Homer: Son, when you participate in sporting events, it's not whether you win or lose: it's how drunk you get.

The British Elections

A guest post by Matt Carhart

Even though the blog master claims that politics is one of his sites principal themes, he somehow managed to completely ignore the 2nd most important election in the English speaking world. In light of this oversight, and because I am currently experiencing something of a personal “British Renaissance”, devouring all things British (remember the Avengers? I can’t wait for the world cup next year- go England!) , I decided to take a moment and present my analysis of the recent election. Since we are not likely to witness any sane, reasonable or legitimate politics in this country any time soon, it seems appropriate to examine British politics in order to fill the void and see what we are missing. I shall look at the three main contenders in the British election, the conservatives (tories), the Liberal Democrats, and Labour. I will describe the results of the election from each of the three party’s perspectives classifying each of them into the winners, losers, or neutral category, and then offer an overall assessment of the election and the future prospects for each party.

The Big Losers

Given the raw voting numbers and the number of seats in parliament they gained, it may shock many to discover that I am putting the conservatives in the big loser’s bracket. But a closer examination of the situation reveals that from the conservative perspective this was a deeply disappointing election. First, let’s put the conservative’s current MP (Member of Parliament) position in historical context. In 1983 when Labour was widely considered to have suffered a devastating defeat at the hands of Thatcher, Labour held slightly over 200 seats; today the tories hold less than 200 seats. In addition, because Britain does not use proportional representation, the tories are actually over-represented in parliament so their number of MP’s is not an accurate reflection of their support in the country. Most of their support comes from rural areas in England and like in the U.S. these places have more political representation than they deserve.

Second, the actual number and percentage (32%) of voters that cast ballots for the tories in this election remained virtually unchanged from the 2001 election that was clearly a Labour landslide. Moreover, in many constituencies where the conservatives picked up seats it was the result of Labour voters turning to the Lib Dems or staying home rather than the tories gaining significant votes. This means that the tories gains are tenuous at best and cannot be seen as a sea change or trend they can count on to continue in the next election. For example, the tory majority in Pembrokshire is 607, in Hornchurch it is 480, in Clwyd West it is 133 and in Croydon Central it is only 75. In fact, in Clwyd West if only 2/3 of the Socialist Labor voters had voted Labour it would have been enough to defeat the tories even with a large Lib Dem vote taking votes away from Labour.

All this news should be troubling for the conservatives. They faced a prime minister that had been plagued by scandals in his cabinet, an unpopular war, a deteriorating health care and education system and a Labour party seemingly divided over Tony Blair. This should have been the tories opportunity to take advantage of the discontent and win 10 Downing. Instead the tories watched almost two thirds of the electorate vote for center-left parties. The tories will certainly point to the seats they won as evidence that they are gaining momentum, but do not let those numbers fool you, the tories are still out in the wilderness and the quick resignation of Howard and subsequent infighting over a new leader indicates that the tories themselves know how far away they are from winning a majority.

Failed to win big but did not lose either

This position belongs to the Liberal Democrats. Again, on the surface this might seem like a strange assessment, after all the Liberal Democrats remain the third party in terms of members and votes in Britain, why are they not the big losers? In addition, the Lib Dems went into the election with high hopes of surging into the primary opposition party slot but only picked up 8 additional seats. Clearly, this is a disappointing result for Lib Dems who hoped to capitalize on the unpopularity of Blair and the war. For these reasons, they are candidates for the biggest losers in the election; however, it is difficult to put the Lib Dems in the loser’s bracket when you put their result in historical context. The Lib Dems were almost an extinct party in the 1980s but the recent election has given the Lib Dems their largest vote percentage and MP representation since the 1920s. Moreover, the Lib Dems gained nearly 4% in the popular vote, more than the other parties and it is only a lack of proportional representation that prevents the Lib Dems from having control of about 1/4 of parliament. Given this historic result it is impossible to say that the Lib Dems were losers, rather they did not win as much as they thought or hoped. This leaves the Libs in a difficult position. They cannot really afford to sack Kennedy given his high personal popularity and the fact that he did lead the LD’s to gains in this past election, yet it is not clear that he can make the LD’s into a primary opposition party. The LD’s have to hope that in the next election they can raise their total another 3-4 % (a realistic number I think) and that the conservatives or Labour drop down to about the same level, this will put them into the position they wanted to be in now, namely, poised to secure second status nationally. Thus, the LD’s are still looking at an 8 year strategy in my view.

