Looking Across the Atlantic

Final Predicition

2010-05-03T19:44:00.000-07:00

I unfortunately have to go on a business trip and will be off the blog on election night, so I will make my final prediction. Vote share 36% Con 29% LD 27% Lab. Seats Con 289 Lab 209 LD 117 SNP 12 PC 4 UKIP 1 IND 1 SF 3 SDLP 5 UUP 2 DUP 8. So what do you think?

Can we borrow him?

2010-04-30T23:49:00.000-07:00

I have been able on the BBC website to watch the Paxman interviews with the three prty leaders. He is good, I mean beyond good. I have said earlier in the blog some things that I think Americans have over the Brits (and I haven't started on food or sports). But I love the way your media challenges people in public life. I have not seen an American politician truly undergo a tough interview in a great deal of time. We have journalists who are either too boring, or are too politically motivated to be trusted by either side. Paxman is unbiased, in my mind, but absolutely willing to hit the core. So......... in 2012 can we borrow him for a few months.

The Line that Clegg missed

2010-04-29T22:06:00.000-07:00

Brown and Cameron both went hard after Clegg on immigration. They used terms such as "caps" and "controls", most importantly calling his policy "amnesty". If I was Clegg I would have said "This is not the language of a fair open Britain, this the languange of American reactionaries". First, because it is. All of the words are used in the American right-wing lexicon to describe the moderate efforts for immigration reform lead by two crazy lefties named Bush and McCain. Second, Clegg can use this to show that he is the change in politics. But he is actually at the heart of being British. Finally, it could provide hours upon hours of clips comparing lines by Cameron and Brown to those of Rush Limbaugh and Tom Tancredo.

Yeah.......about that.

2010-04-28T18:43:00.000-07:00

So Gordon Brown today said something we in America are calling a "Coakley". Martha Coakley was the Democratic candidate in the special election (by-election) in Massachusetts to replace Ted Kennedy. There is no way that she should have lost this race, none at all. A Democrat in a state thats top natural resource is Democratic politicians. But she made dumb comment after dumb comment. She said that Curt Schilling "was some Yankee player". She was referencing the rival of the beloved Boston (Massachusetts) Red Sox. Of course Curt Schilling is a Yankee hero. For my British readers it would be going to Manchester and calling Sir Alec Ferguson "some Chelsea manager". What Coakley and Brown said was not important to the policy of the world. But what both showed was a complete disconnect with regular people and general incompetence that is always rejected by voters. I think Labour numbers are gonna fall.....hard.

Location! Location! Location!

2010-04-25T15:22:00.000-07:00

Every politician says that they do not pay attention to polls. Every politician at some point lies. This is not just true in Britain, but it applies everywhere. That is where the similarities end in how we focus on polls. In Britain there is an obsession with the national poll. By the final weeks of an American campaign they are met with a yawn. We focus intensely on state polls. With the exception of Scotland and Wales, their seems to be no focus on regions. Now I understand our voting systems provide a great deal of the difference. Ours is entirely based off the results in states. But the British system is based off a smaller sub-set. Does anyone think the mood in Liverpool has much of a connection to the feeling in Brighton. So as an American I have to ask why isn't there more regional polling?

More than halfway done

2010-04-24T21:44:00.000-07:00

It is such a shockingly short campaign to an American, our last presidential campaign lasted 18 months. Why could a country that fashions itself in the top 5 on Earth take only a month to make a decision on their leader. A country that seems to enjoy politics so much more than my own seems to dispatch with their process so quickly. I believe fixed elections would change this, people would know when the election is and be prepared from a much earlier stage to fight it. It is also so medieval that the leader can decide when he wants to face an election. But maybe if I truly was a part of your system the whole process would make sense, but I doubt it.

What Now?

2010-04-22T14:50:00.000-07:00

Sorry I have not been blogging lately I have been feeling awful lately, I must have had some volcanic ash in my sinuses ;). Well the campaign had a huge shock with the Liberal Democrats making a big push in the poll. So what do each of the parties need to do to win. Conservatives need to focus on grabbing liberal votes. Push to make people look at Clegg like a normal politician. If he can get a 5 or 6 point lead over the LibDems, he can truly make the argument that he is the one who can oust Gordon Brown. Labour needs to trash Cameron, make him seem unbearable to the nation, if they can make him seem so bad, Labour can push themselves as the only party that can stop the CamMonster. LibDems need to find one more thing to keep excitement with his campaign. Cable and Clegg excitement will die soon, I believe a pledge not to support a government under Prime Minister Brown, could be more sure of the possibility of change. My suggestions all have the chance to fail miserably, but if you want power you must be daring.

Has the Cameron project failed?

2010-04-17T16:13:00.000-07:00

Much has been made on how Cameron could de-toxify the Tory brand. That he could drive the Tories to a massive majority. He would be for the Conservaitve party what Tony Blair was for the Labour Party. And he is at about 33%. Nearly the same as Michael Howard had in 2005. I doubt that is what the Tories were buying when David Cameron was elected leader. Gains are going to be made off the fall of the Labour vote, but they could also lose seats to the surging Liberal Democrats. If he cannot deliver government to the Conservative party, he will be delivered to the back benches. The debates are now irrelevant unless Cameron can hit Clegg. If not the Cameron project may all be for not

What if......

2010-04-17T00:19:00.000-07:00

The poll that has everyone talking is the one that puts the LibDems second in YouGov only three points behind the tories. What happens to the British political system if the LibDems beat either the Conservatives or Labour in this election by vote share and not by MP's. Will their point finally be made on PR. It seems that it would, but the question who will give the LibDems the right deal. Gordon Brown may make overtures to them but some socialist MP's (Tom Harris) will never support the idea and may make it impossible to pass PR. This uncertainy could cause unbearable problems. I hate to say it, but as an American, if we dont know who is in charge for a week, it will make us wary. Honestly if government decisions were made in Buckingham Palace we would have more confidence than a Hung Parliament. It is just how American Ignorance works.

