I have election

I can't figure out which is more amusing - British people calling Canadians smug, or the idea that people in Ontario are somehow responsible for NAFTA more than, say, Albertan oil barons. As a great Canadian once said, here's a quarter - buy a clue.

Ontario elects the canadian parliment . the parliment is the front door to NAFTA. I never said alberta oil barons were not playing pupateer in the back room . I live in Alberta, i know how much influence Calgary has. It is not however in the courts or the parilemnt or the senate.

i think this thread should get like infinite jest more

Ooops....I'll try again... There's a new Forum for this kind of thing.

Really, 'masonic boom with the dj boyfriend and indie band', criticizing Canada? It's because Canadians do not like Americans.

Rather sad.

: - (

As demonstrated by my emoticon.

My London girlfriend has described Canadians as friendly, laidback...she is often in shock about this, coming from London.

Canada is a beautiful country with wide open spaces. This country is incredibly immense. In fact, England fits into one half of Ontario. I have often heard from the English that they love Canada and Canadians because they are not English.

and to be rather honest, the postings about Canada (minus the actual canadians) are well, sad, you should really stick to music. And I really am not going to be thinking, that, an american (ugh!) like Kate St. Clair, who has spent time in England and even writes in an english accent(!!!!?????).

I think Canada has an unique identity because of the immigrants into Canada. It is indeed a melting pot of cultures.

Frankly, I'm at a loss on how an American can be insulting Canada???????

I am KNACKERED! Up till 3.30 watching the election. Two and a half hours sleep - up for work again!! It was strangely engrossing though. Not quite as engrossing as '97 as I never went to bed at all that night.

Hilarious to see Peter 'Mandy' Mandleson go bonkers in his winning speech: "I. Am. Not. A QUITTER. I. Am. A FIGHTERRRRRRRGGGHHH!" Silly arse.

Still, good to see the LibDems do so well, even displacing some Tory seats - yesssss!

Being in Middle England Hell I had to vote Labour to keep the local Tory, who's a bad-tempered Nazi if ever there was one, from turning the whole local political map blue - I'm surrounded by blue countryside where I am. In a lone pocket of red.

Saw Thatcher on the news croak: "The Conservatives willlll be back!!" Yes, yes dear. Now back to your crypt.

Five more years of Blairite Britain, then. It had better all be worth it...

Isn't that the way politcal elections always work, though? You have to vote *against* a greater evil, rather than voting *for* what you really want. Ah, democracy.

I prefer the rioters attitudes in Quebec. They voted with what power they had. I prefer the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty. They organize the homeless...which is incredibly to become a blunt powerful object for change. I prefer the people who organize the poor to educate them on voting choices and get them on voting lists.

I do not prefer people who endlessly complain about 'democracy'.

It's there. You have to fight for your democracy. Not bitch.

Ooh, that's a big statement...what do you mean by 'fight'? If you mean it literally then that's a bit silly, bearing in mind the powers that be have riot police, the army etc...

Fight. Not silly. A group of my friends have gotten change ACCOMPLISHED.

"What would be your soundtrack for the eve of a historic second Labour administration?"

Could somebody explain how this 2nd labour administration is *historic* ... keep hearing it referred to as such, but I can't see anything particularly historic about it. But then, I'm not that bright so...

Historic = first time since invented as a party by Keir Hardy in 13BC that Labour have won two terms in a row. That's all. It's a bit of a "so-what" fact: as in "Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister for longer than anyone since Lord Liverpool" — which is rendered less impressive by the following rider: "Yes, but she also destryoed her own party for a generation; perhaps forever."

I am Americanand I shall tell you my views. Right now our country is in the hands of an obviously halfwitted and evil baboon who is basically a CEO of the Great American Empire, in leauge with corporate monsters. America sends its factories to conquer small countries whos' workers can braely afford to shit and we pay them 600% less than we would pay an American. I call that Imperial takeover. But Bush isn't the real problem. (I voted Nader, BTW.) The real problem is a culture of overeating spoiled self-congradulating fatheads who want their SUV and their cheap gasoline and their kids to get brilliant at college and to have ten babies. Why wouldn't Britian join the european union? If its good enough for Scandinavian countries...

