The UK General Election

[Severian]

I thought it might be nice to have a thread about the UK General Election, which will be held on the 6th of May. It seems that this election could bring in some major changes since everyone is so disillusioned with the main parties.

 

Like in the US, UK politics has been stuck in basically a two party system for decades. We have the Labour Party and the Conservatives (sometimes called the Tories) which are roughly comparable to the Democrats and Republicans in the US (though both to the left of their US counterparts). Usually one of these is in power, with the other forming the opposition and only a few seats going to other parties.

 

However, following a live election debate between the three biggest parties, the Liberal Democrats (the third biggest party) have seen a huge surge in their support. The Lib dems traditionally lie between the conservatives and labour on the political spectrum, but in recent years, since labour moved to the right, they are now the furthest left party.

 

One of the weird things about the UK political system is that the Lib Dems could get 30% of the vote but only 15% of the seats, since their votes are spread fairly uniformly across the different seats. Labour, on the other hand could win almost half the seats with only 30% of the vote since they either have strong support in their seats or none at all. Unsurprisingly, one of the Lib Dems' policies is to reform the voting system to a form of proportional representation.

 

A good place to start for basic info is the BBC's election website.

 

I would probably have voted Lib Dem before the recent surge in their support, though that mainly comes from a hatred of the other parties rather than a liking of the Lib Dems.

 

Does anyone have any opinions on the election?

[Dak]

I would probably have voted Lib Dem before the recent surge in their support, though that mainly comes from a hatred of the other parties rather than a liking of the Lib Dems.

 

Me too, tho it's mainly because the system is blatantly designed to force us to only ever choose Labour or Conservative, legitimizing them and our political system; so, British people being British, millions of us diligently vote Lib-Dem every election in a kind of 'up yours' to The System (tho never enough of us; this might be the first chance to actually change that).

 

Why does their recent surge in popularity change things? Are you not going to vote for them now?

[jackson33]

Here might be another place to get a good understanding. I've followed (off-on) UK politics since the days of Ms. Thatcher and am an admirer or Tony Blair, whom I can assume you are not.

 

 

Conservative leader David Cameron has launched his party's election manifesto, which he says is a "plan to change Britain for the better".

He said the "optimistic" plan would bring a "new kind of government" with less state and more "people power".

 

Plaid Cymru launched their manifesto and promised to fight for more resources for the Welsh Assembly

 

The UK Independence Party also launched their manifesto - pledging UK withdrawal from the European Union The Scottish Socialist Party unveiled their manifesto, offering an alternative to the "doom and gloom of mainstream parties"

 

Nick Clegg says the Lib Dems would crack down on "obscene" bankers' bonuses and allow "no reward for failure"

 

Labour say Tory plans to cut "wasteful" government spending by £12bn this year to fund the policy are based on "fantasy" calculations and are reckless. [/Quote]

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/election_2010/8616777.stm

 

Yes, Mr. Clegg seemed to be declared the winner of the first ever Debate and yes a serge in some polls are evident, but would suggest highly over rated, I doubt anywhere near 30% of the vote will be reality.

 

I do have a question for you, not quite understanding what happened recently in Canada, also a parliamentary style government. Under what scenario, would a coalition, of the parties be required to pick a PM? Could it be as simple as anything less than holding 50% of seats and between Labor and Conservatives, which do you think would get the Lib-Democrat support?

 

Since you would have lodged a protest vote for Lib/Dem, am I correct that your 1st choice would be Labor, an if so what upsets you about the 'Manifesto', called platform in the US?

[bascule]

This was really cool to see. In America this is practically an impossibility, in my mind. However it seems elsewhere in the world the potential does actually exist for third parties to emerge and rise to power.

[Mr Skeptic]

Well New Scientist has been rallying folks to make science a significant part in the coming election. I do hope that turns out well.

 

As for the voting system, I would like that reformed here in the US as well.

[insane_alien]

my voting tends to follow a 'who's got the least retarded policies method'

 

on a 1/10 scale no party scores above a 4.

 

there's no party i'd actually want to vote for but there are a number of parties that i want to keep out of power. unfortunately one of those parties is the SNP who are currently Scotland right now. not happy about that one.

[Dak]

This was really cool to see. In America this is practically an impossibility, in my mind. However it seems elsewhere in the world the potential does actually exist for third parties to emerge and rise to power.

 

Seriously, it's because we're british. The way the system works is that it says to you 'vote for anyone other than these two parties, we'll throw your vote away'. Makes it seem rational to not vote for anyone other than labour/conservative (republican/democrat, whatever): you could throw your vote away, or you could at least choose the lesser of two evils. However, if enough people ignore the threat and vote for a third party, they'll get in anyway.

