Humanities desk
< May 7	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 9 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

May 8

How long does a British general election campaign really last?

The following appeared on The Washington Post's website today:

The British campaign season began after the first American presidential candidate announced his campaign, and it will end before most U.S. candidates even launch their bids. The U.S. election season, from when Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) announced his candidacy until Election Day 2016, will have lasted more than a year and a half, compared with the 38 days between the queen's dissolution of Parliament on March 30 and Thursday's voting. [1]

Is this really an accurate description of the way that the UK conducted its election? It seems that if the parties start selecting their parliamentary candidates months in advance of the general election, and polling starts years before the general election, then the "campaign" is going on well before the previous parliament is dissolved. Would British Wikipedians agree with the Washington Post's description above? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This will tell you a bit about timings and rules. Fgf10 (talk) 06:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting example is the 2007 "election that never was". Gordon Brown took over the premiership mid-term and opinion polls showed a high public approval rating by the summer of 2007. The Labour Party began gearing up for a "snap election" on 1 November, but when the polls became less encouraging Brown finally denied that there would be an autumn election on 7 October, claiming that it had never been planned. The party had already hired in banks of computers and arranged helicopter flights and a trades union had spent a fortune on pro-Labour pamphlets. [2] Brown's credibility suffered as a result, but the fact that a 1 November election was still thought likely but unconfirmed four weeks beforehand shows the time-scale in which these things can happen. Of course, everybody knows when an end-of-term election will be and most of us are thoroughly fed up with the whole thing by the time it arrives. How Americans endure their interminable election campaigns is beyond my understanding. Alansplodge (talk) 18:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article, Snap election and in the Snap election#United Kingdom section, it mentions the United Kingdom general election, 1979, held on 3 May 1979 after the governing Labour Party lost a vote of no confidence on 28 March, a period of only five weeks (the end of the government's term was another six months away). [3] Alansplodge (talk) 18:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, since the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 snap elections are somewhat unlikely. DuncanHill (talk) 21:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Although (according to our article) Section 2 of the Act still allows for an early election after a vote of no confidence, but this has to be confirmed by a second vote a fortnight later. So now seven weeks instead of five. Alansplodge (talk) 22:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As an American, I that find that the Washington Post, as cited by the OP, is comparing apples to oranges here (although I understand their rationale that it may be easier for them to explain it to the average American instead of comparing it to elections to the U.S. Congress, which do not generate as much interest). In United States presidential elections, as well as other U.S. elections, Americans vote for a specific candidate instead of directly selecting a particular political party -- this changes the nature of campaigns right from the start. Campaign laws then require presidential candidates to register with the Federal Election Commission before they can raise or spend the money needed for the campaign, which encourages Ted Cruz and others to announce their candidacies this early. Then you have the January to June presidential primaries, in which candidates from the same political party compete to become their party's presidential nominee; these elections are staggered between different states and regions in the U.S. instead of having them all in one day. And of course, the general presidential election in November is an indirect election, where Americans actually elect the Electoral College, which in turn directly elects the president. It is no wonder that those outside the U.S. have trouble understanding the American election system -- even many average Americans don't either. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, it should be noted that British voters also "vote for a specific candidate", but this takes place at the constituency level: our votes are for a specific local representative - our Member of Parliament. Almost all MPs are members of a national political party, but they don't have to be: they can be "independent", members of a "one-man band" political party, or members of a local or regional party (e.g., in the recent election, the SNP, Plaid Cymru, and the Green Party, all of which are restricted geographically). MPs are not legally mandated to follow particular policies after the election, though in practice MPs who are members of a particular party are extremely likely to support that party's policies. RomanSpa (talk) 11:52, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's the technical position, but elections in the major Westminster countries have become "presidentialised" to the extent that people talk about "voting for <name of the current Prime Minister>" or "voting for <name of the Opposition Leader>", when what almost all of them are actually doing - those who live outside the party leaders' own electorates, that is - is voting for the candidates endorsed by the relevant party for the voters' own electorates. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 02:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

