the Labourites need to take a long, hard look at the US, where the Democratic turn to the right just made the Republicans go farther right in order to distinguish themselves. Now the Democrats are too far right to be of use to anyone and the Republicans are stark, staring mad.

That's the danger in the UK. They need to take note because that's exactly where they're headed if they don't wrest control of Labour back from the corporatists.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

3. yes whatever happened to clause 4

The party got rid of clause 4 in the early 90s.

[malaise]

4. That's happening across the globe

Too many RW lite parties have replaced social democratic or leftist parties.

[Captain Hilts]

5. Public and private sectors have failed Scotland's 'Buckfast belt'. nt