The Lib Dems used to be the middle ground between Labour and the Tories. That was when Labour still had a meaningful socialist element. As owl points out, their stance on Iraq has been their defining feature recently - the Tories supported the invasion, whereas the Lib Dems were fairly French about the whole thing.
This is a good review of what the various parties stand for. As owlstretchingtime pointed out their position on Iraq might be a significant factor in the election. As someone who has always voted Labour, I have already decided to vote LibDem just because of this issue. Even though they have no chance of winning where I live and the Conservatives have a chance of stealing the seat. This, despite the fact my local MP in fact voted against the goverment on the issue! The Iraq factor will not effect the LibDem position. They might gain a very few seats, but it is far more likely that the Conservatives will benefit. The LibDems have very few marginal seats that they can gain. I think the Conservatives may do slightly better than the bookies suggest.
Readers should be aware that The Guardian is very much a socialist paper which receives considerable public subsidy via job adverts.
Me too. And I’m fortunate enough to live in a Lab/Lib marginal - Cardiff Central, Labour majority of about 600 - so it might actually make a difference. I voted Labour in the previous two elections, there are various reasons why I won’t be voting for the this time, but Iraq is the reason that I wouldn’t even consider voting for Blair.
I’d agree with the basic idea that the Lib Dems will try to mop up all the protest votes, which is the obvious thing for a party in their position. But they’re not really being oportunistic on ID cards, opposition to that is a pretty trademark Liberal policy.
The Guardian is a broadsheet that supports Labour. I am not sure how many people would consider Labour socialist today. The Guardian’s review of party policy is factual. As a point of comparison, I buy the hard copy version of the Telegraph which is a broadsheet that supports the Conservatives. They are equally reliable in points of fact.
Nothing to add, really–I’m just jealous of your press (well, some of it) and also of your three party system.
And one month is long enough–would that we had that here…
Agree. In fact I don’t even think we can say definitively that The Guardian ‘supports’ Labour, they have been highly critical on a number of issues.
Why? Because of the extent of online content? I consider your broadsheets to be of extremely high quality.
Three party is something of a simplification. There are a number of minor parties that, while never going to win an election, make a significant difference in many individual seats and affect the overall result.
I’ve no idea who I’m going to vote for, other than knowing who I’m most certainly not. That’ll be not Blair, chiefly for his Iraq adventures and patent scare-mongering in an effort to limit our freedoms, and not Howard, for being an odious toad and setting out the first of his election plans to be immigrant bashing, followed by Gipsy bashing, followed by anyone who has a touch of the foreign in them.
I’m not convinced by the Lib Dems, and detest the SNP. So I’m rather stuck.
I still reckon Labour will win. But who knows, the result may be marginal enough to get Blair the push. Gordon Brown would be a far better PM.
That’s simply not correct. It’s the most left-wing of the broadsheets, and certainly has its origins in strongly socialist politics. Therefore it’s heavily critical of Labour.
When was the last time one of the minor parties had any significance in the balance of power at Westminster? The phrase ‘three party system’ means just that.
That would be the No Confidence vote in 1979 which brought down Callaghan’s coalition government.
Yeah, obviously tight votes mean small parties can swing the results. In that case, every Labour and Tory backbencher has the same power. I actually meant the normal workings of government and parliament - hence the term ‘three party system’, for which I’ll resist the italics this time.
It’s more recent than even that. Major relied on the Irish Unionists to survive several rebellions.
There was some poor old Labour MP in 1979 who was literally on death’s door, and whenever there was a confidence vote on Callaghan’s govt he would be delivered to the house by ambulance and the gurney rolled through the lobbies. It was when he became too sick to even do this that Callaghan fell.
Here’s a thing that suprised me: Jeremy Thorpe is still alive (I thought he died years ago).
Nonsense. There is nothing socialist about the Guardian. Vaguely liberal at most. As for your second point - adverts are not public subsidy, even ignoring the same ‘subsidy’ that goes to the rigght wing rags like the Times.
The Guardian is by most people’s standards a left wing paper.
It sells about 450,00 copies. it couldn’t survive without it’s public sector advertising. Whether you consider this is a subsidy is neither here nor there - it is vital for it’s continued existence. (and also explains why public services are so crappy - they’re staffed by Guardian readers, not the most dynamic of individuals!)
(it costs £900 (rate card) for a quarter column advert in the Guardian’s wednesday edition)
Yep, but left wing != Socialist
If you look at full-price sales, rather than include bulk & freebies figures, the Time and Telegraph are both around the half-million mark.
Hey, I take offence at that. The least dynamic guy around here just retired. And is hoping to become a Tory councillor 
…and that demonstrates what?
but left wing != Socialist>>>>>
Same thing innit
If you look at full-price sales, rather than include bulk & freebies figures, the Time and Telegraph are both around the half-million mark.>>>>>>
Off the top of my head I think the telegraph sells about 900,000 full price copies. Times is about 500,000. The Telegraph is highly profitable. The Times burns money.
Hey, I take offence at that. The least dynamic guy around here just retired. And is hoping to become a Tory councillor :p>>>>>>
I’ve been a Tory councillor (for a short period). Trust me it’s not demanding work! And I’m not worried about offending Guardian readers, after all what are they going to do? Write me a stiff letter? Throw tofu at me? Knit me a really shabby jumper? Ban me from their rafia classes? (Actually they could set their “wimmin” on me - boot faced, hairy legged, harridans with no sense of humour.)
…and that demonstrates what?>>>>>
Just how profitable the supplement is (no other broadsheet charges even close to this).
From www.abc.org.uk:
Telegraph: net UK distribution 870k, full price 482k
Times: net 651k, full price 504k
Guardian: net 327k, full price 292k
No, judging by the Tory councillors here, it’s not. It’s funny how being a Labour or Lib Dem councillor means working hard, though… 