The Big Winners

I know it is hard to believe but Labour is the big winner. Disregard all that crap coming from the media about a bloody nose and Blair being finished. The fact is that Blair and Labour have so successfully marginalized the tories that even when their privatization schemes blow up, the war turns unpopular, and Blair runs a poor and defensive campaign they still manage to retain a comfortable majority. If I were in the Labour party I would be celebrating wildly. I know that 67 is not an ideal majority but it is certainly workable and if there is one thing that I have learned from recent U.S. politics it is that being in power no matter how small the majority is an infinitely better position than being in the minority. Look at it this way, Labour fucked things up and they still won a comfortable victory. They are now in the enviable position of having 4+ years to fix things and reassert their dominance. Plus, Labour can ride Blair for a few years and hope things improve and then take credit for the improvement and if Blair fails they can sack him a few months before calling an election, blame him for everything and put forward a new program that might rescue them from defeat. Basically, Labour controls its own destiny now. They survived the challenge from the left and the right is still on its knees looking for its weapon. You can be sure that Labour will not take the LD’s lightly next time and if they can recapture those that defected to the LD’s it is almost a certainty that they will win again in 2009. Finally, as much as I dislike Blair’s policies, I admire his political skill and despite a lackluster campaign he showed after the election why he is the Bill Clinton of Britain. His humble apology and insistence that he will listen to the people was brilliant. Let’s not forget Labour is now on their 3^rd straight term, the first time in history, and if they even make faint gestures to the left they are likely to see a 4^th straight term.

Summary/Outlook

I think the overarching result from this election is that the tories are still in disarray, the LD’s are the clear voice of the left and that Labour remains ascendant. In order to reclaim power, the tories need a young charismatic leader and they need Labour to continue to ignore social services. In short, the tories need a good leader and they need help from labor to fully recover. The key to winning elections are the big industrial cities and London and right now they are controlled by Labour. Unless the tories can make inroads there, they will remain in the minority. The Lib Dems have the toughest decision in the wake of the election. It seems they did not take votes away from the tories as much as they had hoped so the question is will the LD’s move right to try and peel those voters off the tories or will they maintain their leftist stance and hope to further erode Labour. I do not see the LD’s becoming the primary opposition party unless it comes at the expense of Labour. In other words, I do not expect to see a Labour government and a LD’s opposition with the tories as the third party. I expect the LD’s will continue along their current path and hope that they can take votes from both parties in the next election. Kennedy is a solid but not spectacular leader, he will not hurt the party but he will not attract votes on his own like Blair did in 1997. Therefore, the LD’s need the tories to remain a joke and hope that Labour continues to struggle, this scenario might get the LD’s a better result in 2009 but here again they need help to improve. Labour, meanwhile, is well positioned to increase its majority in 2009. A reasonable 4 years of rule should help move some Lib Dem voters back to Labour and prevent the tories from gaining any traction. Unfortunately, Blair is likely to continue on with his semi-conservative policies that will likely further erode the British economy and cause more suffering. This is the recipe for a Labour loss in 2009, but if Labour can somehow come to its senses it can push its MP majority back over 100. I look for Labour to try to have it both ways, they will try to put more money into social services to blunt the left but they will proceed with privatization and useless security spending. I also expect Labour to attack the LD’s much more over the next 4 years than they did during the campaign. I know it is early and things can change dramatically, but in the end, I predict Blair will be the longest serving PM (breaking Thatcher’s record) and Labour will win again in 2009.

Now it’s time to celebrate the center-left victory with an English muffin.

Temple Joining MAC

Temple is joining the Mid American Conference in football only starting in 2007.

This is from a source on the Gopher Hole...so for what its worth.

Developer Doran running for DFL Senate nomination

Minnesota real estate developer Kelly Doran said Monday he will run for Senate next year as a Democrat, joining DFLers Patty Wetterling, a child-safety advocate, and Hennepin County Attorney Amy Klobuchar.

Doran, 47, described himself in an interview with The Associated Press as a "centrist Democrat.'' He said he supports the idea of a balanced budget amendment, to force Congress and the White House to be fiscally responsible. On other issues, Doran said he's opposed to President Bush's tax cuts and privatization plans for Social Security, and said the United States made a mistake in going to war in Iraq.

