This one is addressed to our UK Chiffers, but anyone else is free to jump in. The purpose of this query is to understand UK election procedures, not to discuss today’s election, which is why I didn’t put it in the politics topic.
OK, here goes.
I always hear the phrase that the PM calls for elections on date X. Why is this done, instead of having a fixed term? Theoretically, could you never have a new election if the PM decides not to have an election? Or, is there a date that by which you must eventually have an election?
What prompts a PM to call for an election and what goes into selecting the date (say 5 weeks versus 5 months from today).
Does the House of Lords have any power, or are they just rubber stamp anything coming out of Commons?
Does the PM regularly attend House of Commons deliberations or just occasionally? I sometimes have seen Tony Blair on TV in Commons speaking. I contrast that with the US where the President only makes an annual address to Congress (the State of the Union address), but that’s it.
Why is there always so much grumbling/cat calls in the background in Commons during speeches? Most impolite, I’d say but fun to listen to. I remember seeing a profile on 60 minutes of the former head of the Commons (Shirley Boothroyd?) constantly shouting “Order! Order!” to get everyone to knock it off.
When you vote today, do you vote for a candidate or a party? If party, does the winning party then have its own election to select the PM?
I’m sure there are lots of other differences–feel free to educate me.
There is a date by which you must have an election, but I forget what it is. The party in power can call an election when it best suits them, in the hopes of re-election. Generally when they haven’t just illegally (allegedly) invaded another country is a good time.
Yes, they can block stuff, so the party in power is always keen to stuff the second house full of people who support it.
At least once a week there’s a Prime Minister’s question time, and I think he attends more often than that.
That’s not grumbling/catcalls, that’s snoring and farting.
I voted this time on policies, then parties. The party will already have a man acting as leader who would become PM if they win. Of course the PM can stand down at anytime and let someone else have a go, Mr Blair. Even Thatch had the decency to do that.
Thanks, Martin. That helps to explain things. On point 6, I heard a story on NPR yesterday that said if Blair won today, he would not serve a full term. Rather, he would eventually turn the reins over to the Exchequer at some point.
Well the results are mostly in and Labour held on for a third term, but with a much reduced majority that looks to be around 66 seats.
Blair has said before that if re-elected he’ll stay on for the full term, but clearly the Iraq conflict and general public feeling that it was unjustified. At least one seat has been lost specifically on this issue.
Will he stay a full term or not? I think the feeling within and without the party is that he shouldn’t, but can he resist the urge to be come the longest serving Prime Minister of recent times (plus the paychecks)?
He could of course stand down at any time, citing pressure of work, family responsibilities, or pretty much anything as his reason.
In the US, the spelling of the word is “labor” (no U), but the British political party’s actual name is the Labo_u_r Party (with a U).
However, I see on CNN going across the bottom of the screen, “Labor Party,” which is incorrect because the Labour Party is a proper noun. The “no U” rule does not apply to proper names such as Labour Party.
Either the US journalists aren’t thinking straight, or more likely, they spell it that way to avoid a flood of messages from US citizens wrongly telling them they’ve spelt it wrong.
Or perhaps spend more time with his wife. In which case, given his recent bragging before the media about being capable of making love five times a night (remember, this man has never told a lie) perhaps “stand down” is the wrong choice of verb.
For what it is worth, Canada shares the system. One of the positive advantages, as I see it, is that the Prime Minister is not considered some kind of larger than life hero, he’s just a sleezy politician like anyone else. At the beginning of the war you would hear Americans say stuff like “We should stand behind the president” which would cause many Canadians, and Brits to raise their eyebrows. The Prime Minister is nothing more than the leader of the largest political party in the House.
You think the Brit heckling is bad, you should see ours… and if you think ours is bad, you should see Australia’s.
I always hear the phrase that the PM calls for elections on date X. Why is this done, instead of having a fixed term? Theoretically, could you never have a new election if the PM decides not to have an election? Or, is there a date that by which you must eventually have an election?
Because in the Parliamentary system, the government is elected indirectly–only Blair’s constituents are voting directly for him; everyone else is voting a representative to parliament. After Parliament reconvenes, the members vote in a government.
That government stands for a maximum of five years, but only as long as they have the confidence of parliament. This confdence is expressed by the government’s ability to win majority votes on finance bills or motions of confidence. If they lose one, the house is dissolved and an election called. This happens most often in a minority government situation: that is, when three or more parties elected MPs, and no one party has a clear majority of the seats.
Elections, then can happen for three reasons:
a. The Prime Minister chooses to dissolve the house and seek a new mandate, a procedure called “dropping the writ”. He visits the queen and tells her of his intention, and she assents. She also–at least her representative in Canada does–has the option of refusing his request and instead asking the leader of any other faction in parliament if they think they can obtain the confidence of the house. This only happens in minority government situations.
b. The Government loses a confidence vote. This precipitates an election.
c. Government fails to cal an election within their five year span. It is the queen’s responsibility then to dissolve the house and order an election. This has never happened.
2) What prompts a PM to call for an election and what goes into selecting the date (say 5 weeks versus 5 months from today).
Convention demands that elections be held approximately every four years. The government controls the timing and can work it to their advantage. Usually elections are held in the spring or fall; if the polls are poor on the four year anniversary (spring, let’s say), a government will commonly delay dropping the writ until the fall, to see if they can get their number up. If the numbers are again bad, they can again hold off, buying a few months more, although at the cost of almost certain defeat.
Similarly, sometimes elections are held at three or 3.5 year intervals. This is politically risky, although governments sometimes choose to do so for political advantage–if the opposition is in disarray, or if a little foresight shows that a recession is on the horizon, for instance, a majority government may go this route.
If the public doesn’t see the necessity of an election, however, they will punish the government at the polls.
