Elections in the UK

[Thanas]

BBC

Political leaders have headed off on the campaign trail after Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced the UK general election would be held on 6 May.

He said he would seek a "clear" mandate to continue the "road to recovery", as Labour bids for a fourth term.

David Cameron, whose Conservative Party has been ahead in the polls, said they offered "hope" and a "fresh start".

Nick Clegg, leader of the UK's third biggest party the Liberal Democrats, said only they offered "real change".

Shortly after announcing the date at Downing Street, Mr Brown boarded a train and headed to Kent to meet voters at a supermarket in Rochester, Mr Cameron headed to a hospital in Edgbaston, Birmingham while Mr Clegg met young people in Watford.

All three are leading their parties into a general election for the first time.

Announcing the widely-predicted 6 May election date after meeting the Queen, Mr Brown said he wanted a "clear and straightforward mandate" to continue the work of economic recovery.

He said he would be travelling the country telling voters: "Britain is on the road to recovery and nothing we do should put that recovery at risk."

He added: "We will not allow 13 years of investment and reform in our public services, to build up the future of these great services, to be put at risk."

(more at link)

Great. So as far as the European Union is concerned, the choice is between one unlucky guy who made bad decisions (Brown) and an EU hater (Cameron).

Oh yay.

[Zac Naloen]

Not a fan of the conservatives for historical and cultural reasons, Brown doesn't have a great record, The Lib Dems don't have a record.


This really isn't an easy election for me at all.

[Crazedwraith]

We've got Brown, who's not done that well (Then again I don't think the constant criticism from the media is entirely justified. For a time it just seemed they bashed anything he did, just because he did it.) We've Got Cameron; who's never impressed me as anything more that a walking collection of sound bites. (who can't remember his own policies) and then we've got Clegg, who's just never impressed me. Or really come to my attention as doing anything.

But it doesn't matter. I'm not in a marginal constituency anyway. So it's likely we'll elect who every the conservatives are replacing Nick Winterton with. (He's standing down as a result of MP's expenses iirc.)

[Teebs]

Great. So as far as the European Union is concerned, the choice is between one unlucky guy who made bad decisions (Brown) and an EU hater (Cameron).

Oh yay.

I'm not sure Cameron is a real EU hater so much as bound by most of his party being EU haters and needing to placate them while he's doing his "new fluffy progressive Conservatives schtick." There's not really any way to tell beyond gut feeling though and I suppose that doesn't make any real difference to the way it's likely to play out if we wins.

The interesting thing about this election, in my opinion, is that there's a good chance that it'll result in a hung parliament which will create all sorts of interesting dilemmas for the party leaders.

I don't like the Conservatives for all range of reasons and Labour are tired and crap soI'll be voting Lib Dem in my university's seat, which is currently Labour held but with the Lib Dems in one of the closest second places in the country.

[Dave]

BBC

Political leaders have headed off on the campaign trail after Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced the UK general election would be held on 6 May.

Wait... The PM of the UK announces when election day is? It's not set in stone, like in the US? So, the entire campaign lasts, what, a month, then elections?

I lived through, what, a year and a half "Election 2008" media heyday, and the Brits get it done in a month?



What the hell is this? Why the hell do I live in the crappiest first-world country on the planet?

[ray245]

BBC

Political leaders have headed off on the campaign trail after Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced the UK general election would be held on 6 May.

Wait... The PM of the UK announces when election day is? It's not set in stone, like in the US? So, the entire campaign lasts, what, a month, then elections?

I lived through, what, a year and a half "Election 2008" media heyday, and the Brits get it done in a month?



What the hell is this? Why the hell do I live in the crappiest first-world country on the planet?

Most parliamentary democracy are like this.

[Teebs]

Wait... The PM of the UK announces when election day is? It's not set in stone, like in the US? So, the entire campaign lasts, what, a month, then elections?

I lived through, what, a year and a half "Election 2008" media heyday, and the Brits get it done in a month?



What the hell is this? Why the hell do I live in the crappiest first-world country on the planet?

We also get to get our legislature and executive decided on in one go for a fraction of the price

If I remember correctly the spending limit for a general election is approximately £19m per party nationwide and the local elections happening on the same date give no extra spending. Last election both Labour and the Conservatives came fairly close to the limit while the Lib Dems spent a bit under £5m.

