Thanks for the TUC explanation.

I wasn't clear about "Right."  I only meant ours.  And our parties have
never been so clearly divided as liberal and conservative as yours.  There
have always been "liberal Republicans" and "conservative Democrats."
But at the moment the Republican party is controlled by their right wing,
and there are very few "moderates" (I can only think of three in the
senate).  That is why James Jeffords left the party two years ago.


Date sent:              Tue, 10 Dec 2002 14:12:13 +0100
Send reply to:          "T. S. Eliot Discussion forum." <[log in to unmask]>
From:                   INGELBIEN RAPHAEL <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:                Re: VERY OT British politics--query on TUC
To:                     [log in to unmask]

> It becomes increasingly difficult here also to define "left," whatever
> is
left of
> it.  But the Right is pretty clear.

Is it? Iain Duncan Smith probably wishes it were... And, why, even the
American right is divided on Iraq.

> I did not see the TUC speech.  It's hard to get British news here unless
> one takes time to go search it out, and that is hard in Portland
> sometimes.  What was the gist of it?

Kennedy basically said he was willing to listen to the unions, although he
ruled out any official cooperation between the LibDems and the unions.
Needless to say, most unions normally have little time  for the LibDems
anyway - but we're at a time when the relations with Labour are more than
a little strained. And it's no secret that some parts of the public sector
now tend to vote LibDem.


[log in to unmask]