Three weeks until the election

[Vampyr]

David Cameron has promised, if re-elected, to provide "a good life" for Britons. Has anyone read the short story It's a Good Life by Jerome Bixby? It was made into a Twilight Zone episode as well. LOL

[mike777]

Do Brits really expect and want the government to provide this? Do they look upon the government as a parent, one who is THE provider?

 

 

"My fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.

 

John F. Kennedy"

[kenberg]

David Cameron has promised, if re-elected, to provide "a good life" for Britons. Has anyone read the short story It's a Good Life by Jerome Bixby? It was made into a Twilight Zone episode as well. LOL

 

Well no I haven't read it. But I gather from this that the good life of the novel/ TZ was not so good..

 

My thought would be: Is Cameron expecting that his opponent(s) will run on a platform of promising a bad life? It might work People pay to go to horror movies.

 

 

There are many things in life that I don't really want to do, but only a few are such that I feel I just couldn't do it no matter what. Running for office is one of them.

[NickRW]

David Cameron has promised, if re-elected, to provide "a good life" for Britons.

 

The whole thing is a sick beauty contest amongst comedians who cannot possibly deliver all that is supposedly on offer. It was ever thus, but seems to be worse than usual this time.

[helene_t]

There was a Danish independent candidate (a commedian) who managed to get elected on a promise of tail wind on the bicycle lanes. A more mainstream party won a landslide offering "we promise absolutely nothing but we are going to keep our promises".

 

British politicians will eventually get used to the fact that all they can realistically promise is to swallow some of the coalition partner's camels.

[gwnn]

Reminds me of David Mitchell's train of thought on waste in politics:

 

[barmar]

Well no I haven't read it. But I gather from this that the good life of the novel/ TZ was not so good..

The characters had to do a supernatural child's bidding and claim to enjoy it (i.e. say "It's a good life") or he would send them away to some kind of purgatory.

My thought would be: Is Cameron expecting that his opponent(s) will run on a platform of promising a bad life? It might work People pay to go to horror movies.

They also expect to be able to leave when the film is over.

[PassedOut]

Today's Guardian has a piece by Paul Krugman with a pretty good explanation of why recent austerity programs were nuts: The case for cuts was a lie. Why does Britain still believe it?

 

It is rare, in the history of economic thought, for debates to get resolved this decisively. The austerian ideology that dominated elite discourse five years ago has collapsed, to the point where hardly anyone still believes it. Hardly anyone, that is, except the coalition that still rules Britain – and most of the British media.

 

I don’t know how many Britons realise the extent to which their economic debate has diverged from the rest of the western world – the extent to which the UK seems stuck on obsessions that have been mainly laughed out of the discourse elsewhere. George Osborne and David Cameron boast that their policies saved Britain from a Greek-style crisis of soaring interest rates, apparently oblivious to the fact that interest rates are at historic lows all across the western world. The press seizes on Ed Miliband’s failure to mention the budget deficit in a speech as a huge gaffe, a supposed revelation of irresponsibility; meanwhile, Hillary Clinton is talking, seriously, not about budget deficits but about the “fun deficit” facing America’s children.

 

Is there some good reason why deficit obsession should still rule in Britain, even as it fades away everywhere else? No. This country is not different. The economics of austerity are the same – and the intellectual case as bankrupt – in Britain as everywhere else.

I've got to say, though, that it would be wonderful if we in the US could have election campaigns as short and sweet as those in the UK!

[helene_t]

Short, yes, but sweet, no. It is no less dirty than American campaigns. The Murdoc-owned press contributes to it but I think the politicians themselves are pretty bad, too.

[blackshoe]

The one political thing that stands out in my memory from the three years I lived in England (1990-1992) was when a sitting judge in London was photographed, by the police I think, one evening, stopped on some street, with his window rolled down and a woman leaning over and talking to him. It was assumed, when this hit the 11 o'clock news, from the circumstances and the location, that she was a prostitute. The judge was not arrested, but his resignation was on his boss' desk by 2 AM. I was favorably impressed, and it occurred to me that no one in politics in the US would resign in such a situation until he had no other choice. That said, I admit that I didn't pay much attention to the campaigning. What I did see, as I recall, struck me as "well, in this aspect at least, they're no better than us".

[Vampyr]

The judge was not arrested, but his resignation was on his boss' desk by 2 AM. I was favorably impressed,

 

At the time, and still. Paying for sex is not illegal in England.

[blackshoe]

At the time, and still. Paying for sex is not illegal in England.

