UK General Election Feb. 2005

[amicus]

UK general election, 2005
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
2001 election
2005 election
Under the Constitution of the United Kingdom, dates for general elections are not fixed, and can be called at short notice. Although one is not required to be held until 2006, five years after the 2001 election, it has been widely speculated that there will be an election some time in 2005 - the 2001 election itself was called four years into a term, as were those in 1970, February 1974, 1983, and 1987. Media reports in late October of 2004 suggest that Blair is aiming to hold the election in February of 2005.

The ruling Labour Party will be looking to secure a third term in office. The Conservative Party will be seeking to regain seats captured by both the Liberal Democrats and Labour in the 1997 election, whilst the Liberal Democrats hope to make further gains from both sides



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_general_election,_2005


Seems a fair exchange....an opportunity to dis da Brits!

Amicus chuckles and pats dubya on the head...

 

[TheEarl]

Posted this precis in Abstrusions:

Quick precis of British politics:

There are three main parties in Britain - the Conservatives (or Tories), Labour and Liberal Democrats (Lib Dems).

The party in power is Labour, which is traditionally a Left-Wing political party, but under Tony Blair's leadership has swung into the centre-ground. Blair is standing for a third term as Prime Minister, despite facing some opposition within the party. He became leader of the party after striking a gentleman's deal with his main rival and now Chancellor of the Exchequor (Finance Minister), Gordon Brown. The idea was that Blair would stand down after 2 terms and pass leadership over to Brown. That's now been reneged upon and there have been miniature schisms within the party, although outright rebellion has been averted for the time being. Blair holds the majority in most opinion polls, but his lead isn't comfortable and it is testamony to his sheer slipperiness that he hasn't been brought down further over issues such as university top-up fees (screwing over students), banning fox-hunting (screwing over the countryside), Iraq and WMD (screwing over the anti-war people) and stealth taxes (screwing over everyone else). Teflon Tony has never been better named - absolutely nothing sticks and he can spin out of most situations. Labour's strengths lie in the success of hte British economy and the fact that a lot of people hate the Tories.

The Conservatives are heartily disliked by a lot of people. Maggie Thatcher was a Conservative Prime Minister and they were in power for a consistent 18 years. They grew comfortable in that power and made a lot of very unpopular decisions, which still envoke enmity in a lot of voters over 7 years later. Their leader is a man called Michael Howard, a fairly savvy barrister and a good debator, but he is tainted by being a member of Thatcher's cabinet, back when she was making a lot of enemies. The Tories should really hold the whip-hand in this election - they have sensible policies, a good leader and they're trying to instill trust by setting up a 'Timetable for Action' which states exactly when and how they'll institute their promises. However a lot of people still won't vote for them because they are the Tories and that carries a lot of baggage.

The Lib Dems are a definite minority party, but they still manage to command about 20% of the vote. They're anti-war, anti-anti-foxhunting and are willing and able to policy jump in attempts to get cheap votes. Their leader is called Charles Kennedy, whom I hate with a vengeance because he's a smug, anti-royalist git.

There are two minor parties which deserve brief mention - the British Nationalist Party, who deserve the title fascist far more than GWB ever did, simply because they're racist fucking bastards. Unfortunately they seem to have a skill at shooting very simplistic arguments to the lowest common denominator and could get about 2% of the vote.

The other minor party is a new one called the UK Independence Party (UKIP for short, pronounced you-kip), whose sole purpose is to take Britain out of the EU. They are mainly right wing, although not excessively and have been stealing votes from the Tories. However a major internal coup and squabbling between factions has damaged them beyond repair and I don't think they have more than 4% of the vote at the moment.

I really hope we don't ratify the European Constitution. It is a big document aimed at creating a Greater Europe and any Greater Europe is currently being run by unelected officials. I want Britain to have control of its own borders, its own taxes, its own foreign policy and its own laws, simply because I want my vote to help choose who runs these things and because one size does not fit all. What would be a good economic policy for Bavarian Germany could be disastrous for Tyneside industries. Exactly the same reasons why I'm against the Euro.

Come on Michael Howard. May surprise some of my (thread-starting) political critics, but I'm a solid Tory (right-wing). Can't stand Teflon Tony. I can admire his talent, but he's still a tosser.

The Earl

 

[Guest]

 

[steve w]

Ami,

Just because you guys re-elected a congenital idiot, doesn't mean we have to rush to re-elect our own. There won't be a February election. It is common wisdom that every government that's called a winter election has lost.

