13 Comments »

1. Oooohhh, the excitement! will the US go for Bush or Kerry?! such a massive range of political opinion! democracy is alive and well and not being throttled by right wing business interests after all.

   Comment by Lodjer — 3 Mar 2004 on 4:18 pm | Link

2. I am reminded of Peter Cook’s line,
   "American politics is very easy to understand. They have the Republican Party, which is basically like our Conservative Party, and the Democratic Party, which is basically like our Conservative Party."

   Comment by Chris Lightfoot — 3 Mar 2004 on 4:25 pm | Link

3. Obviously, stung by such comments, they have decided to spice it up by letting the runner-up into office.

   Well done America, I now see why there is such respect all over the world for their democratic values.

   Comment by Lodjer — 3 Mar 2004 on 4:30 pm | Link

4. Admittedly, I was as appalled as any right-minded person that the runner-up bacame the President of the United States, but let us look at our own democracy first.
   A Scenario, if you will: Charlie Kennedy’s lot win 60% of constituencies in a General Election- unlikely (thank goodness) as that is. However, they win these all in England. They are likely to only have about 40% (give or take 5-10%)of popular votes.
   Then, The Labour Party pick up 35% of constituencies, but have equal support over the whole country. They are then likely to have about 60% (give or take 5-10%) of the popular vote.
   The point I am making is that constitency based democracy is as open to an "un-popular" PM as Electoral College democracy in the States is to the election of an "un-popular" President.
   The solution- in terms of ensuring that it is the popular, nation wide choice that wins it, is not PR, since that is a silly Liberal idea, designed to benefit only parties like that, who nobody actually likes. No, the solution- if this is to be the priority of the democracy movement- is to take the Isreali solution of a nation-wide single constituency, then assigning MPs a constituency after this.
   However, i prefer being able to kick out any liberals or tories that sit for me, so i would prefer to stick to constituencies, and just accept the possible democratic defecit that the whole of Scotland experienced with the Tories for about 30 years.
   But that’s just me.
   Labour IS working.

   Comment by Kenny Young — 3 Mar 2004 on 6:41 pm | Link

5. My theory is that, as Labour voters move into their heartland constituencies, the Tories will start to favour PR. That could get interesting. Cf.
   <a href="http://ex-parrot.com/~chris/wwwitter/20040212-the_worst_of_all_apart_from_the_others_which_have_been_tried.html">http://ex-parrot.com/~chris/wwwitter/20040212-the_worst_of_all_apart_from_the_others_which_have_been_tried.html</a&gt;
   and
   <a href="http://users.ox.ac.uk/~magd1368/weblog/2004_02_01_archive.html#107738101614667063">http://users.ox.ac.uk/~magd1368/weblog/2004_02_01_archive.html#107738101614667063</a&gt;
   (the latter of which highlights interesting commentary in the Jenkins Report).

   Comment by Chris Lightfoot — 3 Mar 2004 on 6:48 pm | Link

6. Kenny Young is as wrong about Israel’s electoral system as is he is with his other comments. Israel has the purest form PR – the Party List system. In this system each party wins as many seats as they do the proportion of the popular vote. So, for example, if a party won 10% of the popular vote, the party would win 12 seats, being 10% of the total. Contrary to what he says, Israel does not have constituencies in any form.

   The first past the post electoral system that describes ours and America’s voting system is manifestly unfair. If "nobody actually likes" smaller parties, they would win no votes at all. The system as it stands though, means that thousands of people across the country can have strong political views but end up having no representation in parliament at all. With many people understandably disillusioned with politics right now, widening participation could only be a good thing. A PR system would also end the policy swing and adversarial nature of politics, which is frustratingly unproductive.

   As Kenny seems to realise, PR doesn’t necessarily mean the end of constituencies. The only reason why we don’t have PR right now is because it is never in the interests of a governing party to introduce it. Lib Dems is the way out of the malaise.

   Comment by Kid Loco — 3 Mar 2004 on 7:33 pm | Link

7. Back to the original point for a sec… It seems that Tony is being very coy about the outcome of the US Presidential race at the minute. I’d be very interested to know his real views but I daresay we’re not going to find that out. On the one hand he has a known quantity, George Bush, the self-styled "Wartime President". And on the other hand Kerry, apparently a very cautious establishment man who claims that George Bush "isn’t doing enough" in the "War on Terror"…

   Interesting choice of candidates, and one that doesn’t inspire any kind of confidence for the future of progressive democracy. For a start, Bush seems to be a man after Tony Blair’s own heart; desperate for a prominent place in the history books and preying on and perpetuating that infuriatingly OTT gung-ho patriotism with his phony "War on Terror".

   And I feel that IF Kerry beats Bush, which is a big enough IF in itself, he will either have to tow the line or fall foul of the establishment which has been allowed so much control under Bush. How he will reconcile his public speech on doing more in the war on terror than Bush with his supposedly Democratic values remains to be seen.

   One scary thought to consider, however; bearing in mind that Bush is the "wartime President", how readily would the US public swing staunchly behind Bush should another "terrorist incident" occur in the US before polling time? I know a lot of people hold the view that Sep 11 could have been prevented but for political expediency – indeed, there are an increasing number of people who seem to believe that the whole thing was engineered just for that reason.

