Labour suffers big council losses

Labour is on course to suffer its worst performance in at least 40 years in the local elections in England and Wales.

BBC research suggests the party has fallen into third place nationally with 24% of votes, with the Conservatives on 44% and Lib Dems on 25%.

So far Labour has lost more than 160 seats with the Tories gaining 147.

Conservative leader David Cameron called it a “big moment”. Labour deputy leader Harriet Harman said the results were “very disappointing indeed”.

But Labour’s chief whip Geoff Hoon insisted there was “no crisis” for Gordon Brown.

‘Exceptional results’
The margin is similar to the drubbing received by Tory Prime Minister John Major in council elections in 1995, two years before he was ejected from Downing Street by Tony Blair.

Emphasis mine.

Just goes to show.

Local elections are a somewhat useful thermometer for the general health of government; by this measure, it appears the Brown regime has colon cancer.

Nothing much will change, inasmuch as actual policy is concerned; local government powers are actually mostly limited to administration and the like. Setting their own budgets is about as powerful as most of them get, so the effects may consist at most of some kind of slow down, and even that’s not a given.

The larger effect will be in a kind of feedback loop – the people don’t like the Government and inflict a massive blow on its credibility, which causes more people to consider voting outside the Labour field, and so on.

I’m trying to think of an apt simile here, but it escapes me; that aside, the Brown government is on its way out.

Cue embarrassing climb-down in 3, 2, 1…

After a backbench rebellion not seen since the last time someone said something about Europe, Gordon Brown’s Premiership has taken another hit:

Prime Minister Gordon Brown has admitted making “mistakes” in abolishing the 10p rate of income tax.

He told the BBC the government “didn’t cover as well as we should have” losses to low earners without children and pensioners aged 60 to 64.

But Mr Brown said he was “listening” and “learning” as prime minister and that problems were “being dealt with”.

The government announced last week it would compensate those affected by the change, amid pressure from Labour MPs.

Wednesday Round-Up of Interestingness

From around teh webz, I have some interestingness to showcase. The choice of day is entirely arbitary, like that for most round-ups.

So much for green power

Via BBC News:

Brown hints at nuclear power plan

Prime Minister Gordon Brown has hinted that the government may approve a new generation of nuclear power plants.

He told the Observer newspaper that taking decisions on energy sources is “a fundamental precondition of preparing Britain for the new world”.

In other words, prepare for a new round of nuclear power plants foisted onto England. It’ll be England only, given that we don’t have a national Parliament which will reject planning permission for them, unlike Scotland.

Nuclear power is only green in the short term, and only in terms of carbon. It represents a long term risk which is unacceptable.

And I say again – given the large costs involved, both potential and actual, of nuclear power, why are we not developing wave and water power?

A quick overview of another point covered:

42 day detention without charge or trial? Get ready for a fight, Gordon, because Parliament has indicated, time and again, that this is unacceptable. Civil liberties are being excessively curbed in the name of fighting terrorism, too many powers are being granted to the police, and these powers will be abused – we’ve seen it already on several occasions with the Terrorism Act. Regardless of your rhetoric about judicial oversight and accountability, this is not wanted or needed, and it is an unsafe law. If you want to be Prime Minister for longer than one term, this is something you need to back down from.

Rough Draught: Parliament

Before I go into the exact details of the system I have in mind, I’d like to go over a few details. This is for explanatory purposes – partly for any readers who may not understand the different usages and terminology and partly to discuss why I think they should or should not be used.

A few questions for my fellow English Nationalists…

We all want our own Parliament and government – without half-baked, disenfranchising measures like the “Regions” or a Grand Committee in the UK Parliament.

We all have different political viewpoints; on observation, many of you seem to be centrist or centre-right in your politics, while I am a democrat, republican and syndicalist.

That all being said, what form do you envisage for our Parliament? I have a few ideas of my own, but I’d be really interested in finding out what you see our eventual national assembly looking like. Would it be a bicameral clone of the UK Parliament? A unicameral form like those used in Scotland and Wales? Would it be first past the post or PR?

A special addition to the blogroll…

… in the form of The England Project.

An English Parliament is an idea dear to me. I am an English Nationalist; I see my country disenfranchised, made second-class within the Union we’ve been the backbone of since it began and it breaks my heart.

I don’t quite advocate separatism. Not quite. But it is beginning to become a problem not to; how long can we go on seeing ourselves be viewed as unimportant and not worthy of self-government before it becomes not a choice but a necessity to declare oneself an English separatist?

I don’t want any more rights than those already given to the Scots, the Welsh and the Irish. I want the same rights, on an equal footing, because my country is as important and deserving of its rights as theirs.

Beginning of the end?

This story hit the news today. The short version is that British electoral law requires names of those donating more than £5000 to political parties to be publicly available; this is an attempt to prevent individuals from exercising undue influence in government. Donations may not be given on behalf of others. The measure arose after various scandals where individuals were given peerages for large donations, or were awarded government contracts for them; although, notably, the measure seems not to have been too effective.