5/7/05 08:20 am - a couple of thunks upon the recent uk general election
well, that's the second-best of the both possible-and-likely outcomes, then.
best [a] would've been labour's majority reduced to the point where they couldn't proceed with the identity carding of the population of the uk scheme [b] (and blair might've felt obliged to retire from leading the labour party, and incidentally from the premiership, sooner rather than later? - i could wish); but things could've turned out a lot worse.
i hope - without any great hopes - that the tories have learned from this time, that they do not necessarily profit by "playing the race card" - no matter how discreetly - and i was ever-so-slightly amazed that a jewish tory party leader of a relatively-recently immigrant family did so - as, though they probably managed to pick up a few seats by playing on the racial fears and prejudices of the white british (as well as those of some brown british), they also lost seats they could otherwise have won, by increasing the vote of the openly racist british national party...
we shall, no doubt, see, as to this: but britain is a multiracial society, that profits economically and culturally from immigration - and has been one, somewhat patchily, since the romans occupied (most of) the place: it ain't going to change, any century soon.
as i started off by saying, the outcome could've been a lot - an awful lot - worse.
[a] - imnsho of course
[b] - england - and the uk - needs a competent, mildly regressive, conservative-with-a-small "c" party to hold power in the lacunae between the periods it needs its progressive [c], radical reform governments...[d]
[c] - yes, i know...
[d] - what it certainly does not need is the radical, regressive party that thatcher turned the tory party into, and from which the conservatives have not recovered it, even yet...