Ok - this thread is for people to post items of interest (if any) on the UK election. We non-US'ns all laughed at Florida last November (remember? That was when the Japanese sent emergency supplies of Viagra to Florida because they'd heard they couldn't hold an election!)
Some background. UK has 2 and a half main parties and many smaller ones. Labour (or in US "Socialist") has a large majority with Cheshire Cat Tony Blair as the leader. The Conservatives (or in US "Socialist") have Little Willie Hague as their (to be kind) leader. The polls seem to be running at 48% Lab, 30% Con, 18% Lib. The Times and Financial Times have today announced their support for Labour in this election.
Scotland and Wales have no Conservative seats, but a lot of nationalist support for Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru. Northern Ireland of course has a large number of parties from the extreme Unionist (stay in UK) to extreme Nationalist (join Eire).

One peculiarly British phenomenon is how well the "silly" parties do. Do you have silly parties in other countries and how well do they do in elections? The best known in UK is "The Monster Raving Loony Party" and you can look at their policies and electoral record at http://www.omrlp.com/. They have not won any national elections, but have a few local councillors, and one was even the local mayor for a while.

The only real excitement we have had in the hustings was when the deputy prime minister John Prescott punched someone who had thrown an egg at him, changing his nickname from "2 Jags" to "2 Jabs" overnight.

One of the issues in this election is fraudulent voting, made easier by the latest rules (or relaxation of them) on postal voting. The Northern Ireland slogan of "Vote Early, Vote Often" is now "Post Early, Post Often".

And now the word link; voting as somone else is known as personation not impersonation.

Rod

I laugh when the people who called the election, hoping to win, lose. And wasn't "vote early and vote often"originally American?

jimthedog

I must admit I had to laugh when William Hague actually had the gall to accuse Tony Blair of heading "the most arrogant government in the history of British democracy". Considering Maggie Thatcher.

And wasn't "vote early and vote often"originally American?

Don't know. I can't find any origin of the phrase, but I am interested. In modern British politics it is associated with Northern Ireland.

the people who called the election, hoping to win, lose

We all like hubris getting its just rewards, but in many elections the time (if not the result) is fixed. In UK the current government has to call the election any time up to 5 years from the previous one. It usually ends up at about 4 years. Officially it was only the local elections that were delayed this year because of the futon mouse, but everyone knows that Tony Blair was going to hold the national election on the same day, which he has done.

Rod

Funny that you have so many nationalist parties, 'cause Canada is dealing with the same. Quebec wants out (they have for many hundreds of years, I suppose). Now some loonies in the West (which is where I come from) want out, and everyone else - including most westerners, I think - well, we all think they're completely delusional. Honestly, I don't imagine what they'd expect to gain from being independent. More dependence on the almighty US economy, and less ability to protect our own culture from our domineering neighbours - doesn't sound like an appealing option to me!

how well the "silly" parties do

Here we have silly parties but I don't honestly remember the names. The Marijuana Party wants to legalize pot in Canada, and that seems to be their only mandate. I'd heard previously that the Natural Law Party used to advocate yogic flying as a way to...something...but a quick look at their web page shows no mention of that. I had a friend who ran for the Communist party in the last federal election, and he got 137 votes. Interesting!

How about the Rhinoceros Party? Their slogan: "Putting the party back in political party". http://www.rhinoparty.ca

Our Prime Minister (Jean Chretien) once tried to strangle a protester who got too close. Lots of complaints about that one, of course. It's a recurring theme on the political satire shows. Right up there with the break-in to his house, where his wife threatened the intruder with an Inuit statue.

the most arrogant government

as opposed to Bush's most arrogative government? Only a dig, honest

Rod

Rhinoceros Party? Their slogan: "Putting the party back in political party".
Last time we had the Party Party, but I haven't seen any sign of them this time. Many years ago the local football hooligans put up a candidate in Portsmouth. One of his policies was "Duty Free goods on the Gosport ferry". The ferries that ply between UK and France from Portsmouth used to have duty free goods, and he wanted the local 5 minute foot and bicycle ferry to have them too.

Natural Law is still around in UK too.

Re Nationalist parties in UK. Well of course the Scots and Welsh have been given their assemblies recently. The Scottish assembly has more power (though Billy Connolly still calls it "a wee pretendy government") than the Welsh, and has already passed laws at odds with the rest of UK. For example, reverting to free tuition at Universities, and paying for residential care for the elderly, which has led to the gibe that Scotland is a place to be young and to die, but you wouldn't want to live there. Which brings us to the "West Lothian Question": how come Scots MPs are allowed to vote at Westminster on English matters, while English MPs can't influence Scots affairs? http://www.edinburghac.demon.co.uk/placid/lothian.htm covers this quite well.

Rod

I found that article confusing, probably because I have no idea what the structure of gov't is in the UK. There are assemblies for the Scots and the Welsh, but not one for just the English alone? Confusing. And there is some sort of national assembly - is that what they call Westminster? With members from every part of the UK? Is it different people on the regional assemblies, or do the Scottish and Welsh MPs do double duty?

