Blair in appeal to protest voters

[thefriendlytipster]

Tony Blair appealed to voters not to let the Tories back in to Downing Street by the back door, as opposition parties kept up the pressure over Iraq.

Shadow Foreign Secretary Michael Ancram wrote to Mr Blair asking for more information on the naming of Iraq weapons expert Dr David Kelly.

The Lib Dems announced that ex-BBC boss Greg Dyke, who quit Labour over Iraq, was to join the party's campaigning.

The prime minister stressed the fight was between Labour and the Tories.

Acknowledging dissatisfaction from core supporters, he said of course there were "disappointments and disillusionment".

"But when you look back I pose one simple question: faced with a choice over what we have delivered and a Conservative party that would go back to 1997 and carry on where they left off, tell me, is this country not better, fairer, stronger?"

This followed earlier appeals to disaffected Labour voters who might be considering a vote for the Lib Dems.

He said: "It is Labour versus Tory. Anything else is a Tory vote by the back door and they (the voters) should have nothing to do with it."

Labour claim the Tories could win if just one in 10 of those who voted Labour in 2001 don't back them this time.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4499855.stm

[BillZBubb]

1. Blair has to go.

Labour deserves to lose because they backed the guy, knowing full well what a lying weasel he is.

[AP]

6. That is ignorant. The Tories were so much worse, it isn't even funny.

Tories created a society which channeled wealth to the wealthy, which made people desperate, unhealthy, miserable and poor, which sided with fascits like Pinochet, and which used N.Ireland to scare people into voting for tories against their best interests.

Blair is in a battle against fascism and against everything the tories believe in, and, if you ask me, he's picked an unorthodox strategy to keep his party in power so they can continue chipping away at the fascism that the Tories built up for a century. For a country that still loves its swastika-wearing royalty, he's doing a remarkable job and probably going at the fastest pace the UK can tolerate.

[dissent1977]

54. Blair is best friends with the fascists

"Blair is in a battle against fascism"

Blair is a close ally with George Bush, and Bush is a fascist. If Blair was really in a battle against fascism he would have spoken out against the battle for corporate interests in Iraq, instead of being one of the prime supporters of it. Blair is helping to spread fascism around the world.

[still_one]

7. we couldn't even vote bush out

[SweetLeftFoot]

22. NO!

No fucking Michael Howard! Best result - Labor to win with a reduced majority (40 seats) and Gordy Broon as PM.

[non sociopath skin]

34. I could live with that.

Read the Tories' manifesto. Those guys are poison, WORSE than Thatcher, even.

The Skin

[MisterP]

36. but Marge said that her very most important legacy was...

New Labour!

[Texifornia]

2. That's why President Clinton was there campaigning with Blair

To try to wash enough Bush off to prevent too many defections to the Liberal Democrats.

That is going to be a close election.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

9. Clinton! Today Randi Rhodes talked about how Clinton's....

proposal of privatization of Social Security was voted down by the Dems and the Repugs. And that was during a time of a surplus when it might have actually been possible to do without destroying it.

Blair and Clinton are a strange pair and we are paying a terrible price for their friendship.

I don't get either one of them.

[sandnsea]

15. It wasn't privatization

Is she really calling Clinton's plan privatization? It was investment of part of the trust, same social security otherwise.

And we were winning on social security.

:banghead:

[AP]

27. Yes. Clinton didn't want to pass the risk of ups and downs in the market..

...to the people. He wanted to use part of the trust fund to invest, in the same exact way CALPERS is run in CA. Calpers is an investment fund that pays out guaranteed benefits for your entire life. There's no chance that you'll blow through your retirement money half way through your retirement.

[SweetLeftFoot]

23. Nah

The voting system favours Labor. The Tories will win their seats with bigger majorities but will lose as many voters to the Lib Dems over immigration as Labor does over Iraq.

The result should be good - major Lib Dem gains and a labor Government, cementing the progressive consensus in Britain.

[UpInArms]

3. if you wanted them to vote for you, Bliar, you should have

represented them.

What a pig!

:puke:

[TahitiNut]

4. Agreed. Sounds a lot like "good cop, bad cop."

... and the public gets screwed.

[keopeli]

5. Blair is right. But, Blair is wrong.

Blair let his people down. And, Blair, for all his "liberal" motives, let the US down by backing Bush*. If he thinkgs the Torries are so bad, then why did he go along with the US Neocon takeover and war?

