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

[Fiona]

Ok, now I am confused again. Both you seem to indicate that Gordon Brown is simultaneously the Prime Minister and an MP (which I assumed to mean Member of Parlaiment).

Yes.

What happens if say Labour wins the majority, but Brown loses his seat in his constituency?

Good question. There would be a number of ways of dealing with that: I think the most likely thing would be an MP of that party would stand down in a safe seat and there would be a by-election: I think that has happened before (Douglas-Home is the closest precedent I can think of though he was not an member when he got the leadership, I think). Or they could choose a new leader: either way the deputy leader would cover while they did, I think. I will be interested to hear from more knowledgeable people, though: it must have happened more than once, cos everything has.

Some have also mentioned a speaker, how is that position chosen?

He is elected by the MP's from amongst their own number, in a secret ballot. Candidates must be nominated by 12 MP's and at least some of those must not be from his own party. Absolute majority wins it: and if that is not achieved they eliminate the one with the least vote and vote again till they get one. A sitting speaker moves directly to a vote and they only start the process again if the motion to re-elect fails: but I do not know if that has ever happened.

 

[geni]

Ok, now I am confused again. Both you seem to indicate that Gordon Brown is simultaneously the Prime Minister and an MP (which I assumed to mean Member of Parlaiment). What happens if say Labour wins the majority, but Brown loses his seat in his constituency?

That doesn't normaly happen since people identified as leadership material in either party tend to get safe seats.

When it does happen find a less than useful MP in a safe seat, send them off to the lords and then hold a by-Election to get the candiate for prime minister into the commons.

A slightly different situation would be Alec Douglas-Home in 63

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinross_and_West_Perthshire_by-election,_1963

Some have also mentioned a speaker, how is that position chosen?

Officially by a vote of MP's. Unofficially by some rather messy behind the scenes manoeuvres then a vote by MPs.

And to Darat, why do you feel that Conservatives are favored in this election and are Conservatives the same as the Tories (they seem to reference the same ideology)?

The conservative party are derived from the tories yes and are often known by that name. They are favored well mostly because labour are rather unpopular at this point and David Cameron has nicked enough of their traditional ideas to avoid getting completely hammered as the nasty party.

 

[cwalner]

The conservative party are derived from the tories yes and are often known by that name. They are favored well mostly because labour are rather unpopular at this point and David Cameron has nicked enough of their traditional ideas to avoid getting completely hammered as the nasty party.

So essentially discontent over how things are and voting for non-incumbents rather than actually an ideological shift.

My mother had a great phrase for this: Same Circus, Different Clowns

 

[Rolfe]

I don't see Gordon Brown losing in Kirkcaldy in a hurry. And if he does, Labour as a whole are royally ed across the country anyway.

But theoretically, if it happened....

Geni and Fiona are technically right - they could find someone to resign a safe Labour seat, and put up Brown as the by-election candidate. However, I think that would go down like a lead balloon.

• They'd have a period of instability before the by-election anyway - who would act as PM in that time?
• The voters of that constituency might well be pretty annoyed at their votes being taken for granted like that - so much so that a whole bunch of people who didn't vote in the general election might come out for the specific purpose of foiling the plan.
• The country in general might be very very annoyed - and the anti-Labour press would stoke that. Brown is already the PM with no mandate (he took over from Blair in the middle of a parliamentary term). If he subsequently couldn't even hold his own seat, he'd be extremely damaged goods.
• The Parliamentary Labour party would probably rather select a new leader than go through the humiliation of getting a lame duck back into the House at a by-election.

So I'd say, practically, that if the unthinkable did happen, Brown would be cut loose and there would be a short and dirty fight to elect a new leader from among the successful candidates.

Rolfe.

 

[Fiona]

In this case I think you are right, Rolfe: I was trying to answer more generally however, since Cwalner seems interested in the process.

 

[Rolfe]

why do you feel that Conservatives are favored in this election and are Conservatives the same as the Tories (they seem to reference the same ideology)?

The Conservatives and the Tories are the same thing. Properly, they are "The Conservative and Unionist Party", and a bunch of other names so that they can both stop other groups using a name they are known by, and try to make themselves appear relevant in the "provinces".

"Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party." Meh.

They're favoured because they're not the incumbents. I don't think they have any killer policies that are attracting voters.

They have a big hill to climb though. The demographics dictate that when they increase their support they tend to pile up votes in constituencies that are already safe Tory seats. No point. It's harder for them to get the votes in the marginal constituencies where it really counts.

There was a lot of huffing and puffing about this on the TV tonight. However, it was explained very succinctly on the radio news, if only I could remember the exact words. Basically it's going to take only a very small swing for Labour to lose its overall majority, but it's going to take the second-biggest swing for 60 years for the Tories to get an overall majority of their own.

A big reason for this is the rise of the smaller parties. Sixty years ago only a small handful of MPs weren't either Conservative or Labour. Now, not only are the LibDems a reasonable force, there's the SNP and PC mopping up constituencies in Scotland and Wales. Not to mention the possibility that UKIP or the Greens or even a protest-group independent might scrape something (or even the BNP, perish the bloody thought).

Enough of that and Westminster will have to start behaving like a grown-up representative parliament rather than an elected dictatorship, even without PR forcing it in that direction. Labour and the Tories will still be the largest parties, but they'll have to do deals with the smaller parties if they want to achieve anything.

The largest party might hope for a coalition with the LibDems, if that would be enough to get the overall majority, but would that do it? And even if it did, would it be the best outcome? The experience in Scotland for the past three years indicates that a minority government can actually function quite well. On that occassion the LibDems refused to consider entering a coalition, and though they may subsequently have regretted it I think it was very much for the best.

So, we go out and vote, and then we see what happens.

But first, we get out there canvassing and leafletting and getting our vote out any which way we can.

Rolfe.

 

[geni]

• They'd have a period of instability before the by-election anyway - who would act as PM in that time?

• 
  
  Harman. Labour as the incumbant party don't actualy have to do anything until after the summer recess. They have a lot of time to sort things out. Cameron losing would be more problematical.
  
  

  [*] The voters of that constituency might well be pretty annoyed at their votes being taken for granted like that - so much so that a whole bunch of people who didn't vote in the general election might come out for the specific purpose of foiling the plan.

  
  Historicaly hasn't happened.
  
  

  [*] The country in general might be very very annoyed - and the anti-Labour press would stoke that. Brown is already the PM with no mandate (he took over from Blair in the middle of a parliamentary term). If he subsequently couldn't even hold his own seat, he'd be extremely damaged goods.

  
  Against that he would have won a general election generaly thought to be unwinnable.
  
  

  [*]The Parliamentary Labour party would probably rather select a new leader than go through the humiliation of getting a lame duck back into the House at a by-election.
  
  So I'd say, practically, that if the unthinkable did happen, Brown would be cut loose and there would be a short and dirty fight to elect a new leader from among the successful candidates.

  
  There isn't anyone. The millibands have been going sideways, the Blairites are out of play after what was left of them got hammered by that despatches program. Darling is unlikely to make a move until after Brown has been very safely burried.

 

[Rolfe]

Well, it's completely hypothetical anyway. In the vanishingly unlikely event of him losing Kirkcaldy, the Labour party would not have an overall majority. So either of us can second-guess till the cows come home.

I still think they'd dump him. They'd decide the party had won in spite of him, and Jim Hacker would get the job.

Rolfe.

 

[geni]

The Conservatives and the Tories are the same thing. Properly, they are "The Conservative and Unionist Party", and a bunch of other names so that they can both stop other groups using a name they are known by, and try to make themselves appear relevant in the "provinces".

"Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party." Meh.

In fairness the Tory-Unionist links go way back.

They're favoured because they're not the incumbents. I don't think they have any killer policies that are attracting voters.

Inheritance tax issue probably helps with the middle classes with houses in south east england.

They have a big hill to climb though. The demographics dictate that when they increase their support they tend to pile up votes in constituencies that are already safe Tory seats. No point. It's harder for them to get the votes in the marginal constituencies where it really counts.