nonrenewables

Are commercial passenger planes likely to run on electricity at the end of this century or something else? 84.13.54.10 (talk) 06:03, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a request for opinion, but the current problem is that electricity is not easily stored in the quantities required to power an aeroplane over a long distance. See Rechargeable battery, Flow battery and Supercapacitor for some possible technologies, but "something else" such as Hydrogen economy might be more efficient. It is impossible to accurately predict technology 85 years ahead. Dbfirs 07:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also recommend reading about energy density - no current electrical storage comes anywhere close to fossil fuels. Recently E-diesel came up, and something like that could conceivably be produced by renewable electrical energy, and still be a liquid hydrocarbon fuel that would have the appropriate energy density for aviation. Aviation fuel discusses the various types that are in use today. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is an experimental solar/battery powered plane, but it can't carry any passengers, is very fragile due to the light weight required, and is a very slow prop plane since jet engines are too heavy. This gives you some idea of the difficulties. StuRat (talk) 15:28, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying it is possible that commercial passenger planes could possibly become a thing of the past for future generations? 92.25.90.163 (talk) 19:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a meaningless question. Could it? Sure, maybe, if it becomes the norm that fuel becomes too expensive to make regular air flight economically feasible. Or, maybe we'll get better at storing energy or develop new sources of it or find some brilliant new materials or designs that make aircraft light enough to use foot pedal power. Predictions are very difficult, especially about the future. That's why we have that disclaimer at the top of the page saying we can't predict the future for you. Matt Deres (talk) 13:13, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the question is that electricity is not a source of energy, it is a means of transmitting energy. It still has to be produced, primarily by nuclear or fossil fuel. It's unlikely many planes will have on-board hydroelectric dams or windmills or long extension cords. It's much more likely planes will be replaced by ballistic vehicles for long distance travel and vacuum trains for shorter distances. μηδείς (talk) 21:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

UK elections

What would happen in the UK election if the leader of the party with an overall majority wasn't elected to his seat? Would he still become prime minister? 194.66.246.126 (talk) 07:16, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is no legal requirement for the PM to be an MP. The last time this happened was in 1963 (Douglas-Home), but he stood as an MP soon after. It is the de facto law these days though. Fgf10 (talk) 08:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per Fgf10, constitutionally there are no requirements on who can be named Prime Minister; the Monarch is allowed to name anyone to the position. Much of the de facto operation of the UK government works very differently than the de jure constitution (yes, I know that the UK does not have a single document named Constitution, but it does have formal rules and laws for constituting their state. Read the article). Much of the way the UK works is due more to practical politics than to actual written rules. Thus, while technically the Monarch can name anyone they want as Prime Minister (and anyone means anyone. They don't even need to be a British subject AFAIK). In practical terms, there is no fucking way that they could name anyone except the leader of the party which controls the House of Commons. The Douglas-Home government created a bit of a constitutional crisis, and for decades, such embarrassments are avoided well ahead of time by assuring that the PM is running for a safe seat. --Jayron 32 11:16, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas-Home could have followed many of his predecessors and been a Prime Minister who sat in the House of Lords; Lord Salisbury being the last in 1902. However by the 1960s, this would have been seen by the electorate as hopelessly anachronistic, hence Douglas-Home's haste to cast off his peerage and to get elected to the Commons. He didn't lose his seat in the general election, he didn't stand because he was a peer. Alansplodge (talk) 17:49, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have not researched this, but I'm not aware of any case in the Commonwealth where a party won the election but its leader lost his own seat. There have been various cases of leaders losing their own seats, but to my knowledge they've always occurred when the party lost government or failed to gain government. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 11:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Forde from your neck of the woods appears to meet the criteria. He officially only served in the office for something like 8 days, but he lost his seat yet his party retained control of the House of Representatives. --Jayron 32 14:05, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Read that again, Jayron. He was interim PM for 8 days in July 1945 following the sudden death of the incumbent John Curtin, after which the party elected Ben Chifley as leader and PM. Forde dropped down to Deputy Leader and Minister for Defence. Fourteen months later, Forde "lost his seat at the 1946 election, though the Labor Party itself comfortably retained office". Still, a Deputy Leader and de facto Deputy Prime Minister (we had no official Deputy Prime Ministers till 1968) losing his seat is quite a big deal, but it doesn't actually meet the criteria. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the 1985 Quebec elections, Robert Bourassa's Liberal Party won a majority of seats, but Bourassa himself was defeated. One of his party's elected members stood down to allow him to run in a by-election, which he won. This scenario could be repeated elsewhere, but it takes a strong and uncontested party leader. The party that won the election could also decide to elect a new leader, and ask that this person be designated as Prime Minister or Premier. --Xuxl (talk) 12:28, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Xuxl. I do remember that case now. We should have a list of Political party leaders who were defeated in their own constituencies. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:51, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Though you'd have to decide how to restrict it; would you be interested only in Westminster-system types, or would US House Speaker Tom Foley be worthy of inclusion? He was the highest-ranking member of his party in the US House, but was he the leader, or a leader, or (because he didn't necessarily hold a high-up internal party position) was he not a party leader at all? Nyttend (talk) 02:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good questions, Nyttend. When you've worked out the answers and written the above article, I'll be happy to critique it. :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 02:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There was also consideration whether this would happen in the Queensland state election, 2015 [4], but as I guess Jack knows Campbell Newman not only lost his seat, but the Liberal National Party lost their majority (although none single party ended up with a majority).

