The Official UK Election Thread! 6th May it is!

[Darat]

By the way, is this the shortest period allowed. Personally, calling an election for a week next Thursday would suit me just as well, given the phony war we've had pretty much since GB took over from Smiler.

I have to agree - in fact no I don't I want to know why we couldn't have had it this Thursday! They've all made their arguments a million times, I suppose the only reason for having longer is to try and ensure that at least one of the major parties will drop an absolute clanger!

 

[Undesired Walrus]

As summed up on CiF, it's

Neoliberalism vs. neoliberalism vs. neoliberalism

This: 'There all the same' rhetoric is really becoming a trite cliche. Sure, there is no denying that Labour have moved radically to the centre, but if you really think there is no difference ideologically between the main three parties, you're simply not paying any attention.

 

[Darat]

This: 'There all the same' rhetoric is really becoming a trite cliche. Sure, there is no denying that Labour have moved radically to the centre, but if you really think there is no difference ideologically between the main three parties, you're simply not paying any attention.

Useful starting place: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_polit...ey&col1=conservative&col2=labour&col3=libdem/

 

[Undesired Walrus]

The BBC reported that Cameron left out the planned 'gay or straight' line when talking about 'the great ignored'.

Oh, the irony!

 

[Rolfe]

Is it time for me to change to my election avatar?

Rolfe.

ETA: What the hell. Done.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

In the spirit of politics, I'll change mine too.

 

[andyandy]

This: 'There all the same' rhetoric is really becoming a trite cliche. Sure, there is no denying that Labour have moved radically to the centre, but if you really think there is no difference ideologically between the main three parties, you're simply not paying any attention.

they moved radically to the centre and kept moving....

what are the fundamental ideological differences between the three parties that they're currently campaigning on?

 

[andyandy]

Let's compare according to the BBC:


Tories:

Begin spending cuts in 2010 to eliminate most of the UK’s structural deficit within five years; real terms increases in health spending; allow charities, trusts, voluntary groups and co-operatives to set up new Academy schools, independent of local authority control, and to run other public services; scrap identity card scheme; "recognise" marriage and civil partnerships in the tax system.

Labour:

Wait until 2011 to cut spending, to halve deficit in four years; increase spending on "frontline" NHS services and schools but freeze or cut spending in other areas from 2011; ensure all people who suspect they have cancer get test results within one week; hold a referendum on adopting the Alternative Vote system for Westminster elections by October 2011.

We get a choice between cuts in 2010 or 2011 - this is pretty disingenious in any case, cuts are already happening and we may well be beholden to the markets if we want to hold onto AAA.

Both promise to increase NHS spending

Conservatives like the labour Academies and might have some more. Labour probably would as well.

Tories will scrap ID cards. Labour probably will as well

some tax benefits for marriage - not a big issue and not defined as to how much etc etc.

test results for cancer promptly - lump it in with general NHS provision - not a big issue

referendum on AV? You must be joking! This is the same labour party that promised voting reform several years ago and then promptly forgot about it because the current system was doing very nicely thankyou.....anyone who believes this promise is an idiot....

So that's it. Populist Daily Waily "tax breaks for marriage" vs populist emotive "more money for cancer patients". Except that the tories are also promising more money for cancer patients....

which leaves marriage tax breaks vs football clubs having a slice owned by supporters....

Oh the choices....

 

[Dave Rogers]

but Commonwealth.

Kenyan is OK, then. If the Americans don't want him, can we have him?

Ian Hislop will be over the moon once the gaffes start flowing.

Or are there rules regarding 'If you mock x party this much, you must also mock y, z and w parties this much'?

I've yet to see any politician of any party whom Ian Hislop is in any way disinclined to mock, even when they're on his team.

Dave

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Andy

Oh the choices....

One of the large dividing lines is the role of the state. Cameron took a big backstep into the Conservatives of the past by slamming the 'big state' and embracing small government Conservatism:

And here is the big argument in British politics today, put plainly and simply. Labour say that to solve the country's problems, we need more government.

Don't they see? It is more government that got us into this mess.