 

'but not everyone does ignore the threat so it doesn't work, and the third party still won't get in'

 

(foreigners): 'oh yeah. guess i'll stop throwing my vote away' --> 2 party state

 

(hyper-rationality, aka Being British): 'true, but that's why the system works like it does, so it's your duty to disregard that otherwize perfectly valid argument and vote Lib-Dem anyway' --> 2.5 party state, looking like the third party might actually win this time.

 

I do have a question for you, not quite understanding what happened recently in Canada, also a parliamentary style government. Under what scenario, would a coalition, of the parties be required to pick a PM? Could it be as simple as anything less than holding 50% of seats and between Labor and Conservatives, which do you think would get the Lib-Democrat support?

 

It's not neccesarily who'd get the Lib-Dem support, there could be a Labour-Conservative co-alition or a hung parliament

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8427233.stm

 

Hopefully tho, Lib-Dem will co-align with whoever gives them some electoral reforms, and have a better chance of winning next election as a result of having done well this time.

 

Since you would have lodged a protest vote for Lib/Dem, am I correct that your 1st choice would be Labor, an if so what upsets you about the 'Manifesto', called platform in the US?

 

No, I'd certainly not vote Labour. If we had a non-screwy electoral system, there'd be many more parties, and I'd vote for whichever I felt was best (severely unlikely to be Labour or Conservative). If for some reason I couldn't vote Lib-Dem, I'd spoil my ballot in protest.

 

Note that afaict Severian, being Scottish, can't do that, as I think they use hole-punch machines to vote up there, meaning you can't spoil your ballots (or, spoiled ballots get put down to something like 'hanging chads' or another mechanical error; basically, they're logged as something other than a protest ballot, in which case i'd simply not vote).

[Phi for All]

If you guys could elect a third party, it would really help us throw a shock into the Dem/Rep system we have. Is there anything we can do to help?

 

Do you have the same problem with special interest lobbies that we have? Voters here gripe about the politicians listening to them, but the voters listen to all the special interest spin commercials at election time too.

[jryan]

I think the multi-party system (more than two) is very much over-rated in it's importance.

 

As it is the U.S. has a multi-party system with the Democrats and Republicans really representing what would be considered a coalition in other countries.

 

In coalition governments you still have those who feel disenfranchised by the coalition because their party has thrown in with a coalition and watered down their message... leading to splits of the parties in question, and another party... with more aspirations... and disenfranchised adherents and the need for more parties.

 

The "three or more" party system just seems to be a semantic waste of a wish.

 

Do as I do: let them keep the system as it is and register as an Independent... you are now a party of 1.

[John Cuthber]

For those with an even worse grasp of history than mine; we already did vote in the third party. They were called labour.

Incidentally here are a couple of questions I keep wondering about.

Re. "New labour"

When were they last really "new" and were they ever really Labour?

And, related to the second bit of that.

Apart from the minimum wage (which I accept is important) and the abolition of VAT on tampons and sanitary towels (VAT is roughly the equivalent of sales tax for our friends across the pond),

what left wing policies have the current "New Labour" government actually enacted?

 

I did think that part-nationalising a couple of dodgy banks might count, but I figure if we really had a left wing government then we would have controlled them better in the first place. It's hard to call a policy Left wing if it is also followed by the US govt.

 

I'm voting for the Lib Dems because, as the Tories keep saying, "It's time for a change".

[Phi for All]

Do as I do: let them keep the system as it is and register as an Independent... you are now a party of 1.

Then I don't get to vote in the primaries, and I like all the voting I can get.

 

I agree that more than two parties is a waste if the main two are a shoe-in anyway. I just don't like having a fence down the middle when most people on either side have quite a bit in common, often more than their party's platforms will allow.

 

I wouldn't mind an equal third party. Do the Lib-Dems represent a large group in the UK, or is it just a change from the status quo? I'd love to see a third party in the US that was liberal socially and conservative fiscally, with an eye towards efficiency in all levels of government policy.

[jryan]

Rules regarding who can vote in primaries is really a state-by-state thing. Many states allow anyone to vote in any primaries. If you remember, there was some talk in the last Presidential election about people trying to prop up the weakest candidates from the opposing side by voting them up in the primaries.

 

Of course, given the two options we wound up with in 2008 I can see a clear argument for disallowing open primary voting based on the resulting weakness of the candidates.

[Dak]

If you guys could elect a third party, it would really help us throw a shock into the Dem/Rep system we have. Is there anything we can do to help?

 

iirc, lots of us brits asked you not to elect that 'retard cowboy' again... I guess you could just ask us to vote Lib-Dem? Go make some uTube videos, try to get your famous people to ask us on the telly, try to make our news? write your MP if he's independant, ask him to ask us, or just ask us on webforums? I dunno?