Then there's the Canadian federal election, 1925 where Mackenzie King lost his seat but stayed as PM, eventually winning a safe seat in a by-election. However the his party the Liberal Party of Canada didn't have a majority or even a plurality and needed the support of the Progressive Party of Canada, which still didn't give them a majority. (Although it sounds like they were closely aligned so their alliance wasn't actually that unusual.) For various reasons, the whole thing didn't last very long anyway, the Canadian federal election, 1926 was held less than a year later (where the Liberals and Progressives has an informal pact not to contest some seats).

Note that when it comes to ministers (and I think this generally applies to Prime Ministers too), a number of countries and subnational entities have a grace period for someone to become a member of parliament (or the upper house if there is one although as has been mentioned, in a number of countries it either isn't legally allowed or isn't acceptable for the PM to be from the upper house). The earlier links and [5] give some examples.

Nil Einne (talk) 15:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What about cabinet members? Do they have to be MPs? 194.66.246.15 (talk) 11:32, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, the Leader of the House of Lords is a cabinet minister, and cannot be an MP. Less trivially, Lord Mandelson held several prominent cabinet posts under Gordon Brown. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stadiums' declining capacity

What's the primary reason behind declining seating capacity of some football stadiums? The corresponding articles show that in the previous century the capacities fluctuated around 100,000 or higher but are now lower. For instance, Maracanã Stadium which during 1950 World Cup accommodated almost 200,000 people, is now replaced with a 78,000 version; the previous Estádio da Luz seated 120,000 people and was replaced by the 65,000 version. Camp Nou reportedly had a peak capacity of 121,000, but presently seats roughly 99,000 people. Rather economic reasons or declining demand? Brandmeister^talk 14:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Report --Viennese Waltz 14:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stadiums used to have terraces for standing spectators, and you could pack more people in that way. But after events like the Heysel stadium disaster in 1985 and the Hillsborough disaster in 1989, top-level football has gone increasingly all-seated, which is safer but means stadiums can't hold so many people. --Nicknack009 (talk) 14:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I already wrote, the main driver of change – in the UK at least – was the Taylor Report which followed the Hillsborough disaster. The Heysel disaster did not have any repercussions on stadium capacity, it was about hooliganism and the need for additional measures to segregate rival groups of fans. --Viennese Waltz 15:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Safety is a big factor. You say "declining capacity" in the header, but "declining seating capacity" in the question; that's much of the difference. Those massive capacities weren't seated - they were dense packed terraces. Many of the incidents in category:stadium disasters were either caused by, or made much worse by, large uncontrolled volumes of people sloshing around. You'll often find the new stadiums are bigger, but they're all seating (or have but a few special standing terraces), and much better designed (often meaning larger and more numerous) crowd passageways. So they're much safer, but inevitably pack the crowd in much less densely. For example, the Hillsborough disaster and the resulting Taylor Report caused the professional game in the UK to move to entirely seated stadia. This has, in fairness, gone hand-in-hard with moves to somewhat "middleclass-ify" football (at least in the UK), where clubs have sought to recover the lost revenue from their mass crowds with ticket price increases averaging > double what they were. Season ticket prices for English Premier League clubs (2014-15 prices) cost about as much as a fortnight's holiday in Spain - it's no longer a poor-man's game. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 15:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about TV ? For some time now it has been possible to get a better view of the game on TV, and for less money, no drive, no waiting in lines, unlimited cheap food and drinks, etc. This has recently gotten better with cheap big screen TVs. And if you don't have one at home, there's probably a sports bar nearby that does, which can also provide the "atmosphere" of fellow fans shouting insults at the screen. So, with more people watching on TV, there's less demand for large stadiums. StuRat (talk) 15:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you possibly provide a reference for that latest piece of unsourced speculation? --Viennese Waltz 15:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's TV viewership of Superbowls (American football): [6]. There's a clear trend on increasing TV viewership, beyond natural population growth. Do you require a source to prove that those people watching the Superbowl on TV are not simultaneously watching in person ? StuRat (talk) 15:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I require a source for your assertion that there is a causal link between TV viewership and the capacity of stadiums. --Viennese Waltz 16:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That would mean you think that all those additional people now watching the games at home are simultaneously watching at the stadium. I now require a source that proves that you are an actual person, as opposed to computer program simulating a person, but incapable of following basic logic. StuRat (talk) 17:08, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anyhow, in England, there doesn't seem to be any shortage of people wanting to watch Premier League football in person. Liverpool FC say that "the Season Ticket Waiting List is currently closed to new applications" the cheapest being £710. [7] "Waiting lists for season tickets can last several years – Arsenal fans may wait up to four years before they can purchase a season pass" despite the cheapest being £1,014. [8]. Alansplodge (talk) 17:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TV viewers plus stadium spectators is not a fixed number over time. It's perfectly possible for both to go up if interest increases, population increases, leasure time increases, income increases, etc. See also National Football League on television#Blackout policies, and Luxury box#Use in the NFL which says: "there has been a rush in recent years to sacrifice seating capacity in favor of the luxury boxes". PrimeHunter (talk) 00:01, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In Major League Baseball, the average seating capacity of most ballparks has gone down since the ballpark construction boom began in the 1990s, but average attendance has gone up. What you have are fewer seats, but better ones: more comfortable, closer to the field, and with better services. Teams have figured out that these seats can be sold at a higher price, and can be filled more regularly (those huge stadiums from the 1950s to the 1960s were hardly ever full, except for some very special occasions). The result is more revenue. Some of the remaining larger ballparks decided to close down whole sections of poor seats (for example, at the Oakland Coliseum. --Xuxl (talk) 12:34, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd attribute that trend to competition with TV, too. While premium seats may be a step up from watching on TV, crappy seats are a step down, so most people aren't willing to pay more (versus TV) for a worse experience. StuRat (talk) 13:09, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation for Scottish election results sought

Have you seen anywhere (online or in print) coherent answers to the following questions regarding the results in Scotland?

1. How is it that about 6 months after the "No" to Scottish independence you get this SNP landslide?

2. After the result of the Scottish independence referendum I thought Scottish independance was basically a dead fish and maybe would go the way of "Quebec independence". Should these elections results change my mind?