Doran declined to disclose his net worth, except to say it was a "healthy number.'' He said he planned to fund his race with a combination of his own money and fundraising. He has not held public office before, but argues people are ready for a different kind of candidate. "I'm not a career politician,'' Doran said. "Americans are tired of politics as usual." John Wodele, who was Gov. Jesse Ventura's spokesman, is serving as a consultant to Doran's campaign.

I don't know anything about this guy, but anyone who calls themself a 'centrist' and is also a real estate developer....I'm opposing!

Patty Wetterling is looking more appealing everyday.

Random Movie Quote

Bob Slydell: You see, what we're trying to do is get a feeling for how people spend their time at work so if you would, would you walk us through a typical day, for you?
Peter Gibbons: Yeah.
Bob Slydell: Great.
Peter Gibbons: Well, I generally come in at least fifteen minutes late, ah, I use the side door - that way Lumbergh can't see me, heh - after that I sorta space out for an hour.
Bob Porter: Da-uh? Space out?
Peter Gibbons: Yeah, I just stare at my desk, but it looks like I'm working. I do that for probably another hour after lunch too, I'd say in a given week I probably only do about fifteen minutes of real, actual, work.
-Office Space

Episode III Script

Can you wait? Can you? If you can't, the Internet Movie Script Database has the complete script for Episode III! You can read the entire movie and ruin the whole experience if you want?! Can you resist? Can you? Will you...?

The Top 10 TV Shows of All Time!

Continuing the pop culture turn that The MarxistGopher Report has taken lately here's my 10 favorite television shows of ALL TIME...

#10 - Family Guy (1999 - Present)
63 Episodes, 4 Seasons
Yes, this is just a crude knock-off of The Simpsons. But if you're going to rip-off a television show The Simpsons is the right one. I don't know if this deserves the 10 slot but I couldn't really think of a show that does, so I went with a show that I really like and watch regularly.

#9 - The Honeymooners (1952 - 1970)
162 Episodes, 9 Seasons
"One of these days Alice, one of these days." Ah, The Honeymooners....threats of spousal abuse has never been so hilarious! I'm sorry, but this show leaves other shows from the early years of television in the dust. I Love Lucy sucked! Plus this is one of the only shows I've ever seen that deal with class. How often is the major problem in the episode money? The terrible sitcoms of today are filled with attractive people in their 20's that never have money issues, and their only problems are relationships! (see Friends..ugh) This show definitely deserves to be in the top ten....and if you don't think so you probably have never seen the show.

#8 - The Dick Van Dyke Show (1961 - 1966)
158 Episodes, 5 Seasons
This is the classic television show of the 1960's. Thought the constant singing and dancing got very annoying the show was otherwise very entertaining. I spent many a night watching The Dick Van Dyke Show on Nick at Nite growing up. And lets not forget the uproar over Mary Tyler Moore's capri pants. Wow, those are smokin' hot for 60's TV.

#7 - Saturday Night Live (1975 - Present)
586 Episodes, 30 Seasons
How many people have grown up watching this show now. It's a definite television classic! Dozens of stars made their name on SNL. I grew up watching what was my favorite SNL era, Adam Sandler, Chris Farley, David Spade, Phil Hartman, etc. Ahhh, those were the days...
It's not as good anymore, but SNL has had some great years.

#6 - The Mary Tyler Moore Show (1970 - 1977)
168 Episodes, 7 Seasons
Okay, this is a GREAT show! …and the first feminist sitcom. A show about the single successful Mary Richards, who lives in Minneapolis and works for a local TV station, and deals with her many personal problems. A milestone in television! Not to mention that it takes place in Minneapolis. I always loved it when they talked about the Vikings or someone was wearing a Vikings shirt. This show also had some of the great characters in TV history: Mr. Grant, Ted Baxter, Rhoda.... This should probably be above Quantum Leap, but I promised myself that I'd get QL in the top 5.

#5 - Quantum Leap (1989 - 1993)
97 Episodes, 5 Seasons
If you want to hear my thoughts on Quantum Leap go back and read the post that I devoted entirely to QL. After writing that I convinced myself that QL deserved a top 5 spot on this list.

#4 - M*A*S*H (1972 - 1983)
251 Episodes, 11 Seasons
You've got to love a sitcom that starts out as a comedy and ends up as an anti-war drama, and replaced half of its cast in the process without losing its popularity. In fact, I like the later episodes better than the early seasons. I think I've been able to catch most these episodes over the years, as I was not alive for most of the shows run, and was an infant for the last years. I probably should have marked it down for that 3 hr last episode though...ugh, that was disappointing.

