UK election 101

[Lord Jim]

I'm still trying to get my mind around the idea of a political party actually running on the platform of, "If you elect us, we promise to try to achieve zero economic growth!"...

One would think that must be satire, but it's really part of The Green Party Platform for this election in the UK...

(Not surprising that they only draw 4-5% consistently in the polls... it's amazing it's that high...)

Achieving "zero economic growth" is generally, (and quite understandably) an accusation that one hurls at one's opponents...

Not something that a party embraces as a "good thing"...

[Gob]

I was amazed by the lunacy of the Plaid Cymru bird. In an electoral campaign which has been dominate by the emergence of UKIP as a prominent party, she goes and says; "You have to accept that people will come here, we have free movement of people," said Leanne Wood of the Welsh nationalist party Plaid Cymru. "We expect our citizens to be treated well when they move to other countries, and likewise we must treat European citizens well when they come and live with us in our communities, too."

[Lord Jim]

I understand Cameron's political calculus in only agreeing to this one debate with all The Clown Car candidates participating...

It renders "the debate" irrelevant to the election results...

Even though he's a much better speaker and debater than Two Kitchens, in an election this close, why give your opponent that kind of one-on-one shot if you don't have to?

And a debate that would have been limited to the four legitimate national candidates...

Cameron, Two Kitchens, Farage and Clegg...

Would only have run the risk of reducing the Tory vote...

It was the right move...

[Gob]

This will not help Milibean one bit

Tony Blair will enter the election campaign later with an attack on David Cameron's pledge to hold a referendum on Britain's EU membership.
The former PM will accuse Mr Cameron of trading national interest for political advantage under pressure from UKIP and anti-European Conservatives and media.
Mr Blair will say Labour's Ed Miliband has shown "real leadership" by resisting pressure over a referendum.
But the Tories said Mr Blair wanted to "deny the people their say" on the EU.

[Lord Jim]

A nice little 3 minute primer video on possible election outcomes put together by The Telegraph...(It's not on YouTube, so I can't embed it)


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general ... Tq2ymADa4W

[Gob]

Interesting explanation there Jim, thanks.

[Gob]

Fun facts and figures about the UK election

[MajGenl.Meade]

That's a bit misleading, isn't it? No one is "voted in" to the position of prime minister in a general election. It is the PART which wins the right to form a government and the prime minister is always chosen by an internal party election/decision.

All prime ministers have been "voted in" to a seat in Parliament in a general election. Apparently 13 different PMs were replaced as party leader, many due to ill-health, between general elections and therefore each replacement became the new PM.

Furthermore, technically the prime minister is appointed by the monarch and not by general election. There are other quibbles.... Campbell-Bannerman (number three stick figure) became PM when his predecessor retired due to health reasons, but he entered the '06 election as the sitting PM and, because his PARTY was returned to power, he remained PM in the "new" administration. So while it's correct that he did "come to power" prior to a general election, he was in fact a general election victor as PM.

Bit of a ho-hum factoid IMO

[Gob]

It's a general assumption in the UK that you vote for a party with a nominated leader, who will become the prime minister. While you are right in what you say, it's a bit of pedantry...

[Scooter]

It's the fault of the voting process used - multiparty parliamentary systems can be very healthy, but first-past-the-post is probably the method least suited to reflect voter intentions in those systems, and for some reason the UK and Canada, both having ample reason to replace it, have chosen to stick with it. Unfortunately, proponents of electoral reform wasted too much time trying to peddle proportional representation when we don't have the political culture to see minority parliaments as anything but unstable.

My preference is for some kind of ranked ballot or runoffs

[MajGenl.Meade]

It's a general assumption in the UK that you vote for a party with a nominated leader, who will become the prime minister. While you are right in what you say, it's a bit of pedantry...

Hardly pedantry, you arse (and I say that lovingly). D'ja ignore the part about PMs retiring due to ill health?

What happens in the USA if a president dies? The VP gets the job - no election. Does that say anything novel or wrong about the US system? No. I suppose you could argue that we should go back to the old days when the 2nd highest vote-getter in the Presidential election becomes president - at least that person got voted for. What about Australia - pm dies and so you have an election? No.

The pedantry is all on the part of the BBC which wanted to make a vacuous point and managed to do it. And on the part of the person who posted that vacuous pedantry... oh....

[Gob]

No, it's just you being pedantic, honest.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Tisn't, tisn't, tisn't. So there.

[Big RR]

Gob--

What happens in the USA if a president dies? The VP gets the job - no election.

The US system is a bit more complex than that; voters cast votes in presidential election for electors pledged to certain candidates for president and vice president; under the 12th amendment to the constitution, these electors cast separate ballot for president and vice president. Thus vice presidents are elected in the same way presidents are (at least since the early 19th century). since enactment of the 12th amendment, there have been only two VPs who were not elected this way--Gerald Ford (who was confirmed by congress to replace Agnew under Nixon after he resigned, and who became president after Nixon resigned) and Nelson Rockefeller (who was confirmed in the same way as Ford's VP). When confirmed, Ford was a fairly highly placed federal official--Speaker of the House and third in line for the presidency), while Rockefeller was not in elected office (at least at the federal level) when he was confirmed.

[Lord Jim]

When confirmed, Ford was a fairly highly placed federal official--Speaker of the House and third in line for the presidency

A correction there...

Ford was actually the GOP House Leader at the time. (The Dems controlled the House, and thus the Speakership; I believe the Speaker at the time was Carl Albert) However, Ford would have been Speaker if the Republicans had held the House majority.

[Big RR]

you are correct sir.

[MajGenl.Meade]

That was my point, Big RR. Every prime minister (and every president) has been elected (so far)

[Gob]

Pedant.

[MajGenl.Meade]

[BoSoxGal]