3. How many referendums can the Scottish independence movement demand/organize until they get the right result (by them)? Is it the case that they only have to win once while those who want to keep Scotland in the UK will have to win every time? Is there a limit on the number of referendums you can organize in any given number of years?

4. Is there any correlation in Scotland between age and position regarding Scottish independence? If yes, what is it? If, for example, it is that younger Scots were more likely to favor independence it seems that in the long run independence for Scotland is virtually assured at some point and it would seem to just be a matter of when. But is that correct? Could there be in the future another mechanism at work whereby people in Scotland as they age would tend to revert to a "safer" option and move from favoring independence to favoring keeping Scotland part of the UK? Have you seen this sort of stuff discussed anywhere? (Assuming of course the correlation I'm talking about does exist).

Thank you for your answers.

Contact Basemetal here 19:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. The SNP isn't a single-issue party. Here is their manifesto - it talks about lots of other things. Presumably voters in Scotland felt that they wanted the SNP to represent them about those things, rather than other parties. Part of the business of the next parliament will passing a bill to implement some variant on the findings of the Smith Commission for additional devolution (that was part of the Conservatives' pledges before the referendum, and was reaffirmed in their manifesto for the general election (manifesto, p70). The SNP's manifesto pledged "we will use the influence of SNP votes at Westminster to ensure that promises made during the referendum are delivered. Will will demand, firstly, that the proposals of the Smith Commission are delivered quickly and in full" (p10).

2. Before the referendum, and after it, the consensus seemed to be "not for a generation" (example). This guy says five years. Nobody knows.

3. The Scottish independence movement didn't organise the referendum. The referendum was organised by the Electoral Commission, as authorised by the Scottish Independence Referendum Act 2013, an act of parliament. If parliament passes another such act, there can be another referendum. There is no further legal or constitutional framework governing how parliament can choose to do so; parliament is sovereign. The politics of whether and when they may do so are unknown.

