Nickdfresh
05-05-2005, 08:10 AM
May 5, 2005
In Britain, the Campaigning Is Short, and Anything but Sweet
Some political analysts say the approach has an edge over that seen in the U.S. Others fear the differences between the countries are blurring.
By John Daniszewski, LATimes (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-britelect5may05.story) Staff Writer
LONDON — It is quick, intense and doesn't cost a lot of money. As it came to its conclusion Wednesday, Britain's latest general election campaign provided some interesting comparisons with the American way of choosing national leaders.
Some analysts see distinct advantages to Britain's short but grueling campaigns. Others complain that the elections are becoming too much like America's, complete with a surge in negativity.
The critics cite an increased emphasis on personalities, the use of outside consultants, a reliance on emotional "wedge" issues such as immigration, and the aiming of messages almost solely at swing districts — known here as marginals — to the neglect of the rest of the country.
For better or worse, after a campaign that lasted 24 days, the British candidates are facing voters today.
Prime Minister Tony Blair, who is favored to win what would be an unprecedented third straight term for a Labor Party leader, returned to his home in northeastern England after asking voters to judge him on the performance of Britain's economy, not the divisive war in Iraq.
"The central question of this campaign is which party is best for the future of Britain," he said Wednesday.
Conservative Michael Howard and Liberal Democrat Charles Kennedy likewise finished up and returned to the districts where they will cast their ballots.
Voting for 645 parliamentary seats was to begin at 7 a.m., with polls closing at 10 p.m. Under Britain's system, the winning party forms the government, with its leader becoming prime minister.
The prime minister calls an election, normally with one month's notice, every five years or sooner.
As they looked back Wednesday, analysts were rather glum at the direction of British politics after a campaign marked by charges of dishonesty and racism, apathy and a replay of the debate over the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
"We will have reached at this election the nadir of our system," said Polly Toynbee, a columnist for the Guardian newspaper and a Labor supporter. She said she expected a low turnout because disaffected voters would refuse to "hold their nose and vote for the least worst."
Yet when asked how British politics compared with the U.S. approach, she still saw pluses in her country, particularly the campaign spending limits and ban on televised ads.
In Britain, each party can spend a maximum of about $37 million for all 645 seats in Parliament. In the United States, more than $700 million was spent on the last presidential election alone.
"One of the great advantages of our system is that we don't have political advertising, and that really does reduce everything to the 10-second sound bite where every policy has to become as simplistic as possible," Toynbee said.
Markos Moulitsas, editor of the left-leaning American blog Daily Kos, who was in Britain to write on the election, agreed. "Clearly the lack of money is incredible," he said. "It totally changes the dynamic of what a campaign is.
"In the States, half the events or more in a candidate's day are fund-raisers, all because of the television advertising, while here candidates can actually focus on campaigning."
Trevor McCrisken, professor of U.S. politics at Britain's Warwick University, said he saw the two nations' electoral campaigns "becoming a bit more like each other," with greater focus on party leaders than in past decades, when the platforms mattered most.
One clear difference between the U.S. and Britain is the amount of time candidates here spend facing hostile, or at least aggressive, questioning.
When was the last time a nationally prominent journalist in the United States declared to a sitting president that his campaign boasts were baloney? That's what John Humphrys, host of BBC Radio's "Today" program, did to Blair on Wednesday in a discussion on growth and employment.
"Obviously it is nonsense…. Again, it comes down to a question of trust. You're making claims that at the end of it all we can't believe," went one portion of the interview.
A little later he asked Blair "why on Earth" he wanted to run again anyway, suggesting that the prime minister was leaning too heavily on Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown: "You can't have him standing beside you every day for the next four years."
Howard and Kennedy hardly got off lighter. On Wednesday, Howard was already being asked how soon he would have to resign as party leader after he loses the vote today.
Follow-up questions and rapid retorts are also part of the interviewing style.
As a result, the most common exchange in British news these days might be: "You're not answering the question!" "I would if you'd let me finish!"
Rodney Barker, a professor of government at the London School of Economics, said it was odd that American journalists weren't more aggressive in their questioning of politicians.
"What everybody thinks of about the American system is that it is open and critical and everybody can speak their mind, and you would expect there to be more John Humphrys in a way in the U.S. system," Barker said.
But he added, "Some of your more right-wing television presenters do indeed resemble Rottweilers, do they not?"
