I just heard on NPR’s Morning Edition that British P.M. Tony Blair has called a new general election for May 5, 2005. I guess the first issue to debate here is: Is there any chance this election will result in a change in government? All previous threads on a hypothetical next election seemed to have a general consensus of “no.” Blair is widely unpopular, but he has no serious challengers for Labour’s leadership at this time, and neither the Conservatives nor the Liberal Democrats have enough popular support right now to have a snowball’s chance of winning a majority, separately or together. Is anything wrong with this picture?
Gordon Brown wants the leadership but will hang on in there till Blair steps aside(he may help him do it though). Blair has said he will not stand for another term so will have to go within 2 years of this election to give the new leader a chance to get going.
Labour will win this election but with a lowered majority which could make things very interesting as they’ve been close to losing votes in the house recently.
The Tories have truly fucked up with some policy decisions and their recent choice of leaders. They really should be making great capital out of things like the war and Europe but they just keep shooting themselves in the foot.
The Lib Dems will make some gains due to protest votes but are starting from such a low position due to the first past the post election system that they won’t challenge for the leadership.
the MORI polls mentioned on the news this morning showed the Tories about 3 points behind Labour. It will be interesting to see if the story about the election rigging in Birmingham will have any effect on this.
Let me throw in a couple IMHO questions here for persons who live in parliamentary democracies.
First, are you OK with the whole “Prime Minister decides when elections are” thing? I know he’s got a maximum term after which he must call them, but giving that flexibility to the party in power seems odd to me and perhaps to others in places with rigid election schedules. Giving a guy the power to say “well, let’s wait until the economy turns” or “let the Iraq war controversy die down first” seems to be a pretty big incumbent advantage, but on the other hand it doesn’t seem to have prevented changing the party in power.
Second, only a month of campaigning? I don’t know anyone in the US who isn’t a campaign consultant who doesn’t think our campaigns are too long, but it seems a month is awful short on the other hand. What are your thoughts on that?
A good overview by the political editor of BBC news of the current situation can be found here
Is there a possibility that Labour will lose? Not really - barring something trully catastrophic, and utterly unforseen (frankly he’d have to be caught in bed with a 10 year old).
However, where it gets interesting is in the size of the victory. If he has a smallish majority (anything under about 35) he’s in big trouble as the MPs he will have lost are those that are most loyal to him and the one’s he’s left with will be the ones that really don’t like him. It will be a story of rebellion after rebellion. It will be worse than the fag-end of the major government.
Between 35-50 he’ll quit in short order and leave gordon Brown (texture like sun) to get on with it. Much over 70 and he’ll shunt Gordon Brown (through my mind he runs) off to the FO and stay on.
There is also no real possibility of a lib/con coalition. If it’s tight it’ll be a Lib/Lab coalition (we’ve been here before).
On the choosing of the date - It’s a sauce for goose and gander. Whoever is disadvantaged this time will probably be the beneficiary next time they’re in power. Blair promised to introduce fixed term parliaments in his '97 manifesto but soon changed his mind once he’d won.
And believe me a month is PLENTY long enough. The actual campaign really started in the New Year - most of us are fairly sick of it.
Owl - who will be stuffing envelopes with blue leaflets, but draws the line at talking to the general public.
p.s The spread betting firms are offering a labour majority spread of 52-56. I’m going to sell that market (but not for a big stake).
[hijack]
anyone know how I go about registering for a postal vote? i’ll be on my honeymoon on the day of the General election.
[/hijack]
cheers Bonzo
The thing is, voters are savvy to this kind of manipulation. Snap elections can often backfire if voters feel that the election call was “overly timed”. An election is generally called sometime in the 4th year of the term and the actual date doesn’t really have that much of an effect.
Only a month of official campaigning. Believe me, the parties know generally when an election is upcoming.
Is there any possibility the LibDems will supplant the Tories as the #2 party?
