Brian Eno's next big thing?!

March 29, 2005 5:46 PM

Brian Eno's next big thing?! Politics, it appears. Brian Eno, an outspoken opponent of Tony Blair's administration in Britain, has started up http://www.libdemthistime.org, encouraging prominent Brits to show their support for the Liberal Democrats. If that isn't enough, he's helping bankroll the father of a British soldier killed in Iraq to run against Tony Blair in his constituency, in the hope of unseating him. Could Labour win and Tony lose?
posted by insomnia_lj (47 comments total)

I've followed Reg Keys a little. One of the most eloquent voices I've heard on the war.
posted by inksyndicate at 5:53 PM on March 29, 2005

This is good.
posted by alms at 5:53 PM on March 29, 2005

Oops, a correction. Although another article I read said that Eno was bankrolling the campaign, this is not the case... he is merely helping organize and support it.

Says Keys -
"He's given us his moral support and let us use his studio in London, but he isn't backing us financially. So far we're just surviving on minor donations of £100 and £200, but hopefully we'll get some bigger donations as the campaign goes on. I'm struggling to pay the £50-a-night bed and breakfast bills."

This site contains information on how to join and/or financially support Mr. Keys's campaign, for those who are interested.
posted by insomnia_lj at 5:54 PM on March 29, 2005

I hope Blair gets his ass handed to him as a beginning of the end of the crap going on there and across the pond in Maoist Bushland
posted by mk1gti at 6:07 PM on March 29, 2005

I'm not an Englisman, but hasn't Tony done a pretty bang-up job sans the war/propaganda bits? I'd be interested to hear some UK mefites on that score.

I guess what I mean is, socially, economically, he's done a much better job than Bush, certainly? Seems like the UK is doing pretty damn well from over here -- but then again, I'm over here.
posted by undule at 6:11 PM on March 29, 2005

I am not British, and not am I an expert on British politics. But, I find it hard to believe that the people of Blair's constituency would removed a MP who is Prime Minister for a new MP who, politically speaking, is a nobody.

Surely the pork and power of having the Prime Minister for your MP is a very good reason to re-elect Blair, regardless of how you feel about the war.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 6:46 PM on March 29, 2005

Good for him, personally, I respect Brian Eno's opinion alot more highly than most people's.
posted by fenriq at 6:52 PM on March 29, 2005

Yeah, 'fenriq. cos Eno's opinion (as opposed to debate, argument, thesis, hypothesis) is so brilliant.

I actually like Eno, having been a charter Roxy Music fan...but I know that music and politics are not necessarily good bedfellows.

Steve_at_Winwood, it's very different in Britain from the USA.

mk1gti: Maoist Bushland?

Um...What the FUCK are you drinking/smoking/inhaling/ingesting?
posted by 1016 at 7:00 PM on March 29, 2005

it's very different in Britain from the USA.

Please explain how so.

All politics are local, no?
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 7:02 PM on March 29, 2005

ought to lose the 'stash and get a more modern haircut, though.

Is it legal for americans to donate to a british MP candidates?
posted by delmoi at 7:32 PM on March 29, 2005

Sadly, because we don't vote directly for the Prime Minister, I can't advise everyone to vote for my favoured party, the Liberal Democrats. Vote tactically and keep the Tories down.

If Blair lost his seat it would be the story of the century.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 7:55 PM on March 29, 2005

I remind the Brits out there who support Blair personally: we now know the Attorney General's advice was that the war in Iraq would be illegal without a second resolution... right up until it was realised a second resolution would not be achieved. At that point the advice magically altered. If innocents die in an illegal war, it's a warcrime.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 8:04 PM on March 29, 2005

"Freedom is on the march"
posted by George W. Bush at 8:10 PM PST on March 29 [!]
posted by orthogonality at 8:10 PM on March 29, 2005

Steve_at_Linnwood writes "I am not British, and not am I [sic] an expert on British politics. But, I find it hard to believe that the people of Blair's constituency would removed [sic] a[n] MP who is Prime Minister for a new MP who, politically speaking, is a nobody.