The right thing for Blair to have done would have been to step down before the election. He has left Brits in a very, very difficult position. Bush* will use Blair's re-election as an affirmation of his own actions.

All Blair had to do is to say that he was wrong and withdraw his support for the Iraq effort. That's it. Easy. But, his own ego, his own hubris, makes him equivocate.

Still, I would rather have the totally misguided and egotistical Blair running my country than Bush* neocons.

If I were a Brit (and I'm not), I would probably abstain from voting in this election and let the chips fall where they may. I could not vote for a Tory, but I would not be able to endorse Blair either.

I feel for you, British friends, and I wish you all the best in your coming election. I hope your votes are actually counted.

[AP]

10. Rove is advising the Tories! How can Bush say that Blair's reelection is

an affirmation of his actions when his team is actively campaigning against Blair?

And Bush is a lame duck president. He doesn't need Blair or anyone to affirm him. Only an idiot would think that Bush wouldn't be happier with a government of Tories.

Nobody who says he was wrong wins elections, and, anyway, I'm not convinced that Blair's actions were wrong. I still believe the UK's participation is probably going to take at least 50 years of the amount of time it will take before Iraq is a real democracy not opperating as a neocon/liberterian wet dream, which will protect all of Europe from being destabilized and turned over to fascist governing parties.

Abstain from voting!? ARRRRGGHHHH!!!! There is ALWAYS a good reason to vote against fascists!

[SleeplessinSoCal]

12. Where's the proof of Rove advising Tories?

[AP]

20. It was in LBN here at DU a couple weeks ago.

[SweetLeftFoot]

24. It's not true

not bragging - but I work with some fairly heavyweight political types and it's a big load of monkey shite. The Mirror ran a story on it and it's all come from there.

The Tories are however, being advised by a right-wing evil genius - Lynton Crosby from Australia.

Google that boy for some fun reading? Boat people throwing their babies into the sea anyone?

[AP]

26. Andrew Grice said Rove was advising Tories:

It was in the Independant a year ago. I'm not surprised the Mirror would try to convince people Rove and Bush don't want Tories to win. It doesn't fit with the story-line that's supposed to help the Tories win.



Ironically, Mr Howard is one of the most pro-American MPs at Westminster, having long-standing Democrat friends as well as Republican allies. Karl Rove, President Bush's senior political adviser, has formed a strong bond with Liam Fox, the Tories' co- chairman.

Despite Mr Blair's loyalty to President Bush, Mr Rove is advising the Tories on how to defeat him at the general election. Politics is a funny game.

Copyright 2004 Independent Newspapers UK Limited
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved.

http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:FBSPkM5UXIUJ:www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_200405/ai_n12779042+Rove+advising+Tories&hl=en&client=safari

[SweetLeftFoot]

28. Don't believe it

Bush is livid at the Howard Tories for harassing Blair over Iraq. he wouldn't even meet Howard in Washington.

Crosby is the one to watch out for. I'm Aussie and I know the damage that prick can do.

[AP]

29. Give me a break. The strategy is for Bush to bring Blair down by trying...

...to connect the two of them in people's minds. Bush is afraid to be perceived as helping the Tories because that would screw up the perception among many (like the fool in the first reply to this post) that Blair's association with Bush makes him so bad that it would be appropriate to punish him even if that resulted in a Tory victory.

OBVIOUSLY, Howard and Bush don't want Howard and Bush to be seen together in DC. Duh. And it's even better if people think it's because Howard is attacking Blair on Iraq (which he's not even doing!).

I have no reason not to believe Grice. And, in fact, it's the most logical explanation of what's going on.

[w4rma]

43. Brits can vote LibDem. Liberal Democrats vs. Labour is the optimal

result.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

8. Why can't Blair step down?

Isn't it possible to let someone else be the Labour leader?

[AP]

11. Because they'd lose if he did.

I think, but am not sure, that there is a long history of parties losing elections soon after their leader steps down.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

13. But in this case, he was in the minority on Iraq within his own party

Wasn't he? From the session of Parliament I caught on C-SPAN, the Conservatives were more behind Blair than Labour. And certainly Blair was at terrible odds with Lib Dems.