[Thanas]

Great. So as far as the European Union is concerned, the choice is between one unlucky guy who made bad decisions (Brown) and an EU hater (Cameron).

Oh yay.

I'm not sure Cameron is a real EU hater so much as bound by most of his party being EU haters and needing to placate them while he's doing his "new fluffy progressive Conservatives schtick." There's not really any way to tell beyond gut feeling though and I suppose that doesn't make any real difference to the way it's likely to play out if we wins.

I accept the correction and I share your opinion about how it is going to turn out. Because it is quite easy for any political leader to just sacrifice some foreign policy initiative for the sake of domestic leverage.

Quite frankly, IMO there is no reason to trust Cameron to be able to overcome several decade's worth of historical anti-EU feeling. That will only happen if he has a lot of domestic leverage to start with and I do not see that happening.

[Teebs]

I accept the correction and I share your opinion about how it is going to turn out. Because it is quite easy for any political leader to just sacrifice some foreign policy initiative for the sake of domestic leverage.

Quite frankly, IMO there is no reason to trust Cameron to be able to overcome several decade's worth of historical anti-EU feeling. That will only happen if he has a lot of domestic leverage to start with and I do not see that happening.

I don't think there's much chance at all of him trying to overcome his party's views. While I don't think he's a hater, I'd be amazed if he's actually privatley pro-EU. The best that can be hoped for I think is for his efforts to be half-hearted which seems to be a relatively frequent complaint from the more stridently anti-EU members of his party at present (although I wouldn't want to read too much into that, frankly those people are so anti-EU that they give political reality very little consideration).

[Thanas]

^Yeah, but this kind of half-assed attempts is probably just as damaging as trying to wreck the thing in the first place. Because when it comes to the EU and getting things done, in those areas where you still need unanimous consent Britain can still blockade (and will likely to do so).

However, if Cameron tries to play the indifferent card, Great Britain will lose a fair bit of influence simply to not being there. This is especially problematic for the UK considering that in a lot of areas, you only need a majority and not unanimous consent to get things done.

[Teebs]

^Yeah, but this kind of half-assed attempts is probably just as damaging as trying to wreck the thing in the first place. Because when it comes to the EU and getting things done, in those areas where you still need unanimous consent Britain can still blockade (and will likely to do so).

However, if Cameron tries to play the indifferent card, Great Britain will lose a fair bit of influence simply to not being there. This is especially problematic for the UK considering that in a lot of areas, you only need a majority and not unanimous consent to get things done.

I agree entirely that a Conservative government would be bad for the EU and terrible for the UK's position within it.

An interesting bit of speculation, from the perspective of the EU, might be what would happen if there's a hung parliament and we end up with a coalition government involving the Liberal Democrats. I don't think that a formal coalition is a very likely outcome, even with a hung parliament, but if there was one then it could result in quite a big change in the UK's EU policy. The Lib Dems are by far the most pro-EU party of any significance in the UK and if the coalition followed the pattern the Germans seem to use (which IIRC was what was suggested pre-1997 when Labour were rather less sure of winning) then Nick Clegg would become the foreign secretary. The other big coalition possibility would be Vincent Cable becoming Chancellor which might well be more likely this time round due to his high profile and popularity. It might depend on which of the big two formed the coalition government. The Conservatives would be unlikely to be able to reconcile their differences on the EU with the Lib Dems and so would probably want to keep the Foreign Office out of their hands meaning they'd basically have to give them the Chancellor's job instead (there are rumours that Cameron might be keen to drop Osborne form the position anyway). On the other hand, Brown is apparently very keen on keeping a firm grip on the Treasury, it being his old stomping ground and all, so he might well rather have the Lib Dems doing foreign stuff.

[Mr. Tickle]

Well, no surprises on the date really.

Thank god it's only a month, although saying that I'm already grinding my teeth over the the chronic overuse of the "change" theme from the tories. Yes yes your message is about change, we get the FRICKING idea you don't need to jam it 8 times into every speech.

