UK politics and the PM election

A lot of us in the UK are really interested in world politics as well as our own. Are you interested in ours? In case you didn't know we're having a General Election, the government one, on 6th May and the race is very tight, and quite intriguing this time round.

This election is the first where the leaders of the main parties (Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrats) have appeared on tv together in a debate. In fact there's three debates with the last one being tonight.
Political pundits have been saying that these televised debates have changed the face of politics in this country. However we'll wait till next Thursday to see if they've made that much difference.
It's true that Nick Clegg the LibDem leader has raised their profile tremendously and there's much dark mutterings about a 'hung parliament' .

The traditional two horse race between Labour and the Conservatives seems to have been split open and a lot of politicians have been caught on the hop. Certainly the Conservatives did have a big lead in the opinion polls this time last year, as normal really cos Labour have been governing since 1997, but I feel sure they would have expected to have a certain win on Thursday, but now they're looking a bit wobbly!

Anyone following the UK election news?

I've been following it a bit, yes, since it seems like a good deal may change. The Clegg thing has been interesting; I've been watching to see if it follows the same sort of pattern our third-party candidates do from time to time, which is that they garner an initial wave of support because they're fresh and new and sound reasonable, but inevitably their support tapers off as we learn more about them. If they were so appealing, in other words, there's not much reason they would be so new to us.

But then again, UK politics (both technically and culturally) are obviously very different from our own, so I'm just keeping an eye on it to see what happens.

I'm never sure how to feel about politics across the pond. Obviously I have beliefs about the optimal size and scope of government, and would like to see those ideas win out in countries other than my own, but I feel less urgency given that the ebb and flow of elections overseas may or may not have much effect on my own life and country. It doesn't help that I always need to double-check which party believes in which set of ideals, just to make sure I've got them all straight. From what I've read, it seems like I'll probably be happy on this front when the election rolls around, but I know there's some odd voting techniques that make the results a good deal less zero-sum than American elections tend to be.

I've been following it in picture form...

__________________
Virtual Reality chatter on a movie site? Got endless amounts of it here. Reviews over here

That sarcastic-seeming post does serve a purpose tho. I've been a little bit dismayed by just how much about sheen over substance the run-in has been. It's no different from normal on many levels, but it is frustrating to hear people switching allegiances because of Clegg's charisma over his policies (and saying so quite frankly). It's frustrating that Brown's probably going to get judged on his overheard 'bigot' comment of yesterday, rather than policy successes and mistakes. The only bright spot for me is that the Tories have been running a pretty inept campaign

The Lib surge does make it very hard to judge outcomes, and to vote tactically. I'm lucky enough to live in a very marginal seat (check this site to see your own 'voting power'), even though standard jerrymandering, a 3-term Labour MP who's retiring, and the said surge still makes it very difficult to know how to vote (to make my vote worth anything)

The system is so slanted that the Libs need to surge even further to make any meaningful gains - and to do anything other than take Labour votes and force the Tories to contest some constituencies they'd rather not. I think the Labs may have had their run. (It is traditional that when the US switches 'sides', we do likewise, but in reverse after all )

Anyway, that's an initial set of thoughts from me. Just to show I'm not all about the kittens

yes, Yoda we've been here before with the LibDems (or as they were - the Liberal Party before it was merged with some middle ground malcontents from within Labour) getting excited, and being sadly disappointed.

Yes, we do have that 'first past the post' voting system that I'm pretty certain the LibDems will make a priority to get rid of if they do end up as part of a hung parliament. The other sharing party will be led kicking and screaming into that one! The Conservatives are dead against 'proportional representation', but Labour says they're prepared to discuss it. Although how much of that promise is with one eye on cosying up to the LibDems I don't know.
The press has been full of dire 'hung parliament' predications - stock markets collapse/double dip recession/general UK weakness. I know who I'm voting for, and let's say that if my world turns upside down and the Conservatives do get in, but not in a majority then I'll be happy thinking that at least the LibDems will be in there to temper some of Cameron's buddies

I've actually been quite amazed at Dave. I would've thought his campaign would've been a lot stronger than this. For someone who was supposed to be a very good orator, he's not been very impressive on or off the TV.

I agree with you. Personality based politics are always frustrating. Gord is never going to win on that basis. He obviously hates being out on the streets, and who can blame him. I want people to govern the country properly, not someone who's 'nice'.

