English Dopers: Run-up to election, what's it like?

Great Debates
1

At least one American is interested in the up-coming election over there. I’ve traveled to England several times in the past, but never during an election period. So what is it like?

With my limited understanding of the process, you don’t really elect the prime minister, but everyone knows who it will be if Labor wins. So does Blair run around the country trying to lend support to “weak” candidates? Or does he just stay at home and talk about the policies that he will implement if re-elected?

Are English celebrities telling you who to vote for and threatening to move to France (or elsewhere) if “X” is elected?

Also, is electing the MP’s the only issue on the ballot, or are there other issues to be decided? Also, I assume all seats in Parliment are up for grabs. If this is not correct, please let me know.

2

Yes, all seats are up for grabs. And you’re right, that we don’t elect the PM directly - by default, the leader of the winning party takes the post. (Theoretically it would be possible for Labour to win and for Blair to lose his seat, in which case they’d have to decide on their new leader straight away. Anyone know if anything like this has ever happened?)

Generally, the parties make sure their leader is in a safe seat, so they don’t need to battle hard in their own constituency. Blair’s Sedgefield constituency is in pure red territory in the grim north-east, Michael Howard has a fairly well-to-do south coast seat, and Charles Kennedy is placed in Scotland, where the Lib Dems have some significant support. One to watch, however, is the Tory’s shadow Chancellor, Oliver Letwin, who is in a position where the Lib Dems may well be able to take his seat.

Yes, they all run around trying to be seen in as many places as possible, shaking hands, smiling for photo-calls. And their focus is always on marginal seats, either those they could easily lose, or those they hope to win. On a local level, the candidates for each seat (and their supporters) try to knock on as many doors as possible, meet as many people as possible, lend as many ‘sympathetic ears’ as they can.

Nope, celebrities don’t get tend to get involved in any great way - but as we don’t have the spectacles of American rallies, at which their presence tends to seem more logical.

The only thing voted for in the general election is the MP for your area. However, May 5th does see some local elections taking place, and those for the Scottish parliament. These would have taken place with or without the general election - the date for the latter was chosen partly as a logistical convenience, because it’s easier to run one campaign for all the elections than to have one now, and one a few months later.

3

Let me just clear one thing up, it’s not just England that’s voting it’s all of the UK. England does not = the UK.
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have their say also.
In a General Election all the seats are up for grabs (635 or so) and we vote for a party not a Prime Minister.
It’s a time when all the parties put forward their manifestos and tell the population countless lies on how good it’s going to be when (if) they are invited to form a government by the Queen. It’s also a time to stop reading newspapers, listening to the radio and watching television if you’ve got any sense.

Having previewed it’s obvious that I have a slightly more jaundiced view of present day elections than my fellow countyman.

4

Quibble: we vote for a candidate, who in most cases represents a party.

Heh heh, I was toning it down as much as possible :wink:

5

So, if I understand it correctly, if I am a huge Blair fan, but don’t live in his district, I need to vote for my local Labour party person to try to ensure a Labour majority in Parliment, even if I think the local Labour guy is a complete idiot and I disagree with his position on a topic.

Also, it sounds like you are saying the politician can pick which district he wants to try to represent. Do they have to live in the district they represent for a minimum time frame or can they just move in and run for office (ala H.R. Clinton in New York)?

Also, in America you get a lot of the “pick the lesser of two evils/idiots” talk. Does that happen there also?

6

English Dopers: Run-up to election, what’s it like?

MISTER BRITVOTER: Look! Are you insinuating something?

MISTER YANKEENUDGE: No! No, no, no . . . yes.

MB: What is it?

MY: You’re a Brit of the world. You’ve, like, done it, right? You’ve voted? In an election where you had real choices between really different parties?

MB: Yes . . .

MY: What’s it like?

7

Er, no.

Next Scotish Parliament Elections due in, I think, 2007- four year cycle, 1999, 2003, 2007 etc.