Stevie: what blatant time-wasting fillers? I didn't see any.

Nor did I see a montage with pop soundtrack; as against montage with non-pop soundtrack.

I don't understand Stevie's title, or Josh K's objection to it, or Stevie's objection to that objection. You tell me.

Soundtrack: well, I found Andrew Marr just tremendous on the BBC - snappy, informative, sound, succinct. So in the absence of any better ideas - namesake Johnny Marr.

Hm - let's say 'Greetings To The New Brunette'.

Well, the middle-aged brunette.

We've been in the European Union since 1st January 1973, Mike, but there's a strong suspicion of Britain joining the European single currency (which I support, though not obsessively so). I totally agree with everything Momus says about Britain aligning itself with Europe rather than the US, incidentally.

Martian, well, what can I say? I'm in Dorset South which went Labour - I voted Lib Dem and my nerves were jangling as the results were announced (Labour majority of 153), but it just feels great to *not* be living in a Tory constituency for the first time in my remembered life (I lived, briefly, as a baby in Southwark and Bermondsey in 1980-81, but was in Dartford when it was Tory from 1981- 94 and Dorset South since then). Billy Bragg's own seat, Dorset West, just stayed Tory unfortunately, but Dorset Mid and North Poole was the one to go Lib Dem (doesn't surprise me because it has more "new economy" companies and fewer Countryside Alliance types than Dorset West, with two thirds of the electorate living in urban / suburban areas). Somehow, Dorset seems like a much more welcoming place for a progressive thinker to live today.

Not heard about Ludlow before - Mark S, are you from that constituency originally? Fantastic news from there, Norfolk North (where I know David Huntsman was on holiday last summer, and from his description I know he'd be pleasantly surprised at the Lib Dems' gain), Guildford, Teignmouth and Cheadle - the Tories' loss of "heartland" seats underlines their deserved marginalisation and the rejection of their backward mindset by a non-metropolitan public far more progressive than they think (yes, Ned, I did get a real frisson of excitement when the Lib Dems were ahead of the Tories!). As for Taunton, I suspect an organised voting campaign by hunting fanatics - the Lib Dem MP Jackie Ballard was known for her opposition to that practice. Still marvellous, though, to see the Lib Dems turning Torbay and Kingston and Surbiton from the two most marginal seats in the Commons (and considered safe Tory pre-97) into strong progressive majorities.

Which seat are you in, DavidM? No need to hate your surrounds so much, you might regret it when you feel lost ...

And three songs to describe the *Tories*: "Yesterday Man" by Chris Andrews, "A Prisoner of the Past" by Prefab Sprout, and "The World You Understand (Is Over)" by Scritti Politti.

In the 'it's impolite to snigger and yet what the hell?' category:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/n ews/13760814

Forget the words, just enjoy the pictures.

Ty - who are your friends? What did they do? And I thought Labour had won second terms before, only never seen them through to the end. I'll check this though...

I would still like Stevie T to explain the title of this thread, if it means anything, which he suggested it did.

Orig.constituency = Shrewsbury and Atcham

... which I see Labour have held with an increased majority. I remember it used to be considered a fairly safe Tory seat, so that's good news. Also in Shropshire, Peter Bradshaw (my favourite Labour MP in the last 4 years, no question) has, wonderfully, increased his majority in The Wrekin and deservedly defeated Jacob "My Father Says Send Everything From 1965 Onwards Out Of The Countryside" Rees-Mogg.

DG - that's quite right, Labour won a second term in 1950 after having been in power for the previous five years, but it only lasted one year, and they won a second term in 1966, but having previously been in power for only 17 months. This is the first time they've won two *full* terms in succession.