[SweetLeftFoot]

25. He had

a clear majority for Iraq ewithin his party but did lose a few cabinet Ministers - most notably Clare Short.

Interesting fact for the day - Clare Short's uncle was/is a senior IRA man.

[lovuian]

14. He totally ignores the liberal dems thats means he scared

Blair is in Big trouble!!!

[SleeplessinSoCal]

16. Gordon Brown to the rescue!

Moment Blair and Brown tied knot

Sudden show of solidarity puts chancellor on track to No 10

Patrick Wintour
Saturday April 30, 2005
The Guardian

For close observers of the phenomenon at the heart of British politics - the love-hate relationship between Tony Blair and his brooding chancellor - another landmark was passed this week. It happened on Thursday morning in the basement of the ultramodern offices of financial news service Bloomberg in London.

Gordon Brown was asked by a reporter whether he would have behaved in an identical way over Iraq he been faced with the same circumstances as Mr Blair in the run-up to war.


http://politics.guardian.co.uk/election/story/0,15803,1473685,00.html

[T_i_B]

17. If you are not happy with the government

Then of course you should use your vote to protest against the government.

The entire Labour party campaign seems to be based on shouting "vote for us or it's the Tories?" hysterically over and over again. Trouble is, new Labour is virtually identical to the Tories. A good example of this was the Peter Oborne documentary on Monday night where voters were asked to guess which slogans were for which parties. Virtually nobody could tell the Labour and Tory slogan's apart.

[anarchy1999]

18. Me thinks "good bye, Tony" may be in order in a few days. Would it/could

it possibly so easy to remove George, Inc. out? Guess Not.

on edit:
Whoa, wait a minute! Do they have our fancy touch screen machines operating over there now. Oh, Brits, if they do refuse to vote, demand paper ballots and a pencil. It's your only chance!!!

[muriel_volestrangler]

19. Independent Analysis: Vote for Lib Dems will not let in Tories

Labour's attempts to warn its wavering supporters that a vote for the Liberal Democrats could allow Michael Howard into No. 10 "by the back door" was undermined yesterday in a detailed study carried out for The Independent. The study found that a swing of 11.5 per cent from Labour voters to the Liberal Democrats could deprive Mr Blair of his overall Commons majority but it would be virtually impossible for such defections - at even twice that rate - to let in the Conservatives to form a government.

John Curtice, the respected psephologist and professor of politics at Strathclyde University, who carried out the analysis, said: "Labour's claim that switching from Labour to the Liberal Democrats could enable Mr Howard to win the election is highly misleading."

Professor Curtice said: "It is even highly unlikely any swing could result in the Conservatives becoming the largest party. The most likely consequence of any large switch from Labour to the Liberal Democrats is simply nobody would have an overall majority." His study came as Labour sought to deflect attention from the row over the war in Iraq, with cabinet ministers raising the spectre of a Tory victory - made possible by disenchanted Labour voters deserting for Charles Kennedy's party.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=634378

Blair is crying wolf, because he can't bear the thought of being humiliated.

[AP]

21. Someone tell Billy Bragg. Why arrange vote trading if there's no risk

that voting for Lib Dems won't help Tories.

One reason to be suspect of this article is tht this professor is called a "respected psephologist". If they didn't say that, the average reader would say, "Is this guy an idiot? Obviously if you vote for Lib Dems in districts where Labor is only slightly ahead of the Tories, the tories will win the seat!"

[muriel_volestrangler]

30. It will take the biggest swing in history for that to make a difference

Mr Blair led the charge yesterday when he claimed: "It only takes one in 10 of our voters to drift off to the Liberal Democrats and you end up with a Tory government." But Professor Curtice said: "Labour would need to lose around one in four of its voters before its majority would be threatened, not just one in 10."

He also rejected another claim by Labour - that if only one in 50 Labour voters in 80 marginal seats back the Liberal Democrats or abstain, there would be a Conservative government.

Professor Curtice replied: "If Labour lose 80 seats, then Tony Blair does indeed lose his majority with just 323 seats. But 80 extra Conservative seats leaves Michael Howard with just 245 seats, still 79 short of a majority.

ie Labour is talking bullshit, again. The Tories will not be able to form a government. Everybody hates them - the only people who would cooperate with them is the Unionists in Northern Ireland. The point about refering to Curtice's qualifications is to contrast the fact that he knows what he's talking about, while Labour pull figures out of their arse, and lie.

