Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2017 June 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.

June 9

Presidential-style campaign in UK

jessica Elgot of The Guardian writes:[1]

However, she has been prime minister for a mere 10 months, voters barely had time to get to know [Theresa] May, who is not the most natural campaigner. Running a presidential-style campaign based on someone still untested with the public was a gamble.

This seems to mean there is some other style in which a UK party aiming for a majority can run a general election campaign. Does that mean a campaign focusing more on issues and backbenchers than on the leadership personalities, or what? Do they actually do that there some of the time?

Also, what does this mean and is it realistic? It says Jeremy Corbyn is likely to become the next British PM, even though his party will still have fewer seats than the Conservatives. It also says that Boris Johnson is May's most likely successor: does that mean as Conservative leader, rather than as PM? Is it really plausible that the next PM won't be a Conservative, since they're still the largest party by a considerable margin? Thanks. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 07:16, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

The Tories ran a May v Corbyn campaign. Labour went on policies and many candidates around the country hid Corbyn as much as possible from their leaflets etc. The former is presidential style. On your second question, see minority government and hung parliament. If the Tories form the next government then whoever is their leader will be PM. The rules of the Tory party is that if there's a leadership election, sitting MPs vote. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:51, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Although the Independent article (currently) says it's from "an hour ago", i.e. about 9 am, most it was clearly written before the full results were known, though after the exit poll was published, and its "predictions" are mostly based on betting behaviour. At the moment it's very unclear what will happen, though it seems most likely that the Conservatives will continue as the governing party, possibly with support from (if not coalition with) the DUP. Despite her insistence that she won't resign, I can't see Theresa May lasting much longer after her disastrous gamble. Boris Johnson must be sharpening the knives... AndrewWTaylor (talk) 09:05, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Leadership elections in British political parties generally, but especially the Conservative party have a funny way of not turning out the way outsiders might have expected at the outset, particularly when the PM seat is up for grabs. Here's an example: Conservative Party (UK) leadership election, 1990. And, erm, here's another: Conservative Party (UK) leadership election, 2016. Not that there is currently a vacancy, but Anna Soubry's comments last night live on BBC were damaging, if not quite like being savaged by a dead sheep. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:26, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

The term "presidential campaign" in the context of a UK general election means that a particular party is concentrating on the qualities of their leader (as though they being personally elected, rather like a president) rather than on the party's policies. This article from last week says that "the signs are quite literally there that the Conservative campaign will be far less Presidential", suggesting that the party managers had already realised that their original line, “Theresa May and the Conservatives: Strong, Stable Leadership” was mistaken. Alansplodge (talk) 12:49, 9 June 2017 (UTC

Thanks, that all explains. I guess the immediate governance question is sorted for now. Corbyn's personal popularity apparently shot way up towards the end of the campaign ([2], § "May v Corbyn"), so I wonder if Labour is likely to also go "presidential" next time. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 07:20, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Greater London constituencies

Why are the left and right wing areas shaped like that?

Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:06, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

By the distribution I would say the yellow, brown, and green are regional parties, blue and orange fight for the rural vote and the red represents the cities. The same pattern always occurs in Canada too. 72.38.213.159 (talk) 19:49, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

If you are just guessing, why answer? Fgf10 (talk) 21:03, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

That is generally true but I was wondering about Greater London. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:22, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Are you asking why certain areas vote Labour or Tory in London, or why the constituencies are shaped the way they are? Your question isn't clear to me. Fgf10 (talk) 21:03, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I was surprised that the west half of London has a Labour strip from the edge of Greater London to almost the center and the east half has a lot of Tory suburbs. I wonder why left wingers live due southwest but only very far away, the Tory zone that comes right out of the City and Westminster is small and things like that. The shape of each of the dozens of constituencies is too much detail. My London geography is very fuzzy. I don't even know where some well-known things like Heathrow are. Northeast? Southeast? Who knows? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:57, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually, Heathrow Airport is in the London Borough of Hillingdon, which together with the London Borough of Hounslow forms the red Labour holding on the western fringe of Greater London. Hounslow is a less-than-prosperous and racially diverse area, perhaps partly due to its proximity to one of the busiest airports in the world, but also due to post-war housing policy. However, there's no simple correlation between prosperity and support for Labour or Conservative; wealthy Kensington (UK Parliament constituency) has just returned a Labour MP (after three recounts). Alansplodge (talk) 23:20, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

[Posting by banned user removed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:07, 11 June 2017 (UTC)]

