| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Early Election | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Mar 24 2004, 10:03 AM (667 Views) | |
| ds9074 | Mar 24 2004, 10:03 AM Post #1 |
|
Admiral
|
Looks like there is a possibility at least that the UK may go to the polls before the US. Officially the next election doesnt have to happen until June 2006. In practise a May 2005 election has long been seen as the most likely. Now its being reported the PM is considering an October 2004 contest. Its dependent on whether the Government has a good summer or not but the thinking is that it might be better to get it over with and get Blair re-elected before the opposition have a chance to build up support. There is also some dicussion about whether Blair may keep us guessing as a way to keep the terrorists guessing. By calling an election at very short notice it might make it harder for the terrorists to distrupt it. I believe it is possible for polling day to occur as little as 15 days after an announcement of an election. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Swidden | Mar 24 2004, 11:16 AM Post #2 |
|
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
|
Now this in itself sounds a little disturbing to me. I understand, in parliamentary system, that unexpected elections can come along after votes of no-confidence and such, but to call an election early for either of the reasons you offer seems quite unfair to the voting public. Particularly the reason that suggests it would make it harder for the opposition party. That part smacks of manipulation. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Sgt. Jaggs | Mar 24 2004, 06:24 PM Post #3 |
|
How about a Voyager Movie
|
ds9074: I am interested in what you think. I do not ever recall you speaking of Tony Blair's courage or the like. Where do you stand on your views of your government? Domestic affairs aside. Specifically, Pre-war and also now? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ds9074 | Mar 25 2004, 11:51 AM Post #4 |
|
Admiral
|
On the first point, yes it can be seen as a way a incumbent Government can manipulate the situation to ensure the best result for itself. It is a part of the British consitution that sometimes there is talk about changing but nothing ever gets done. The reason why it exists is because the Queen still has the power to call and dissolve Parliaments. In theory Parliament only exists by her grant. That power is deligated to the Prime Minister. There are laws which say a Parliament cannot sit for longer than 5 years but there is no minimum limit. It dates back to the days when Parliament might only have been called and sat every few years - namely when the King ran out of money and needed to levy taxes. In between we would have absoulte monarchy. On the second point I will first say that I believe Blair has been one of the best Prime Ministers of recent history. His domestic record is enviable. I also agreed with him 100% over his response to 9/11 and support for the action in Afganistan. I didnt agree with his position over Iraq, I felt that a second UN resolution was a requirement to take action. I did respect him for the conviction for which he made his argument, I just didnt agree with his conclusions. I believe he was convinced that WMD would be found in Iraq and that there was a threat. In that way he was couragous, to take a country to war with the population split down the centre and his own Parliamentary party split, in the face of opposition from our key trading partners in the EU. Courages however doesnt always equal correct. Now that it seems obvious no WMD are going to be found I think he should be more honest and say that the threat was not as great as he thought. If he put foward that case together with saying that we are still better off without Saddam people would listen. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Swidden | Mar 25 2004, 11:56 AM Post #5 |
|
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
|
It would seem to me that some language to assure that there would not be an abuse of the system could be put in place while still leaving the Queen with the authority to dissolve a problematic administration. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ds9074 | Mar 25 2004, 12:01 PM Post #6 |
|
Admiral
|
One possibility would be to prevent Parliament being dissolved against its own wishes. In practice however the governing party would still use their majority to ensure they set the timetable. Its a very archaic system. In theory while a Parliament automatically dissolves after 5 years, there is nothing in law that requires a new Parliament to be called, I believe for a further 3 years. A Government could therefore rule without Parliamentary scruitiny for 3 years. What stops them from doing so, apart from the public outcry, is that they need money. They have to return each year to renew the mandate for 'temporary' taxes such as the income tax. They also have to have a fresh mandate each year to maintain a standing army. This issue is suprisingly sensitive since it is, afterall, in part why we fought a civil war. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Sgt. Jaggs | Mar 25 2004, 09:54 PM Post #7 |
|
How about a Voyager Movie
|
DS: Would you briefly explain to me a few things? I could look this up but I think to have you differentiate it for me would give me some insight from your perspective that would quantify the information. In my general knowledge of your country, I mix these things together: Great Brittain United Kingdom England How do you identify yourself? English? Brittish? I just do not know enough, like I said, I couuld look it up however your input would better interest me. By the way, does Bloke equate to Dude?