Bragg doesn't like Blair and New Labour, by the way. He just hates the Tories even more. You can hear him talking about tactical voting here from earlier today.

Bragg: One of the outcomes of this could be that the Lib Dems may replace the Conservatives as the main opposition party - that's something I'd like to see. ... It would also move New Labour to the left, as the Liberal Democrats have done in Scotland - that's certainly something I'd like to see.

Interviewer: You call yourself a committed socialist - how on earth can you advocate voting for the Lib Dems?

Bragg: Being a committed socialist also means being a committed anti-Tory. (Applause) What I'm asking people to do is vote in their constituency for whichever candidate is most likely to defeat the Tory...

Interviewer: But what about the people who say you're betraying your socialist roots, and by voting for the Lib Dems you're effectively rewarding them for their stance on the Iraq war, and their policies against the Labour government?

Bragg: I think when you're a committed socialist, asking people to vote for New Labour can sometimes be a bit tricky. (Laughter and applause) I'm all in favour of rewarding the Lib Dems for their stance on the war, quite frankly.

Interviewer: You wouldn't want them to be in government though, would you?

Bragg: Well, I'd want them to take - look what they've done in Scotland. The real difficult problem is asking Lib Dem voters in South Dorset to support Jim Knight (Labour) - that's a difficult ask for them. You're asking them to look long term. It's great if you can defeat Oliver Letwin (Tory). Suppose the Lib Dems win 70 or 75 seats, which they'd hope to, it's going to make no difference if the Tories take back South Dorset and Mid Dorset. It's necessary for the Tories to be becalmed in this election - for the Lib Dems to make a real breakthrough, and move the centre of gravity of British politics decisively to the left.

Interviewer: I wonder if people's heads are spinning. Labour nationally - Tony Blair says vote Lib Dem and you let in the Tories, then you've people like Billy Bragg telling you to vote Lib Dem.

Bragg: He's talking in a national sense. Tactical voting is all about local knowledge.

[AP]

31. Everyone should read the Billy Bragg interview you've posted.

As for Blair's quote: I suspect that there are enough close (Labour-Tory) races where, if only 10% of the voters voted Lib-Dem, the Tories would win.

I suspect the noted psephologist's study is based on a model that takes into account the possibility that it's unlikely that you'll get those precisely critical 10% of voters unless another 15% also go Lib-Dem. Whether it's 10% or 25% who swing, it's still important to realize that if a lot of people think voting Lib-Dem is going to send a message, they better be ready for that message to be, "Hello, Prime Minister Howard. Shall I turn around and bend over for you right now?"

Anyway, the psephologist admits that Labour loses its majority if they lose only 500 votes in 80 key races. FIVE-HUNDRED votes? 10%? 25%? Are you criticizing Blair on his math? Clearly a very few defections to Lib Dems in districts where it's the Tories in second place to Labour will result in Tories winning those seats and not Lib-Dems.

That Billy Bragg doesn't like Labour so much (and he likes the Lib Dems, except in Scotland, less, obviously) just makes the point even more clear: Don't vote for Lib Dems unless you know it's not going to give the Tories a victory.

And what he says is exactly what Blair is saying: voting Lib Dem where Tories are in second place could result in a Tory victory. (So thanks for posting the interview -- it's making exactly the point I've been trying to make.)

[muriel_volestrangler]

32. I'm criticising both Labour's definitions and figures

It is giving the figures for what would be required for Labour to lose an absolute majority of seats in Parliament, and saying "that means Howard is Prime Minister". No it doesn't - if Labour lose 1 in 10 of their votes, they still have more seats (many more) than the Tories. Blair would be invited to be PM - unless he resigns in shame, of course. Labour is lying - again.

I haven't the faintest idea where you got "500 votes" from. Let's look at a real constituency.

Look at the list of Conservative targets here. For the Conservatives to take 80 seats from Labour (in which case Labour still have more seats than the Tories), they'd need to capture all Labour seats down to about Gedling. There, Labour got 51%, Tories 38%, and Lib Dems 11% last time. Labour would have to lose 13% (5,600), ie one in four of their voters, to the Lib Dems for the Tories to be able to take it. What a surprise - the academic's figures are right, while Labour's are bullshit.