Why is our economy broken? Not just because Labour wrongly thought they'd abolished boom and bust. But because government got too big, spent too much and doubled the national debt.

Why is our society broken? Because government got too big, did too much and undermined responsibility.

Why are our politics broken? Because government got too big, promised too much and pretended it had all the answers.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/oct/08/david-cameron-speech-in-full

Contrast this with what a Labour big whig had to say about the state:

[The] principle is that power needs to be vested in the people, but we do not reveal a powerful populace simply in the act of withdrawing the state. In fact a powerless government simply means more power for the already powerful. That is the error that runs through David Cameron’s speeches. We make powerful people by providing a platform on which people can stand.

http://davidmiliband.info/speeches/speeches_010_02.htm

Moving on, the Conservative approach to keeping the family together is typical Conservatism. Offering tax breaks for married couples is something Labour will simply not do.

Of course, one of the major differences between the Tories and the other main parties is their view on Europe. Drawing their party out of the Centre-Right European party and creating an extreme right wing, anti-federalist party for them to join is marginalising the country, not just their party from Europe if they win. That is one of the big choices at this election. A Britain that is at the front of the EU or one that stands at the back. You may have perfectly good reasons for wanting to stand at the back, but it is nonetheless a clear dividing line between the attitudes of the main parties towards such an important issue.

The list goes on, including stuff about the Tories attitudes towards voluntary organisations.

You raised AV and compared it to the promise last time. The difference is that this time the move has actually been backed in Parliament, something that never happened last time.

 

[cwalner]

Gordon Brown will tomorrow take the fateful journey from Downing Street to Buckingham Palace to trigger a 6 May general election to be fought on a Labour manifesto that promises a series of bold initiatives to reform public services in a programme of "national renewal.

As an ignorant colonist, this is one thing that confuses me about UK elections. Are they not regularly scheduled? How do you decide when to have elections?

I kinda get the whole parliamentary process (as opposed to our regional representation) but clarifications on that would not be missed either.

Please help put the E in JREF by explaining to me what seems a rather convoluted process just to elect a bunch of politicians.

 

[Fiona]

We do not have fixed-term parliaments, Cwalner.The prime minister asks the queen to dissolve parliament when he thinks it is a good time to do it, at any time not exceeding 5 years. Thus, for example, a government with a small majority can call an election within months: I think that happened in 1964 and there were two general elections within one year (open to correction on the dates)

Not sure what you mean by the second point. A Westminster MP represents a constituency and in each constituency those who wish to be elected put themselves forward (the system is a bit different in Scotland but I wont complicate matters). We don't have electoral colleges (I think that is something which exists in America? ). The candidates present themselves directly and an individual is elected by a simple majority. But I am not sure if that answers your question?

 

[cwalner]

Not sure what you mean by the second point. A Westminster MP represents a constituency and in each constituency those who wish to be elected put themselves forward (the system is a bit different in Scotland but I wont complicate matters). We don't have electoral colleges (I think that is something which exists in America? ). The candidates present themselves directly and an individual is elected by a simple majority. But I am not sure if that answers your question?

My understanding, which may be woefully wrong, was that in a parlaimentary system the parties each present a slate of candidates and the electorate voted for a party, not for a candidate. Then if, say the election turned out 40% Labour, 30% Tory, 20% WNP, and 10% some small party I've never heard of (SSPINHO) and parlaiment had 100 seats, then the top 40 from the labour slate would be seated, the top 30 from tory, the top 20 from WNP, and the top 10 from SSPINHO. (obviously a simplification of the numbers but I think you should understand what I am getting at).

I thought that this was why your system tended to promote larger numbers of parites, becasue you only need to get about 5-10% of the overall vote to get seated. Whereas in the US congressional seats are for specific districts and one needs to get at least 51% of that district to get seated. This tends to promote just two parties strong enough to get over 51% of enough districts to be seated.