8

It’s happened several times in Canada, both federally and provincially. The Prime Minister (or Premier) does not technically have to be in Parliament, although it makes his job very difficult and is quite an embarassment. Usually what happens is that a member of his party in a “safe” seat would resign, and a by-election would be held with the PM running in it. One of the more famous examples in Canada would be W.L Mackenzie King losing his seat in 1925 but still forming a minority government (even though his party had the second most seats).

9

Yes. And there have been cases where the local vote for one party has dissipated over a local issue - in the last election, Labour lost to this guy, who was standing on the single issue of the proposed closure of a local hospital.

Anybody can choose to stand as an independent in any constituency. However, parties decide who stands as their candidate. This is generally done at a local level - when the national party try to influence decisions, it often is very unpopular.

Yup.

I knew that - I’ve no idea why I wrote that :smack:

10

Could we possibly dispense with this tired and inaccurate cliché? Thank you.

11

:rolleyes: I was talking about the climate. Honest…

12

There is also an outside chance of the Foreign Secretary (Jack Straw) being ousted from his seat in Blackburn by the anti-war vote. Blackburn has a large Muslim population and the standing Tory (Conservative) candidate, Imtiaz Ameen, is a Muslim and was strongly against the Iraq war.

13

Witness the recent case of Howard Flight of the Tory party, sacked for contradicting the party line on finances, replaced as candidate for his constituency, threatened to stand as an Independent with the support of his local party committee but now backing down.

Grim

14

Yeah, 'cos when you look at their policies there’s loads of difference between Cons, Lab and Lib Dem :rolleyes:

Plus the first-past-the-post system makes the majority of votes totally irrelevant; only in a handful of marginal seats can your vote make a difference.

15

…plus George Galloway (although not an independent) giving Oona King something to worry about in Bethnal Green.

16

Whats it like? Deathly dull.

The problem is that it’s a foregone conclusion. But even the party that are going to win (and probably win handsomely) have very little joy at the thought of four more years of Blair (I don’t know a single person who is voting for Blair with a a happy heart, especially life-long labour voters).

There’s also very little in deep-seated priciple at stake. Both parties are broadly free-market etc (for instance the Labour party aren’t going to nationalise the banks and the Tories aren’t going to privatise the NHS). In essence the voters are being asked to pick who they want to manage the same economy.

Even the loony parties are dull now.

17

Exactly. Ukip aren’t the same, now that nice Mr Kilroy has gone off and left them…
In seriousness, you’re right, it’s a choice between similar options. So I suppose it’s not that different to US elections - there’s about as much of an ideological divide between Labour and the Tories as between the Republicans and Democrats.

18

There is a difference. sure, both parties are going to run the economy in a similar way. The question is, who will benefit? Labour still tries to achieve equality of opportunity by helping even out the life-chances thru social policy. The tories aren’t that keen. instead they propose to spend public money on helping the well-off.

for instance - they propose to pay half the cost of private ops from NHS money. This only helps those who can afford the other half and takes money away from the NHS. same with subsidising private school places with money from the public sector - taking it directly from school budgets.

It’s the usual freedom for rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges.

And only one major party is playing the ‘dirty foreigners are coming to get you’ card. The Tory campaign is a damned disgrace and has had the effect of making me vote Labour to keep them out when originally my vote was going elsewhere.

Making me vote for that liar Blair is another thing to add to the list of Howard’s crimes.

19

This line of reasoning has baffled me ever since Blair trotted it out a few days ago.

Firstly, half the cost of an NHS operation is payed for, with the patient having to be in a waiting list for an NHS operation already. In what way is money being taken out of the NHS? The NHS is making a profit in that it can keep half the cost of what it would otherwise would have had to pay out anyway.

Secondly, the rich aren’t the only people benefitting. If someone leaves the queue for an operating theatre place, then everyone elses waiting times are cut.

Not only this, but the Tory proposal is just a copy of what is actually happening now under Labour. £80 million a year is taken from the NHS every year to pay for private operations already.

What’s Labour’s alternative? To keep the status quo just so they can pretend to be socialists?

Sorry for the hijack, but I think this needs clearing up.

20

You’re crying because you have no shoes, but we Yanks have no feet. :frowning: