Press covers what the uneducated ethnocentric masses want them to. The press isn't why there's no coverage of the british elections, it plain and simple: most people don't care.
I'm wondering how much thought Americans give to who is Prime Minister here in the UK? We have our election tomorrow, the campaigning has been dominated (IMO) by scare-mongering xenophobia, and by the legality of the war in Iraq.
Tony Blair's Labour Party will probably win...but who on the other side of the supposedly 'special relationship' really cares?
I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts.
I don't see the British elections as a referendum on Iraq as some do. From what I've read it seems that Blair and Labor are regarded as the lesser of three evils by UK voters. The believe he lied about Iraq but the economy is good so they won't vote for the Conservative Party and vote for the Liberal Democrats is viewed as opening the door for the Conservatives.
No we don't. All we care about is who will support us when we call on for help. Question - if Britain had invaded Iraq first, do you think the US would have helped?
The world knows about the US because we export our "culture" (internet, movies, music) and our policy directly affects everyone else in the world. Outside of London, most could not name another city. When was the last time, something in Britain affected the US?
Not to be mean but that is just the way it is here. Anyway, no matter who is PM, they will fall in line too.
I find it fascinating. As best I can tell the Tories are running with - We support the War but Blair's a liar. The Liberal Democrats are going with - Bad War and Blair lies. And Labour goes with - look over here at the economy, but if your going to dwell on the war - we meant well so let's agree to disagree and move on.
Aside from the war and credibility, the Conservatives & Liberal Democrats appear impotent. They, our news, say most don't rate the war among UK voters as a primary concern.
That's the US version, is it accurate?
-- Modified on 5/4/2005 9:56:54 PM
with a shitty answer. I care - the UK has maybe the deepest connection with America. But I have almost zero awareness, let alone understanding, of the election - I only heard about the election for the 1st time maybe 2 days ago. So it didn't break the threshold for my attention. There is another thread somewhere about the national-centric focus of our press. That seems to drive the level of understanding we don't have.
I'd actually be interested to hear more of your perception of what the dynamics of the election are.
Press covers what the uneducated ethnocentric masses want them to. The press isn't why there's no coverage of the british elections, it plain and simple: most people don't care.
I remember watching some of the proceedings on television when Blair addressed Parliament about the Iraqi invasion. It was amazing to me to see the way Parliament operated, with one individual after another asking Tony Blair a question, and Blair taking the podium and responding to each one. It gave me a small but qualitatgive look at the true difference in dynamics between the leadership in Parliament versus the "leadership" in Congress. If only we had Senators and Representatives in Congress who were willing to ask such forthright and direct questions of our Executive branch, and if only we had an Executive branch who was able to respond with the same level of dignity and thoughtful intelligence I saw Blair display in his responses. Whether you agreed or disageeed with him, there is no doubt in my mind that Tony Blair was well informed and erudite at every turn. Unlike the buffoon currently occupying the Oval office.
Yes I care about what happens in the British elections for a variety of reasons. I only wish I had a better understanding of the nature of modern British politics.
Ok enough with the serious stuff... tonights recipe is Humboldt double lemon washed down with a 1984 vintage Glenfiddich single malt. Cheers!
tikal, that's a pretty accurate summary.
The Tory would-be PM has come straight out and said Tony Blair tells lies. This is a big deal here and has put off many voters - negative campaigning doesn't seem popular.
The Conservative Party have a clever strategy, though, and I think it's going to work well for them. Michael Howard (Tory leader, one of the most unappealing politicians ever) bangs on about making a protest vote against Blair. The Tory party have an Australian election strategiest on board and he ran exactly the same 'make a protest vote' campaign in Australia and it worked wonders for the party concerned.
I would love to see Bush subjected to the kind of questioning UK politicians have to put up with. I don't like Tony Blair's policies but I admire his intellect. He does a monthly open sessions with journalists. It's live on TV and he handles it amazing well. Each time I watch it I think of GWB in the same situation...