I see the Greens and Socialist Alliance both topped a thousand votes in David Huntsman's constituency. Perhaps my pleading to him *not* to vote Labour worked. Whatever.

i had dual citizenship until i was 19(us/canadian) and i spent most of my summers as a child in canada. there are not great differences in the two countries except in their national attitudes, canadians i sense are passive and yet strongly socialist because they fear becoming an american satellite state so they have this stupidly blind faith in their governmental institutions to protect them from the leviathan south of the border and rarely raise any words of protest except when their benefits from ottawa are cut. censorship, i remember the bernardo trial when citizens had to read american papers for news or the fact that canadian mail is regularly opened by the post office and videos are viewed or breach of individual rights are simply shrugged off by my canadian relatives. ninety-percent of the canadian population lives within 100 miles of the american border and that their economy is so intrinsically linked to the us means the relationship is basically permanent and beneficial. the fact that all of the recounts have concluded bush would have won anyhow basically exonerates the supreme court's ruling, al gore was trying to do an end run by choosing only the most democratic counties to have a recount in and without providing a sound reason for a recount as is required by the law. how al gore got this reputation of a genius is a puzzle, his grades were nearly equivalent to bush in college and he failed out divinity school and law school, being ble to recite policy wonkism is hardly genius, and his ideas were innovative around 1936. simply having a close election does not mean he has an absolute right to endless numbers of recounts which all seem to have different results and which would have cast even greater doubt on the legitimacy of the election. i voted for harry browne, my feeble bit of protest. the lack of economic education in the united states is sometimes as infuriating as people like mike hanley who clearly absorb only the cliched slogans of demagogues, even those of malthusians. i wonder had he been in europe during the 19th century would he have protested the sweat shops in the US that existed due to a lack of skilled labor, or would have protested korea in the 1960s and 70s when they had 'sweat shops' but where now(had it not been for their silly adherence to the japanese model of mercantilism and the chaebol fiasco) their standard of living would have approached western levels. economies need to go through steps, you can't advance from a strictly rural economy to one with a western standard of living(which while not the ideal is certainly more economically defensible than the current conditions). a nike facotry worker in thailand makes 100 times more than the starting wage of a doctor, the jobs are filled as soon as they are vacated. the real complaint of the protestors in quebec and seattle is not one of concern for developing nations workers but their own xenophobic desire to keep themselves fat while the rest of the world has all sorts of burdens(environmental regulations, labor regulations, etc...) placed on them so they start with no inherent advantage and present no competition to western workers who fear for their job safety, it is not an evil thing to be concerned with self-preservation but they should be honest. how else to raise the standard of living within mexico than through exports? the gdp in mexico is hardly robust enough to lift the economy there on its own but for every good they export o the us is returned american dollars to invest in things like education, environmental controls and infrastructure. unfortunately vincente fox appears as do nothing as the pri party. a minimum wage creates a false bottom by setting an arbitrary value for work, it is not set by economists but by unions who have their wages tagged to its level. the push to raise the minimum wage here is a bit of a laugh becuase there is not a single business that is able to pay minimum wage due to labour shortages(though those are not real either because they are more a reflection of businesses not willing to pay enough to hire people). a united states of europe would not be accurate, in the usa there is one national identity, shared history, etc..(politics aside) but europe would be a conglomerate of a multitude of identities closely assoicated with national heritage. would brits ever renounce their own heritage and simply become europeans? not likely. unless, of course, they were indoctrinated thusly in school of which herbert marcuse would surely approve.

I would "renounce my own heritage". It means fuck-all to me in the first place.

(Well, I find it reassuring and romantic, and I like Betjeman and that, but it doesn't hold me down or concern me in my day-to-day life *at all*.)

What is my heritage as a Brit? And in the 'information age', why is it exclusively mine?

Did anyone here actually vote for Labour at all? Just curious, if for no other reason than because I voted for Gore and I'm still feeling shell-shocked from being shot at from both sides for my decision by the right-wingnut-loon Bush supporters and the left- wingnut Trustafarian Nader supporters.

