UK Politics: Why can't Cameron seal the Deal?

[Quackers]

From the Independent:

Britain is on course for a hung parliament after the general election amid growing optimism about the economy, according to the latest ComRes poll for The Independent.

It puts the Conservatives on 37 per cent (down three points on last month), Labour on 27 per cent (no change), the Liberal Democrats on 20 per cent (up two points) and other parties on 16 per cent (up one point).

Because of the way the first-past-the-post voting system works, the figures would leave the Tories six seats away from an overall majority if repeated at the election. They would have 320 seats, Labour 240, the Liberal Democrats 58 and other parties 14. These figures exclude those up for grabs in Northern Ireland. It is the second poll taken in the past two weeks to point to a hung parliament. An Ipsos MORI survey for The Observer, published nine days ago, put the Tories on 37 per cent, Labour on 31 per cent and the Liberal Democrats on 17 per cent.

So why isn't Cameron enjoying the same dizzying highs of popularity Tony Blair had in 1997? Blair had a 55 points approval rating and was 30 points ahead of the Conservatives - according to those poll at the start of the month (more recent polls show labour catching up). The situation is basically the same a discredited, incompentant sleazy government against a young articulate man in his 40s. So why can't Cameron seal the Deal?

I think it is his U-turn on the Lisbon Treaty it appears that the majority of patroitic Brits are opposed to Europe and he failed to capitlise on this especially with the fact he gave a "Cast Iron guarantee" in 2007 (iirc) to the Sun Newspaper. This kind of shows he is a liar and unprincipled. Another point is the corruption of UK MPs when they have abused public money on lavishing their homes with expensive furnishes and fittings and even second home flipping - it is utter disillusionment with the political class as a whole.

 

[Azale]

A vote for Cameron is a vote against Labour more than a vote for the Conservatives?

 

[Quackers]

A vote for Cameron is a vote against Labour more than a vote for the Conservatives?

Yeah this is right. With Blair people genuinely wanted him to be PM - but now it is a battle between two seemingly indistinguishable parties and therefore which is the lesser evil? But one of the most alarming thing is the core vote of labour white working class are sick of being taking for granted and are now flocking to the BNP in droves - they could get a seat. A vote for the BNP is a vote against the entire political class.

 

[Rashiminos]

He's too busy putting bouncing blue breasts of jello into a high-priced Hollywood CGI flick.

 

[amadeus]

I personally don't see the difference between Brown and Cameron, at least on a policy level.

 

[Quackers]

Yeah The Conservatives are so pathetic they believe that emulating labour is the only way to office.

 

[bhsup]

But you don't actually vote for Cameron... You vote for you dude in your district, right? Then all those dudes get together and whichever party of dudes happens to have the most, they'll pick the leader.

Unless... Are you guys actually saying you vote in your district based on who you want the PM to be, and it really has no bearing who the person that happens to be representing that party is? If that is the case, well I'm very glad we have a Presidential system then.

 

[ComradeDavo]

The Tory party just has too much of a negative history for people to be really swayed to them. Ok, alot of people are mad at Labour about stuff, but whilst we all marched in the streets against wars and that, we didn't end up rioting and fighting with the police and strike breakers as what happened under the Tories. Plus the UK has basically got a state now where we like things like the NHS and expect to have to pay taxes to fund it, and when you get 'rogue' Tories going on US television calling the NHS evil it reminds everyone why they hate the Tory party!

 

[Yoda Power]

But you don't actually vote for Cameron... You vote for you dude in your district, right? Then all those dudes get together and whichever party of dudes happens to have the most, they'll pick the leader.

Unless... Are you guys actually saying you vote in your district based on who you want the PM to be, and it really has no bearing who the person that happens to be representing that party is? If that is the case, well I'm very glad we have a Presidential system then.

Could it be that the truth is somewhat inbetween those two extremes?

The UK have, unlike the US, choosen to have a system where the administration is always very strong. The result is that elections are more of a popularity contest for the goverment, rather than a fight between the parties.

 

[Shekwan]

But you don't actually vote for Cameron... You vote for you dude in your district, right? Then all those dudes get together and whichever party of dudes happens to have the most, they'll pick the leader.