If I could vote (I moved house, didn't register in time I can't vote this time), I'd probably vote Liberal Democrat. I like a party that says they are not going to cut taxes and they are going to tax high earners more. I'm probably one of the few people in the world who doesn't mind paying taxes - I just don't like what they spend my money on.
So, today's election day - who will be PM tomorrow I wonder?
Hi Carrie,
Thanks for posting the question and interesting to see the replies. You make some excellent points.
Re Michael Howard, there is something about those staring, unblinking eyes ... it was, after all, a member of his own party who famously said that "There was something of the night about him." Will he ever live that one down?!
If Labour is re-elected, as everyone seems to expect, it'll be more through a lack of a credible opposition than because of the popularity of Tony Blair or his government. My main hope is that if they are re-elected, then Gordon Brown will fulfil his destiny to become the next Labour PM.
A Scot in Number 10! Whatever next?
Aphra
I'll leave the arrangments to you, A. 
you say you'd like to see high earners taxed more. What exactly is a high earner?
The oval office is not the only location occupied by "buffoons".
I would suggest that the reason we don't have a system similar to Britain is that Washington is dominated by failed or lazy attorneys. The nobility of governmental service has long since faded and now the professional non-answer bullshitters are in residence.
Congress won't ask the exec. branch, not because they know that the answers won't make sense, rather congress cannot develop questions that are answerable or make any sense either.
It's difficult to disagree with you on this one, Birdman... there is no doubt the Congress has been stacked to the hilt with special interest beholden legislaturds with nothing more on their agenda than dispensing pork to their chosen masters.
But my comment was specifically geared to the comparison between Tony Blairs style and communicative abilities, versus those of George W. Bush.
Regardless of whether you are a Bush supporter or not, you must admit W will never be admired for his clarity of verbal expression, nor his willingness to provide direct answers to difficult questions.
As for Congress? you can take them all, put them in a blender, and strain the mixture with cheesecloth. You'll be left with a biomass resembling nothing more than excrement. Which is about what I think of our current crop of elected jerkoffs.
Now.,.. where did I put my brownies?
shortcomings, but by and large, they do a job that the rest of us do not want. Politicians, like lawyers, scientists, plumbers, electricians, and our dear friends in LE, are necessary for society to function with any semblance of normalcy.
This will sound insulting but i have to say it - I think one of the reasons the election doesn't get much press coverage here is simple: its not that important. Even the Economist, which I think fairly represents what it believes is important - and has a readership that appreciates it - hasn't covered the election even close to the extent to which it covers the US elections.
Britain is a great ally to the US and has an incredibly rich history in international affairs and global economics. But, its relevance to today's affairs (along with that of many other individual European countries) isn't close to what it once was. Now it is important - Britain is a member of the UN Security Council and in the current environment, one of our few allies. But in the scheme of things, I'm not sure the leader of the UK has a huge bearing on this country.
Remember too, what the EU is really about - pooling the collective power of the Euros into a common union. For this to work, the power of the individual countires must be subordinated to the greater good. So, beyond the control over the relatively small military and some influence at the EU, what does the PM do that affects the US?
Your comment struck me as strange. Are we so powerful that the UK has become insignificant? This scares me. I hope I'm off the mark, but if you meant to say (individually) the elected leader(s) of Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, etc., don't play a significant part in world affairs, you don't begin to understand the world.
Worst case scenario: US becomes isolated. We're big but not that BIG. China, India among others are just starting to sprout. If they can peel off one of our traditional allies - invading, occupying, and pacifying others becomes very difficult.
-- Modified on 5/5/2005 11:29:36 PM
I agree. My point is that the leader of the UK probably isn't as important as his counterpart in China or India - and not nearly as important as he was in our parents generation. I think our ties to the UK - and their relative importance - are more emotional than they are practical.