Earl forgot to mention that the Liberal Democrats have gained a lot of support for consistently opposing the war in Iraq. The Conservatives have suffered a flatline in the polls because they originally backed the war.

Teflon Tony will win the election anyway, with a slightly reduced majority, and then will be gone within two years. Earl is right about the basis of the European Constitution, but unfortunately the debate will be reduced to fatuous minor issues, as most people aren't sufficiently interested in politics to consider the big issues in any depth.

We get the democracy we deserve, as the US has just proved.

 

[gauchecritic]

What's to dis?

I was stupid enough to think the Blair witch a socialist and so helped him get into power, but the first thing I was tasked with as a member was to uphold the Labour Party constitution, which they didn't. Wankers.

Plenty of Labour policy is more right wing than anything Maggie dreamed up and shoreing up the status quo between the haves and have nots. (oo, oo a song for radio lit)

The Brit electorate have had the wool pulled over their eyes in exactly the same way as the US, the only difference being that we actually count all the votes.

Futurology predicts a female Prime Minister with her husband as Chancellor. Not next, but not far away. That should be fun, as I know them both personally.

Gauche

 

[TheEarl]

Futurology predicts a female Prime Minister with her husband as Chancellor. Not next, but not far away. That should be fun, as I know them both personally.

Gauche

Who's that then?

The Earl

 

[gauchecritic]

Who's that then?

The Earl

My current MP.

Gauche

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I'm woefully ignorant about the British political system. What happens? You guys vote for MP's, right? And then the majority party elects the PM?

I do love watching parliament on TV though. Especially the weekly question sessions.

---dr.M.

 

[Goldie Munro]

I'm woefully ignorant about the British political system. What happens? You guys vote for MP's, right? And then the majority party elects the PM?

I do love watching parliament on TV though. Especially the weekly question sessions.

---dr.M.

Yeah we vote for constituency MPs and the party with the most MPs wins (well they have to get a majority of 320 or there abouts I think). The leaders are chosen by the parties way before election time - we don't get to elect the leaders just the MPs

 

[Lauren Hynde]

It's interesting to see all the different systems in different countries.

The Portuguese system is close to the British, even if it's a parliamentary republic and not a monarchy.

The country is divided into 20 electoral districts (plus 2 districts for voters living abroad, one in Europe and the other in the rest of the world) and each district elects a number of MPs proportional to its population, (e.g. Lisbon elects 48 MPs, Porto 38, Coimbra 10,...).

Instead of being winner-takes-all, as in the US, the MPs from each district are chosen proportionally to the number of votes their parties receive. For example, in the 2002 election, Porto's 38 MPs were: 17 from PS (Socialist Party), 16 from PSD (Social-Democrat Party), 3 from CDS-PP (Social Democratic Centre), 1 from BE (Left Block), and 1 from PCP (Portuguese Communist Party).

After the elections, the President hears all the parties that have elected representatives to the Parliament and, taking the results of the elections into account, invites someone to form the Government, most often* the leader of the party with more MPs.


* I say most often, because it may not always happen. If a party has more than half of the 230 elected MPs, of course that their leader will be the one invited to become Prime Minister. But in a situation when, for example, Party A has 100 MPs, Party B has 95, and Party C has 35, if Parties B and C decide to form an alliance (with a controlling majority of 130 MPs against 100 of Party A), the President may decide to invite the leader of Party B instead (because a Party A government wouldn't have objective stability to rule and could be brought down by the parliament whenever they wanted).

 

[TheEarl]

Yeah we vote for constituency MPs and the party with the most MPs wins (well they have to get a majority of 320 or there abouts I think). The leaders are chosen by the parties way before election time - we don't get to elect the leaders just the MPs

We do know miles ahead who will lead each party into the general election, so effectively we do choose our leader by selecting a political party.

If Teflon were to get struck by lightning though, then his successor would be decided by a vote of the Labour party, rather than a vote of the people. Who would select the new President if shereads got her hands on GWB?

The Earl

 

[Lauren Hynde]

If Teflon were to get struck by lightning though, then his successor would be decided by a vote of the Labour party, rather than a vote of the people.

Oh, that happened here.

The Prime Minister Durão Barroso was struck by lightning (or invited for the Presidency of the European Commission) and the President asked his party to nominate a substitute. He could have decided to dissolve parliament and call for new elections, but decided not to.

 

[Goldie Munro]

We do know miles ahead who will lead each party into the general election, so effectively we do choose our leader by selecting a political party.

If Teflon were to get struck by lightning though, then his successor would be decided by a vote of the Labour party, rather than a vote of the people. Who would select the new President if shereads got her hands on GWB?