Hmmm... "As of now... no constituency falls within more than one London borough"? What about Leyton and Wanstead (UK Parliament constituency) which spans parts of the boroughs of Redbridge and Waltham Forest? Alansplodge (talk) 21:23, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

From the article List of Parliamentary constituencies in London - The constituencies were redrawn for the 2010 election. All 73 constituencies are contained within Greater London. Constituencies cross borough boundaries between Barking and Dagenham, and Havering; Brent and Camden; Harrow and Hillingdon; Kensington and Chelsea, and Hammersmith and Fulham; Redbridge and Waltham Forest; Bexley and Greenwich; Bromley and Lewisham; Kingston upon Thames and Richmond upon Thames; Lambeth and Southwark; and Westminster and the City of London. Wymspen (talk) 12:16, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

How to describe opposing justice for minorities?

Bloody Sunday (1972) was an incident where the British army indiscriminately murdered a bunch of peaceful Irish protesters. Two newspapers, the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph have written articles in recent years saying that the soldiers who perpetrated this massacre should not be prosecuted for murder.

I am trying to find a phrase to describe these papers' actions. Is it hate speech? Something else?--Feae3 (talk) 20:12, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I think you're looking for the phrase disagrees with me. --Trovatore (talk) 20:15, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

See impunity and truth and reconciliation commission. Neutrality^talk 20:52, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

As part of the Good Friday Agreement paramilitaries were given early releases and basically normalization has involved something a bit closer to what the truth and reconciliation commission did. The British government doesn't want anything formal like in South Africa but in effect everyone is following that path with things like the Saville Inquiry and the military will not be prosecuted for crimes before the peace agreement. Dmcq (talk) 21:50, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

And the idea that a newspaper expressing an opinion about whether or not something is murder constitutes "hate speech"? I bet there's a word for that too. How to describe that? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 22:34, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

You are wrong about the Good Friday Agreement. It says nothing about crimes from before the peace agreement. Criminals from the security services and paramilitaries who committed crimes before 1998 are regularly prosecuted. The Bloody Sunday soldiers can be. Early release for prisoners already in prison was the only controversial part of the agreement. The Bloody Sunday soldiers weren't already in prison when it was made.--Feae3 (talk) 22:43, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

If you know that much you know immunity notices have been handed out to many who were on the run and that at most people are prosecuted and then released after six months or so, the limit is two years. As to security forces being regularly prosecuted that hasn't included British soldiers. Two have been recently prosecuted but I see that as a sort of test case to fix the business properly, this is what goes wrong when things are done informally, with something like this it does have to be fixed up properly eventually. Dmcq (talk) 00:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Is there a possibility, that....

...(first: hi to all)....2nd...the Trump Admin be able to...because he said today to the (recorded tapes that the congress gave the limit to june 23rd), Quote: "you will know in the "very near future"", ... (manipulate), or produce (secret) recordings he never made with the meetings with James B. Comey, some that may, or may never have existed (i mean faked recordings), without that Congress (or Robert Mueller as the special investigator) being able to investigate if the taped recordings have been "made" in the timeline between today and June 23rd 2017 ? Knowingly that Trump never gives up, even if he is mostly involved being working with some Mobsters during his time as a Businessman, being suspected even with suspicious russian connections, is tapeproducing in the aftermath of the ongoing investigation, traceable, or possible to be traced back, that the tapes have been produced in the (now) aftermath of Comeys firing ? Or would such a deflecting move be investigated, or being looked into ? Thank you very much for some clearance in this question. Regards. --2001:7E8:D281:3901:61DE:2B93:2764:7943 (talk) 23:17, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're asking, but 1) Trump insinuated that tapes exist; 2) he may or may not have been bluffing; 3) Comey described (fixed) compared Trump to someone complaining of a meddlesome priest; 4) the point of such a comparison is that it's hard to pin Trump down for actual lawbreaking rather than routine belly-aching; 5) Trump is a more colorful personality than Comey or Mueller, but they are all pariticipating in Byzantinism and none can be treated as perfectly credible or agenda-free. The Russia story has believers and skeptics on both the left and right.