Some individuals sit on both, but the posts are different (as is representation on local councils, and the supra-national EC elective body). In theory, someone could be a town councillor, county councillor, Assembly member, Member of Parliament, and also MEP (M of Euro Parl). Hey, talk about killing five birds with one stone...! I have wanted to found the Guy Fawkes Party for some time: our anthem would be that charming song that goes 'As soon as this pub closes, As soon as this pub closes, As soon as this pub closes - the Revolution Starts!'

Bean states I found that article confusing, probably because I have no idea what the structure of gov't is in the UK. There are assemblies for the Scots and the Welsh, but not one for just the English alone? Confusing. And there is some sort of national assembly - is that what they call Westminster? With members from every part of the UK? Is it different people on the regional assemblies, or do the Scottish and Welsh MPs do double duty?

Bean, you are quite right, it almost as confusing as the laws of cricket. The United Kingdom (of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) has its national assembly in Westminster. The House of Commons is elected by (some of) the people, in single-member first-past-the-post constituencies across England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. All those countries apart from England has its own National Assembly, where the representatives are elected separately; all by some form of Proportional Representation. The (modern) Welsh and Scottish Assemblies are recent (2-3 years?). The Northern Irish assembly is much older but has been suspended for a lot of the time because they were fighting. [Stay behind after class and write out 100 times...]

The Channel Islands and Isle of Man have their own parliaments and are not represented in Westminster. They are dependencies. The UK and the Channel Islands (though NOT including the Isle of Man) are also a member of the European Union, to which we also elect representatives using Proportional Representation.

Westminster also has The House of Lords which traditionally was just that, Barons and Bishops and so on. A while back (30 years?) Life peers were introduced, who could not pass the right/responsibility to their children, who were appointed by the Govenment with an allocation to the opposition. Last year, the Hereditary peers were given only a limited number of (life) seats, and they had to vote amongst themselves to select which of their number would take them. There is still a lot of debate about the right form for a second chamber.

Still confused?
Rod

Actually what is confusing is how the roits at Oldham could just "By pass" the election debates, discussions, news etc.. In this country if the was a train derailment caused by a drunk conductor, hitting a stray cat, every pol would expect to provide his/her opion on Amtrak (US National rail system), alcohol consumption, union power (since railway are still strong union shops) and animal rights! and a few other topics. I don't think the press would have left the the riots in Cinncinati pass with out expecting some comments from the candidates.. (in fact, all the candidates would be required to schedule trip and fact finding missions, and policy statements on what ehy would do to resolve the problems!

That is the real question on my mind about the UK election.. (but i cheat at read the economist!)

Whew! I think I am less confused.

Your house of Lords is like our Senate - they're appointed by the sitting government, although I can't remember if it's for life or for ten years - and everyone likes to talk about making the Senate elected instead of appointed.

Instead of national assemblies we have provinces (which I have noticed, from my British friends' mailing addresses, don't seem to exist in the UK). Then, of course, there are provincial governments, which are like a miniature version of the federal one, minus the Senate. That is, whichever party gains the most seats has their leader become premier of the province. And certain subjects are under provincial jurisdiction, while everything else falls to the federal government.

Somehow your own political system seems so much more straightforward than someone else's!

Anyway, why don't they just form an English Assembly then? (Too simple a solution, I suppose...)

why don't they just form an English Assembly then?

The English have little to bind them together as a race apart from their superiority over all other nations, so an assembly that does not allow them to lord it over less fortunate nations holds no appeal.

Most English find the Local (County or Borough), Westminster and European goverments more than enough, thank you very much, and don't want another layer.

The situation for the subjugated nations is different of course. They want any excuse to thumb their noses at the overlords.

Rod

what is confusing is how the roits at Oldham could just "By pass" the election debates, discussions, news etc

and now Leeds
There has been a lot of news on Oldham (and now Leeds) but Helen raises an interesting point about the lack of political electioneering on the subject. William Hague has already burnt his fingers in this election "playing the race card" on the asylum issue, when the others said "You really mean race don't you?". and with some of the more extreme members of his party saying things that Hague wished they hadn't. The parties have all said the same "Tut Tut isn't it dreadful - it shouldn't happen", on the riots, but since they all supposedly have the same policies on race, it is difficult to make an issue of it, apart from bemoaning the lack of money/resources/training given to police/teachers/social workers and whoever. Since Hague is already struggling to convince the voters he can cut taxes and increase spending, adding another line to his spend budget by berating Labour on the issue would be difficult.

We do have openly racist (as far as they can be within the law) parties, but thankfully they are a small minority.

Rod

Your house of Lords is like our Senate - they're appointed by the sitting government

Oh, Bean! For a moment you added to my confusion ... until I realised you were speaking of Canada.
Confusion arose because I was thinking US .. whew!
... Here Senate members are elected by people's vote, two to a state whereas Representatives are proportionate to population of state they represent.

two to a state

How sensible. Here the numbers of Senate seats are more or less proportional to population of the province, too, so small provinces get screwed in both Chambers of the House! (By the way, I look up the senate - they have to retire at 75.)

