It’s Election Day in the UK. It’s a tense election here, and people are really looking forward to the end of the campaigning. To which I say, “You have no idea of how easy you have it.”
I kind of like the UK system of elections. I don’t mean the bizarre constituencies or the first-past-the-post thing (although I think it makes some sense with a more than two-party election) or the whole “voting for a party and not a candidate” idea. No, I like that you don’t officially know when an election is until a month or so before the election. I like that elections must be no more than five years apart, but can be less if needed. I like that the UK politicians aren’t in a nearly-constant state of outright campaigning. I understand the benefits of knowing that there will be an election for this post on this day in this year (aka the US system), but I have to say that I really like that the UK, in general, lets politicians do their jobs without the pressure of spending half their time trying to keep their job. I like that there aren’t political posters plastering the streets for more than a month.
It will be interesting to see what happens in this election. It’s always slightly more interesting when you don’t have a huge emotional investment in the outcome; you can see a little bit more clearly. Because I hold fairly liberal political views on most things, I would like to see Labour and the Liberals do well. But when it comes right down to it, I don’t have a real investment in this election, because I can’t vote here.
I saw a headline yesterday – and, to be fair, I didn’t read the article – that said that Gordon Brown claimed the debates had clouded the campaign. There’s a lesson in that for everyone, I think: Just because something doesn’t go your way doesn’t mean that it is essentially bad. The actual voters I know who watched the debates appreciated them. Just because Gordon Brown didn’t do well at them doesn’t mean that they have been bad for the process. If you can’t hold up your manifesto and maintain your position at a debate (for which you have had quite a lot of preparation time, theoretically), how do you expect to be able to run a country? It’s an attitude that I think is more prevalent in the US. Frequently, if an election doesn’t go a party’s way, they expend a lot of money, time, and energy on trying to discredit that election. Both sides do this. It’s a very bipartisan thing, this sense of entitlement. But, as in a quotation from The West Wing: In a democracy, sometimes the other guy wins. Also: You lost, deal with it.
(And maybe try a little harder next time.)
5 comments:
One small note in favour of the PM (for the next two hours at least). I do agree with him in part re: the debates. One of the main reasons Nick Clegg is doing so well is the media reaction to him in the first debate. But HE DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING OF SUBSTANCE. Clegg and the Lib Dems went on to make good policy points, particularly as the campaign went on, but sniping at your competition without offering a viable alternative shouldn't be admired. So you can understand Brown's frustration. In contrast, the PM's a good civil servant- he just happens to be a terrible choice for 'personality politics'.
Nice to get your comments on it. I'm still reeling from how the seats have come out, and waiting to see what actually happens now. Still tense then.
Camilla - I do have to say re: the debates that I'm coming from an American perspective. We've had televised debates since the 1960 campaign. Interesting fact about that debate: people who listened on the radio thought Nixon had "won" while people who watched on TV thought Kennedy had.
But as much as we bemoan the soundbite culture that we have become, politics is often a visual game of public relations; elections even more so. (And, at least in the US, that predates the television age. Warren Harding was elected in part because of his visual appeal. FDR refused to be seen in a wheelchair or needing support because he thought it would diminish his appeal/power.) The visual, public relations element is as much a part of a campaign as the actual substance - and that's what Nick Clegg did well.
Oh, and I also agree that Brown is a good civil servant. He just never really had a chance to be a good prime minister.
Kendra- I completely take your point, and I can understand how Clegg's popularity soared for a while: whether I like it or not, politics is mostly a popularity contest. My frustration is more of a 'hate the game, not the player' thing. To my mind (which has been horribly twisted by my MA btw!) the electorate should be able to vote with their mind, which isn't easily doable considering current campaign tactics.
(Interesting point about JFK/Nixon but that's a whole other rant!)
Post a Comment