There was a lot of huffing and puffing about this on the TV tonight. However, it was explained very succinctly on the radio news, if only I could remember the exact words. Basically it's going to take only a very small swing for Labour to lose its overall majority, but it's going to take the second-biggest swing for 60 years for the Tories to get an overall majority of their own.

Torries need to pick up about 100 seats labour lose majority with less than 20.

A big reason for this is the rise of the smaller parties. Sixty years ago only a small handful of MPs weren't either Conservative or Labour. Now, not only are the LibDems a reasonable force, there's the SNP and PC mopping up constituencies in Scotland and Wales. Not to mention the possibility that UKIP or the Greens or even a protest-group independent might scrape something (or even the BNP, perish the bloody thought).

Richard Taylor may have a reasonable chance of holding on in Wyre Forest. Can't see UKIP or and especialy the greens picking up any seats.

Enough of that and Westminster will have to start behaving like a grown-up representative parliament rather than an elected dictatorship, even without PR forcing it in that direction. Labour and the Tories will still be the largest parties, but they'll have to do deals with the smaller parties if they want to achieve anything.

The largest party might hope for a coalition with the LibDems, if that would be enough to get the overall majority, but would that do it? And even if it did, would it be the best outcome? The experience in Scotland for the past three years indicates that a minority government can actually function quite well.

The SNP were able to buy up enough votes to pass their budget but at westminister than kind of thing could get expensive fast.

 

[geni]

Well, it's completely hypothetical anyway. In the vanishingly unlikely event of him losing Kirkcaldy, the Labour party would not have an overall majority. So either of us can second-guess till the cows come home.

Eh He's got both UKIP and the BNP running against him. You could almost feel sorry for the tories there.

 

[cwalner]

Ok,

So major parties are Labour (center left) and Conservative (center right)

I am guessing here now:

Minor parties are LibDem (Liberal Democrat - left), SNP (socialist?), PC (Poltically Correct? - I know this is wrong), UKIP (UK independent party - centrist?), Green (Tree Huggers) and BNP (The ones who forgot why you fought Germany in the 40's)

And if I understand recent history correctly, Thatcher was a Tory, and there has not been a Tory government since she left, pretty much dominated by Labour.

Also just curious, I remember noticing a lot of discontent with Blair over the Iraq war and a sense that he was too conciliatory to the US. The scene in Love, Actually where Grant's PM stands up to an aggressively cowboyish POTUS (Thornton) was not lost on us here. Has this carried over to Brown and is it an issue for Labour in the election.

 

[geni]

Minor parties are LibDem (Liberal Democrat - left),

Traditionaly center (bits of them derive from the wigs) probably left at the moment.

SNP (socialist?),

Scotish nationalist. Left. The scotish socialists are a seperate party if they are still around.

PC (Poltically Correct? - I know this is wrong),

Welsh nationalists.

UKIP (UK independent party - centrist?),

Hard right anti EU. Think the most liberal memebers of the US republican party.

Green (Tree Huggers) and BNP (The ones who forgot why you fought Germany in the 40's)

Pretty much.

And if I understand recent history correctly, Thatcher was a Tory, and there has not been a Tory government since she left, pretty much dominated by Labour.

After Thatcher left the tories managed to win one further election under John Major. Labour have been in power since 1997.

Also just curious, I remember noticing a lot of discontent with Blair over the Iraq war and a sense that he was too conciliatory to the US. The scene in Love, Actually where Grant's PM stands up to an aggressively cowboyish POTUS (Thornton) was not lost on us here. Has this carried over to Brown and is it an issue for Labour in the election.

Tories also supported the war so while the lib dems might pick up something I can't see it being a significant factor.

 

[Fiona]

The way I see it, Thatcher destroyed her party and that has kept them out of power. Fortunately for them Blair destroyed his party in much the same way. And that has left a great many people with nowhere to go. I have the option of the SNP, which is not ideal but it is an alternative; but if I lived in England I would be at a total loss.

What bothers me is that where no electable party represents enough of the people they tend to go for extremists: and while we are far from that yet it does seem that smaller parties are gaining some ground. It makes me uneasy

 

[VonKleist]

I do not think we have ever had a hung parliament but I do not know for sure. In 1964 the largest party had a majority of something like 3 and one or two died or something: so they had another election. At least I think that is what happened.