Hard to believe that I've become something of a moderate.

DG, I'd totally agree. My point was that I appreciate some things that might be seen as "my heritage" but my interests are far wider and that Keith's idea on "renouncing your own heritage" is outmoded in this era.

Tadeusz, there are many *worse* options than voting Labour, just as there are many worse options than voting for Gore. I don't think anyone is suggesting that the Third Way is as bad as the right-wing.

> Tadeusz, there are many *worse* options than voting Labour, just as there are many worse options than voting for Gore. I don't think anyone is suggesting that the Third Way is as bad as the right- wing.

Well, thanks for the kind and sensible words Robin. If only certain Naderites were as sensible, then maybe Shrubby the Chimp would be cooling his heels in Texas right now :-) The arguments between Greens and progressive Democrats (such as myself) often become pretty nasty, as family feuds can.

From what I understand, British voters actually had the luxury of voting for a party other than Labour or the Tories this election since it was a foregone conclusion that Labour would win quite handily. Over here we didn't have that luxury, as the events in Florida and before our Supreme Court clearly demonstrated. The only thing a Nader campaign could have done was precisely what it did do -- result in George Bush moving into the Oval Office (note that I do not say that he was elected because he wasn't). Additionally, it seems like your Liberal Democratic Party is a serious political party, with a real platform with real support, quite unlike too many of the camp followers of Ralph Nader and quite unlike the Green Party, which really ended up becoming a convenient vanity vehicle for Mr. Nader.

The day may come when you Brits have to make a similar choice, where voting for someone other than a New Labourite will likely end up in some repugnant Tory taking charge of things. I hope it never does, but perhaps our example will be instructive if it does.

Lemme add that said arguments between "Greens and progressive Democrats" haven't really erupted here on ILM, only in my own non-ILM life. And my apologies for steering this conversation away from music -- the ultimate no-no on these boards :-)

Do you really think that Gore could have got to White House, regardless of whether people voted for Nader or not? There were clearly forces at work that would have prevented a democratic (and/or Democratic) win.

Tadeusz, you're right: the Liberal Democrats are a mainstream party and we do effectively have a three-party system in the UK. The other thing is that, while Labour, like the US Democrats, still have an urban / industrial basis of support, the Lib Dems have a lot of support in the rural areas that the Tories, like the Republicans in the equivalent areas of the US, perceive as theirs by right, so the UK, unlike the US, has a strong progressive third party with a strong support base in the so-called right-wing "heartlands".

We do have a Green Party, but it is marginal and has never had any elected MPs (though it had a higher share of the vote this year than previously - many of those people would probably have felt obliged to vote Labour in 1997, but not now).

> Nicole: Do you really think that Gore could have got to White House, regardless of whether people voted for Nader or not? There were clearly forces at work that would have prevented a democratic (and/or Democratic) win.

Yes, because without Nader Gore would have won New Hampshire, giving him enough electoral votes regardless of how Florida went, and the goings-on in the Bushite Banana Republic that is Florida would have been irrelevant as far as who would be in the White House.

The right wingnuts might have screamed to high heaven, but screaming wingnuts are a given these days.

Robin: thanks again for explaining the support and dynamics of the Liberal Democrats. I especially appreciate your patience, since what's so odd about British politics to me must be almost second- nature to you.

For what it's worth, some of the more progressive areas in the United States are also rural -- Vermont, for instance. And Minnesota, Iowa, and Wisconsin all went for Gore this election. Then there's Governor Jesse Ventura out in Minnesota. A lot of the folks in those states voted for Nader this past election, too.

I also find interesting the contrast between the Liberal Democrats and American third parties. Over here, third parties always seem to end up becoming personality cults -- and, what's worse, it's usually such nasty and offputting personalities like Perot, Nader and (before my time) George Wallace. I know the Liberal Democrats (the old Whigs) have a little more tradition behind them than our third parties, which are a bit more like the Poujadists were in France.