There are only about 10 seats where Labour's majority over the Conservatives is less than 500. If the Lib Dems just picked up 500 votes per constituency in each seat in Britain from Labour, and the Tory vote stayed the same, then the Tories would gain about 10 seats, and the Lib Dems 2. Parliament would be virtually unchanged.

Bragg does like what the Lib Dems have done in Scotland - ie forced Labour to return to its roots. What he says in the interview is that he wants the Tories destroyed forever - and that means asking Lib Dems to hold their noses and vote for Blair-supporting Labour candidates, just to get rid of one more Tory. He realises this is the most difficult thing he is asking for (because Blairites are so despicable), but asks them to take a long term view - destroying the Tories is more important than voting for their own party. In contrast, he thinks it's quite easy for true Labour voters to vote Lib Dem, and is happy for the Lib Dem stance on the war to be rewarded. Listen to the interview, and you'll pick up the tone too.

[AP]

33. Bottom line: voting Lib Dem without regard for the margin b/w T. and Lab.

could result in Tories winning.

As Bragg says (and as I have been saying) blindly voting for Lib Dem could result in a Tory victory and it's very revealing that this fact is getting buried under a meaningless debate over whether it takes 1 in 10 or 2.5 in 10 voters to produce this result. Just because it would be an historically large swing doesn't mean it's impossible, and doesn't mean that Bragg's concerns shouldn't be taken seriously.

Hey, could you do me a favor: add up the votes Labour needs to lose in those target districts and tell me what the percentage of all voters that is.

If the last one on the list is 1 in 4 in that district, and the ones at the top of the list are much closer, then the average must be somewhere between 0% and 25%, like, oh, say 10%?

[non sociopath skin]

35. This is the only election I can remember where the commentators ...

... really, really didn't know what was happening on the ground.

Muriel is a LibDem supporter, as he has every right to be, and understandably wants to see his party do as well as possible. However, the one given is that they are not going to win this election. The picture now appears to be further complicated by the fact that the LibDem leader has "ruled out" a coalition with either Labour or the Tories - or, to put it another way, it is no less likely to form a government with the Tories than with Labour. Remember, the LibDems have been more than happy to work with the Tories in Local Government in the UK for many years.

The Tories, urged on by their Australian and American "advisers" have fought a dirty and overtly racist and xenophobic campaign and it is clear that a Howard government would be Thatcherism plus George Wallace-ism. Any risks which might result in its election are a step too far for me.

I have no illusions about Blair, as I have made clear many times on this board. If there were a real, viable alternative liberal government on offer, I would go for it and, should Labour be re-elected, I hope to see him replaced by Gordon Brown asap.

It may well be that Blair deserves a Tory Government. But the rest of us don't.

And I couldn't live with myself if, albeit with the best of intentions, I helped put it there.

The Skin

[muriel_volestrangler]

37. Bragg is not worried about a Tory victory

He is saying that we have the chance to inflict such a defeat on the Tories that they become the third party of British politics. Realistically, the Lib Dems are not going to get more seats than the Tories this time - but the Tories might get demoralised if they do really badly for the third time in a row.

There's no point in adding up the exact swings needed in each seat to win by one vote - that's completely unrealistic. You may as well ask how many changed votes would be needed to win just enough states by one vote each to get a majority in the electoral college. If you see a switch from one party to another in one constituency, then you'll see a similar swing in the others. If Labour arrived at its 10% by calculating the exact numbers of votes it needed to lose to the Lib Dems before Conservatives won each seat by one, then that would be the most dishonest statistic I've ever seen. IN any case, looking at the list, I'd guess they average out at about 15% - the margins are nearer the high mark than a low one.

More realistically, you can use the BBC's web tool to model seat results based on overall swings and tactical voting here.
For instance, if, compared with the last election, Labour lost 10% to be 31%, the Tories stayed on 32%, and the Lib Dems gained 10% to 28%; and as tactical voting, a further 5% of Labour voters switched to Lib Dem in Tory/Lib Dem marginals, and another 3% of Labour voters switched to Lib Dem in Labour/Lib Dem marginals, then Labour gets 319 seats, Con 217, Lib Dem 79, other 31. That would mean Labour was only just short of a majority - even having lost a quarter of their voters, AND having further tactical voting against them in competition against the Lib Dems. See the result/

[AP]

38. And don't you want the same thing? Tories to lose? Or would you rather see

as many people vote for Lib Dems as possible even if it means Tories end up picking a bunch of seats up?