I'm a bit weird with the election. I hate the Conservatives but as for Lib Dems vs Labour I'm seriously on the fence. If the Lib Dems won; it'd be a great change but I'm debating weither Clegg knows how to run a country practically and if Labour won things might just stay the same; which isn't bad or all that good either. I'd love to see what Clegg can do and I sort of hope he wins.

Cameron would be fun to laugh at in the old HOC but practically he'd just kill us all.

__________________
"Life has become immeasurably better since I have been forced to stop taking it seriously."

The difference this time being there's no Falklands War to tip the balance in the incumbents favour

It's almost certainly nonsense (they've been talking reform since election, but still nothing. No motivation). In fact they seem to be pushing non-proportional 'Alternate Vote' system as a half-way house, but doubtless they'll drop even that if they fluke a win.

There's been plenty of counter-balance to the Cameron/Murdoch onslaught on that conceit. Loads of econs pointing out that global investors are much more settled on the idea of a hung parliament now they know what Lib Dem econ policies are. (Bit surprised they aren't more alarmed by the 'break up the banks' idea, but I'm guessing they're thinking the Libs couldn't get that enacted in a hung parliament. Plus Vince Cable has a solid record etc).

There's been loads of coverage of how many stable minority &/or hung governments there are round Europe etc, and how the only time Britain has successfully cut spending has been under a coalition government. The only gripe that has vaguely hit home is the one about minority/extreme parties inveigling their way into the decision making process occasionally (IE the Tory accusation/exaggeration of Germany being to blame for the Balkans war, because a far right group was able to insist Germany vote for Croatia to become a distinct nation etc).

I'm not sure we should fear the hung parliament massively. It would be nice to shake up the monoliths a bit. History also does suggest it would only be a temporary period tho, and we probably wouldn't get any staggering democratic change during it.

People bemoan that here all the time, of course. I kind of wonder if it's inevitable after awhile in a relatively stable Democracy/first-world economy. Unless there's some huge crisis where candidates greatly differ (and on which the public is genuinely split), it seems substantive things take a back seat because, well, they can afford to. When politics isn't really about survival or huge ideological differences (historically speaking), it becomes just about excitement, which means charisma wins out.

This might be an area where the subtleties of the election were lost on an American, but I had the very strong impression that Brown's prospects were looking quite dim even before that gaffe. Was I wrong?

I assume both of you are, being a good deal more liberal than myself, probably in favor of Brown and dismayed at Cameron's good fortunes. But I also get the impression that this is more of a general thing, and that few liberals (in the American sense; sorry, I guess the word is confusing with a "Liberal Democrat" party in the mix, yeah?) are particularly enamored with him. Is he to British progressive what Bob Dole was to American conservatives in 1996? IE: the most closely aligned, represents your ideals in general, but not particularly loved even amongst the like-minded?

Would love to hear your thoughts on these sorts of things, since they're the types of things that no amount of foreign press will really be able to tell me.

specially with the Cons history of European allegiances in recent years

no, I don't think we have anything to fear along the lines of what the press has been leading us to think, but the historic temporariness (is that a word?) of hung parliaments makes an instability we could do without given the economic times we're living in at the mo.

I agree completely. It's just one of the many reasons I wouldn't have him anywhere near #10.

That's the same situation that Blair's Labour were in, back in 1995-97. Odd thing is, I've heard this a few times over the last few weeks, but never heard a peep back then.

This is almost certainly the case, as I see it. There's been plenty of talk over many, many years and nothing. Vote reform really doesn't help the two main parties in any way at all. It's pretty much turkeys voting for Christmas. Even the AV system is being shouted down/dismissed by most Labour MP's at the meetings, according to Diane Abbott. It'll be talked up in order to try and win a few more votes, but it's unlikely to happen any time soon, if at all.

Yep, although the debate has added an interesting new twist, giving the Libs the oxygen of exposure. It's been both depressing that people have to be led to water in the first place, as well gratifying in some ways (in that the level of policy debate has actually been quite reasonable, especially in the 2nd debate).

One fear has been raised on that score tho, and it's accidentally (? *EDITED*) mimicked in chris's title, in that we're in danger of running a 'Prime Minister's Election', but we don't have the checks and balances of your system. (One key point is that the Labour party don't have an internal mechanism for easily removing Brown should he refuse to stand down as leader).

Dim certainly, but the system favours them above all, so even with them running third in the popular vote they were still in the race.

You can put me in the anyone-but-Tory camp (especially given how centralist the 'big three' are on lots of finance issues, and with cuts inevitable anyway. I'd rather have a party in who aren't set on cuts so rampant that even economists are worried by their rashness). What's surprising is just how poor Cameron's fortunes have been. He's been out-charismed by Clegg, suppressed traditional grassroots values in his party to appear 'New', not made great use of their greater 'war chest' in the advertising stakes etc, and his showing against an uncharismatic incumbent is pretty tepid all told.

As for Dole comparisons with Brown, I don't know enough, but yes, there's no great love for Gordy, although he does have this vibe of pragmatism-with-principle which is his last saving grace. I think without the Blair-charisma sheen a 4th term was always going to be a huge ask for Labour tho (who do seem to be floundering now that their policies have ended up as a mixed bag of successes {crime, previously the economy [and possibly still, depending on your view of quantitative easing] etc} versus bureaucracy bloat and water-treading in areas like education, etc etc)

agree with Gol. I think it's the case tho that Cameron's previous big lead in the polls was waning and LibDems increasing thus pushing Labs share up a bit. Back in Feb 2009, the Cons were 42% Lab 24% and the LibDems only 18%. Today it's Cons 34. Lab 27, LibDems 31.

I don't think Brown is a popular leader even inside the Labour Party now. Personally I've always voted Labour and always lived in Labour constituancies - not by deliberate choice I hasten to add, I'm not that fervent, it's just that I've always lived in the inner city and they tend to be Labour strongholds. Where I live now is an 'ultra safe' Labour seat.

I do agree with Gol that Brown's pragmatism has appeared as a steadying influence on the economic situation. The continuity of chancellor into prime minister, and the general view of him as dour has actually helped that.
Personally, I think Labour has had some excellent policies during their terms, the best of which, which has affected the industry I'm in, is the introduction of the minimum wage. Like Gol says though, people get fed up with seeing the same faces and will vote them out even just to get a change for change sake. Even Thatcher wasn't immune to that.

Brief first impressions of the 3rd debate:

There were decent points, and plenty of 'turn off points' too, made by all three leaders, to the extent that I'd almost welcome a hung parliament whereby people could leave party allegiances aside and fight for each policy on its merits (difficult to do with the more speculative/blue-skies stuff, but there you go). It wasn't just Clegg's transparent pitch either (and he is more clearly just another pol, 3 debates in, in case there was any doubt. He has little choice but to roll that way tho). It was more a mixture of wanting a change from rabidly partisan politics, and to have an 'ideal world' where the best from all camps could be brought to the fore.

That said, for all the policy points brought up, there was enough standard spin that I felt compelled to drink every time Cameron mentioned 'Jobs Tax' (& bizarrely, his desire to 'grip' things), every time Clegg used old-school politricksian tricks to tar the others as old school politrickians. And that moment when Gordy foolishly smiled after his clumsy summing up.

Heigh ho... on with the analysis we go...

I drink every time he says 'Quango'

__________________

jeez never mind drink, I want to scream now with Cameron and his 'jobs tax'

Clegg cornered Cameron good style on the Euro immigrants tho. Nice squirm

I noticed Gord having his slightly-more-natural snarky smirk at that - given that the Tories introduced most of the Quangos in the first place

I do find it a bit odd that Brown tanks so badly, I mean septic tank badly, in those silly floating-voter 'worm' appraisals whenever he tries to nail a policy point. Of the three he seems to have used the least tricksy evasion in answering questions, but gets no kudos for that. Heigh ho.

It was very much like a wrestling match, with all kindsa double-teaming going on

(Janet Street Porter just made the point on Question Time about the macho format, but then ruined it by getting her testosterone on at a very mild-mannered Ed Balls )

well she probably has more than he does

We're still trying to figure out how Cameron apparently 'won' that one like he apparently won the last one. I'm sure we're watching a parallel universe version

Maybe it's because they evened out the emoto-camera-zoom between all of em' (The Sky one having backfired and making cameron alone look like a waxwork grotesque sitting on a large and uncomfortable pin )