#3 - All in the Family (1971 - 1979)
210 Episodes, 9 Seasons
If there was ever a TV show that could be used to teach history, this is it. In fact, All in The Family probably would be enough to teach an entire course on the 70's. It started out cutting edge and exciting and ended up with boring worn out characters and some damn kid that suddenly appeared out of nowhere. But this show is at the #3 spot for the first 5 or 6 seasons, not the last. No other television show has dealt with current political issues like All in The Family did. How I long for there to be another show like this in my lifetime...but we all know that isn't going to happen.

#2 - Seinfeld (1989 - 1998)
181 Episodes, 9 Seasons
The show about nothing made it all the way to #2. Definitely the best sitcom ever made. The way the writing was able to draw together seemingly unrelated story lines in a humorous way at the end of the show was genius. Four more selfish immature characters were never related to by more people in the history of television. I, like every other man on the planet, consider myself to be George Constanza. It's too bad it was only on for 9 seasons, as it was definitely still strong and very popular....oh well, I still have the memories...and the DVD's!

#1- The Simpsons (1989 - Present)
356 Episodes, 16 Seasons...signed for 2 more seasons.
Now, many of you may not have heard of this show, but it’s an animated series on this station called FOX. It's really and good show. If anyone's ever really bored and looking for something to do, I would recommend checking out this show....you might like it. (If you didnt know this was going to be #1 you don't know me very well)

Homer: Lisa, Vampires are make-believe, like elves, gremlins, and eskimos.

Film Review: Donnie Darko

Donnie Darko
2001
1 hr 56 min
Directed by Richard Kelly

Plot: During the presidential election of 1988, a teenager named Donnie Darko sleepwalks out of his house one night, and sees a giant, demonic-looking rabbit named Frank, who tells him the world will end in 28 days, 6 hours, 42 minutes, and 12 seconds. He returns home the next morning to find that a jet engine has crashed through his bedroom. As he tries to figure out why he survived and tries to deal with people in his town, like the school bully, his conservative health teacher, and a self-help guru, Frank continues to turn up in Donnie's mind, causing him to commit acts of vandalism and worse.

This comment says all you need to know about this film..."Brilliant mix of black-humour, time-travel and a teen love story." It started out with so much promise but just turned into another Sci-Fi movie. The opening line of the film was one of the greatest in history..."I'm voting for Dukakis," the teacher character who would later be seen wearing the "God is awesome!" T-Shirt was hilarious, and the whole 'religion and comformity' story line showed so much promise, but the sci-fi, time travel, etc. got in the way and totally reunied the movie for me. I'm relly not a sci-fi fan...except Quantum Leap, but for people who are this is probably a movie for you. It just wasn't the movie for me....

MarxistGopher's Rating: ***(3 of 10 stars)

Film Review: The Laramie Project

The Laramie Project
2002
1 hr 30 min
Directed by Moisés Kaufman

Plot: Moisés Kaufman and members of New York's Tectonic Theater Project went to Laramie, Wyoming after the murder of Matthew Shepard. This is a film version of the play they wrote based on more than 200 interviews they conducted in Laramie. It follows and in some cases re-enacts the chronology of Shepherd's visit to a local bar, his kidnap and beating, the discovery of him tied to a fence, the vigil at the hospital, his death and funeral, and the trial of his killers. It mixes real news reports with actors portraying friends, family, cops, killers, and other Laramie residents in their own words. It concludes with a Laramie staging of "Angels in America" a year after Shephard's death.

Last nights movie was The Laramie Project. I was really in the mood for a more overtly political film and I got it. It was an emotional film that was hard to watch at times. And then at times I thought it was overly emotional to the point of being manipulative, but I won't hold that against it....I mean I did love Million Dollar Baby. I thought the film did a great job of including all the differing warped opinions of the people of Laramie on the murder and then attempting to rip them apart...with varying degrees of success. I actually thought they could have gone farter and more in depth, but since this movie was based on a play that was based on real interviews done in Laramie I can understand the limitations...Overall I think it's a great movie that everyone should see.

MarxistGopher's Rating: ********(8 of 10 stars)

Moe: I'm better than dirt. Well, most kinds of dirt, not that fancy store-bought dirt... I can't compete with that stuff.