That said, I do think the UK is still important and that we as a country are shamefully disinterested in all affairs that occur outside our country - or state - or neighborhood for that matter. The maddening nature of local network news is a great barometer.
... but since I'm not personally voting, I haven't paid a lot of attention, but I have paid some. At least the tories aren't obsessed with the moral/social issues. It's refreshing to hear about campaigns unburdened by those.
A defeat for Blair would be a defeat for Bush-- but not a significant one. I believe that he's already received from Blair what he needed-- some legitimacy for the invasion, and an unwaving ally that made the "coalition of the willing" look real.
You have to admit it was a strange partnership, and a cause out of character for Tony Blair, it seems. It put his continuation as prime minister at risk.
So, the question that should be asked is, what did he get out of it?
You asked "what did he get out of it?' Did it ever occur to you that he did it, because it was the right thing to do.
I'll put it like this: I think there's no chance he did it and sold the invasion the way he did for moral reasons. None at all. (Not to say that Blair isn't otherwise a good man.)
I think there's a much better chance it might have been irrefutably in Britain's best interest, and therefore, right as far as that goes, but not for the reasons you are thinking.
What happens in the next 3-5 years has a good chance of clearing the whole thing up.
...and telling me if I guessed right.
Carrie,
Do you think that the suprisingly strong LD showing will result in a more balanced three-party system, or is just a hiccup in the system? Is it more of a "un-Tory, but not buying Blair's handling of the war" or a true building of long-term support? I'm interested to hear your input.
I hate when I write a long post and lose it, so my second attempt at a reply will be shorter.
I think it's probably more of a hiccup. Though I'd like to think it wasn't as the Lib Dems talk a lot of sense, IMO.
For me, what was very disturbing about the election was the number of votes racist parties received (BNP). The Tories banged on about immigration and that just plays into the hands of the more extreme parties.
Is there any reason not to read these election results as a repudiation of the Bush/Blair Iraq policy that caused Labor (or is it Labour) to lose more than 100 seats and is expected to cost Blair his job as PM?
True, but with the "first-past-the-post" electoral system with single member districts, all the smaller parties do is dilute the Tories election day draw.
They say that quite a surprising policy agenda should be issuing from 10 Downing... what do you think? Do you believe it will be sweeping enough to maintain support for Labour's majority over the next 4-6 years?
The really interesting thing about the Lib Dem's somewhat limited success - and it is a success that they've come away with the greatest number of seats since the 1920s - is the manner in which they picked up those seats. In the main, the seats were won from Labour rather than the Conservatives. Their attempt to take key Tory seats failed.
I would have liked to see the Lib Dems increase their seats to about 80 (they actually got about 62, I think) as this would have had a major impact and could have caused a surge in popularity at the next election. If people saw them as a true prospect, then they might be more inclined to vote for them. As it is, there can be a tendency in people's minds to consider them a wasted vote. (Sorry, Carrie, but I imagine you'll probably agree with that *general* view.)
Conversely, of course, a strong third party can cause difficulties in government - it can stifle government dynamics - but I think in this case it would be a good way of gettng some element of compromise and consensus. It's telling when the party which used to be the middle class, middle of the road party is now the most radical of the three major players. But part of me rationalises that they can afford to be this way because they're never going to have to put their policies into effect.
It's likely that there was some element of a protest vote in the transfer of votes from Labour to Lib Dem, by those Labour supporters who are dissatisfied with government policies, particularly regarding education and Iraq. It's notable that a few Lib Dem gains were in seats with large student populations.
As things stand, it looks like Tony Blair might have to make more compromises in his new government, as a result of his slashed majority. That's no bad thing. The way that things have been reported since his election win, you'd think that the government's in turmoil instead of just having won a record third consecutive term.
I found the election to be dull and uninteresting. The fascinating thing about the result, though, was how nobody managed to come away with any glory. The electorate somehow managed to give them all the message which they richly deserved - that actually we don't rate any of them that much.
Aphra