Voters are generally aware of all of the main issues and the major parties usually go into informal election campaign mode at least 6 months before the election is called. A one month official election campaign is more than adequate. Last year’s Australian federal election was announced on 29 August, with polling on 9 October, making an official campaign period of just on 6 weeks. I think nearly every voter in Australia thought that was too long.
Not in 2005. The latest polls show a shoring up of Tory support, althought the Lib Dems typically receive a boost shortly before the election (possibly due to disaffected protest voters registering their intent to vote). They still only have about 20% support.
Perhaps the most telling of the recent polls is the Mori results, which only include voters who have announced a definite intention to cast a ballot. This voting group (i.e. mainly old people) traditionally favours the Tories, so they’re currently sitting only a few percentage points behind Labour under this metric. However, because of the way electoral boundaries are draw up, the Tories need more than the swing that this would indicate to effect a Commons majority. Expect Labour to retain power, with a reduced majority (although still 70+ seats). I also anticipate a smaller turn-out, mainly at the expense of Labour. The unpopular war and perceived lack of delivery in key voting areas (education, health) may not be enough to make Labour voters switch to Conservative, but they may very well decide to stay home on May 5 to signal their discontent.
extremely unlikely fior a variety of reasons. Firstly they simply aren’t in a position to win enough seats - the best they can hope for is to improve their current position (which is, by their standards, very good). Maybe in a few decades time this may change - but not yet.
Also they don’t represent a major alternative to labour - indeed on many issues they are to the left of the current labour position. They would make more sense as the natural opposition to the tories (which is what they were set up to be back as far as Lloyd George and then the SDP/Libs).
Turnout is the key. The lower the better from a Tory point of view - our voters vote. Labour voters take a lot of prising away from Coronation Street. Famously we pray for rain on polling day as it puts off the trots!
What is known for sure is that the best way to depress turnout is to put voters off politics in general, and the best way to do that is to run a negative campaign - so guess what’s coming? You got it.
I live in a very marginal Lab/con marginal (Putney) and I’m already fed up with it. I came home to find SIX election leaflets on the doormats not to mention being canvassed at the Tube station and all the local bill boards have political posters on them. It’s going to be a long month!
I think I will train the dog to bite anyone with a rosette on. (he already knows about my hostility to teams and parties that wear red).
As it’s a British election, you might at least have follwed the British date convention.
The date named came as no suprise to anyone - as has been mentioned, most parties have been working towards an early May election since Nov / Dec last year.
Labour will win with a slightly lower majority - but the first-past-the-post system means that even if the Tories or Lib Dems make big inroads into the Labour vote it doesn’t necessarily mean less seats for Labour (only Proportional Representation would do that).
A few key seats will change hands, but Labour will still end up with a Commons majority of c.100 on present form.
As to the result: - the bookies rarely get it wrong and Paddy Power (which is a bookies not a political statement!) have Labour at 16/1 on, cons 7/1, libs 100/1 (this is to get an outright majority).
More interestingly City Index have a spread on the labour majority of 52-56, so those who think that Blair will get c100 should buy and buy heavily (if you can afford it - you can also lose a fortune on these markets).
FWIW I’ve sold the market at a tenner a point, and wil probably be going back in at various times.
Also the reason that everyone knew that May 5th was the date is that it is the date for Local elections and it makes sense to have them all on the same day. The alternative was sometime in the autumn - and that was too much of a hostage to fortune for Balir.
Could you please describe what the Liberal Democrats stand for to this ignorant American?
Believe me it’s not just Americans who don’t know the answer to this!
Have a look at their official site:
That has their various policies etc on it.
In my (very biased) opinion, they attempt to be the party that mops up the votes of those who don’t like the two main parties by apprently appearing to be both in favour of Socialistic things like higher taxes and also more right wing things like being anti-ID cards.
Their one really big difference to the other two at the moment is their opposition to the Iraq war (which is the thing that could potentially lose Blair this election - as his core voters hate the war and hate him for it. There are a lot of angry ex-labour voters out there and the Lib Dems want their votes).