Photo Flashback

Remember this? The game winning overtime goal in the 2002 national championship game at the X. God that was a great game! I can't believe that was 3 years ago.... Man I feel old.

Random Movie Quote

Karen: If you're from Africa, why are you white?
Gretchen: Oh my God, Karen, you can't just ask people why they're white.
-Mean Girls

3rd Edition

It's time for another edition of Friday Feelings... So step up to those keyboards and tell us what you think. Come on, what the hell else are you going to do today?

Random Movie Quote

Peter Gibbons: Look, I don't know about you guys, but I'm tired of being pushed around. Aren't you?
Samir: Yes, Peter, but I'm not going to do anything illegal.
Peter Gibbons: Samir, this is America.
-Office Space

Question of the Day?

So is this chilly, rainy mid-May weather we're having a sign of global warming or just a symptom of a normal weather pattern?

i'm all verclempt....talk amongst yourselves...

Homer: Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals ... except the weasel.

Film Review: Three Kings

Three Kings
1999
1 hr 50 min
Starring: George Clooney, Mark Wahlberg, Ice Cube
Directed by David O. Russell

Plot: In the aftermath of the Gulf War, 4 soldiers set out to steal gold that was stolen from Kuwait, but they discover people who need their help.

The recommendations I recieved going into this movie were all good despite my reluctance to accept that it was anything more than a dumb action movie. In reality the film was mix of a dumb action movie and commentary on the United States in the first Gulf War.

The film attacks the US for encouraging the Shias to rebel against Saddam and then leaving them to be slaughtered...and the story focuses on a small group of soldiers trying to "do their part to help" despite the policies of the US gov't. There's a great torture scene where an American soldier is being tortured and the Iraqi soldier tells him of the destruction that the bombing caused in Baghdad and the death of his son. He then shows him why the Americans are really there by pouring Oil down his throat.

A problem I had with the film is it seemed like they were making the case that the US should go back and finish the job and 'liberate the Iraqi people from Saddam. I know the film was made before there was any notion of that happening, but it could really be watched that way in the atmosphere that exists now. I'm sure it was a much better film before the war. Plus its hard for me to take a movie seriously that stars George Clooney, Mark Wahlberg, and Ice Cube. Overall, a very good movie with some problems...

MarxistGopher's Rating: *******(7 of 10 stars)

Film Review: Kramer vs. Kramer

Kramer vs. Kramer
1979
1 hr 45 min
Starring Dustin Hoffman

Plot: Ted Kramer is a career man for whom his work comes before his family. His wife Joanna cannot take this anymore, so she decides to leave him. Ted is now faced with the tasks of housekeeping and taking care of himself and their young son Billy. When he has learned to adjust his life to these new responsibilities, Joanna resurfaces and wants Billy back. Ted however refuses to give him up, so they go to court to fight for the custody of their son.

This is another 'classic' that I needed to see. It won 5 acadamy awards in 1980 including best picture and best actor for Dustin Hoffman. I thought it was a fairly good divorce movie. I'm guessing it was one of the first that told the story of the father getting the kid, which is interesting. However, I thought film really villified the woman(Meryl Streep). She was not a major part of the film and her side of the story was never told. You were meant to take the side of the father. Most of the story dealt with the bond that was forming between the father and son as he transforms from a father that is obsessed with his career and doesnt know what grade his son is in to negleting and eventually losing his job to spend time with him. Not to mention that the ending was unrealistic and disappointing. Overall I would say a fairly average movie. It didn't really move me in its favor or against it, leaving me with no strong feelings either way. However, it was an entertaining film that is probably worth seeing if you have not. Plus I'm always a sucker for the courtroom drama...even if it was only a small part of the movie.

MarxistGopher's Rating: ******(6 of 10 stars)

General Blog Notes

Just a note in general about the blog.

I've added a counter in the bar on the right. It's between the 'Previous Posts' and the weekly archives. I'm getting a lot more traffic on The MarxistGopher Report than I thought. It's very exciting!

That leads me into the other note. If you haven't already figured it out I'm archiving my film reviews right below the basketball profiles archive. I'll try to keep the film reviews up-to-date with what I'm watching but that could be kinda tough since I have no life and am averaging a movie a day!

Whenever I do one of these general blog notes...thats the time and place for you to respond and let me know if you have complaints, ideas, etc. about The MarxistGopher Report. Don't worry about my feelings. I will promptly respond and tell you to shut up/kiss me ass if I disagree :-)