It seems obvious from what I have heard so far that this is not completely accurate, so please correct where I have erred

 

[Lord Muck oGentry]

cwalner, here is a place to start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_the_United_Kingdom

 

[Fiona]

It bears no relation to the process at all, actually. We do have a party list in Scotland and it is combined with the usual constituency system: that is why I said it was more complicated: and I don't think it will help you. In other parts of europe there are various versions of proportional representation which may fit your idea of what we do: but it is not like that here. For westminster we have "first past the post" in each constituency (again with different rules for Scotland).

Of course candidates selected by the main parties are apt to be elected: but that is not due to the voting system. Independents and small parties may win a seat and they do if they get the most votes in the constituency they stand in. But FPTP tends to result in two parties and the reasons for that are complex. We could not be said to have a lot of parties here: you are correct that proportional systems do have that result very often, though

 

[Darat]

My understanding, which may be woefully wrong, was that in a parlaimentary system the parties each present a slate of candidates and the electorate voted for a party, not for a candidate. Then if, say the election turned out 40% Labour, 30% Tory, 20% WNP, and 10% some small party I've never heard of (SSPINHO) and parlaiment had 100 seats, then the top 40 from the labour slate would be seated, the top 30 from tory, the top 20 from WNP, and the top 10 from SSPINHO. (obviously a simplification of the numbers but I think you should understand what I am getting at).

I thought that this was why your system tended to promote larger numbers of parites, becasue you only need to get about 5-10% of the overall vote to get seated. Whereas in the US congressional seats are for specific districts and one needs to get at least 51% of that district to get seated. This tends to promote just two parties strong enough to get over 51% of enough districts to be seated.

It seems obvious from what I have heard so far that this is not completely accurate, so please correct where I have erred

Not in the general election. There are over 600 constituencies (geography and population based) in each of these there will be a list of candidates we can vote on to become our "Member of Parliament", some of the candidates will be the official representative for a political party but we vote for the individual not the party and it is simple the candidate that gets the most votes that "wins" that constituency and becomes the Member of Parliament for those voters. The "government" is formed by the political party (or parties) that can command a majority of MPs in the parliament.

 

[Debaser]

Independents and small parties may win a seat and they do if they get the most votes in the constituency they stand in. But FPTP tends to result in two parties and the reasons for that are complex. We could not be said to have a lot of parties here: you are correct that proportional systems do have that result very often, though

Having said this, we usually get at least six or eight candidates per constituency (and more at by-elections) to choose from. It's not from lack choice that the usual suspects always seem to get in.

 

[cwalner]

Thanks for the link LMo'G and for the clarification Fiona.

I am not certain where I got into my head that the UK was proportional, but I did somewhere along the line and you have helped remove that misunderstanding.

Another point (one I think I have right) is that you do not directly elect the PM (as we kinda sorta do with the president in the US - electoral college and all) but that the PM is selected more along the same lines that we select the Speaker of the House. That he/she is elected by the Parlaiment so is effectively the leader of the majority party in Parlaiment.

The one possible difference is that the Speaker of the House is also a representative where the PM is not neccesarily an MP.

Again please clarify where I got this wrong.

 

[cwalner]

Having said this, we usually get at least six or eight candidates per constituency (and more at by-elections) to choose from. It's not from lack choice that the usual suspects always seem to get in.

We actually do too in the US, even for the presidency. I don't think I've ever participated in a general election with less than 4 candidates for any particular office.

 

[Darat]

Thanks for the link LMo'G and for the clarification Fiona.

I am not certain where I got into my head that the UK was proportional, but I did somewhere along the line and you have helped remove that misunderstanding.

Another point (one I think I have right) is that you do not directly elect the PM (as we kinda sorta do with the president in the US - electoral college and all) but that the PM is selected more along the same lines that we select the Speaker of the House. That he/she is elected by the Parlaiment so is effectively the leader of the majority party in Parlaiment.

The one possible difference is that the Speaker of the House is also a representative where the PM is not neccesarily an MP.

Again please clarify where I got this wrong.

Couple of things - strictly speaking the PM does not have to be an MP however that is not how things are done these days so leave that to one side.

What generally happens is because either the Conservative party or Labour party gain an overall majority in Parliament (it is more likely to be the Conservatives this time) the leader of that party becomes the PM.