The first election in 1974 resulted in a hung parliament. It only lasted 8 months though.

There's an online quiz thingy here which lets you know how you may wish to vote according to the policies of the main parties. And also lets you play spot the BNP policy. . . .

PC stands for 'Plaid Cymru', meaning 'party of Wales'.

 

[andyandy]

Also just curious, I remember noticing a lot of discontent with Blair over the Iraq war and a sense that he was too conciliatory to the US. The scene in Love, Actually where Grant's PM stands up to an aggressively cowboyish POTUS (Thornton) was not lost on us here. Has this carried over to Brown and is it an issue for Labour in the election.

Iraq was a (relatively) big issue in the 2004 elections - though it didn't stop Blair and New Labour getting re-elected....

I'd say foreign policies are about zero on a scale of importance for voters in this election....

I suppose opposition to the EU might get a few votes for UKIP, but beyond that? It's all domestic.

 

[Fiona]

Not so sure, andyandy: there was an "interview random voters on the street" on the radio today in Dartmouth. The biggest issues against labour seemed to be the Iraq war and illegal immigration.

Immigration is not an issue here: but many of my friends were labour party activists and most of them are no longer. They will not work for labour and some will not even vote for them because of that war. The situation may be different elsewhere, however, and I freely grant that the " cradle" support is firm here too. But it has made some difference and that effect has not been fully discounted. Bringing Blair in is a mistake IMO

 

[geni]

To translate the parties into US terms:

Labour-Ralph Nader could find a home here.
Tories-Outside the issue of healthcare (where he would be way too right wing) Obama could probably find a home here
Lib-dems. Errrrr I suppose some wierd fusion of the ACLU lite and the green party might be as close as you could get

SNP-there is no american equiverlent
PC (Plaid Cymru) Imagaine some kind of far left massachusetts independence movement.
UKIP-think the more secular and liberal parts of the republican party
Democratic Unionist Party- I'm not sure they even have an economic policy but socialy think southern baptists with an irish accent
Ulster Unionist Party-See the tories
Sinn Féin err cross Alaskan Independence Party with Ralph Nader might get you somewhere.
SDLP-there is no american equiverlent
Respect – The Unity Coalition- err think about the most left wing party that you can then quadrupal it. Or think George Galloway there's no practical difference.

 

[ddt]

He doesn't have to be an MP, ddt: there have been PM's who were in the house of lords. I do not think anything has changed in legal terms to prevent that: but it would not be done now for the climate has altered

Usually, but not always.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_of_the_United_Kingdom

Mandelson is a current exception. I'm no expert on this, but the Commons seems to resent it if a senior minister ( secretary of state or Cabinet rank) is in the Lords, leaving a junior minister ( minister of state) to answer for his department in the Commons.

Technically, the PM could be in the Lords. But that isn't a real possibility nowadays.

Thanks for reminding ministers can also be from the House of Lords. I knew that.

But why is it unusual for a minister, especially the PM, to be from the Lords? Is a Lord/minister not allowed to defend his policies in the House of Commons? And vice versa, is minister from the Commons allowed to defend his policies in the House of Lords?

 

[Fiona]

But why is it unusual for a minister, especially the PM, to be from the Lords? Is a Lord/minister not allowed to defend his policies in the House of Commons? And vice versa, is minister from the Commons allowed to defend his policies in the House of Lords?

No. You have to be a member of the house to have speaking rights, and even to be allowed on to the floor. There have been instances when a lord has been allowed to address the commons: according to a bbc article I found the last time it happened was in 1814.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2008/nov/25/peter-mandelson-constitution

 

[geni]

Thanks for reminding ministers can also be from the House of Lords. I knew that.

But why is it unusual for a minister, especially the PM, to be from the Lords? Is a Lord/minister not allowed to defend his policies in the House of Commons? And vice versa, is minister from the Commons allowed to defend his policies in the House of Lords?

The two houses don't mix. I understand there was some unpleasantness in the mid 17 century.

Certianly a lord couldn't adress the commons without the commons agreeing to it and they would be unlikely to do so on a regular basis such as for half an hour every wednesday.