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| doctortobe | Mar 26 2004, 09:04 AM Post #8 |
|
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
|
England is the island, United Kingdom is the total amount of areas under British rule. Is Great Britain an alternate name for the island? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ds9074 | Mar 26 2004, 11:04 AM Post #9 |
|
Admiral
|
A bloke is a man. I'm British first, then English. The offical name for the country is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. In geographical teams Great Britain is the name for the largest island in the group called the British Isles. The island of Ireland being next largest, then others such as the Isle of Mann. In political team Great Britain is the name given to the union of the two Kingdoms of 1. England (with Wales, a principality of England since the middle ages) and 2. Scotland. Northern Ireland is a provence of the United Kingdom but not part of Great Britain. Until 1603 there were seperate Monarchs for England and Scotland until James I of England (James VI Scotland) accended to both throwns. In 1701 the Kingdoms were formally United into one, with one Government and one Parliament at Westminster (London). In recent years a great deal of domestic power has been given back to a new Scottish Parliament although the overall authority is still Westminister. Additionally to this you have crown dependancies dotted across the world from the Channel Islands to Gilbraltar, Falklands, Indian Ocean, parts of the West Indies etc which are British but are not part of the United Kingdom. In theory you also have the British dominions of Canada, Australia and New Zealand although out of respect for the independence of those nations they are rarely refered to in that way. Hope that explains it. I should just add that if you meet anyone from Northern Ireland, Wales or Scotland (particularly Scotland :rolleyes: ) NEVER refer to them as English. They might take offense. The most inclusive term and safest bet is British, thats whats on the passport. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ds9074 | Apr 9 2004, 05:47 PM Post #10 |
|
Admiral
|
Reports today that the Commons timetable has been cleared are leading me more and more to think that we might well be voting in September/October time. If a Government is starting to make sure their are no outstanding pieces of legislation to pass then they could well be thinking about a dissolution. If they do go for October, provided the polls hold up, it will be difficult to explain why they need to hold an election 20 months before the end of their term. In other words it would look like the blatent electioneering that it would be. Additionally, for anyone interesting in British politics :rolleyes:, the polling evidence so far shows the Government and the Conservatives neck and neck. Almost all the loss of support for the Government has gone to the Liberals who opposed the war, the Conservatives who supported it have gained little. Could well be that disolutioned anti-war voters switch to the Liberals in protest. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Swidden | Apr 10 2004, 12:37 AM Post #11 |
|
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
|
I am not surprised at where most of the anti-war constituency has drifted. I would hardly expect them to go to the right. From what I have been able to get so far, my gut hunch is that Prime Minister Blair and his party hope that an early election will keep them in control of Parliament. In that, I think you're right that to many it would appear to be electioneering on their part. If it is not executed with great care it could blow up in their face. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ds9074 | Apr 10 2004, 12:56 PM Post #12 |
|
Admiral
|
Well yes its not suprising that those who were against the war are moving to support the main anti-war party. There are also other reasons, since a lot of those same voters are unhappy and policies such as higher tuiton fees for universities - again a policy opposed by the liberals. There is a final area where they are gaining a lot of support. Pensioners are increasingly unhappy with the council tax, which is local taxation in the UK based on the value of your property. The trouble is pensioners often have quite high value properties but low cash incomes. The Liberal policy is to abolish Council Tax and replace it with a local income tax which has proved popular. If Blair has his majority slashed and/or needs a coalition with the Liberals we would likely find a very different foreign policy. There would not be another Iraq. Although whoever wins (even if the Liberals won outright which is almost impossible) all parties 1. Will not withdraw our troops from Iraq 2. Will not open dialogue with terrorists. I glad that is the case, that there is no chance of a 'Spain' here in Britain. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Swidden | Apr 10 2004, 04:58 PM Post #13 |
|
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
|
In California we have Property Tax that is collected by County Government that functions like your Council tax. Back in 1978 we had Proposition 13 passed by popular vote. Essentially it froze the property value for as long as you own the property, and if you pass it down to your spouse or kids it remains taxed at the lower rate. Prior to this it was not uncommon for County governments to increase revenue. Sell it to a third party, however, and it can be a very different story. We have also passed propositions that make it very hard to raise taxes in this state without voter approval. When this first happened, suddenly the word tax began to disappear in favor of words like "assessment district", "use fees", or some other alternative phrase. This was promptly corrected as well. It has been argued that since it is very hard to get voters to agree to increase their taxes, this has contributed to the state's fiscal crisis. Note, though, that it only becomes an issue after state government over spends. Is it automatically a forgone conclusion that PM Blair would only form a coalition with the Liberals? Could the conservatives possibly become more cooperative with with Blair to insure that things did not drift to hard to the left? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ds9074 | Apr 10 2004, 05:30 PM Post #14 |
|
Admiral
|
The Council Tax can be raised by local authorities without any special say by the voters. I think last year the average increase was about 12%, so for those on fixed incomes its a problem. To be honest there is too much bad blood between Labour and the Conservatives, on both sides, to be able to form a coalition. That leaves the Liberal Democrats. The Scottish Executive is already run by a coalition of Labour and the Liberals and the Liberal Democrat party is in part a breakaway group from Labour. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dwayne | Apr 10 2004, 07:35 PM Post #15 |
|
Profanity deleted by Hoss
|
Wouldn't you say, the bad blood between Labor and Conservatives, somewhat mirror the same bad blood between republians and democrats, as well as somewhat mirrors the bad blood between the US and Europe? Even though my comparison doesn't work entirely, the major point of comparison is that in where disagreement arises, the differences are so intractable, that no agreement can be reached. Sadly it seems, the difference extends into the War on Terrorism. The dividing lines began to appear before the United States even went into Afghanistan, with some people demanding an impossibly high standard of proof and/or claiming that the United States would be crushed in Afghanistan just like the British and Russians before. Then once America began operations in Afghanistan, the effort was called a quagmire within weeks and by November it was claimed that America was callously killing children. Every errant bomb that killed civilians was categorized as a deliberate attack on civilians. Then there was all the criticisms over Mr. Bush stating in a speech that there was a wide network of terrorists and nations that support them...
While ignoring the hard links between Osama and Hamas, while ignoring the casus belli Osama bin Laden gave in 1998 for his war against America, and while ignoring the certain ties and certain cooperation between these nations that sponsor terrorism and terrorist groups, the critics of America demand a nuanced response from America, when in fact, the 'nuanced responses' of the past gave America 9-11. I guess if people really under stood what Islam once had as an empire and what Osama bin Laden wants to do, then people would begin to understand what we're facing. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |



2:13 PM Jul 11