 

When were they last really "new" and were they ever really Labour?

 

Didn't they (old Labour) create the NHS, welfare, and other lefty stuff designed to be for the working-class (i.e., the labourers)? The thing that's new about new labour is that they don't care about commoners anymore?

[Phi for All]

iirc, lots of us brits asked you not to elect that 'retard cowboy' again...

Well, we didn't, either time. Not if you really look at the ballot shenanigans in Florida and Ohio. Those were two of the closest and most contested elections we've ever had.

 

I guess you could just ask us to vote Lib-Dem?

Will you vote Lib-Dem, please?

 

Go make some uTube videos, try to get your famous people to ask us on the telly, try to make our news?

I'm going to overdub

and whenever anyone says "vote", I'm going to add, "Lib-Dem" after it. I'll definitely make your news.

[Severian]

Why does their recent surge in popularity change things? Are you not going to vote for them now?

 

If I voted for them and they actually did get in, then I would feel a little bit responsible for inflicting their crap policies on everyone. Having said that, I will probably still vote Lib Dem since:

 

1. I still don't think they will get in.

2. Their policies may be crap, but they are probably less crap than labour or the tories.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Do the Lib-Dems represent a large group in the UK, or is it just a change from the status quo?

 

At the moment, they are polling 30% of the vote, so I think they have a large base of support.

[John Cuthber]

Interesting point. If I didn't bother to vote and some jackass got in I would feel guilty. At least if I vote I will be able to say one of 2 things.

That's the jackass I chose or

At least I tried to stop that jackass getting in.

Oddly this seems to work no matter who wins.

 

Incidentally, I found this amusing

There's an old Irish word meaning "thief"

Quite charmingly handy and brief.

With no word of a lie,

it's spelt T O R Y

Now doesn't that beggar belief?

 

 

BTW, 30 % of the vote is about as good as any of the parties have at the moment.

Depending on which poll you look at it's almost certainly more support than the current Govt's party.

It's perfectly possible that they are in the lead

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7102006.ece

[Severian]

For those of you wondering what the Lib Dems stand for, you may find this interview useful.

 

Actually, after listening to it just now, I am slightly reassured about voting for them. I do agree with them that giving all our children the best education and best chances possible from an early age, is the best way to improve our society.

 

I am curious to hear that the Americans think of Nick Clegg. The interview isn't very slick or politically skilled, but he comes over as honest and decent, which is a refreshing change I think.

[jackson33]

Before the 2000 election, there was the 1876 election between Rutherford B. Hayes and Samuel Tilden, governors of Ohio and New York, respectively. Although both parties accused each other of corruption during the campaign, it was after the votes had been cast that the shenanigans really started.

 

In his book “Rutherford B. Hayes: Warrior and President,” Ari Hoogenboom writes that Hayes went to bed Election Night believing he had lost. When the votes had been counted, Tilden had won the popular vote and had a 184-165 lead in the electoral vote. However, 20 electoral votes in South Carolina, Oregon, Florida and Louisiana were contested; Hayes’ supporters sent messages to Republican leaders in the southern states saying, “With your state sure for Hayes, he is elected. Hold your state.”....

 

“In Florida, it was impossible to determine who would have won a fair election. Repeaters, stuffed ballot boxes, and Democratic ballots printed with the Republican symbol to trick illiterate voters had all been used. In addition, returns from remote areas had been delayed, to be altered as needed,” wrote Hoogenboom. [/Quote]

 

http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/politics/2008/November/Controversial-Presidential-Elections-in-American-History.html

 

 

Well, we didn't, either time. Not if you really look at the ballot shenanigans in Florida and Ohio. Those were two of the closest and most contested elections we've ever had. [/Quote]

 

Phil; Anything sound familiar; Most every election in the History of the US or the process to become a Candidate, has had controversy. Probably the worst, especially in my opinion, was the 1800 Election (outlined in same link), leading to a one party control of the Executive Branch, 12 A and finally to Presidential Candidates choosing their own VP, which is based on pure traditional, one person election.

 

 

 

It's not neccesarily who'd get the Lib-Dem support, there could be a Labour-Conservative co-alition or a hung parliament [/Quote]

 

Severian/Dak; The probability was and really remains, the Conservative Party will end up with either a plurality or certainly the most seats, the Leader of THAT party then being David Cameron and likely PM, predicted by this very long distance and novice observer, but there really could be a "hung parliament", the coalition then being the Lib-Dems and Labor and your 'Head of State', the Queen, has already said, she will NOT settle the issue.

 

1- Is it Cameron, himself you both oppose, the party platform or the policy of the previous PM, you seem to be opposed to?