"Surely the pork and power of having the Prime Minister for your MP is a very good reason to re-elect Blair, regardless of how you feel about the war."


Well only if pork and power are more important to you than principle.

That can't be true of the Bush Administration; I mean, we started Operation Iraqi Liberation expressly to cultivate the principle of Democracy in the Middle East, right? And we passed that bill to "liberate" Terry Schiavo because we believe in a "Culture of Life", not to propitiate our base with what we (incorrectly) hoped would be a politically potent "wedge-issue".

(Admittedly, I haven't seen this week's copy of "College Republican Justifications for the War Talking Points", so I may be wrong -- correct me if we've rolled back around to "yellowcake" and WMDs, or if it's "Saddam had ties to Osama" again, but I was sure our current excuse was one of the highest principle. But, I am not a College Republican, and "not am I" an expert on College Republican principles (if any).)
posted by orthogonality at 9:04 PM on March 29, 2005

Lets see:

• Lame 'NO BLOOD FOR OIL' talking point .... check
• Topical Schiavo talking point ... check
• Lame 'Saddam - Osama' talking point ... check
• Attacking my age ... check

It's official! You meet all of the qualifications for official "Troll" status!

You may have earned "400+ fans" at Slashdot with this, but this is not Slashdot.

It is funny, else where on the site you say: "Steve, famous for adding to threads snark but never a substantive argument, apparently can't even generate his own snark these days." Yet I see you make the same prepackaged MoveOn-ish comments again, and again ad nauseam. And even worse, none are original thoughts of your own. Those who live in glass houses....
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 10:51 PM on March 29, 2005

1016, no, I respect his opinion and thoughts because he's not the kind of stupid asshole to spout off just to hear himself talk. He's actually got things that important and substantive on his mind. Just because he is/was a musician, doesn't mean he can't also give a damn about his country and the morons running it.

Unlike a lot of celebrity types, I don't think he's doing this to get his name in the paper, he's actually trying to affect change, perish the thought.

So yeah, I'll hold his opinions above your average dumbfuck on the street who couldn't pick Tony Blair out of a lineup. (Bear in mind that I'm in California where most people think England's a new attraction at Disneyland).
posted by fenriq at 11:56 PM on March 29, 2005

Let's be realistic. Blair is not going to lose his seat. The LibDems are not going to form the next Government. They aren't even going to form the next Opposition. The Tories are not popular, and cannot make political capital out of Iraq, since they also supported the war. The Tories are going back to their spiteful core themes of immigration, anti-Europeanism and big spending cuts to try and outflank Labour.

I live in a fairly safe Labour constituency. I'm not sure whether the Tories or LibDems are more likely to be the main challenger in Oxford East. What I do know is that I'm voting LibDem because of the war.

Iraq apart, how has Blair done? The economy isn't too bad, but that's Gordon Brown's accomplishment. I hate the way Labour is wedded to the Private Finance Initiative for building new hospitals, which is a financial timebomb waiting to go off in 20 years. I don't see any real improvement in Education. The best that can be said for New Labour is that they aren't the Tories.
posted by salmacis at 12:08 AM on March 30, 2005

hasn't Tony done a pretty bang-up job sans the war/propaganda bits?

Not really. In the UK you only get to vote about every 5 or 6 years so once they're in they do whatever the fuck they want and hope everyone forgets by the next election. At least that's what I got out of my time in the UK. The US system is more responsive to the people because of the frequent elections. Whether that's good or bad, I don't know.

Personally I am kind of amazed that Blair can get away with his "I'm a left wing, man of the people" spiel anymore when he demonstratably is not and when his government has failed to address the issues most concerning the public: education, NHS, immigration, crime etc.

But he's totally going to get re-elected. Voting for Labour is an automatic action for a lot of Britons, akin to voting Republican in Texas. You might not like them at all but you really hate the other guys.
posted by fshgrl at 12:56 AM on March 30, 2005

...I find it hard to believe that the people of Blair's constituency would removed a MP who is Prime Minister...