4. Polls suggest younger voters were considerably more likely to vote "yes" (for independence) than older votes. ref

-- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 20:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian poll (your last reference) shows almost perfect correlation between age and likelihood to vote "no" (the older the more likely to vote "no") except for the 18 to 24 age bracket which was more likely to vote "no" than both the 16 to 17 age bracket and the 25 to 34 age bracket. Odd isn't it? Contact Basemetal here 21:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the general trend is valid, but I'm sceptical about polling organisations ability to accurately survey younger voters (whose modalities of use of telecommunications is so very different from older groups). No UK pollster has any real experience of polling 16 and 17 year old voters (beyond basic market research) so I think that category in particular is poorly calibrated and surely the least reliable. Incidentally, that poll wasn't paid for by the (vaguely lefty) Guardian, but by conservative backer Michael Ashcroft. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 21:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for Scotland, but for a comparison with Quebec, the provincial Parti Quebecois and the federal Bloc Quebecois were popular with voters even after the voters had rejected sovereignty referendums. The BQ has basically disappeared in recent years but at one point they were the Official Opposition in federal parliament. The PQ is still active in Quebec. As Finlay says, presumably voters wanted the PQ or BQ to represent them provincially and/or federally, to represent their concerns about sovereignty and other issues, even if they dd not want full sovereignty specifically. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the results of the referendum and the general election were very similar. The Yes vote got 44.7% in the referendum, and the SNP got 50% in the election. DuncanHill (talk) 20:24, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The map shows Labour being replaced by SNP, as the major change in Scotland. But how close were the previous local elections, and how close was this one? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's difficult to compare local elections in Scotland (e.g. Scottish local elections, 2012) to elections in Scotland for the Westminster parliament, because the constituencies are different, and particularly because the local elections use single transferable vote (a kind of PR) and the Westminster elections use first past the post. The most apt comparison is the 2010 general election. From 2010 to 2015, Labour's share declined from 42% to 24%. The SNP's victory was also at the expense of the Scottish Liberal Democrats, who lost 10 MPs - the LibDem decline in Scotland largely mirrors their decline in England. As with all first-past-the-post elections, parties with large votes tend to get disproportionately more MPs and those with smaller votes disproportionately fewer - e.g. the Scottish Conservatives got 14.9% of votes (a new nadir in their post WW2 spiral) but only got one MP (1/59 is 1.7% of the overall Scottish delegation to Westminster). -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 21:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've given the right answer to the wrong question. I had wondered whether the districts that voted SNP this time and Labour last time might have had only a relatively small number of votes swing the other way. That's what I actually meant when I said "local" elections. Poor choice of words. And although it could have been close in some districts, according to your data it was a pretty decisive difference overall. Thank you! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:18, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To a large extent, the answer to your first question is this: if political parties in the UK were subject to "truth in advertising" regulations, then the regulating authority would force the SNP to change their name to "Scottish Labour Party", and the Scottish Labour Party to change their name to "Former Scottish Labour Party".--Shirt58 (talk) 04:47, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The best explanation I've seen is that the SNP espoused policies previously held by Old Labour and stood on an anti-austerity, progressive platform that only the Green Party were standing on in England (along with other smaller left parties such as TUSC). That appealed to many Labour voters who believed that the Labour Party had moved too far to the right for them by agreeing with and promising to implement austerity. The other factor was, of course, the fact that no action had been taken on implementing any changes to Scotland's status since the referendum. I have no reference for this as it was a comment on my Facebook timeline. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:39, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond the comments above (particularly Finlay McWalter's comments on the effects of a swing on FPTP and how people voting for the SNP may not support independence particularly given that the party themselves explicitly said this election wasn't about independence and have so far largely stuck to that line after victory, although the Scottish Parliamentary elections may ne another thing), it's unclear what effect the way Labour handled the SNP had on their results. After the Conservative Party used concerns particularly in England over a Labour-SNP deal to try and push people away from voting Labour and towards supporting the Conservative Party, Labour basically began to treat the SNP almost as much as a pariah as UKIP. While they may have been stuck between a rock and a hard place, and even in Scotland, may have hoped their rheoteric would push people away from SNP to Labour (as they were already doing very badly there by the time), it could have easily solidified support for the SNP instead among those leaning both ways. (While any party and its candidates and supporters is usually going to oppose parties competing for the same seats, coming down too strongly on your opponents can easily have a negative effects.) Nil Einne (talk) 15:09, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

UK PM as party leader

We all (or most of us, at least) know that the UK Prime Minister is the party leader, and the main minority party's leader will be the PM at the next election if the voters favour it. How much internal party leadership is involved? In other words, is Mr Cameron responsible for a lot of internal party decisionmaking, fundraising, etc, or is his party leadership largely restricted to setting the party's direction on legislative matters and other policy questions, like the US President? In the USA, this kind of administrative workload seems to be more the responsibility of the chairmen of the Republican and Democratic National Committees, and presumably Barack Obama doesn't do a ton of this kind of stuff for the Democrats. I'm not sure whether David Cameron and Ed Miliband's successor have to do most of this kind of stuff, or if it's largely delegated to internal party positions that resemble the DNC/RNC committee chairmen more closely than the PM/Leader of the Opposition do. Note that I'm well aware of the differences between the countries' parliamentary and presidential systems. Nyttend (talk) 21:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS, I suppose this is additionally important for non-Labour and non-Conservative party leaders, since it's not like Nick Clegg's and Nigel Farange's successors will have to concern themselves that much with governing; until the next election, will their leaders be comparable to the RNC/DNC chairmen, or will that kind of thing be someone else's responsibility? Nyttend (talk) 21:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the party. In the Conservative Party organisation, administration, fundraising etc is the responsibility of the party chairman, who is appointed by the party leader, whereas in the Labour Party it's the responsibility of the National Executive Committee, whose members are elected from local party associations and trade unions as well as the parliamentary party. I don't know how the other parties are organised, but I'm sure there'll be some information on the wikipedia articles on each party. --Nicknack009 (talk) 21:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]