UK times and date??

[The Man From G.O.P.]

I looked on the labour and tory website found no help on this

What time and date are the elections and is there any way ill be able to watch them as it happens?

[JohnFKennedy]

We don't have set dates for general elections, there is a maximum term of five years but the government can call an election any time during those five years.

It is though the next general election will be the fifth of May 2005 (05/05/05)

[Platypus]

yeah, but everyone here was CONVINCED the election would be the 7th of August; it wasn't until October

[Silent Hunter]

5 May (the local elections date) looks likely. It makes electoral sense because it helps local candidates too and saves money on campaigning.

[minionofmidas]

Of course, there's no need to have the election in 2005 at all...they aren't due til 2006.
In 2001, the date everybody'd been talking about fell through too.

[Peter]

in 2001, the date everybody'd been talking about fell through too.

That was matters beyond the control of anybody though what with half of rural North England being locked down.

By convention all UK elections fall on a Thursday; He has to go by the beginning of May because there are a lot of potentially damaging reports coming out at the end of May that Blair won't want blighting the campaign.

[jimrtex]

I looked on the labour and tory website found no help on this

What time and date are the elections and is there any way ill be able to watch them as it happens?

The Queen (on advice of her government) decides when to dissolve her Parliament, and hold new elections for the House of Commons.   Ordinarily, elections must be held within 5 years of the previous election (during both World Wars elections were deferred until after the war).  MPs are elected for an indefinite term.

The current MPs were elected in 2001, so an election need not be held until 2006.  The Queen in her speech opening Parliament last November did not indicate any intent to dissolve Parliament this year.  It is speculative whether her Prime Minister, Tony Blair, has advised holding an election in May.  Of course, he will prefer a time when his party may do well.  If he were to wait until the end of the current five years, he loses the ability to control the timing.

Because there is no Parliament from the time it is dissolved until after the elected MPs meet, the formal campaign is extremely short (under a month).   Because of this, the political parties and candidates have to be prepared ahead of time.  That all the parties are selecting their candidates now suggests that an election is imminent.

CSPAN typically carries the BBC election night coverage of the British elections (late afternoon, early evening in the US).  They probably will also have coverage of the campaign during their weekly show on British politics.

[Platypus]

The Queen has no say in it at all, it's p[urely on Prime Minister's advice, which she *has* to take.

Basically, Blair chooses the date; the Queen is a non-necessary tradition.

[KEmperor]

http://portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/02/11/nelec11.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/02/11/ixhome.html

The date has been confirmed by a Russian MP of all people.

[Peter]

http://portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/02/11/nelec11.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/02/11/ixhome.html

The date has been confirmed by a Russian MP of all people.

It could easily have been a reference to the local elections of May 5th. Also, it wouldn't be beyond Mr Blair to put this out there as a smoke screen - keeping people guessing with the election date is something Prime Ministers love to do.

[jimrtex]

The Queen has no say in it at all, it's purely on Prime Minister's advice, which she *has* to take.

Basically, Blair chooses the date; the Queen is a non-necessary tradition.

Any advice that Tony Blair gives to The Queen will be consistent with his oath of allegiance.  Were it not, she would likely reject it. 

[Platypus]

Well, if he told her to shoot herself, obviously. But anything like the election time has to be taken, full stop.

[minionofmidas]

Well, if he told her to shoot herself, obviously. But anything like the election time has to be taken, full stop.

Anything to do with elections times is consistent with the oath of allegiance, I'd presume.

[Platypus]

No idea, the 'oath of allegiance' is a non-existant concept in Australia. Whilst they swear allegiance to the Queen, its the G-G who the PM gets to sign the dissolution papaers.

[Peter]

Any advice that Tony Blair gives to The Queen will be consistent with his oath of allegiance.  Were it not, she would likely reject it.

Any (lawful) advice he gives the Queen is automatically consistent with the Oath of Allegiance.

The only way in this case that he could give her unlawful advice in this instance I can think of off hand is if he asked her not to dissolve Parliament within the five year period without Parliament passing an Act to do so. As long as he asks her for a date of dissolution within the five years, there is pretty much nothing she can do but accept it.

[minionofmidas]

Any advice that Tony Blair gives to The Queen will be consistent with his oath of allegiance.  Were it not, she would likely reject it.

Any (lawful) advice he gives the Queen is automatically consistent with the Oath of Allegiance.

The only way in this case that he could give her unlawful advice in this instance I can think of off hand is if he asked her not to dissolve Parliament within the five year period without Parliament passing an Act to do so. As long as he asks her for a date of dissolution within the five years, there is pretty much nothing she can do but accept it.

He might ask her to dissolve parliament without setting an election date for a new one...if he wants to be the new Charles I that is.

[jimrtex]

Well, if he told her to shoot herself, obviously. But anything like the election time has to be taken, full stop.

Anything to do with elections times is consistent with the oath of allegiance, I'd presume.

What happens if a government loses a vote of confidence?  Is the Prime Minister obligated to advise The Queen to call an election?  And if so can it really be said that The Queen is the PM's puppet?  Or does she summon the PM and tell him that it appears that he has lost the confidence of the members of Her Parliament and either choose new ministers or call a new election.

[jimrtex]

No idea, the 'oath of allegiance' is a non-existant concept in Australia. Whilst they swear allegiance to the Queen, its the G-G who the PM gets to sign the dissolution papaers.

The Governor-General acts as The Queen's agent in her role as Queen of Australia.  Were she present in Australia on a more regular basis, she would probably deal with the Australian PM directly.

[Platypus]

Jim-that is very, very unlikely.

Already most Australians want an Australian head of state, and at least the G-G is an aussie. Replacng him with someone of a foreign country, be it the Queen or someone else, is never going to happen. She could 'retire' in Canberra and only see the PM once or twice a year .

If the PM loses a vote of confidence, the speaker dissolves parliament and the G-G automatically calls a new election, IIRC.

[Silent Hunter]

Declaration times for 2001:

http://www.election.demon.co.uk/declar2001.html

[jimrtex]

Already most Australians want an Australian head of state, and at least the G-G is an aussie. Replacng him with someone of a foreign country, be it the Queen or someone else, is never going to happen. She could 'retire' in Canberra and only see the PM once or twice a year .

If The Queen lived in Australia she would be able to see the PM on a more regular basis.  I believe she meets with her PM for the UK on a weekly basis.   There is no reason that The Queen couldn't have multiple residences; plus she would likely travel to New Zealand and Papua New Guinea and her other realms on a regular basis.

She could be based in the UK in even years, alternating between Canada and Caribbean, and Australia and Pacific in the odd years.

[Platypus]

what i'm saying is that even if she lived here, she'd be no more involved. The public is nowhere near as attached to the monarchy here as over there. In fact, the royal fmaily is probably more liked in the USA then Australia. We like the Queen, but the rest of the family can go rot as far as we're concerned. Well, maybe not William and Harry, they're half Diana after all...:rolleyes:

[jimrtex]

what i'm saying is that even if she lived here, she'd be no more involved. The public is nowhere near as attached to the monarchy here as over there.

If she lived there more often, she would likely be more involved, and the the people would feel more attached.  She could appoint a G-G for the UK, and Lt-G for England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Platypus]

Jim, you don't seem to understand. It just wouldn't happen!

That's like suggesting if the US President lived in Quebec, the Quebecois would all start to like him.

[jimrtex]

Jim, you don't seem to understand. It just wouldn't happen!

That's like suggesting if the US President lived in Quebec, the Quebecois would all start to like him.

The President of the United States is not the President of Canada. 

The Queen of the UK is The Queen of Australia.