Right now I'd take recent events more as political posturing than the actual uncovering of facts. Richard Wolffe claims[3] that impeachment machinery is warming up for Trump, but doesn't say who is warming it up. I don't personally know anyone who wants Trump impeached. Conservatives want Trump to stay because they like him, and liberals want him to stay because they're even more afraid of Mike Pence than they are of Trump. I don't keep a scorecard, though. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 04:09, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

True conservatives don't like Trump, they merely disliked Hillary more. The alt-right likes him, but that's a different breed. And the media and the liberals have figured out that continually distracting the egotistical Trump helps to stall his political agenda. They would likely have no such luck with Pence. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:18, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

In amongst all the talk of impeaching Trump, I've seen nothing about what this would mean in terms of the presidential succession, i.e. Mike Pence as president. What is the consensus of the chatterati about this? Would he be even worse, or better (in the sense of anyone but Trump)? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:39, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Impeaching Trump is wishful thinking on the part of some opponents. As for Pence, he seems like a low-key kind of character, so he would probably get along with everyone better. But there's been nothing presented yet about Trump that puts him in serious trouble. Those who liked or didn't like him before have probably not changed their opinions. And likeability (or lack thereof) is not an impeachable offense. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:27, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, but I was asking about published opinions about Pence as President. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:23, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Never mind. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:28, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

UK Election - Two Queens speeches and other matters

Some questions about the UK election, but we do seem to have got ourselves into a bit of a tizzy, electorally.

1. The Guardian is reporting that Jeremy Corbyn plans to offer an alternative Queen's speech. What happens when two Queen's speeches are put on the table. Is there a precedent for this or is this unheard of? Surely, Her Majesty will only read one. Are they both voted on before the state opening?
2. If no party is able to form a government what happens. The DUP haven't committed to anything yet and may have demands that the Tories find unpalatable. A minority government would be inherently unsuitable given the Brexit negotiations, presumably, and minority governments in the past tend to have a history of resulting in elections quite quickly but we can't elect a new administration in the middle of Brexit negotiations which may have a completely different brexit strategy
3. Why is nobody talking about forming a national government, where the largest parties agree to set aside their differences in the national interest, like they did in the Great Depression. Brexit is arguably the defining issue of our generation, surely it trounces everything else. A national government would unify the country.
4. Isn't it stupid of the House of Commons to have an even number of seats (650), what happens if there's a direct tie of 325:325. Various media outlets are reporting a return in effect to two party politics in the country, so it could be an issue in the future

Sorry for so many questions --Andrew 23:23, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

If you were truly sorry, you would remove the offending questions.  :)

We certainly cannot answer the last two questions, as they're invitations to debate, so we're down to two already. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:29, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As the Queen has already asked Mrs May to form the next government, I very much doubt that the Her Majesty will be asking Mr Corbyn for the script. Alansplodge (talk) 23:36, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

• Isn't it the other way round, May asks the Queen? The DUP has only agreed in principle to assist the Tories, not in practice. Negotiations between the two parties could flounder. --Andrew 23:39, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
• If negotiations with the DUP do falter who else would prop her up, the SNP loathe her, the Liberal Democrats already fell for that trick, etc. She has no allies left. --Andrew 23:41, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

• Let me phrase them differently then perhaps; 1) Could a national government be formed, and 2) is there a reason why the House of Commons have an even number of seats? --Andrew 23:31, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

1) No, the Conservatives will form a minority government.

2) One of the seats belongs to the Speaker of the House of Commons who doesn't vote except in tie-breaks. Alansplodge (talk) 23:42, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

• Expanding on Alan's last point, this means that a tie vote does not cause a problem, so having an even number of seats is not a problem. In practice seats often become vacant between elections, so the total number of seats varies between odd and even numbers anyway. What could be a problem would be if no one was willing to take the position of Speaker because doing so would cost their party one vote in any case where there isn't a tie. In British Columbia, Canada, they recently had a very close result in their provincial election, and it seems as though this may be an issue there when the new legislature meets in two weeks. --69.159.63.238 (talk) 00:01, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

• Surely this is conditional on being successfully able to negotiate a deal with the DUP? If those talks fall flat, the Lib Dems wouldn't help them again, the SNP hate them, the Greens wouldn't either, Sinn Fein don't take their seats, etc. If this informal alliance flounders they have very few options at all. They can't afford to make a deal that's likely to fall apart because there isn't enough time, within the brexit timetable to call another election? --Andrew 23:46, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
• Also, the speaker has the deciding vote on legislation, not on who gets to form the next government. --Andrew 23:51, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Not just on legislation, also on confidence votes. --69.159.63.238 (talk) 00:01, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

On motions of any kind. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:50, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Historically, in the UK, minority governments often do fall apart. As dreadful as it sounds, it would be entirely within the realm of normal for the UK to see another election during the next 6-12 months. A new election could be called either because the alliance fails, or alternatively because the party in power feels the tide has turned and they can claim an advantage and true majority by having a new vote (though we have just seen how well trying to do something like that worked out). Interestingly, the UK is somewhat worse at this than most of the rest of the world. Many parliamentary democracies have robust multi-party systems. The dominance of just two parties in UK politics for much of the last century, makes minority governments rarer but also less able to sustain themselves. Globally, minority governments tend to survive an average ~2 years, but the relatively few examples we have for the UK have often struggled to last even 1 year. Dragons flight (talk) 05:43, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

It is now much more difficult to call another election, as it is no longer the choice of the prime minister. There must either be a vote of no confidence in the government, or a two thirds majority for an election. That means that as long as the opposition want to leave a conservative government floundering, there is nothing the conservatives can do about it.Wymspen (talk) 09:31, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if it's so simple. I mean we've discussing wacky stuff like a majority party voting no confidence in their own government before albeit mentioning that such a move could prove unpopular. In this case since the Conservatives don't have a majority they couldn't actually do that but actually in some ways there seem to be more plausible scenarios. I mean sure, the other parties could all vote in support of a confidence motion/oppose a no confidence motion completely preventing it but again that seems a fairly extreme option which wouldn't be any more popular than voting no confidence in your own government. Abstaining may be more likely and that would nominally allow the likely unpopular option of the Conservatives voting no confidence in their own government, but still the opposition will have to convince the voting public that abstaining in no confidence vote for a government they are saying is crap is the right move. So we end up with the more likely scenario which would be that the opposition votes as expected i.e. they support a no confidence motion. The Conservatives despite not wanting to govern in the current form oppose a no confidence motion. This leaves whoever are supporting them, probably the DUP and maybe some other minor parties. So it depends on what these are demanding to support. It doesn't seem completely impossible that the Conservatives could "decide" they can no longer meet one of these demands and the DUP can no longer support the government bringing it down. More cloak and dagger, if both get unhappy with the status quo and feel they will benefit from an election, the DUP could impose a requirement which they know has no chance of being met but which will go down well with possible supporters and the Conservatives could refuse to support it. There is a risk either of these options could annoy the voting public, but then again calling an early election is always risky as this example highlighted and these doesn't seem that implausible. Nil Einne (talk) 12:45, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

The major thing the DUP will be interested in is a good deal on the border in Ireland, and as far as I can make out it is in Sinn Féin's interest to quietly support the DUP in this and continue abstaining. In a way the weakness of the Tories is a strength here as they can't agree to anything too silly. Dmcq (talk) 09:38, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Thinking of Ireland — Andrew, on the question of an even number of MPs being silly, consider Sinn Féin. It appears that the last time they didn't stand any candidates was 1979, and with the exception of 1992, they've won at least one constituency in every election since 1979. Since a victorious Sinn Féin candidate does not take his seat, this guarantees that there will not be 650 MPs. Nyttend (talk) 12:27, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Returning to the question of Corbyn's "alternative Queen's Speech", the latest news is that he intends to submit his ideas as a "substantial amendment" to the actual Queen's Speech, thereby forcing another general election. We shall see, Alansplodge (talk) 20:37, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

If another election were held, resulting in a new prime minister and a majority of Parliament both opposed to Brexit, might that put the kibosh on the Brexit? Or might they call for another Brexit referendum? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:43, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

No, but Labour and the Scottish Nats favour a "soft Brexit" which by accepting free movement of people, could retain access to the Single Market. However, the Conservatives favour a "hard Brexit" which would allow the UK to control migration (a key issue in the referendum campaign) but would have to negotiate some other (probably less beneficial) trade arrangement with the EU. Alansplodge (talk) 11:49, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

It's debatable, if the Australian experience is anything to go by:

I think Jack is overthinking this. The Hutt River Colony declared independence from the rest of Western Australia. (Incidentally, WA is always talking about seceding but it never happens). So it viewed itself as independent having "seceded" from the rest of WA. Jack is right that Southern Rhodesia, which declared "UDI" on 11 November 1965 did not describe its act as a "secession" because it was one country which remained one country. The events of 1933 are very relevant to what is happening today. For "Western Australia" read "Scotland, and/or Northern Ireland". For "Commonwealth of Australia" read "United Kingdom". 68% of WA voted for secession but the government collapsed, there was an election for the state parliament and the union was maintained. Theresa May take note. 188.221.78.19 (talk) 15:20, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.104.49.143 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.211.37.244 (talk)

Where is this copied from, and who is "Jack"? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:26, 14 June 2017 (UTC)