Blair calls election

[Grojlach]

Blair sets 5th May as election date

The general election will be held on 5 May, Tony Blair has formally announced.
Speaking after asking the Queen to dissolve Parliament next week, Mr Blair said Labour had a "driving mission" for a third term in office.

The Conservative and Liberal Democrat leaders pre-empted the announcement by starting nationwide tours of key seats.

Michael Howard accused Mr Blair's government of "losing the plot" while Charles Kennedy said he would focus on people's hopes, not their fears.

The prime minister's audience with the Queen at Buckingham Palace lasted for just over 20 minutes.

Returning to Downing Street, Mr Blair said the election presented a big choice.

"The British people are the boss and they are the ones that will make it," he said.

Mr Blair said he wanted to provide more chances for people to reach their potential and above all else to "entrench" economic stability and investment in public services.

He then headed off by helicopter to make a speech in Labour's most marginal seat - Weymouth in Dorset.

Earlier, Labour's candidate in Ribble Valley, Stephen Wilkinson, said he was defecting to the Lib Dems. He criticised Tony Blair's "increasingly authoritarian" party.

Four opinion polls published on Tuesday suggest Labour's lead over the Tories has slipped to between 2% and 5%. They suggest the Lib Dems trail the Tories by between 10 and 16 points.

But one of the polls also suggests the Tories are 5% ahead of Labour among those "certain to vote".

With the campaign under way, ministers must rush to get their remaining legislation through Parliament before it winds up work, probably on Friday. It will be formally dissolved on Monday.

Government and opposition business managers are discussing which outstanding pieces of legislation can be passed this week.

Commons Leader Peter Hain said he hoped 16 bills - more than half the number announced in last year's Queen's Speech - would have been passed before Parliament adjourned.

Mr Hain said plans for a new offence of incitement to religious hatred looked set to be lost.

The Tories say the plans for identity cards are another "likely casualty".

'Action or talk?'

Conservative leader Michael Howard said voters faced a "clear choice" as he launched his campaign in London.

"They can either reward Mr Blair for eight years of broken promises and vote for another five years of talk.

"Or they can vote Conservative to support a party that has taken a stand and is committed to action on the issues that matter."

Mr Howard later visited Birmingham, where there was a minor scuffle as Labour activists with anti-Conservative banners were manhandled away from the event by Tory workers.

Lib Dem leader Charles Kennedy visited Manchester, Newcastle and Leeds on a whistle-stop tour of key seats to begin his campaign.

Mr Kennedy told BBC News the election was "much more fluid" than before. He promised to shun what he said was negative campaigning by his rivals.

"I'm not going to spend the next month just talking Britain down," he said.

Wales and Scotland

In Wales, Plaid Cymru MP Elfyn Llywd said his party was the real opposition and there was no real difference between Labour and Tories.

Scottish National Party leader Alex Salmond said his campaign would focus on making Scotland matter to the election.

The Green Party has said it is fielding 25% more candidates at this election and would be challenging "business as usual" politics.

The UK Independence Party said it was the only party who believed the UK should govern itself, independent of European Union controls.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politi...ge/4409935.stm

[Timber Loftis]

How are election dates set?

[shamrock_uk]

Basically as it appears, at Prime-Ministerial whim. I think it has to be within five years of the last one, but when is entirely up to the PM. Four years is the norm because it allows you to choose a favourable moment - leave it too late and you risk getting caught with your pants down should the political winds change.

[ 04-05-2005, 04:55 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

[Timber Loftis]

Wow. Seems unfair.

Also, I have begun to think about the unfairness of having so many parties. In the US, we basically have two (though folks like me support other parties). With 2 parties, all those who wouldn't vote for the incumbent tend, in large majority, to vote for the other major party. In a multi-party system, those who don't want the incumbent seem more likely to have their vote split amongst different candidates. I've always favored multi-party systems, but I have begun to rethink that.

[shamrock_uk]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Wow. Seems unfair.

Well, it does give the incumbant an advantage, but only against the possibility of a threat that may never arise so it's not such a big deal in my opinion. It also avoids a party losing an election straight after an emotive event (eg madrid bombings) - the government can wait uintil the public has calmed down and is more rational and then call elections when they're more likely to get judged on their records.

Also, I have begun to think about the unfairness of having so many parties. In the US, we basically have two (though folks like me support other parties). With 2 parties, all those who wouldn't vote for the incumbent tend, in large majority, to vote for the other major party. In a multi-party system, those who don't want the incumbent seem more likely to have their vote split amongst different candidates. I've always favored multi-party systems, but I have begun to rethink that. [/QB]

Britain is somewhat unique in this respect though (and strikes a very nice balance IMO) - it's in Europe where you really get the mess of multi-party politics, weak government coalitions and thus no assertive and decisive agendas.