*
Janet Stobart of The Times' London Bureau contributed to this report.
In Britain, the Campaigning Is Short, and Anything but Sweet
Some political analysts say the approach has an edge over that seen in the U.S. Others fear the differences between the countries are blurring.
By John Daniszewski, LATimes (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-britelect5may05.story) Staff Writer
LONDON — It is quick, intense and doesn't cost a lot of money. As it came to its conclusion Wednesday, Britain's latest general election campaign provided some interesting comparisons with the American way of choosing national leaders.
Some analysts see distinct advantages to Britain's short but grueling campaigns. Others complain that the elections are becoming too much like America's, complete with a surge in negativity.
The critics cite an increased emphasis on personalities, the use of outside consultants, a reliance on emotional "wedge" issues such as immigration, and the aiming of messages almost solely at swing districts — known here as marginals — to the neglect of the rest of the country.
For better or worse, after a campaign that lasted 24 days, the British candidates are facing voters today.
Prime Minister Tony Blair, who is favored to win what would be an unprecedented third straight term for a Labor Party leader, returned to his home in northeastern England after asking voters to judge him on the performance of Britain's economy, not the divisive war in Iraq.
"The central question of this campaign is which party is best for the future of Britain," he said Wednesday.
Conservative Michael Howard and Liberal Democrat Charles Kennedy likewise finished up and returned to the districts where they will cast their ballots.
Voting for 645 parliamentary seats was to begin at 7 a.m., with polls closing at 10 p.m. Under Britain's system, the winning party forms the government, with its leader becoming prime minister.
The prime minister calls an election, normally with one month's notice, every five years or sooner.
As they looked back Wednesday, analysts were rather glum at the direction of British politics after a campaign marked by charges of dishonesty and racism, apathy and a replay of the debate over the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
"We will have reached at this election the nadir of our system," said Polly Toynbee, a columnist for the Guardian newspaper and a Labor supporter. She said she expected a low turnout because disaffected voters would refuse to "hold their nose and vote for the least worst."
Yet when asked how British politics compared with the U.S. approach, she still saw pluses in her country, particularly the campaign spending limits and ban on televised ads.
In Britain, each party can spend a maximum of about $37 million for all 645 seats in Parliament. In the United States, more than $700 million was spent on the last presidential election alone.
"One of the great advantages of our system is that we don't have political advertising, and that really does reduce everything to the 10-second sound bite where every policy has to become as simplistic as possible," Toynbee said.
Markos Moulitsas, editor of the left-leaning American blog Daily Kos, who was in Britain to write on the election, agreed. "Clearly the lack of money is incredible," he said. "It totally changes the dynamic of what a campaign is.
"In the States, half the events or more in a candidate's day are fund-raisers, all because of the television advertising, while here candidates can actually focus on campaigning."
Trevor McCrisken, professor of U.S. politics at Britain's Warwick University, said he saw the two nations' electoral campaigns "becoming a bit more like each other," with greater focus on party leaders than in past decades, when the platforms mattered most.
One clear difference between the U.S. and Britain is the amount of time candidates here spend facing hostile, or at least aggressive, questioning.
When was the last time a nationally prominent journalist in the United States declared to a sitting president that his campaign boasts were baloney? That's what John Humphrys, host of BBC Radio's "Today" program, did to Blair on Wednesday in a discussion on growth and employment.
"Obviously it is nonsense…. Again, it comes down to a question of trust. You're making claims that at the end of it all we can't believe," went one portion of the interview.
A little later he asked Blair "why on Earth" he wanted to run again anyway, suggesting that the prime minister was leaning too heavily on Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown: "You can't have him standing beside you every day for the next four years."
Howard and Kennedy hardly got off lighter. On Wednesday, Howard was already being asked how soon he would have to resign as party leader after he loses the vote today.
Follow-up questions and rapid retorts are also part of the interviewing style.
As a result, the most common exchange in British news these days might be: "You're not answering the question!" "I would if you'd let me finish!"
Rodney Barker, a professor of government at the London School of Economics, said it was odd that American journalists weren't more aggressive in their questioning of politicians.
"What everybody thinks of about the American system is that it is open and critical and everybody can speak their mind, and you would expect there to be more John Humphrys in a way in the U.S. system," Barker said.
But he added, "Some of your more right-wing television presenters do indeed resemble Rottweilers, do they not?"
*
Janet Stobart of The Times' London Bureau contributed to this report.