I know it worked for Obama but then he was the first black president etc etc, a upper class private school educated silver spoon in the mouth old boy using the same tactic doesn't quite ring true for me somehow.

Next we'll have to see how the media starts picking up over the next few weeks, any strong narrative they push does tend to move the opinion polls in certain directions and I beleive most (the Murdoch empire anyway) are backing the tories, although saying that modern newspapers don't really have the same sway in years gone by.

Ah well, I'm a civil servant and I get the feeling we are in for a massive gutting by whichever party wins, not "front line" enough. Ho hum.

[Minischoles]

The funny thing is, Cameron has virtually identical policies to Brown - he can harp on about change constantly, but for the most part in all major areas, policies are either a) exactly the same or b) there's only a slight difference.

I really hope it is a hung parliament. It probably gives the best options at this point, since the Lib Dems are a good choice at this election, but on their own they'll never win, they don't stand a chance of getting a majority. However, Brown will do practically anything to stay in power, and i'd bet on him forming a coalition with them, and Clegg could demand a lot in that event - including a far more pro EU stance.

The Tories are far too anti-EU - yes there's a small chance it's just Cameron placating his party, but there are too many people in the Tory party who are anti-EU for him to get past that even if he personally is for it. A coalition with the Lib Dems would likely fall apart over that point.

BBC

Political leaders have headed off on the campaign trail after Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced the UK general election would be held on 6 May.

Wait... The PM of the UK announces when election day is? It's not set in stone, like in the US? So, the entire campaign lasts, what, a month, then elections?

I lived through, what, a year and a half "Election 2008" media heyday, and the Brits get it done in a month?



What the hell is this? Why the hell do I live in the crappiest first-world country on the planet?

Yup, there is a set limit on how long he can remain in power - but within those (I think) 5 years the PM can call an election whenever he likes really, there was speculation last year that he would call it early when he was riding really high in the polls.

[Dartzap]

BBC

Political leaders have headed off on the campaign trail after Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced the UK general election would be held on 6 May.

Wait... The PM of the UK announces when election day is? It's not set in stone, like in the US? So, the entire campaign lasts, what, a month, then elections?

I lived through, what, a year and a half "Election 2008" media heyday, and the Brits get it done in a month?



What the hell is this? Why the hell do I live in the crappiest first-world country on the planet?

Most cabinet positions are usally in place quickly as well, what with the whole 'Shadow Government' You get the odd bit of a reshuffling so that someone with a half a clue is in place instead of the poster boy, but its usally sorted within a week.

We get TV debates this year! Pity the Beeb didnt let Paxman adjudicate their one. I suppose Dimbleby will do, though! (Who are ITV/SKY going to have then? Apart from, uh.. Dimbleby's brother, I cant think of anyone. Sky has...Adam whatshisface? Feh) Apperently there was a 79(?) point agreement everyone had to sign up to before being allowed to air one of the debates. Hilarious.

[Zac Naloen]

Re: Hung Parliaments.

There is a lot of scaremongering from Conservative news outlets about how a Hung parliament will make the UK look to Europe, and how it will affect the strength of the pound. Obviously trying to get the Conservative vote out but anyone with a brain should know it's a bit silly, seeing as Germany and Canada get by just fine with split governments.

[Lord Pounder]

^Yeah, but this kind of half-assed attempts is probably just as damaging as trying to wreck the thing in the first place. Because when it comes to the EU and getting things done, in those areas where you still need unanimous consent Britain can still blockade (and will likely to do so).

However, if Cameron tries to play the indifferent card, Great Britain will lose a fair bit of influence simply to not being there. This is especially problematic for the UK considering that in a lot of areas, you only need a majority and not unanimous consent to get things done.

I agree entirely that a Conservative government would be bad for the EU and terrible for the UK's position within it.