The Earl

LOL

Yeah the leader of the party is important - more so in these days of media nad the 'image' - the leader of a party should 'lead' it to victory - but at the end of the day in the UK isn't more to do with ideology and policy that make people vote? It is getting more difficult here with a pretend socialist party (Labour) and an ineffectual conservative party (Conservatives) to see a clear picture in British politics.

 

[oggbashan]

The UK Prime Minister doesn't have the powers that the US President has. He (or she) is described as 'first among equals'. The only real power the PM has is to appoint or remove ministers. If the use of that power offends his own party the PM will be defeated and a replacement would have to be found within the party.

The PM is the head of the majority party in the House of Commons. We cannot have a PM who does not have a majority in the House of Commons.

The PM can be removed by the Queen, our Head of State, but only for specific reasons. That is highly unlikely when the PM commands a reasonable majority.

Our real problem is that the Conservative party is weak and has been riven by factions in recent years. If they were united and had a believable set of policies they might stand a chance. At present the splits in their party are papered over and the electorate have little confidence in them. It is unlikely that they will be electable in 2005/6 without Tony Blair and the Labour party making a major mess. Given the Labour party's record when in power that is always possible.

Og

 

[ABSTRUSE]

Face it chaps, if Bush won again in the states, Tony will win again in the UK........I predict it, (I'm a cheap psychik now)

 

[Guest]

Tony and his cronies had better damn well win it. Not that I'm a mega fan, but, jeez, have you seen the oppostion?

They couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery, let alone run the country.

Ok, maybe that's a bit unfair, but purleeze.

Lou

 

[oggbashan]

Face it chaps, if Bush won again in the states, Tony will win again in the UK........I predict it, (I'm a cheap psychik now)

But Tony is a Socialist, a pinko, a left-winger, a rabid Democrat by US standards. Not by UK standards - he's a centrist.

Even the UK Conservative Party would be considered too left wing by Bush's supporters. They are FOR: The National Health Service, Welfare for those who need it (the arguments are about WHO is needy, not about the system).

Some of Tony's supporters have been pressing for Bush NOT to mention 'my friend Tony'. Every time Bush praises Tony Blair, Tony's approval rating drops.

Og

 

[ABSTRUSE]

But Tony is a Socialist, a pinko, a left-winger, a rabid Democrat by US standards. Not by UK standards - he's a centrist.

Even the UK Conservative Party would be considered too left wing by Bush's supporters. They are FOR: The National Health Service, Welfare for those who need it (the arguments are about WHO is needy, not about the system).

Some of Tony's supporters have been pressing for Bush NOT to mention 'my friend Tony'. Every time Bush praises Tony Blair, Tony's approval rating drops.

Og

AHHHHH I see.
Hmmmm? welfare for the needy? medical attention?....that is quite left wing.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

The PM is the head of the majority party in the House of Commons. We cannot have a PM who does not have a majority in the House of Commons.

A simple majority (as in having more MPs than any of the other parties) or an absolute majority (as in having 50% plus one)?

In the first case, is it practical for a government to function without control of the House? How do any laws get passed?

In the second case, what if none of the parties has enough MPs?

 

[Goldie Munro]

A simple majority (as in having more MPs than any of the other parties) or an absolute majority (as in having 50% plus one)?

In the first case, is it practical for a government to function without control of the House? How do any laws get passed?

In the second case, what if none of the parties has enough MPs?

A simple majority is enough - if there isnt a majority then parties look for coalitions with other smaller parties. They ALWAYS have enough MPs!

 

[neonlyte]

If anyone saw or heard Michael Howard's (Conservative) in last Wednesday's 'Questions to the Prime Minister' slot, there is no doubt about who will win the next election despite Tef Tone's Iraq complex. What a complete waste of breath Howard is!

Please note - I shall support the Liberal Democrats as usual.

Neon

 

[TheEarl]

If anyone saw or heard Michael Howard's (Conservative) in last Wednesday's 'Questions to the Prime Minister' slot, there is no doubt about who will win the next election despite Tef Tone's Iraq complex. What a complete waste of breath Howard is!

Please note - I shall support the Liberal Democrats as usual.

