There's a week still to go on the campaign trail, and one more television debate tomorrow, but Gordon Brown today sealed his own fate and that of his party. His mic was still on as he left a voter meet and greet in Lancashire and he was heard calling a woman he had spoken to there "bigoted." See the story here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/election_2010/8649853.stm
As though Labour didn't already have enough problems.
They've been polling at third place for two weeks now, following Nick Clegg's stellar performance in the first debate.
Thirteen years of government is a lot of weight for a party and a prime minister to carry, but Brown just never seemed to have the personality expected out of a modern leader. I cringe writing that, as though being the head of a government only boils down to your soundbites and spin ability, but unfortunately a lot of politics has become that. Brown's predecessor Blair defined that new standard for Britain.
What's funny is that I don't necessarily disagree with Brown's reaction. Politicians have to deal with people and demands constantly, and the woman probably wouldn't take his pat answers and move on so that he himself could move on to the next show. Calling someone bigoted when you're in private and pissed off seems extremely mild, in all reality.
What I do disagree with is the public backlash he is already receiving. The man admits it was a mistake (probably moreso leaving on his mic than saying "bigoted"). Honestly, who should care if Brown insults a woman? The woman, probably. It's Brown's job to run the country and meanwhile fight off two other parties that are already threatening his and Labour's future status. He's bound to feel pressure.
But the point is that every tiny incident can matter in the grand scheme of electoral battles where the Author Function means just as much, or likely more than the shape a candidate's actual policies.
Therein lies the sad realization that our politicians are only actors in our own time to be judged by history as either leaders or failures only after the benefit of hindsight bias. They are painters whose works can only be admired long after the man is dead and the medium is long since outdated.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
6th of May
My primary interest as of now is the hotly-contested British general election that will finally be resolved(?) in thousands of voting booths across the country on May 6.
I use a question mark because all polls indicate that May 6 will in fact not be the end of the political manoeuvering due to the very likely possibility of a hung parliament resulting. This means that no one party will achieve an outright majority in seats in the House of Commons. And because Britain uses first-past-the-post and is historically led by a single party government at a time, this is making it a particularly hairy and touchy situation.
The Labour Party has been governing since May 2, 1997, first under the initially popular Tony Blair, who, ten years later, was forced to resign due to increasing unpopularity and tensions within his own party. His Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, took office in June 2007, and Labour's fortunes in the polls were raised for about four months. In October 2007, feelers were put out by Labour to test the waters for a snap election to capitalize on the gains made in the polls. In the end, Brown decided against it, and in doing so, probably botched any future possibility of a Labour win under his leadership. I'm betting here that Labour comes in third in the popular vote and second in its number of seats.
The Conservative Party has been out of government for thirteen years after governing for a period of eighteen years under Margaret Thatcher and John Major. They are led by David Cameron, 43, who has done much for raising the party's stature in the polls since becoming leader following the 2005 general election. For most of the past four years, the Conservatives have led in the polls, yet have fallen far since November in public opinion. Most polls show them leading, but only by a few percentage points hovering around 34 percent. I believe that the Conservatives will take first in seats and number of popular votes, but still be too far to have a majority.
Enter the underdogs. The Liberal Democrats have been around since 1988, and before that were an electoral alliance of two parties, the SDP and Liberals, the latter being the atrophied remnants of the Liberal Party that had so many successes and several prime ministers between 1859 and 1922. Labour basically stole the center-left battleground from the Liberals, and have ever since been been playing catch-up. Their time has come. I like the Lib Dems. I would vote for them if I were British. But I will not let my biased opinion bias my analysis here. 2010 is the first election providing a three-pronged, three-round leaders' debate between Labour, Conservative, and Liberal Democrat. Nick Clegg, the Lib Dem leader, picked up a huge swing in the polls following the first leaders' debate. Many people got to meet him for the first time on April 15. So the Lib Dems went from polling around 20 percent to leading the polls at 33 or so, then leveling out for the past two weeks around 28-31, behind the Conservatives, but ahead of Labour. My guess is that they will achieve only third place in seats, but their popular vote will be second, slightly ahead of Labour.
Therein lies the rub: first-past-the-post works just fine if two parties are the only ones to ever contest any election. But because Britain has basically a two-and-a-half party system, Labour and Conservative have a better distributed vote than a party like the Liberal Democrats. This setup produces highly skewed and unfair results. Let's take the 2005 election as an example. There were 646 seats up for grabs in the House of Commons. Labour took 35.3% of the popular vote but received 55.1% of the seats for an automatic majority. The Conservatives got 32.3% of the vote but 30.6% of the seats. The Lib Dems managed 22.1% of the vote but took only 9.5% of the seats.
The Lib Dems have for years supported a dramatic alteration in the electoral system of the United Kingdom, and I believe rightly so. Their policies on the economy, foreign affairs, education, civil liberties, and immigration are all informed by a high sense of what is fair and what is not. I would love to have them win and form government, but I think everyone knows they won't get that far this time.
