John Prescott tried. It didn’t work out too well.
I’ll just throw in a tidbit about EU.
Your citizenship determines where you vote in national elections, i.e. a person with Italian citizenship votes in their parliamentary election. Not strange.
However, your residence determines where you vote in local/municipal elections. So an Italian living and working in Paris, will get to vote in the local mayoral election in Paris, but not in their hometown of e.g. Padua.
There’s some bureaucracy involved, depending on country. Here in Sweden, a voter card is mailed to everyone elegible to vote and it will show which elections it’s valid for. In other countries, in case you are not a citizen, it might involve having to register with the local authority, if you’re a resident, but not citizen.
Yes, in the US it isn’t particularly unusual for Congressional candidates running in unfriendly districts to specifically promise to try to unseat their own party’s leader as their first act in Congress, because the leader is perceived as “extremist” by those voters. I assume this is completely unheard of in Westminster countries.
(checks datestamp of post)
Really? Doesn’t he have more important things to do, like packing? Is this like those last three months of a lame duck President’s term, when he can pardon anyone he wants and doesn’t have to care what anyone else thinks about it?
The Resignation Honours List doesn’t have to be issued while the PM is still in office and, if they are resigning because they’ve lost a general election, usually isn’t. It’s mostly used as a last chance to reward political cronies to whom they would probably have given these honours anyway at some point if they had continued in office.
The comparison to US Presidential pardons is apt. It’s a prerogative of the UK Prime Minister to nominate an Honours List which is reviewed by a committee and then bestowed by the Queen. The list is most often released on New Years Day, but also happens if Parliament is dissolved, or if a Prime Minister resigns. Johnson will assuredly be bestowing Honours upon some of his cronies and some Conservative Party stalwarts in the next month and a half.
More likely to happen when a leader fails to win in the general elections. Erin O’Toole, for example, was elected leader of the Conservative Party of Canada in 2020 on a right-wing platform.
In the general in 2021, he tacked towards the centre, in a vain attempt to pick up seats in the Toronto area.
He was kicked out by a caucus revolt in December, 2021, largely because the caucus disapproved of the centrist tack. Plus failed to win.
In the UK they’d need to make the case to their fellow party members rather than the electorate at large. If you want the leader of party A out, you vote for party not-A: it would be a very roundabout option to vote for a candidate standing on party A’s manifesto but promising to try (less chance of success if party A actually wins) to unseat their leader if they’re elected.
The only case I can think of where a successful leader has been ejected after winning is Ken Livingstone’s left-wing coup in the old Greater London Council in 1981. Livingstone had made his intentions clear for some time before: but it’s hardly likely to have appealed to voters who would otherwise vote for any other party.
They also wouldn’t be voting in the local election in Padua if they were living and working in Rome. That’s how local elections work.
Similarly in AUS.
There’d be no point appealing the the voters in your electorate, it’s the elected members of your party who caucus and decide whether to re-elect or replace their leader.
About the nearest I can think of was the quixotic and vainglorious 1987 “Joh for PM” campaign where the Queensland Premier Sir Johannes Bjelke-Petersen, ensconced in his gerrymandered National Party government in Australia’s Florida, launched a bid with the grand design for him to win a seat in Federal Parliament as a National, depose the National leader Ian Sinclair and seek to become Prime Minister in a coalition with the Liberals, possibly with Andrew Peacock as his deputy (also ousting Liberal leader John Howard) despite the National being substantially the junior member of the coalition.
The push was never going to have likely success on the national stage as Joh’s support didn’t extend much outside regional Queensland. There were some heavyweights in Queensland who weren’t onboard with the notion either. It fizzled out with barely a whimper as Joh didn’t seek to stand as a candidate in the May '87 election. The insurrection fractured both the Federal Nationals and the Liberal as moderates swing voters opted for Labor to ensure that the Coalition’s defeat. The election was won by comfortably by incumbent Labor PM Bob Hawke with an increased majority.
By Geoff Pryor - National Library of Australia
“Joh for PM” was described as the political equivalent of Napoleon’s march on Moscow. The end came spectacularly quickly. The Fitzgerald Inquiry which began before the May '87 election implicated several high-ranking members of the Joh’s Queensland Nationals Party systemic corruption and the net closed around Joh. He lost his party leadership in late Nov '87 but, in a maneuver rather familiar to our US readers tried to stay as Premier for another four days then resigned from parliament at the beginning of Dec. In less than a year from career apex to ruin.