Hm. I didn't know that. Or I did but had forgotten. B-)

 

I felt at the time, and still feel, that he resigned not because he did anything illegal, but because the incident embarrassed the Queen's Bench.

[PassedOut]

Election day in the UK!

 

A few days ago the NYT had this piece: Britain’s National Health Service, Creaking but Revered, Looms Over Elections

 

With the governing Conservatives and the opposition Labour Party locked in a tight race, the political jousting over health care essentially boils down to one question: Who would spend more on it?

 

Largely untouched by the conservative revolution unleashed by Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s or by Britain’s continued drift toward a more market-based society, the National Health Service still mostly provides what it promised when it was established by a Labour government in the 1940s: free treatment for all.

 

Ahead of elections on May 7, Labour has pledged to find an additional 2.5 billion pounds, or $3.76 billion, for health care, a sum it describes as a “down payment.” The Conservatives — whom, according to opinion polls, voters trust less on health care — have trumped that by promising an extra £8 billion a year, but without explaining where the money would come from.

 

Despite the system’s many shortcomings and failures, regularly documented in newspapers and on television, there is no serious debate in Britain about moving away from universal health care. Indeed, the right-wing, populist U.K. Independence Party, the one British party to flirt with the idea of shifting to a private insurance system, has retreated on the issue.

 

In an era when Britons disdain their politicians and detest their bankers, government officials see the National Health Service as “the most revered public institution in this country,” said Chris Ham, chief executive of the King’s Fund, an independent health care charity.

 

“No government would want to seriously entertain changing the basic principles on which health care is funded and provided,” Mr. Ham said. “It would be electoral suicide to move away from that model, even though clearly it’s under huge strain.”

So the NHS is safe no matter what the final coalition turns out to be.

:)

[kenberg]

I need help ion forming an opinion. Is this good news or bad news?

[Cyberyeti]

I need help ion forming an opinion. Is this good news or bad news?

 

It was IMO the better of two bad options, Labour lost the election when they picked the wrong leader, Ed Miliband would have been a complete disaster as PM.

[kenberg]

It was IMO the better of two bad options, Labour lost the election when they picked the wrong leader, Ed Miliband would have been a complete disaster as PM.

 

This is along the lines of what we (or I) have been hearing over here. It's not that there is such enthusiasm for Cameron but rather there is real anti-enthusiasm for Miliband.

 

Of course US elections often have that aspect to them.

[helene_t]

It felt very much like an American election. Murdoch-owned media spewing smear, the election being more about the leaders than about principles and policies, and in the end we elected a parliament that is seriously out of alignment with the popular opinion on many issues such as for example EU membership, railway privitisation, NHS privitisation, income distribution.

[Vampyr]

It was IMO the better of two bad options, Labour lost the election when they picked the wrong leader, Ed Miliband would have been a complete disaster as PM.

 

Labour have known for years how un-charismatic and out of touch Miliband is. They must have been really cocky not to replace him as leader.

[mike777]

Labour have known for years how un-charismatic and out of touch Miliband is. They must have been really cocky not to replace him as leader.

 

who decides on the party standard bearer?

 

For example here in the USA they go through a grueling primary process that the citizens vote on, that this time will last more than a year.

 

You say they must have been cocky....who are they?

 

to be honest you make it sound like a tiny bunch of ego driven white guys get in a back room, smoke cigars and decide.

[Vampyr]

who decides on the party standard bearer?

 

For example here in the USA they go through a grueling primary process that the citizens vote on, that this time will last more than a year.

 

Here there are no primaries per se, since the leader of the party with the most seats becomes the PM.

 

You say they must have been cocky....who are they?

 

to be honest you make it sound like a tiny bunch of ego driven white guys get in a back room, smoke cigars and decide.

 

"They" are the Labout leadership/MPs, whom should have strongly urged Miliband to step down. Then the Labour MPs would nominate candidates, each of whom would need a certain amount of support to appear on the ballot.

 

As to who votes, well, from what I could glean from the internet (you could have too) the electorate is split into 3 groups, who each contribute one third of the vote, and who I think each send delegates to the annual conference. I am not sure whether a new leader can be chosen in-between conferences. The three groups seem to be:

 

 

Labour MPs and MEPS

 

Trade Unions

 

Individual Labour members. Membership in the party is not free and I am not sure what is involved.

 

EDIT: I am not certain that Miliband would have had to step down in order for a new leader to be chosen. Possibly the Labour MPs could have had a vote of no confidence. But this would have been extremely difficult, even if it is possible in theory.

[GreenMan]

Two headlines from the British press:

 

THE NEVERENDING TORY

 

KEEP CAM and CARRY ON

[kenberg]

This coould be an opportunity to learn a bit about the actual mechanics of the parliamentary system.I will pose specific questions..