What is much more likely is that they will be asked to help and/or support either Labour or Conservative in forming the next government due to a lack of majority all around. There seems to be much personal anathema between Clegg and Brown, making the probability of a pact/alliance/coalition/whatever between the Lib Dems and Labour unlikely should those two remain the leaders. Clegg has come out publicly in denouncing a "squatter's government" in 10 Downing Street who got only third in the popular vote but managed an unfair plurality of seats in the Commons.
Which leaves the Conservatives, whose policies, save for some concerning economic measures and social liberties, seem to be quite different from the Lib Dems', who tend to come closer to Labour's ideas than those of the Conservatives. It would be quite interesting for David Cameron to approach Nick Clegg about forming some kind of deal between the two parties.
And it may well happen.
But I don't think so.
My guess is that the Conservatives will take a plurality in votes and in seats, will kick out Gordon Brown and replace him with David Cameron, and will then try to go it alone, without outside help from any other party. The last time something similar to this happened was when Labour led a minority government following the no-majority results of the 1974 election. And like 1974, I also think that the Conservatives will dare, in a sense, Labour and the Lib Dems to attempt to topple their government and trigger a new election, where again the hope will be for a majority.
I wouldn't put the next general election in Britain beyond eighteen months. Come November 2011 it's bound to happen.
Just my thoughts on the matter for now. Time will tell.
I use a question mark because all polls indicate that May 6 will in fact not be the end of the political manoeuvering due to the very likely possibility of a hung parliament resulting. This means that no one party will achieve an outright majority in seats in the House of Commons. And because Britain uses first-past-the-post and is historically led by a single party government at a time, this is making it a particularly hairy and touchy situation.
The Labour Party has been governing since May 2, 1997, first under the initially popular Tony Blair, who, ten years later, was forced to resign due to increasing unpopularity and tensions within his own party. His Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, took office in June 2007, and Labour's fortunes in the polls were raised for about four months. In October 2007, feelers were put out by Labour to test the waters for a snap election to capitalize on the gains made in the polls. In the end, Brown decided against it, and in doing so, probably botched any future possibility of a Labour win under his leadership. I'm betting here that Labour comes in third in the popular vote and second in its number of seats.
The Conservative Party has been out of government for thirteen years after governing for a period of eighteen years under Margaret Thatcher and John Major. They are led by David Cameron, 43, who has done much for raising the party's stature in the polls since becoming leader following the 2005 general election. For most of the past four years, the Conservatives have led in the polls, yet have fallen far since November in public opinion. Most polls show them leading, but only by a few percentage points hovering around 34 percent. I believe that the Conservatives will take first in seats and number of popular votes, but still be too far to have a majority.
Enter the underdogs. The Liberal Democrats have been around since 1988, and before that were an electoral alliance of two parties, the SDP and Liberals, the latter being the atrophied remnants of the Liberal Party that had so many successes and several prime ministers between 1859 and 1922. Labour basically stole the center-left battleground from the Liberals, and have ever since been been playing catch-up. Their time has come. I like the Lib Dems. I would vote for them if I were British. But I will not let my biased opinion bias my analysis here. 2010 is the first election providing a three-pronged, three-round leaders' debate between Labour, Conservative, and Liberal Democrat. Nick Clegg, the Lib Dem leader, picked up a huge swing in the polls following the first leaders' debate. Many people got to meet him for the first time on April 15. So the Lib Dems went from polling around 20 percent to leading the polls at 33 or so, then leveling out for the past two weeks around 28-31, behind the Conservatives, but ahead of Labour. My guess is that they will achieve only third place in seats, but their popular vote will be second, slightly ahead of Labour.
Therein lies the rub: first-past-the-post works just fine if two parties are the only ones to ever contest any election. But because Britain has basically a two-and-a-half party system, Labour and Conservative have a better distributed vote than a party like the Liberal Democrats. This setup produces highly skewed and unfair results. Let's take the 2005 election as an example. There were 646 seats up for grabs in the House of Commons. Labour took 35.3% of the popular vote but received 55.1% of the seats for an automatic majority. The Conservatives got 32.3% of the vote but 30.6% of the seats. The Lib Dems managed 22.1% of the vote but took only 9.5% of the seats.
The Lib Dems have for years supported a dramatic alteration in the electoral system of the United Kingdom, and I believe rightly so. Their policies on the economy, foreign affairs, education, civil liberties, and immigration are all informed by a high sense of what is fair and what is not. I would love to have them win and form government, but I think everyone knows they won't get that far this time.
What is much more likely is that they will be asked to help and/or support either Labour or Conservative in forming the next government due to a lack of majority all around. There seems to be much personal anathema between Clegg and Brown, making the probability of a pact/alliance/coalition/whatever between the Lib Dems and Labour unlikely should those two remain the leaders. Clegg has come out publicly in denouncing a "squatter's government" in 10 Downing Street who got only third in the popular vote but managed an unfair plurality of seats in the Commons.
Which leaves the Conservatives, whose policies, save for some concerning economic measures and social liberties, seem to be quite different from the Lib Dems', who tend to come closer to Labour's ideas than those of the Conservatives. It would be quite interesting for David Cameron to approach Nick Clegg about forming some kind of deal between the two parties.