I Need Some Help......

2010-04-16T21:38:00.000-07:00

So I am trying to get some more viewership on the blog. Anybody reading the blog have any idea on how I could get higher readership. Also if you do visit the site, check out our sponsors.

How Comedy Informs Us

2010-04-16T10:40:00.001-07:00

In America there is a 4-times a week comedy progam (programme) called The Daily Show. In one survey it was found to be the top news source for 18-30 year olds. Many people decried the survey as trash (rubbish) or even worzse found the survey to be troubling. But I believe it is much easier to find the heart of a story through sarcasm than any other journalism device. That is why i am going to inform you that I find a great deal of my information on British Politics from watching episodes of "Have I Got News for You". I find I can find what is important to Britons much quicker this way than reading the BBC website for a month. Every civilization needs humor (humour) to survive, the great ones can also use it to inform.

Where would Labour be under Blair?

2010-04-16T08:19:00.000-07:00

Americans sometimes do not get the movements of British politics. I was only a toddler, but most Americans could not comprehend the removal of Margaret Thatcher. She seemed to be the ultimate leader who had made Britain relevant again. Something similar happened three years ago. We understood the British people's distaste for the Iraq War in 2007, we had it too. But Tony Blair was a brilliant, dashing figure. He seemed to be the most charming politician on Earth, he was the political Hugh Grant. But instead the Labour Party decided to go with Gordon Brown, who is as charming as a brick wall. Make no question about it, Tony Blair would have dominated the debate last night. I believe Labour would also be leading in the polls if Tony Blair was in charge of the party. Now, they pray for a hung parliament, don't always go to where the grass looks greener.

"I agree with Nick"

2010-04-15T14:28:00.000-07:00

This was the line that I read was most repeated tonight. So why would Cameron and Brown, especially Brown, do that. Is it because Nick Clegg is the genius and originator of all great British political thought? If it is true I doubt the Tory and Labour leaders believe it. No, the leaders are making a calculation based off statistics. In the last election the LibDems did very well in LAB-CON marginals. Both Brown and Cameron believe that they can squeeze this vote down. The doorstep line can be "Well the LibDems can't win here, and a lot of our policies are like the LibDems." Will it work? We won't know until May 6th.

Some People Think Everything is About the Election

2010-04-15T08:32:00.000-07:00

Some situations are just irrelevant, don't force them into an election.

From the BBC election live text:
"Gordon Brown might hope to get some benefit from the volcanic ash situation, says the BBC's Carole Walker. In his first few months in office he dealt with the threat of terrorism and the chaos caused by flooding, and his handling of both appeared to go down well with the public. They seem to like how copes with a crisis."

There is a lot going into a voters mind on May 6th, but "I can only trust Gordon to protect us from volcanic ash" is not going to be one of them.

Debating the Usefulness of Debates

2010-04-14T18:33:00.000-07:00

The leaders are preparing deeply for the first TV debate. So I think an American should give a view of how the American debates operate. First all three debates are televised on every channel that will cover it. They pool into one video feed so no matter where you tune in you are watching the same thing. This enables three different debate formats. The first is usually a stand-up debate about domestic issues. The second is a sit-down about foreign and defense (defence) policy. The third is a town hall where the candidates are asked questions by 'real people' on a mish-mash of subjects. They are hyped by the media and can have defining moments. But for the most part they are incredibly dull and change the views of very few people. In the American system they are essential because the people of America go into the polling booth and choose between the two people on that stage. I personally believe in the British system with the short election span and the fact you vote for an individual MP and not the leader there only needs to be one debate. This first debate will be exciting and informing for the British people. The other two will be uninteresting and a waste of time.

P.S. I think Brown will do better than people think. Remember he is the only one who has had to answer tough questions weekly for nearly three years.

A Bold Prediction

2010-04-14T15:21:00.000-07:00

Take a deep breath.

The Liberal Democrats will not form a majority government.

Ok, everybody, including the Liberal Democrats know that. The point is how have they been so successful with everybody knowing that. Is there a persistant hope that a hung parliament will exist and the Lib Dems will be able to push their agenda in a coalition? A hung parliament has only happened once and even then a coalition was not formed. Is there a distinct ideological basis for the party? It appears to me to be a moderate, pragmatic party, which despite respectable qualities is not solid basis you would expect of a party nowhere near government. Is there a fatal flaw of the two major parties? This may be closer to the answer, but the Democrats and Republicans have been just as, or even more, useless in America. The answer is the Liberal Democrast always seem to get one person or policy that keeps them relevant. In the last election it was the Iraq war. Before it was personalities like Paddy Ashdown or in the alliance days Roy Jenkins. This election it is Vince Cable. At the launch of their party's platform (manifesto) Vince was very prominent, much more than Darling and Osborne. This is because "he gets it" say the media and the people seem to believe it to with the Lib Dems gaining to 23% in some polls. It may be true that he gets it, but it appears the Liberal Democrats will do just fine on May 6. Except for actually being relevant in decision making.

Who I am and why I am writing this blog

2010-04-14T15:07:00.000-07:00

Hello to the internets,

To get this started I just completed my college (university) degree in December. I graduated in December and with the current job climate, yes the ability to get a job is just as bad here as it is in Britain, I have a great deal of free time on my hands. One of the positives is that I have been able to follow the British election closely. Well as closely as possible from internet sites and video clips that are not blocked with a "not available in your area" stripe. I hope though I can learn even more about British politics and British people through this blog and hopefully I can add some color (colour) to this campaign.