An interesting bit of speculation, from the perspective of the EU, might be what would happen if there's a hung parliament and we end up with a coalition government involving the Liberal Democrats. I don't think that a formal coalition is a very likely outcome, even with a hung parliament, but if there was one then it could result in quite a big change in the UK's EU policy. The Lib Dems are by far the most pro-EU party of any significance in the UK and if the coalition followed the pattern the Germans seem to use (which IIRC was what was suggested pre-1997 when Labour were rather less sure of winning) then Nick Clegg would become the foreign secretary. The other big coalition possibility would be Vincent Cable becoming Chancellor which might well be more likely this time round due to his high profile and popularity. It might depend on which of the big two formed the coalition government. The Conservatives would be unlikely to be able to reconcile their differences on the EU with the Lib Dems and so would probably want to keep the Foreign Office out of their hands meaning they'd basically have to give them the Chancellor's job instead (there are rumours that Cameron might be keen to drop Osborne form the position anyway). On the other hand, Brown is apparently very keen on keeping a firm grip on the Treasury, it being his old stomping ground and all, so he might well rather have the Lib Dems doing foreign stuff.

I remembered hearing that the Lib Dems would not joing a coalition with Labour, instead holding Gordon Brown to certain demands regarding Europe etc, but my google fu is letting me down. If it wasn't a news source I know I heard it from a senior Lib Dem, possibly Alistair Carmichael when he was over in Northern Ireland last.

I'm actually quite excited about this election, as a former member of the Lib Dems sister party in Northern Ireland I genuinely feel that for the first time a lot of power is lying in the hands of the Lib Dems, this is Clegg's time to shine. All he needs to do is make a point that Labour fucked up royaly, the Tories did before them and make the people aware that there is a genuine alternative. Throw in a few comments about the fact that unlike America this isn't a two horse race and I reckon they will see an upturn in support.

[Teebs]

Re: Hung Parliaments.

There is a lot of scaremongering from Conservative news outlets about how a Hung parliament will make the UK look to Europe, and how it will affect the strength of the pound. Obviously trying to get the Conservative vote out but anyone with a brain should know it's a bit silly, seeing as Germany and Canada get by just fine with split governments.

I have trouble thinking of any country in Europe that regularly has single-party majority governments. The interesting thing is, in my opinion, why some regularly go for minority governments (e.g. Sweden) while others choose coalitions (e.g. Germany).

[Thanas]

Re: Hung Parliaments.

There is a lot of scaremongering from Conservative news outlets about how a Hung parliament will make the UK look to Europe, and how it will affect the strength of the pound. Obviously trying to get the Conservative vote out but anyone with a brain should know it's a bit silly, seeing as Germany and Canada get by just fine with split governments.

I have trouble thinking of any country in Europe that regularly has single-party majority governments. The interesting thing is, in my opinion, why some regularly go for minority governments (e.g. Sweden) while others choose coalitions (e.g. Germany).

France and Spain come to mind.

[Teebs]

France and Spain come to mind.

Conceded on Spain, forgot about them, France I disagree. IIRC its main parties traditionally formed two blocs each of two parties which would then form majorities in the National Assembly. Quadrille Bipolaire or something similar.

...And I'm glad I checked my figures before posting that, it seems France has had single party majorities at the last two elections because of the collapse of the UDF. I'm not sure that the last two elections having single party majorities on the right counts as 'regularly', especially as the left remains split but that's a bit nitpicky on my part so a qualified concession on France.

[Mr. Tickle]

Don't the majority of european countries use a different electoral system to ours? I don't have the know-how to back this up but I beleive our system favours a larger majority "control" of the body politic which does not match voting numbers throughout the country.

I think there's changes afoot with our approach, at least Labour/Lib Dems have tried to put forward changes on this. Not sure what the tory opinion on these were.

[Teebs]

Don't the majority of european countries use a different electoral system to ours? I don't have the know-how to back this up but I beleive our system favours a larger majority "control" of the body politic which does not match voting numbers throughout the country.

Yup, basically the UK, US and Canada use first past the post which involves constituencies electing single representatives by simply counting who gets the most votes. Within the structures of the UK and US party systems this tends to produce single party majorities although not always (see a brief period in the 1970s in the UK and possibly shortly after this election). In Canada it does not do so due to a slightly more diverse party system.

Australia uses alternative vote where each constituency gets one representative and you then rank the candidates in order of preference and France uses a two round system where each constituency gets one representative and then only parties getting over a certain percentage go through to the next round in each constituency which is what decides the actual election. These have the advantage of ensuring the winner gets a larger share of the vote and tend to, in my opinion, support single party majorities, but can distort the national vote even more.