Unless... Are you guys actually saying you vote in your district based on who you want the PM to be, and it really has no bearing who the person that happens to be representing that party is? If that is the case, well I'm very glad we have a Presidential system then.

Thats not the real problem. The real problem is the first past the post voting system which is used in both the UK and US. Ridiculous system. Theres the real democratic deficit.

 

[GinandTonic]

But you don't actually vote for Cameron... You vote for you dude in your district, right? Then all those dudes get together and whichever party of dudes happens to have the most, they'll pick the leader.

Unless... Are you guys actually saying you vote in your district based on who you want the PM to be, and it really has no bearing who the person that happens to be representing that party is? If that is the case, well I'm very glad we have a Presidential system then.

Kind of. Quite often people will vote on the basis on their MP rather than the party or the parties leader. Also what the actual position is in a given constituency is very important in a multi party system. I've been canvassed by a Green Party candidate for the local Council election who didnt want me to vote for him as it was a two horse race in the ward between lab/ con and he realised I would vote lab, but I could vote for his colleague in the simultaneous euro election where they had a shot?

Basically the lab/ lib/ green vote's first priority is "anyone but the tories", and who they actually vote for is a function of the historical situation on the ground.

 

[bathsheba666]

No-one who remembers the tories in power will vote for them, except those voting for self-interest for the tory mps.

Only the young could vote wanting a change.

 

[lovett]

But you don't actually vote for Cameron... You vote for you dude in your district, right? Then all those dudes get together and whichever party of dudes happens to have the most, they'll pick the leader.

Unless... Are you guys actually saying you vote in your district based on who you want the PM to be, and it really has no bearing who the person that happens to be representing that party is? If that is the case, well I'm very glad we have a Presidential system then.

British political dynamics are really quite different from United States political dynamics. Your criticism seems based on the idea that Parliament and members of parliament are synonymous with Congress and congressmen. This isn't true. As per this analysis, one of the most important issues is probably party discipline. In Congress, you just don't have it. Not by Westminster standards, at any case.

For example, the whole concept of 'RINOs' or 'DINOs' is completely alien to the British political system. The whip system is ironclad here; you ignore it at your peril. If you vote against your party on a major issue (or even abstain) you're political career is going to be seriously ********. If you continue doing it, you probably won't have one. This means that party leadership is really rather important; they control the whips.

Concurrently, representatives aren't mainly popular due to how much they materially benefit their district. This is partly because they represent far fewer people then congressmen; 90,000 compared to about 500,000. In constituencies this size, a representatives actions rarely bring 'jobs' to an area; they're more beholden to economic forces. This has a few rather interesting affects: Firstly, the British legislature revolves rather less around pork than the American. Second, British representatives are physically able to listen to individual concerns of individual constituents. Thirdly, and most importantly for our purposes, MPs popularity is not just a function of their own ability; it is a function of their parties' popularity. We should note that this is reinforced by the lack of gerrymandered 'safe seats' and the relative impotence of the single MP. Given this, you very much are voting for a party rather than an individual representative.

It's also worth mentioning fusion of powers; The British parliament is basically a legislature dominated by an executive. The government is formed by the majority in the legislature, if the government loses the confidence of parliament, it falls. This means the legislature does have some very peculiar power over the executive, but more importantly (for our purposes) it means that the executive tends to dominate the legislature. To whit, cabinet (the executive) is formed from the best and brightest in the majority party. They tend to have complete control over that party. If MPs disobey the whip system they soon find out that they're not MPs anymore. We can go on from here; The Prime Minister dominates cabinet. They choose who is in cabinet, they chair cabinet, they chair standing committees, they chair any select committees they wish to and, because of the way in which party leaders are elected, they tend to have strong support amongst rank-and-file MPs. When in the ascendant, PMs have far more power than Presidents.

I hope that shows why it is eminently reasonable to keep party and prime minister in mind when voting in the UK.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

Yeah The Conservatives are so pathetic they believe that emulating labour is the only way to office.

I think it's the other way around.