As for your paragraph 2, I don't think it's dishonest at all for Labour to count the minimum number of voters that it would take to switch to Lib Dems for Tories to end up winning a majority. It makes the same point that pointing out the margin of victory in Florida in 2000 makes, even though over 100,000,000 people voted. The margin of victory was about 330 votes. If 116 voters voted Democratic instead of Republican, Gore would have won. If 331 Democrats didn't sit it out and voted for Gore, Gore would have won. If 331 voted for the Dems instead of voting for Nader...you get the point. How is it dishonest to point out the importance of voting?

[muriel_volestrangler]

40. Voting Lib Dem is a vote against both the Tories and Blair

so I'd like to see people doing that, yes.

So, you think it's honest to say "50 million people voted for Gore in 2000 - if only 0.00066% more had voted for him, he would have won"? No, if you count up the margin in one place, then the only valid way of counting up the total number of voters is in the same place.

How dishonest is Labour being? About as dishonest as saying Saddam could launch WMD in 45 minutes. Or promising they wouldn't introduce topup fees for students. It's a bare faced lie.

[AP]

42. It is absolutely fair to say about 300 votes made the differnce in 2000...

...and people should remember that forever, and should always vote, and should remember that, in a tight race, a third vote party can produce the worst possible result.

And you know what? I was a huge fan of vote trading in 2000. I thought a Green Party vote was smart in NY and CA because I thought Gore was a covert huge supporter of Wall St. Well, I wished that NY'ers and CA'ians voted for him so that he would have had an even bigger margin of victory nationwide so that people could have said that Bush REALLY wasn't the popular choice.

Anyway, I'm glad to see where you're coming from.

[Henny Penny]

41. unless the vote is split

fairly evenly 3 ways... in which case your actual choice, the Lib dems, could win. Also the Lib dems are second in a lot of seats...

Mori had a poll in the last week or two about voters likelihood of voting. Tories were most likely... at 80%, Lib Dems next at 72% and lab down at 62%, and that was before all the latest Iraq stuff came out. Now that stuff is pretty emotive and its most likely to shore up the angry about the war vote... which is going to the lib dems.

Come on Charlie...
:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :applause:

[AP]

44. Lib Dems said they're willing to form a government with the Tories.

BTW.

[Henny Penny]

45. That'll never happen... but they have to say it...

to get a few Tory tactical votes and to try and strengthen their hand in the negotiations! Standard practice.

:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

[Briar]

46. Source? n/t

[muriel_volestrangler]

47. Kennedy rules out Tory coalition

The Liberal Democrats would not join a Tory government in the event of a hung parliament, Charles Kennedy says.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4315165.stm

The Lib Dem leader ruled out joining a coalition with the Tories or Labour if no-one won an overall majority of MPs.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4429885.stm

[AP]

48. Those stories are from early march and early april. Yesterday there was a

DU link that said Kennedy said he wasn't rulling out a coalition government with the Tories.

[Briar]

49. Actual words would help, thanks. n/t

[AP]

53. I'm searching all the Blair threads I read yesterday...

...and I guess I misread post 35 above.

[muriel_volestrangler]

50. 30th April: Kennedy - No Coalitions

Q1: It seems possible that there will be a hung Parliament after the next election. Would you rule out a coalition with either of the main parties? What price would want to exact from them to form a coalition? Nick Pecorelli, London.
A1: The Liberal Democrats have no interest in propping up a failing Labour Government which we have opposed on many issues from the war in Iraq to compulsory Identity Cards and student top-up fees. And there is little common ground with Michael Howard’s Conservative Party. The Liberal Democrats campaign as an independent political party at this election and we will remain so in the next parliament.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/campaigns/election2005/uqnalibdems.xml

[Briar]

52. Thanks. That's what I remember him saying. n/t

[Moderator]

39. thefriendlytipster

Per DU copyright rules
please post only four
paragraphs from the
copyrighted news source.


Thank you.


DU Moderator

[alcibiades_mystery]

51. Blair's been sticking it to England "through the back door," as it were

Fucking slag.