>Here Senate members are elected by people's vote, two to a state...

and I am thus amused and bemused by the reaction of Senator Lott et al to losing control of the previously apportioned 50-50 Senate; to wit, the "'coup of one' that subverted the will of the American voters who elected a Republican majority."

".. all politics is local."

The Honorable and (sadly) Deceased Tip O'Neill, Speaker of the House.

Today is polling day for UK. The anagram of the day on our wall is:
TOSSER BLAIR PETTED MUM

totally apolitical of course. We just don't have the right letters to be rude about the others.

Rod

".. all politics is local

So the results are mostly in and a night of records, some not so welcome. Labour won with a slightly reduced landslide, a majority of 167 predicted instead of the previous 177. Conservatives (Tories) gained 8 and lost 8, Liberal Democrats up about 7.
(Our anagram now reads "LAB DUMPS WETTER TORIES")
Lowest voter turn out at 58% since 1918. This means that Labour has a majority of 167 with only 24% of the electorate voting for them (42% of the voters). The highest turnout was where an Independent was elected with a 17500 majority, based on the single issue of saving a local hospital.
Hague has effectively resigned as leader of Tories, just as soon as they can find another leader, and they have some serious thinking to do.
Tactical voting seems to have played its part, Labour actually gained a seat from Conservative locally, turning a majorority of 67 into one of 153. This election started (I think) with a record number of marginals, but the Conservatives just haven't managed to prise them loose, which is worse for them as there is usually a reaction against a landslide in the following election.

This is your UK political correspondent signing off for another 4 years or so.

Rod

I just love strong government. Where can I go to get it? Helengrad and Tonygrad. Helluva choice, really!

Here Senate members are elected by the people's vote

Very educational thread as per British and Canadian political structure!

Originally, the US Constitution provided that state legislatures would elect Senators, but in 1913 the 17th Amendment established the direct election of Senators by the people. Thanks be...as if we didn't already have partisan rancor enough!

Max, from now on I'll leave it to you to come up with my entertainment for the week.

For those keeping track, here's my score
Economic Left/Right: -4.08
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -7.02

Well that was fun. Now, instead of a glib one-dimensional categorization, I've got a glib two-dimensional categorization.

Economic Left/Right: -2.65
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -4.61

Yah - interesting result:

Economic Left/Right: -1.02
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -4.92

Never thought I'd be seen as having any relationship with Robin Cook!

For what it's worth economic =-1.02, libertarian/authoritarian= -3.66

There don't seem to be any politicians near me at present, although Robin Cook was quite close 5 years ago. Presumably he has been corrupted by the spoils of office in the meantime.

Bingley

Well, since musick is pressuring me in PM and I'm sure you're all dying to find out where I stand, I guess I have to show you.

I took it three times to see how consistent I was and they were all fairly close. I was rather surprised with the results, but I have noticed that my political views have been fluctuating recently.

So here's where I stand, at least for now:
Economic Left/Right: -0.41 (that's right on the line on the graph)
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -3.04

I'm still not quite sure what abstract art has to do with politics . . .

Gee, thanks Max, for helping me discover that i'm a communist

Economic L/R: -3.67
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -6.18

Pressure? What? Me Worry?

I'm still not quite sure what abstract art has to do with politics . . .

...it's all in the abs-

(PM-ps. thanks for saving my life... oh, THAT pressure)

Thanks for the link, Max!!
I answered 'em all except: "Sex and sin are two sides to the same coin" - a statement I simply didn't understand.

My results:

Economic Left/Right: -1.63
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -4.35

Here's another, similar-but-a-lot-shorter test (on my favorite libertarian radio talk show host's page):

http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html

His page:

http://www.boortz.com/

Something tells me he would have at least one of the compass points on the positive side... (don't ask which). An attempt to redefine the word 'libertarian', perhaps?

I couldn't answer most of those questions, especially the one which groups farms and businesses together, but especially the ones that are "similar".

I suppose this means politics are about words and not about people?

(edit - Max and I are again "similar")

Economic Left/Right -3.18 Authoritarian/Libertarian: -1.78

Thanks for some more fun, Max!

I stand on the barricades:
Economic Left/Right: -1.63
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -7.17

Ooooh, I'm in the same field (Left/Libertarian) as Gandhi! If the Dubya faction in DC ever finds out....

For more silly stuff, try the "tests" at http://www.emode.com; the "what's your TV family" is especially silly and worth about a 5 minute break from the daily grind.

"sex and sin, 2 sides of the same coin" - well, the one leads to the other, and the sin is sex. {shrug emoticon)

So not many Pluses amongst us? I'm on:-
Economy= -4.69; Authority= -6.07
right (or should I say left) alongside Tony Benn and Ken Livingstone.

I did find myself saying "It all depends on context; each case on its merits"; but I forced myself to answer each question (its only a game after all!).

Rod

Economic Left/Right: -0.20
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -3.98