In the UK the system is weighted in favour of two parties in many ways:

1) The very structure of the House of Commons is designed for adversarial politics: compare the PM and Leader of the Opposition facing each other across the Dispatch Box and contrast it with the 'doughnut shaped' European parliaments - they're designed to be a speech-making venue rather than a place to confront your opponents.

2) We don't use proportional representation like much (all?) of Europe - this penalises smaller parties and avoids them punching above their weight in Parliament.

3) Only the Opposition party is officially recognised in the Constitution (which in itself was pretty revolutionary at the time) - they get much more Parliamentary exposure than smaller parties.


Personally, I don't like the American political system much in practice. In theory it's a great idea, and when I studied it I was really impressed at the forethought that went into what is effectively a great intellectual creation. Whilst the electoral college system perhaps isn't so great, I do love the way the Senate is made up as its remarkably representative. In practice though, I couldn't stand the fact that it takes so long to get things done!

The PM has much more power than the US President and this means that the government is able to carry out its election pledges far more effectively. When I see legislation getting blocked in Congress it does seem a bit anti-democratic: if the people elected him then it's a bit presumptuous to prevent him from carrying out his manifesto pledges.

I agree with your doubts about multi-party politics when looking at the European continent - one only has to look back at the weak parliaments of France (until DeGaulle got a grip of the situation) and Germany to see why too many parties cause problems.

Yet Britain strikes a good middle ground and I think three main parties (Labour, Conservatives and Liberal Democrats) is superior to the American system for the following reasons:

1) If I'm an American who believes in small government, non-interference in my private life by the state, an aggressive foreign policy and am an atheist I can only satisfy some of my preferences. (I can either vote for a religious party who seem intent on infringing on my daily rights with their ever encroaching tentacles or a party that is perceived to be weaker in foreign policy and favours a welfare state too large for my liking.) Having three main parties gives the voter more choice, without weaking government enough to be a problem.

A British example would be left-wing voters switching from Labour to the Liberal Democrats because they were anti the Iraq war - with three parties they can have their cake and eat it too. An example on a smaller scale would be those right-wing people who are opposed to the European Union - they can vote for the UK Independence Party (actually a big headache for the Conservatives too).

2) A third party waiting in the wings is a big way to keep the second party on its toes and prevent it from becoming complacent. As we've seen with the new raft of (really rather innovative) Conservative policies they're really pushing the boat out this time. Whether the public will realise of course is a different matter

3) No matter how crap the two main parties are - they could both be proven to be unbelievably corrupt and incompetent: perhaps leading America into a recession for example, the voter cannot elect anyone else. Only being able to elect two parties, and being told which two parties they are really doesn't strike me as being that democratic. Furthermore, being able to vote for other, smaller parties, yet being denied the chance to elect them is almost rubbing your nose in the dirt. It ensures that your vote is a wasted one - in the British system it just probably is [img]smile.gif[/img]


Edits: Some additions, apologies.

[ 04-06-2005, 04:38 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

[wellard]

Shamrock your summary of the system is very good but I must point out, given the slagging Bush got in his first term, how un-democratic the upper house of lords (senate) still is. I really hoped Blair was going to introduce democracy in the upper house, how wrong I was.

[shamrock_uk]

Ah, well I'm actually a supporter of an undemocratic Upper House which is why it never occurs to me to mention it as a deficiency But on a more serious note, it wasn't really intended to be a summary of the whole of our political system, just the elected part (given that Timber asked about the PM calling elections).

If you're in favour of this sort of meddling though, I think Blair has quite considerably reformed it. Only something like 80 hereditary peers are left whilst no more can be appointed in future so it'll be more democratic in the future.

Of course in their place, the People's Prime Minister has now given you People's Peers and Life Peers which all seem to be rather rubbish in practice.

Give me hereditary members over Blair's cronies any day

[ 04-11-2005, 08:40 AM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

[Barry the Sprout]

The fact that they're better than Blair seems no reason to support them. Sure, the elected set are pretty terrible but that seems to no reason to run to the unelected lot in my opinion - instead it seems like more of a reason to get rid of the lot of them. Ah well, thats just me and my socialism for you...

To add to Groj's list of parties is also the Respect coalition with Galloway (crap) and the Socialist Green Unity coalition (good!). All very Judean People's Front, I know, but it worries me that the chief electoral challenge from the left of Labour this election is coming from a man who's anti-abortion, pro-death penalty and pro-immigration limits. As far as I'm concerned being anti-war is not enough to make you left wing. You actually have to, err, like, support other socialist policies as well...

[Timber Loftis]

Can I ask about the meaning of "green" in the Green Parties over there -- what does the color signify?

[Aragorn1]

Usually environental concerns, which they concentarte on over main stream political issues.