 

2- At this time in your history and the volatile state of both the UK and apparently the European Union itself, would either a hung parliament of disputed/indecisive one, be of benefit?

 

3- I do understanding setting out an election, but I really don't understand voting for a second or third choice, especially as explained...

[Pangloss]

For those of you wondering what the Lib Dems stand for, you may find this interview useful.

 

Actually, after listening to it just now, I am slightly reassured about voting for them. I do agree with them that giving all our children the best education and best chances possible from an early age, is the best way to improve our society.

 

I am curious to hear that the Americans think of Nick Clegg. The interview isn't very slick or politically skilled, but he comes over as honest and decent, which is a refreshing change I think.

 

I'd vote for him just for being intelligent enough to use the word "piste" in a sentence that can't be construed by his opponents to mean that he's unreasonably angry.

 

But seriously, yeah, he seems like a pretty reasonable guy. From my extremely limited perspective, anyway.

[DrP]

There was a live tv debate the other evening between the three leaders. Brown (labour) kept on spurting false stats and attacked Cameron (Conservative) for his proposed cuts to health and education. Cameron defended the policies by explaining the cuts were going to be to the extreame wastage of money that goes on unelected expensive quangos and unnescessary midle management that the current goverment have put in place (the fact Labour threw billions at the NHS is admirable - the way it was wasted was shameful). Clegg (Liberal) came out well because all he did in my opinion was slag off the other two saying that they have had their chance over the years and blown it. Well, I agree wrt the Labour party but the Conservatives have a proven track record for getting the country out of trouble after the Labour government has screwed it up time and time again. That's what we need now.

 

It is easy fot the Libs to look good at the moment - doesn't mean I agree with their policies though - I'd like to keep the pound and be more tentative about handing the proposed powers over to European union. I like the Consevatives plan to cut out the extreame wastes of money that the current government have introduced in the way of unnescessary burocracy - I'll vote for the Conservatives for sure.

[Severian]

I'll vote for the Conservatives for sure.

 

If the conservatives get in, they plan on seriously cutting funding for fundamental science research. So British science would be screwed.

[jackson33]

That's exactly what the Republicans were accused of planning in our 2008 elections, cutting NASA and Science projects, then exactly what has happened with the Democratic Majority in Congress. It's was not or is now, exactly unpredictable, since growth in both the UK and US economies are going to be slow, additional revenues limited, borrowing power exhausted and social programs will be THE priority. I do know enough of your taxing process to understand, your not going to be able to handle much more, yet maintain economically viability.

 

Anyway this AP Article hit this morning, may be of interest for anyone following your elections;

 

 

Britain's perennial No. 3 party, the Liberal Democrats, represents the obvious first choice for anyone seeking a working alliance and a stable voting majority. But matters could get complicated if a party finds itself close to a majority on its own - causing it to seek a partnership with a small relatively innocuous grouping rather than a party with a strong national presence like the "Lib Dems." [/Quote]

 

http://my.att.net/s/editorial.dll?pnum=1&bfromind=7406&eeid=7255960&_sitecat=1505&dcatid=0&eetype=article&render=y&ac=3&ck=&ch=ne&rg=blsadstrgt&_lid=332&_lnm=tg+ne+topnews&ck=

[DrP]

If the conservatives get in, they plan on seriously cutting funding for fundamental science research. So British science would be screwed.

 

Doesn't the funding for research come mainly from industry in most cases? Or at least shouldn't it? At least they'll cut the red tape and wastage - if we haven't got any money then we can't spend it. When they get get the coffersback up I assume they would re invenst funds in the future.

 

The future is what is important, if they current govenment continue wasting money without intellegent planning and spending then there wont be any money left for any funding for anything.

[John Cuthber]

What many people seem not to have noticed is that we have had a Conservative government for some time now (since 1979).

Since 1997 the Conservative government has been called "New Labour".

 

The future is very important; among other things it includes education - which needs to be paid for centrally; rich people don't have a monopoly on bright kids.

For me there are a couple of other things that might be important in the future- health care and pension provisions.

The last 20 or 30 years have seen the government row back from the provision of social health care, but they have maintained the idea of giving money to their (rich) friends.

More money is now spent on management consultants than clinical consultants.

Frankly I don't trust the Conservatives to ensure that the pension providers actually look to the future. They permitted, for many years, investment funds to pay out large bonuses in the good times without making any provision for the bad times. Ask anyone with an endowment mortgage.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

That's exactly what the Republicans were accused of planning in our 2008 elections, cutting NASA and Science projects, then exactly what has happened with the Democratic Majority in Congress.

The NASA budget has been increased, not cut, and there's an increase in science spending on the new budget.

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20527462.700-obama-abandons-moon-shot-but-invests-in-science.html