Apart from those countries pretty much everywhere in Europe and the English speaking world uses some variety of proportional system.

I think there's changes afoot with our approach, at least Labour/Lib Dems have tried to put forward changes on this. Not sure what the tory opinion on these were.

Tories are dead against it - why would the turkeys vote for Christmas? They benefit from the current system which benefits them and Labour, they also like tradition and our electoral system is an old tradition.

Labour are basically playing for electoral advantage and trying to throw a bone to the Lib Dems. It's pretty close to what they did before 1997 when it wasn't clear just how big they were going to win. To be fair to them, I think that in principle they would generally support electoral reform, but would be pretty unlikely to actually carry it through because it would hurt the two party dominance of government - see turkeys voting for Christmas. In this case their proposal was for alternative vote rather than for a proportional electoral system. This would have the benefit of making sure that every MP got 50% of votes because of the preference system but could well end up less proportional in its actual results than the current one. I think they reckon more people who vote for other parties hate the Tories than hate them in which case they'd benefit from the switch. They'd certainly have been right at the last three elections, but I think that they're miscalculating badly if they're basing policy on that this time round.

The Lib Dems want a proportional system on both principled and self-interested grounds. They've backed Labour on this issue despite it not being a proportional system that's on the table. I suspect that's because they'd probably benefit most out of the three big parties from a switch to alternative vote simply by being the second choice of most Labour and Conservative voters. Myself, I didn't like that decision because I think that we'll only get one chance at electoral reform in any reasonable length of time and I don't want to switch to a system that's no more proportional.

[Phantasee]

Don't the majority of european countries use a different electoral system to ours? I don't have the know-how to back this up but I beleive our system favours a larger majority "control" of the body politic which does not match voting numbers throughout the country.

Yup, basically the UK, US and Canada use first past the post which involves constituencies electing single representatives by simply counting who gets the most votes. Within the structures of the UK and US party systems this tends to produce single party majorities although not always (see a brief period in the 1970s in the UK and possibly shortly after this election). In Canada it does not do so due to a slightly more diverse party system.

Canada usually has stronger single party majorities, it's just that our left is divided between the NDP and the Liberals, and the right is pretty much just the Conservatives. So since the Liberals are a little weak at the moment, the Conservatives get enough seats to form government, but they're not popular enough to become the majority.

As soon as the Liberals get their shit back together they'll be in power again, with a strong majority.

The Bloc Quebecois doesn't count.

[Teebs]

Canada usually has stronger single party majorities, it's just that our left is divided between the NDP and the Liberals, and the right is pretty much just the Conservatives. So since the Liberals are a little weak at the moment, the Conservatives get enough seats to form government, but they're not popular enough to become the majority.

As soon as the Liberals get their shit back together they'll be in power again, with a strong majority.

The Bloc Quebecois doesn't count.

The Bloc Quebecois emphatically does count when it comes to single-party majorities. On their impact on politics in general I'm happy to defer to people who know more about Canadian politics. As I see it though, the NDP and BQ can currently deny a little over 20% of seats to the two main parties. Unless they get much weaker either main party would have to have a landslide to get an overall majority.

[Phantasee]

The Bloc denies those seats to every party equally. The rest of the seats are between the Conservatives and the Liberals, with some NDP seats here and there. However, if the Liberals have a chance, most NDP voters will switch (back?) to the Liberals, just to get rid of the Conservatives and Harper. From my point of view, the only reason NDP is as strong as it is, and the only reason the Conservatives are in power, is due to lingering disgust with the Liberals, and the incompetency of the Liberals in getting over their scandals and leadership changes.

[Teebs]

The Bloc denies those seats to every party equally. The rest of the seats are between the Conservatives and the Liberals, with some NDP seats here and there.

It still makes it more difficult for either party to win a majority of the seats.

However, if the Liberals have a chance, most NDP voters will switch (back?) to the Liberals, just to get rid of the Conservatives and Harper. From my point of view, the only reason NDP is as strong as it is, and the only reason the Conservatives are in power, is due to lingering disgust with the Liberals, and the incompetency of the Liberals in getting over their scandals and leadership changes.

No idea about this so conceded.