 

1. Suppose now that the Conservatives find that they don't actually like being led by Cameron. Never mind what Cameron wants his party doesn't want him. I gather there can be votes of confidence or no confidence but I am not sure who has the power to demand such a vote.

Anyway, is it possible that Parliament, in some manner, could replace Cameron without having to call a new election? I am thinking that the answer is no, at least not after Cameron has gone to the Queen. At the least, I imagine the Queen could say "No, I appointed [ok make that We appointed] Cameron, he stays".

 

2. In a similar vein, suppose a PM dies in office. We have had Presidents die in office, so I suppose the UK has had PMs die in office.Does a new election have to be called? Or, assuming that the party of the PM still holds a clear majority, can they (and again the question would be who they are) just get together and elect their new leader?

 

I think that to some extent I can see an answer in the resignation of Macmillan after the Profumo scandal in the early 1960s I font the following at Mac

 

 

 

Resignation

The Profumo affair may have exacerbated Macmillan's ill-health. He was taken ill on the eve of the Conservative Party conference, and diagnosed incorrectly with inoperable prostate cancer. Consequently, he resigned on 18 October 1963. He felt privately that he was being hounded from office by a backbench minority:

 

Some few will be content with the success they have had in the assassination of their leader and will not care very much who the successor is.... They are a band that in the end does not amount to more than 15 or 20 at the most.

^[88]

 

Succession

Macmillan was succeeded by Foreign Secretary Alec Douglas-Home in a controversial move; it was alleged that Macmillan had pulled strings and utilised the party's grandees, nicknamed 'The Magic Circle', who had slanted their "soundings" of opinion amongst MPs and Cabinet Ministers to ensure that Butler was not chosen.

 

Macmillan initially refused a peerage and retired from politics in September 1964, a month before the 1964 election, which the Conservatives narrowly lost to Labour, now led by Harold Wilson.^[89]

 

 

What I get out of this is that there is some process, maybe not all that well defined, for addressing the situation when a PM for some reason is gone. But I can't say I have a good grasp of just how it goes. In the Macmillan case the replacement seemed to understand that this was a temporary job and an election would be called.

 

Short version of the question: If party X controls Parliament by a majority, not just a coalition, and if they get tired of being led by PM Y, can they, the MPs of party X, simply replace Y by Z?

[StevenG]

In the U.K. we elect Members of Parliament. The Prime Minister is that person who can form a Government, and get that Government's policies enacted as legislation. The party system is, in a sense, something extra to the basic constitution, and, although, modern practice now recognises it, it is not embedded in the way we work. When I was young, parliamentary candidates did not have the name of their political party on the ballot paper, but that has now changed.

 

In practice, of course, the Prime Minister is going to be the leader of the party that can form a government. If that party wishes to change its leader, it can. It is a purely internal party matter. In 1990, Margaret Thatcher's pronouncements were becoming increasingly bizarre. Party grandees told her she had lost the confidence of her party; as a result she was effectively forced to resign. After a leadership election, the Conservatives replaced her with John Major who became Prime Minister. No election was needed or even seriously suggested. In 2007, Tony Blair resigned and Gordon Brown took over as Labour leader without a party contest. Again he became Prime Minister, but this time, with the British public now taking a more presidential view, there were rumblings about his legitimacy. Brown, who had been obsessed with being Prime Minister for many years, was unwilling to risk his status, so carried on until the election. Perversely, had he called an election in 2007, he would almost certainly had won, whereas the crash of 2008 exposed the disastrous policies he had pursued as Chancellor, and he lost the 2010 election.

 

The situation has changed recently, however. The Conservative/Liberal Democrat goverment changed the law so we now have fixed-term 5 year parliaments. A Prime Minister cannot now call a snap election at a time of his own choosing. We are in uncharted waters, and how it will work out next time we have a government without a working majority is unclear.

[kenberg]

Thanks. That answers my questions very thoroughly.

[mike777]

1) I predict Scotland will leave the UK within 20 years

2) the labour party lost Scotland and its power base and will be out of power for many decades.

3) military will continue to shrink in capability.

4) the population will age and the Holy NHS will continue to grow its share of the budget.

------------

The situation has changed recently, however. The Conservative/Liberal Democrat goverment changed the law so we now have fixed-term 5 year parliaments. A Prime Minister cannot now call a snap election at a time of his own choosing. We are in uncharted waters, and how it will work out next time we have a government without a working majority is unclear

 

I assume it takes a simple majority vote to change the law again.