Neon

Lou and Neon: What's wrong with the Conservatives/Michael Howard? They have good policies - they're planning to cut down on the civil service, reduce bureaucracy for doctors, nurses, police and teachers (all of whom are drowning in the bullshit enforced by Labour) and they support a partial withdrawal from Europe which would make everybody happy. France and Germany et al want a European superstate with the Euro as the currency. We want to stay independent, keeping control of our economy, control of our foreign policy, control of our laws and to keep the pound (when I say we, I mean the British public, rather than our current government). On top of that, Howard has always seemed a very savvy debater (didn't see the PMQ that you referred to so can't comment, but he seems to be doing well in other sessions). What's not to like?

Besides agreeing with their policies, I really want the UK to have a government that actually serves the people, rather than the Labour incumbents who seem to believe themselves above popular opinion. Top-up fees, countryside issues, the Iraq war, the European constitution. All very unpopular with most UK voters, yet still part of government policy. At least the 'Timetable For Action' would make the Tories accountable.

The Earl

 

[gauchecritic]

Much as I'd love to argue with you about it Earl, I'll just point out that the list you gave were all Conservative ideas from decades ago.

As for the civil cervix, beaurocracy and Europe, who do you think gave us those in the first place?

Gauche

 

[TheEarl]

Much as I'd love to argue with you about it Earl, I'll just point out that the list you gave were all Conservative ideas from decades ago.

As for the civil cervix, beaurocracy and Europe, who do you think gave us those in the first place?

Gauche

To be honest, I couldn't give a monkeys about what the Conservatives did when they were last in power (7 years ago). They got voted out and humiliated for those policies, so they've changed them to suit what people want.

They say they've changed and will do things properly. Re-electing Labour won't result in them changing at all and they're on the path to a right royal cockup very soon. I'd prefer to trust the Tories rather than re-elect a party who fail me almost on a daily basis.

The Earl

 

[amicus]

I exchange thoughts regularly with a few in England and Scotland, younger people, in their twenties, still living with their parents as there is no housing available to the to rent or buy for those of modest income.

Is that true? Why?





Howard: The Right to Own

Speech at launch of Conservatives' action plans on housing at Conservative Central Office

"There are few things more important to us than the home we live in.

People in this country want to own their home. Owning your own home gives you security, stability and a base. It gives you a real stake in society. It gives you freedom and security.

A lot of people do already own their own home. But for more and more people - particularly first time buyers - it's becoming very difficult.

Everyone knows someone who is desperate to buy their own home - someone just starting out on a career, or a young couple that have just got married and want to start a family.

Twenty or thirty years ago, their parents would have found it difficult, but they would have managed. But for today's young people, the difficult dream has become the impossible dream.

But it's not just young people who have a problem. It's easy to forget that many older people want to move home - to a home that is more suitable or to one that is nearer their family.

So we need practical policies that that will help put a home within their reach.

Some people think the answer is to build more houses. We certainly do need more homes - the level of homebuilding in this country is at its lowest for more than eighty years - and we will be publishing our detailed proposals on this shortly.

But what we emphatically do not want is to concrete over the south east with millions of homes, which are simply dumped on communities and which are unsustainable.

Labour have been all talk. They have promised action, but they have not delivered. In many ways, through stealth taxes such as stamp duty and council tax, they have made owning your own home even more difficult.

I won't promise to solve the housing problem overnight. But we are putting forward today a series of practical policies that will make a difference, policies that will address different housing needs and tackle the problem of affordable housing.

As Caroline said, we've been working on our policies for many months now. We've talked to a huge range of people and held wide-ranging discussions. Today's document is the fruit of a lot of hard work.

The policies in this document will help increase home ownership in this country. They will help give young people the start they need and support older people who want to move house.

At the heart of our approach is people, not buildings.

We haven't simply asked - how can we build more homes?

We've asked some different questions - how we can we make homes more affordable? How can we open up the existing supply of homes? How can we give more people a greater stake in the home they live in?

In short, how can the Party that gave people the Right to Buy today give people the Right to Own?

This is what we are going to do:

First, we will extend the Right to Buy to over a million housing association tenants who don't have that right at the moment.

Second, we will allow social housing tenants to buy the home of their choice, not just the house in which they currently live. We're going to do that by giving tenants transferable discounts that can be used towards the cost of any suitable property on the market.

Third, we will enable tenants to steadily build-up a stake in their home through a Right to Shared Ownership.

Fourth, we will bring the property ladder back within reach of ordinary home buyers - young and old - by extending shared equity schemes.

These proposals will help bring more homes within reach of more people.

They will increase home ownership.

They will make homes more affordable.

They will help people live in the homes that are right for them.

And they will help us invest in building more social housing."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

What is "shared equity"?

Curious peeps wanna know...

amicus...

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos...5937196-8297265