Nope, they won't remove him. Parties almost always reserve their safest seats for leadership figures and so even if an election goes drastically wrong you hardly ever see Prime Ministers lose their seats. Even if they do they are usually dropped back into the house at the next available favourable by-election (usually provided courtesy of some low end flunky willing to give up his/her seat for the leader).

The aim with this run against the PM isn't to oust him however (that's simply not practical), but to give him a good scare - his majority is currently 17000 and could do with a bit of reduction. Since Labour itself is proving too tribal to deal with Tony we have to settle for nibbling away at him with smaller gestures like this and hope the attrition eventully prompts some action from somebody. It's a pretty wretched system really, but there is simply no democracy within parties here to hold leaders to account. The emphasis is entirely on electoral success at the expense of ideology, to the extent that the Labour party of today looks more like the Liberal party of 1912 than the Labour party of twenty years ago but Labour supporters still vote for them as if, despite all the right-wing policy, they are still the party of socialism, redistribution etc.
posted by comraderaoul at 1:23 AM on March 30, 2005

fshgrl writes " Not really. In the UK you only get to vote about every 5 or 6 years so once they're in they do whatever the fuck they want and hope everyone forgets by the next election. At least that's what I got out of my time in the UK. The US system is more responsive to the people because of the frequent elections. Whether that's good or bad, I don't know."

In the UK, the term of office is 5 years, although the sitting Government can call an election any time before that. It's generally accepted that hanging on for the full 5 years is a sign of desperation, so 4 years is more common. About the same as the USA, in other words. Fortunately, we only have a 6 week electioneering period, whereas you have about 2 years. I know which I prefer..
posted by salmacis at 2:30 AM on March 30, 2005

I'm not American or English but I've spent extended periods of time in both countries so I'm familiar with both systems. I don't know which is "better" or which I "prefer" so lets leave that out of it.

In the US there are midterm elections too, so in reality you have major national elections with the potential to change the govt majorities every two years. And you also have elected state assemblies, governors and local officials so you get a lot more chances to vote.

I do think that, contrary to popular opinion, American voters are just as informed as UK voters if not more so and are less likely to vote entirely along party lines, IMHO. The blind aversion to anything branded as conservative isn't doing the UK any favours. And I say that as a dyed in the wool liberal.
posted by fshgrl at 2:48 AM on March 30, 2005

The LibDemThisTime website is interesting. It doesn't argue that the Lib Dems should replace Labour as the new party of government; it argues that they should replace the Conservatives as the new party of opposition. In other words, it seems to be aimed at Labour voters in Conservative-leaning parts of the country, encouraging them to vote tactically in order to keep the Tories out. (Quite sensible, too. If I were a Labour supporter in Guildford (Lib Dem majority: 538), I'd certainly vote Lib Dem to try and stop the Conservatives getting back in.)

Tactical voting could be one of the big issues of this election campaign. The sarcastically-named Backing Blair website wants everybody to vote tactically against Labour, even if this means voting Conservative. (A grotesquely stupid idea, if you ask me; I may be mildly disillusioned with New Labour, but I could never vote for Michael Howard or his party, not in a million years.) Two other websites, So Now Who Do We Vote For? and Strategic Voter, are also asking disaffected Labour supporters to vote tactically, though they stop short of advising them to vote Conservative.

The anti-Blair campaign in Sedgefield hasn't a hope in hell. Reg Keys sounds like a nice man, but the Guardian interview portrays him as a political innocent who isn't prepared for the hard fighting ahead.
posted by verstegan at 3:18 AM on March 30, 2005

Tariq Ali spells out the tactical LibDem voting rationale for the Left.
posted by talos at 3:54 AM on March 30, 2005

The best that can be said for New Labour is that they aren't the Tories.