 

[Mise]

British political dynamics are really quite different from United States political dynamics. Your criticism seems based on the idea that Parliament and members of parliament are synonymous with Congress and congressmen. This isn't true. As per this analysis, one of the most important issues is probably party discipline. In Congress, you just don't have it. Not by Westminster standards, at any case.

For example, the whole concept of 'RINOs' or 'DINOs' is completely alien to the British political system. The whip system is ironclad here; you ignore it at your peril. If you vote against your party on a major issue (or even abstain) you're political career is going to be seriously ********. If you continue doing it, you probably won't have one. This means that party leadership is really rather important; they control the whips.

Concurrently, representatives aren't mainly popular due to how much they materially benefit their district. This is partly because they represent far fewer people then congressmen; 90,000 compared to about 500,000. In constituencies this size, a representatives actions rarely bring 'jobs' to an area; they're more beholden to economic forces. This has a few rather interesting affects: Firstly, the British legislature revolves rather less around pork than the American. Second, British representatives are physically able to listen to individual concerns of individual constituents. Thirdly, and most importantly for our purposes, MPs popularity is not just a function of their own ability; it is a function of their parties' popularity. We should note that this is reinforced by the lack of gerrymandered 'safe seats' and the relative impotence of the single MP. Given this, you very much are voting for a party rather than an individual representative.

It's also worth mentioning fusion of powers; The British parliament is basically a legislature dominated by an executive. The government is formed by the majority in the legislature, if the government loses the confidence of parliament, it falls. This means the legislature does have some very peculiar power over the executive, but more importantly (for our purposes) it means that the executive tends to dominate the legislature. To whit, cabinet (the executive) is formed from the best and brightest in the majority party. They tend to have complete control over that party. If MPs disobey the whip system they soon find out that they're not MPs anymore. We can go on from here; The Prime Minister dominates cabinet. They choose who is in cabinet, they chair cabinet, they chair standing committees, they chair any select committees they wish to and, because of the way in which party leaders are elected, they tend to have strong support amongst rank-and-file MPs. When in the ascendant, PMs have far more power than Presidents.

I hope that shows why it is eminently reasonable to keep party and prime minister in mind when voting in the UK.

This is an excellent post. I have only one thing to add: that we have local elections to elect council members. These councillors are the people who actually have day-to-day control over things like council tax, town planning, schools & hospitals, etc. Our local concerns are met by these local councillors, and not by our MPs (although writing/petitioning to your MP is a good way of getting things on the political agenda, locally or nationally!).

 

[bhsup]

Lovett, that was as Mise said an excellent post. Thank you.

 

[Traitorfish]

Yeah The Conservatives are so pathetic they believe that emulating labour is the only way to office.

Although given that Labour got into office by emulating the Conservatives, I may suggest that this a general trend towards centralism, rather than a particular tendency of the Tories.
Honestly, these days, British politics is often more about managerial competence than ideology. The two main parties agree on many basic points, they merely differ over exact methods of implementation, or, often, the ability of either party to execute the same methods effectively. There's limited room for real ideology anywhere in this scenario, which is why folks like you and I- apart in principals, alike in strength of principal (and, if we're to be honest, brooding resentment )- are pushed out towards the fringes.

 

[Quackers]

I would say that labour emulated the Conservatives on one point and that was economic issues and that was just natural proccess as the SU fell many of the Soviet Sympathisers were pushed out ofthe party and replaced by centrist or right-centre of economics. But I think it is the softy-softy lefty liberal policies they both agree on like weak law and order, all for "academic schools" (whichis just building a shiny new steel school) and the Conservatives have nothing to say on immigration (too scared of Jon Hari probably ). Which means they barely differ

 

[Mise]

Labour and the Conservatives have more differences than people here seem to think; it's not simply about managerial competency, but about who they're working for. They may seem wonkish, but they're important differences, and will shape the future of this country. That's especially important for us "young people". It would be a good idea to really discover and understand their differences, by being less cynical and more critical.

 

[Quackers]

Ok what are those real tangible differances they have? I think Cons are oppsed to 50% tax rate and labour opposed to tax breaks for people with massive homes - but those issues don't effect me or 99% of the population!