That’s not quite what I’m talking about, though. Were the Conservatives who kicked him out openly promising to do so DURING the general election campaign?
Also, to be clear, it’s rare here for a Congressional party to actually switch leaders except maybe after an election shellacking, so those sorts of campaign promises, although common, are nearly meaningless since everyone realizes the leader isn’t going anywhere.
Nah, that wouldn’t really happen. The structure of the parties in the UK is such that you can’t really run as a party’s candidate in opposition to the party leadership.
Take for example the showdown between Boris and the “Tory Brexit Rebels”, before the 2019 general election. These 21 “rebels” bucked Johnson over a Brexit vote, he kicked them out of the party and then scheduled a general election (which he basically had to do to move forward.) All 21 were barred from standing for election as Conservatives, they had no option to force themselves into the process like you have in the United States where you can run in a primary even if the national party leadership doesn’t want you. They could have ran as candidates for another party or as independents, obviously–but that did not happen, and it would have been unlikely to have succeeded since most voters in the UK understand they are voting for a party to control Parliament so don’t have as much of a loyalty to individual MPs.
It’s pretty much the same in the United States. It’s a completely empty promise. That doesn’t stop candidates from occasionally saying it anyway.
One thing that (in my experience) surprises a lot of folks from other democracies is how little control political parties in America have over their membership. If you fill out a form with your local election official that you’re a Democrat, then you’re a Democrat. There’s nothing the party can do to kick you out or prevent you from running as their candidate if you win the primary.
There was a case in Illinois a few year ago where a neo-Nazi was the only candidate to declare as a Republican in an overwhelming Democratic congressional seat. Because he was the only Republican to file, he was the Republican candidate. The state and national party denounced him, but he still appeared on the ballot with an “R” by his name.
One important factor that stops this sort of behaviour is that election funding is largely centralised. You may be the maverick in your party and have personal wealth or donors who want you, but election funding is given to the party, the party organises all of the printing and posters, TV adverts and volunteers for the big day. If you come out as a racist for example and get disendorsed or swap teams, you lose all of that.
The record for people leaving their party and running in the same seat is usually poor. Most recently, Liberal [then the party in government] anti-vax climate-denier loon Craig Kelly joined a rival party - his vote dropped from 53% to 7%. A lot was to do with him being a deadshit, but also people will vote for the party as much as individuals.
Don’t know how it works in other parliamentary systems, but at the federal level in Canada there are strict donation limits. Even if you’re wealthy, you’re limited in how much you can donate to your own campaign. Several years ago, one MP signed a personal loan for his own campaign that was $20,000 over the contribution limit. He went to jail.
Donation and expenditure limits and transparency in the UK as well, and non-partisan administration of elections/delineation of constituency boundaries - the aim being to try to maintain a level playing-ground
Of course what is “fair” is a matter of debate, and I have no idea of exactly what happens in other countries. Unlike Australia, there’s an absolute ban on anyone providing food and drink that might be considered “treating”, and unlike many other countries, an absolute ban on photography inside polling stations (no news clips of grinning candidates posting their ballot papers into the box).
The incoming Federal Labor government wants to impose expenditure caps, and it can’t come soon enough. When Craig Kelly, noted above, went rogue he became a candidate of the United Australia Party, which was formerly ‘Clive Palmer’s United Australia Party’. Palmer is a billionaire and spent an estimated $100 million on saturation advertising but only managed to get one senate candidate in - in the tortuous preference allocation process we have. I think after seeing non-stop neon yellow UAP billboard after billboard, Youtube ads and cold-calls, they’d be very happy with the idea of a very low cap on personal donations.
I may have missed it being mentioned earlier but regardless of how members are elected to the House, one there the majority rules and the government is that majority. There’s no confusion around who is in charge, or who is responsible for the outcomes. It makes it very clear that the Trudeau government failed to enact border controls, or that the Johnson government triggered a crisis in the NI border, or that it was the Morrison government that signed onto AUKUS.
Sure.
But that doesn’t stop people from thinking - and saying - that a foreigner shouldn’t be able to vote in the local election.
IMO this is a good rule. You should be able to influence politics where you live and pay taxes, regardless of citizenship. Quite a few don’t agree.