Labour policies, in particular the minimum wage and Working Families Tax Credit have made a huge difference to the lives of Britain's poorest people. Overseas aid has increased massively since 1997. No political party is perfect, but I think to say the idea that there are no positive reasons to vote for them is not really fair. Of course many people would have liked to see them do more, but I think the progress they have made is significant given that this is still quite a naturally reactionary country as evidenced by the circulation of the Daily Mail.

I'm not going to say that the Lib Dem opposition to the Iraq war was opportunistic, but it was a relatively easy line for them to take from their position as the third largest party and I'm personally not confident that they would have viewed things the same way had they been in government. It seems kind of a shaky basis on which to risk further progress towards eliminating child poverty in the UK, to give one example.
posted by teleskiving at 4:23 AM on March 30, 2005

A recent LRB piece ("What is Labour for?") has this description of New Labour:

Perhaps the first thing to understand about Labour, or if not to understand then at least to get used to, is that it is, in crucial respects, not the party it used to be. In that sense at least Tony Blair is not just preening himself when he talks about New Labour. The Labour Party of semi-fond memory was a broadish church but it had some consistent currents within it. It was left of centre, socially liberal, anti-authoritarian, anti-American, pacifistic, anti-big-business, keen on benefits for the poor, and in favour of nationalisation. In government, New Labour has been right of centre, moralistic, authoritarian; it has been involved in three wars, is slavishly submissive to big business, is keener to promote the distinction between the deserving and undeserving poor than any government in the last hundred years, and is bent on extending into health and education and transport an experimental programme of private-public partnerships which allocates risk to the public sector and profits to the private. As for its attitude to America, that is comparable only to the ‘coital lock’ which makes it impossible to separate dogs during sex. In all these ways, New Labour is less like Labour used to be than it is a British version of Europe’s various Christian Democrat parties.

posted by pracowity at 5:11 AM on March 30, 2005

fshgrl writes " I do think that, contrary to popular opinion, American voters are just as informed as UK voters if not more so"


Considering the number of American voters who believe WMD were found in Iraq, what do you base this assertion on?
posted by salmacis at 5:29 AM on March 30, 2005

It's been clear to me since day one (of the Iraq invasion) that Blair was willing party to a war crime. His continued defence of it - and the continued support of his party - makes him (and that party) an absolute non-option for my vote. I do not vote for war criminals no matter if they make the trains run on time... er, I mean "do a decent job on the economy", or not.

Also, the Lib Dem platform is far closer to my actual political position anyway. They've been to the left of Labour for years, which is why I voted for them in 2001 too. This time I will be voting for them for the same reason plus, as I said, the fact that I will not, under any circumstances whatsoever, vote for war criminals. Especially shameless, unrepentant ones like Blair.
posted by Decani at 5:38 AM on March 30, 2005

Considering the number of American voters who believe WMD were found in Iraq, what do you base this assertion on?

Uh, the number of English people who also thought there were WMDs in Iraq?
posted by fshgrl at 6:20 AM on March 30, 2005

He said "were found", not "were".
posted by Pretty_Generic at 6:35 AM on March 30, 2005

Decani - there are Labour MPs who agree with you and want Blair indicted for war crimes. Under our system, a vote for them is still a vote for Blair. It's that absurdity that makes the US system of direct election is so superior.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 6:37 AM on March 30, 2005

Well, yes and no, PG. By standing under the Labour banner, they are effectively condoning Blair's actions. If they wish to stand as independents, they are free to do so. The fact that independents so rarely get voted in is a problem in both UK and USA politics.
posted by salmacis at 7:12 AM on March 30, 2005

Uh, the number of English people who also thought there were WMDs in Iraq?

A question of tense, fshgrl. It's the continued American belief in discredited nonsense like this and the Saddam/Al Qaeda/9-11 link which illustrates a key difference in attitude between America and the UK.
posted by Decani at 7:21 AM on March 30, 2005

Steve_at_Winwood

Wow, cute, that never occurred to me before. Give me some of what 1016's drinking/smoking/inhaling/ingesting!

Also, not to get all sincere or anything, but it bears pointing out (once again) that yes, Eno is "a musician," and may or may not be a dilettante, but he's certainly more than your average musician, having almost single-handedly created one entire genre of music, virtually co-created another (listened to My Life in the Bush of Ghosts lately?) and altered forever the relationship of "producer" to "artist" in pop music-making. In short, he's a proven visionary - which doesn't make his political points correct, it just means it may be worth giving them a listen.
posted by soyjoy at 7:30 AM on March 30, 2005

There are people in the US who still think there are WMDs in Iraq but I've never met one so I don't think it's the dominant belief. I've not done a scientific survey but as an outsider: the people in both countries seem equally informed on most stuff. Or uninformed as the case may be.

At the moment the US is hyper-political, far more so than the UK.
posted by fshgrl at 7:51 AM on March 30, 2005

fshgrl writes " At the moment the US is hyper-political, far more so than the UK."

No, "hyper-political" is the wrong word. "Polarised" would be better. For some reason, politics in the USA has boiled down to an us/them situation where the two sides literally hate each other. That does not mean the average US voter is more politically clued up than his European counterpart. It means that there is this tremendous pressure to self-identify as either a liberal or a conservative, to a degree I just don't see in the UK. As much as capitalists and socialists may dislike each other's politics in the UK, there is far more of a sense of consensus than in the USA.
posted by salmacis at 7:58 AM on March 30, 2005

I've not done a scientific survey

Yet those who have done so report that Americans - at least the slim marjority that chose the current president - are so uninformed that they often believe their own candidate holds the opposite position to the one he actually holds. If you're going to make a claim that the UK gives US uninformed voters a run for their money, you're going to need to cite something to back that up.
posted by soyjoy at 8:11 AM on March 30, 2005

fshgrl: unfortunately I don't have my list of sources to hand (and I'm a bit pressed for time today so don't have much Googling opportunity), but it was pretty well documented that:

a) Public support for the war was far greater in the US than the UK: before, during and after the invasion.

b) The ever-rotating "big lies" used to justify the invasion were more widely-accepted in the US than the UK. This became almost frightening after the major ones were officially discredited: a significant number of Americans continued to believe some of them anyway.

c) I am a Brit who has lived in the US for the last three years. I have seen first hand the significantly greater acceptance of the rationale for war in the US (even in "liberal" New York, where I live) compared to Britain. I see the omnipresent flag decals, and the "Support Our Troops" decals, and I listen to the most surprising number and variety of people defending the war to a greater or lesser extent. This does not happen nearly as much when I am back in the UK. There, what I hear almost universally are variations on "That lying sack of shit Blair needs to go".

The last one is purely a subjective impression, I grant, but the statistics show pretty clearly that support for the war was far greater in the US and remained so to an absurd degree after the discrediting of the primary reasons given for the war.
posted by Decani at 8:34 AM on March 30, 2005

There are other issues than the Iraq war that people might know about you know.

Cite me all the studies you want but the fact remains that people I know in the US are at least as well informed about current events as people I know in the UK, despite the UK media being about a million times better and more thought provoking than the US. I've never been to the midwest though. I imagine that is different.

There, what I hear almost universally are variations on "That lying sack of shit Blair needs to go".

Except he's going to get re-elected the exact same as Bush did.
posted by fshgrl at 9:27 AM on March 30, 2005

the fact remains that people I know in the US are at least as well informed about current events as people I know in the UK

Nobody's arguing with that fact, which only you can verify or disprove.

It was, rather, your initial assertion - "contrary to popular opinion, American voters are just as informed as UK voters if not more so" - that was bogus, unless you have something more than your own anecdotes to back it up.
posted by soyjoy at 9:36 AM on March 30, 2005

I don't think it's bogus. I agree with you that many Americans are ill-informed but I don't see a study that shows people in the UK are any better.
posted by fshgrl at 10:58 AM on March 30, 2005

Cited on this thread are at least one study showing exactly how ill-informed Americans can be and multiple poll results illustrating their ignorance of basic facts. The burden of proof for anyone saying "Yeah, but UK people are worse than that" is on the person who says it.
posted by soyjoy at 2:28 PM on March 30, 2005

That lying sack of shit Blair is going to be re-elected, because people don't want that lying sack of shit Michael "I did not over-rule Derek Lewis" Howard either.