And it may well happen.
But I don't think so.
My guess is that the Conservatives will take a plurality in votes and in seats, will kick out Gordon Brown and replace him with David Cameron, and will then try to go it alone, without outside help from any other party. The last time something similar to this happened was when Labour led a minority government following the no-majority results of the 1974 election. And like 1974, I also think that the Conservatives will dare, in a sense, Labour and the Lib Dems to attempt to topple their government and trigger a new election, where again the hope will be for a majority.
I wouldn't put the next general election in Britain beyond eighteen months. Come November 2011 it's bound to happen.
Just my thoughts on the matter for now. Time will tell.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Belgium
Yves Leterme's resignation as prime minister was accepted by the Belgian king today. Elections set for early June.
The Polish presidential election is set for 20 June, with the twin brother of the former president who was killed in the plane crash running for the office.
The Polish presidential election is set for 20 June, with the twin brother of the former president who was killed in the plane crash running for the office.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
I vote.
Hi, my name is Warren. Welcome to my first post in Crashing the Political Party. My main objective here is to vent what I think, like, and feel concerning the politics of anywhere. If you agree with me, great. If you don't, even better, just tell me why. Comments are always appreciated. Now, to begin...
Yes, I vote. Not too groundbreaking of an assertion, I know. I choose to do so because I honestly think that my tiny single vote makes a difference of one. The world can be a pretty great place, but that doesn't mean there aren't things wrong with it. So my vote I like to think works toward bettering those things that are anywhere between not quite perfect and totally wrong.
And better still if my vote can join up with tens or hundreds or thousands others of a similar mindset.
I am old enough to have voted in the last two American presidential elections. In 2004 I voted for Bush. Do you know why? I wanted to prove to myself that I could select every single winning candidate and issue on my ballot. I don't agree with that reasoning now, but at the time, with a lack of political ideals, I didn't mind so much. And I got everything correct, except for some office like circuit clerk.
In 2008 I voted for Nader for president. Do you know why I voted for him? Obviously, I crossed some terrain in political ideals in those four years. I came to the conclusion that U.S. politics have gotten quite ugly over the last 150 years and that fundamental change is necessary. Not a single choice I made on that ballot took first place. But that didn't matter as much to me as telling my county, my state, and my country what I wanted.
So that's my reasoning now. Henry Clay, one my favorite historical figures, once said (probably following the third time he'd ran in and lost a presidential election) "I'd rather be right than be president." As would I.
Whenever the mood strikes, I'm going to talk about political things. And with regards to this, I find elections to be one of the most appealing aspects of democracy. You'll get to read what I think of politics in other countries as well, if I've done my homework beforehand.
2010 will prove to be a dynamic year as far as elections go. Besides the U.S. midterms on November 2, we have:
British general, May 6 I'm following this one every day
Colombian presidential, May 30 I live in Colombia, so this one is close to home
Dutch general, June 9 I have a Dutch friend who is keeping me up to date
Colombian presidential (second round), June 20 If necessary
Polish presidential, late June
Sweden general, September 19
Australian federal, probably between October and December
Possible Belgian federal
Possible Danish general
Possible Canadian federal
Yes, I vote. Not too groundbreaking of an assertion, I know. I choose to do so because I honestly think that my tiny single vote makes a difference of one. The world can be a pretty great place, but that doesn't mean there aren't things wrong with it. So my vote I like to think works toward bettering those things that are anywhere between not quite perfect and totally wrong.
And better still if my vote can join up with tens or hundreds or thousands others of a similar mindset.
I am old enough to have voted in the last two American presidential elections. In 2004 I voted for Bush. Do you know why? I wanted to prove to myself that I could select every single winning candidate and issue on my ballot. I don't agree with that reasoning now, but at the time, with a lack of political ideals, I didn't mind so much. And I got everything correct, except for some office like circuit clerk.
In 2008 I voted for Nader for president. Do you know why I voted for him? Obviously, I crossed some terrain in political ideals in those four years. I came to the conclusion that U.S. politics have gotten quite ugly over the last 150 years and that fundamental change is necessary. Not a single choice I made on that ballot took first place. But that didn't matter as much to me as telling my county, my state, and my country what I wanted.
So that's my reasoning now. Henry Clay, one my favorite historical figures, once said (probably following the third time he'd ran in and lost a presidential election) "I'd rather be right than be president." As would I.
Whenever the mood strikes, I'm going to talk about political things. And with regards to this, I find elections to be one of the most appealing aspects of democracy. You'll get to read what I think of politics in other countries as well, if I've done my homework beforehand.
2010 will prove to be a dynamic year as far as elections go. Besides the U.S. midterms on November 2, we have:
British general, May 6 I'm following this one every day
Colombian presidential, May 30 I live in Colombia, so this one is close to home
Dutch general, June 9 I have a Dutch friend who is keeping me up to date
Colombian presidential (second round), June 20 If necessary
Polish presidential, late June
Sweden general, September 19
Australian federal, probably between October and December
Possible Belgian federal
Possible Danish general
Possible Canadian federal
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
