The UK General Election 2005 Thread

Oh, just realised that not everyone outside the UK might know what our General Election is.

Briefly, it's held every 4-5 years, usually in May/June, and the nation (England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland) elects the 650(ish) Members of Parliament who sit in the House of Commons and vote on national issues, each representing a geographical area of (roughly) equal population.

The government is the party who wins a majority of seats. In theory, we could get a change of Prime Minister if Tony Blair loses his seat, but that's not likely to happen. The leader of the victorious party becomes the PM. The MPs chose their party leaders before the election (not the public).

Re: The UK General Election 2005 Thread


Good idea, GD. Cool.

For easy reference, here is the Guardian page that's always got an overview of the latest (analysis of the) polls they do with ICM. And their election countdown page, which also (practical for you, perhaps) has a comparison of where the different parties stand on seven of the main issues.

Don't know squat about UK politics but would like to read along in hopes of finding out.

Given the fact that Blair seems to have moved his party so far to the right, what does the Tory Party advocate to challenge him? For example, re Iraq. Mrs. Thatcher, I recall, was close (politically, at least) to Reagan. But Blair seems to be joined at the hip to Bush.

What's the scoop?

D'Art, for a while, the past year or two, the Tories seemed to refocus themselves a bit as in some respects a moderate, open party - and in some ways, criticizing Blair for his slavish following of Bush on Iraq for example, they sometimes almost seem to come out to the left of him.

But that was all quickly over again after the Tories were practically swept aside by the belligerently chauvinst anti-EU UK Independence Party in the European elections last year. And all the more now that the pre-campaign has started up.

The Conservative election strategy this year seems to be clearly back to the kind of populist, red-meat issues on which they can still shoot at Blair from the right: Crime, Immigration, Crime, Asylum-seekers, oh and Immigration/Asylum-seekers. Considering how scandalous even the Labour government's asylum-seekers policies have been, thats pretty off-putting - it's pure scare-mongering, facts or humanity be damned.

Only reasonable voice on the matter, imho, are the Libdems.

Thanks, nimh. Two questions:

Are the Liberal Democrats capable of emerging as more than a fringe party? This is something I've wondered. Where do they stand on the Iraq War?

Of the three parties, they were the most clearly against the Iraq war. They remain a centrist party, so you still didnt get the kind of firebrand language you have from, say, the International Socialists or something - but clearly enough against the Iraq war to ensure at least one unexpected by-election win for the normally solidly middle-class party in working-class districts with a lot of Muslims.

As for them emerging as a proper alternative - well, they've long been more than a "fringe" party, they're at 20% in the polls and have had something like 16-22% in most of the elections the past twenty years - but they do seem to remain forever the third party. And with Britain's dictrict winner-takes-all system that means their representation in Parliament remains marginal in comparison. They have honed the tactical voting thing the last couple of elections though, gotten so good at it that they increased their number of seats a great deal in the last elections despite not actually winning much at all in terms of the popular vote - just cleverly targeting districts.

In the past few years they were praised as "the real opposition" because of how they were on the ball, when the Tories operated invisibly or ineffectively, hurt by inner conflicts and leadership changes and by how much New Labour had emulated their programme. But now that the election race is heating up, they appear to be firmly relegated back into third place. Still at 20% though - they're not like the Greens or the Scottish Socialists or something, they're very powerful in local councils for example.

Sorry for missing the early action. It slipped my mind that I'd started this topic! Hopefully, once I've read properly the links that nimh kindly gave, I'll be able to contribute, probably after the weekend.

Yes. They are second party in many constituencies, and are seen as the least dishonest. However, some people feel that Charles Kennedy has none of the charisma of his namesake JFK, and lacks leadership qualities. Hard to say unless he's given a chance.

The date of the election will be Monday 5th May, announced by Blair last night.

I like it that we only get a month of "official" notice, when other countries spend years whipping themselves into a frenzy before an election...

Agreed, though the media are already totally boring with it.

Election fraud - suddenly a possibility - nobody mentions the perpitrators are south Asian. But today I got a letter from the LibDems saying I and my 2 younger sons, registered here, could vote by post. I called my youngest (at uni in London) and asked if he wanted me to get him a postal vote. He told me he was registered there too! In the end he decided to vote here because it's marginal (a Liberal family of old) - but could presumably have got away with 2 votes - hadn't realised he was registered here I suppose.

Well, I for one, will be very interested in the campaign & the outcome. A very important election, despite (by the sounds of it) your media's wishy washy response so far.

Please, all you UK folk, keep us posted on the issues as they emerge. May 5th is not a long way away!

Could we have some more information on the Liberal Democrats, please?

The Guardian's Policy Guide: compare any of the three parties' proposals with any other on 12 topics.

I'm a member of the Labour party so I will of course be voting...

or then I might abstain.

From my point of view

Labour. Excellent track record on public investment, managing the economy. BUT misled the country over the war. Blair says he didn't do it deliberately. But even if you believe that, it still is an admission of misleading.
SOMEONE has to pay the political price for Iraq.

Conservatives. Bunch of tossers. Despite all they say, their real policy is to reduce public expenditure, reduce investment reduce government itself (no bad thing there) reduce tax reduce social security...and so make the rich richer. Their war record is worse than Labour. In the build up they went over to the states to tell Bush acolytes that they were MORE PRO WAR than Tony Blair. After the war they criticised it. Result: Bush made it clear they are not welcome. (Which is pretty devastating for the party of Thatcher and Churchill)

LibDems. Agree with them on many issues. Questionable whether they really can fund all the extra spending they envision from the modest tax increases they propose. (but you have to admire their honesty...fancy a political party standing on a tax increasing platform). On the war, they opposed it until it started then supported it. Now its sort of over they sort of support it but want the troops home safe and sound as soon as possible or something like that. Propose free personal care for the elderly, something I have a particular interest in.

Result: I hope Labour win with a much reduced majority. Tony Blair hands over to Gordon Brown within a week.
Personally: Might abstain. Should vote Labour. Can't honestly vote otherwise without resigning from the party.

Not sure what yr implications are here Clary.

I have ahd no experience of anyone else by the Labour government since I came to UK. (well aprt from the early few days).

However, since I have been here, I have seen the country detoriate day by day. Crime is rife, there is no respect for people, yob culture has taken over our streets, prices for everything have been going up, education and medical is in decline.. I could go on and on and on.

Perosnally, I would be voting Tories - I would like to give them a chance. I don't see a problem with Tories making "rich richer" as long as they ensure that the "poor" don't get "poorer".

All the muslim vote goes the same way. Because of the war etc, muslims who traditionally voted Labour in Birmingham switched to the LibDems. Result muslim labour councillors tampered with postal votes in an effort to hold up the Labour vote and hang on to office. Disgraceful.

Why stigmatise them because they are muslims ? Why not because they belonged to Labour party?