The war is a perfectly good reason for me to cast my vote in the way that I do.
posted by salmacis at 11:44 PM on March 30, 2005

The burden of proof for anyone saying "Yeah, but UK people are worse than that" is on the person who says it.
Well luck for me I never said they were worse. If you think you're so much better- YOU prove it.
posted by fshgrl at 3:36 AM on March 31, 2005

luck= lucky
posted by fshgrl at 3:36 AM on March 31, 2005

Well luck[y] for me I never said they were worse

You said they were equally ill-informed or more ill-informed. That's what this means:

contrary to popular opinion, American voters are just as informed as UK voters if not more so

Again, evidence has been provided of how stunningly, uniquely ill-informed Americans are. You have presented a "contrary" view that the UK is as bad or worse; it's up to you to back that up. You can keep trying to lob it back to me, but every time you do so without making an actual case, your position looks more and more ridiculous.
posted by soyjoy at 7:03 AM on March 31, 2005

If you think you're so much better - YOU prove it.

This is getting a bit silly .. but here, for the sake of discussion, are a couple of relevant links:

This MORI poll suggests that while many people in Britain supported the Iraq war, they did not do so unconditionally. In February 2003, on the eve of the war, 75% said they would support military action if (a) the UN Security Council voted in favour of it, and (b) the weapons inspectors found proof of WMDs in Iraq; but only 25% said they would support military action if these two conditions were not met. This, to me, is evidence of a fairly well-informed electorate.

This Guardian article, from last August, highlights a significant difference in public opinion between Britain and America. In America, a sizable number of people regarded foreign policy and national security as the most important pre-election issue. In Britain, by contrast, Iraq came last out of a list of ten issues that voters considered important when deciding how to vote in the next election. These findings are open to more than one interpretation; but they do seem to suggest that a fear of terrorism is not an overriding concern to many British voters in the way it obviously is to many American voters.

In general I am a believer in the wisdom of crowds. Every so often, an item will appear in the media claiming that 80% of people believe the moon is made of green cheese, or 90% of people can't find their own country on the map, or whatever .. always leading to the conclusion that the vast majority of people are stupid ignorant sheep. I am not convinced. I tend to believe that, while people are often ill-informed on matters outside their own personal experience, they are usually capable of accurate judgement in matters directly affecting their own welfare. So that is where I stand. I am not particularly interested in discussing whether the British public is smarter or dumber than the American public; but I am very interested in discussing the differences between British and American public opinion, and the reasons for those differences.

what I hear almost universally are variations on "That lying sack of shit Blair needs to go"

FWIW, that's not what I hear. I remember the last days of the Major government, when there was a palpable feeling that it was time for a change. I'm not getting the same feeling now. What I'm picking up instead is what I remember the late Paul Foot describing, several years ago, as 'the sullen acquiescence that Blair mistakes for popular support'. Many people are still going to vote Labour, but not with any sense of enthusiasm; they're going to vote Labour because, frankly, neither the Tories nor the Lib Dems are in any position to offer a credible alternative.
posted by verstegan at 7:21 AM on March 31, 2005

verstegan: oh, I think Bliar will get in - largely for the reason salmacis mentions. But what I meant was that there's a strong desire to see Blair replaced as leader. A lot of Brits just do not like or trust Blair. They'll hold their noses and vote Labour - but they will hold their noses.

fshgrl: as others have pointed out, numerous links and stats have been provided to back up the assertion that the UK supported - and supports - the war to a far lesser extent than the US. You haven't provided anything against this but your own unsupported opinion, based on your own circle of acquaintances. Not good enough, I'm afraid.
posted by Decani at 10:32 AM on March 31, 2005