   Personally, I hope that Bush gets beaten. In actual fact, I’d like to see him nailed to a tree, but I’d settle for a war crimes tribunal (I sometimes have such sweet, sweet dreams…) Failing any of the above, just get him out of office. Sadly, I am very pessimistic about the whole thing, but only time will tell.

   As regards Tony Blairs own views, I’d be surprised if he wasn’t a little relieved if Bush got voted out of office; after all, he stood behind Bush all the way only to get stabbed in the back when he was no longer needed by the US. At the same time, I’m sure he’d be almost as pleased if Bush stayed – he’d probably also feel that he’d have slightly less chance of any mud sticking should it start being chucked about once the inevitable witch-hunt started if Kerry won. Hence his attitude? Or maybe he doesn’t care? Maybe he isn’t planning on being around then? Oh, those dreams…

   Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 3 Mar 2004 on 8:22 pm | Link

8. There’s a good article about the problems of British democracy on AK13, here:

   http://www.ak13.com/article.php?id=95

   There’s also a good piece about Blair, Kerry and Bush in this week’s Economist. It suggests that the one who told Blair to cosy up to Bush was, in fact, Clinton – because it was a vital relationship if Britain was to have any influence over the US.

   I think this is an important point: I doubt TB was praying for a Bush victory in November 2000, but once the winner was declared (however illegitimate we think the President’s dad’s mates deciding the matter may seem), it was important to work with the victor.

   I’ve heard a lot of people complaining that it’s ridiculous that a Labour PM would be rooting for a Republican President, but I’m not sure he will be, if only because Blair’s always been one for pragmatism rather than ideology. Apart from anything else, Kerry voted for the war – I don’t think he’s the threat to TB’s credibility that some claim.

   Comment by Duncan Ingram — 4 Mar 2004 on 1:55 am | Link

9. Contrary to what it seems most Brits believe, there is more to American Politics than foreign relations. It’s perfectly understandable that Iraq is on the top of British minds, but Americans also have to consider who’s best for running things at home. There are issues like education, abortion, and social security to consider, so forgive us if we vote for those most likely to uphold our beliefs in these areas, instead of those most likely to cater to european demands.

   Comment by Kate Piscator — 4 Mar 2004 on 3:32 pm | Link

10. Regarding Kate Piscator’s comment.

    Perhaps you should change your statement to, Contrarty to Bush’s belief there is more to American Politics than foreign relations, or war as its called in his book.

    Also why is abortion such a big issue, perhaps if you concentrated on real problems like American Education there wouldn’t be such a big social security problem.

    Comment by John Francis — 4 Mar 2004 on 6:05 pm | Link

11. I think it is fair to say that Isreal has a "nation-wide constituency". Afterall, constituency is merely a term used to describe a bloc of voters. In this case, it is not limited to internal geographical borders. Ergo- nation-wide constituency.
    However, i take your points after this with more validity. I accept that some people like PR- i don’t happen to, but i can accept that some people are different. I also accept that it was hyperbole to say nobody liked the Lib Dems. I was really only joking to emphasise my point. Sorry if that got your wires crossed.
    But, since i believe in open and mature debate- and that the people who know me think i’m a pretty straight kinda guy- i will stick up for first past the post.
    In terms of PR being "a system which would also end the policy swing and adversarial nature of politics, which is frustratingly unproductive" this isnt true. Its not a magic wand.
    In the Scottish experience- a place where we havent forgotten the tory malice, and know that the Lib Dems arent strong enough to continue Labour’s progressive policies- this PR benefit has not shown in the Parliament.
    Politics is still adversarial. The SSP in particular are an example of school-yard politics. But it is the Lib Dems who PR benefits most, and it is they who benefit Scotland least. They are our third-party, yet are a coalition party- not so the democratically elected- but woefully inadaquate and misgised Nats. The Lib Dems foist upon the coalition very little, admitedly, but the stuff they do put into government policy is either so useless, or so far from people’s lives that nobody cares.
    No compare that to the minimum wage, 1.5 million new jobs, 2 million children out of poverty, and the largest growth in the peacetime economy in even my parents’ lifetime.
    If the largest section of people choose a party, then the "purest form of democracy" is to let them get on with it and use thier mandate to change Britian for the better.Not to let PR interfere with people’s choices, and cloud the real work for change in the governments of the UK.

    Comment by Kenny Young — 8 Mar 2004 on 3:53 pm | Link

12. As an American, in one of the most conservative states (Kentucky), I must say that the vast majority of people that I know loathe Bush. He’s alienated and basically abandoned our European allies, trashed our economy and has made the United States even more of a terrorist target for right now the world is either laughing at us or feels even more indignant about reckless American foreign policy. The whole Iraq war is bullsh*t, for the simple fact that the sanctions imposed on Iraq under Saddam Hussein effectively cut off his ability to pose a threat. Democracy is something that a nation has to want and fight for in order to obtain. We had to fight for our freedom (no offense), so I feel that they should do the same, instead of us handing them prosperity on a platter. Spending all of this money to blow a country up and then reconstructing it – I could find at least 100 better reasons to spend such massive amounts of money, that would ACTUALLY have a positive outcome. I can’t wait until November…heheh

    Comment by Bryan Zimmerman — 9 Mar 2004 on 10:00 pm | Link

13. America didn’t really fight for its freedom on its own now, did it? France, Spain and The Netherlands all came in on the side of the Continental Congress. Britain would have won had it not given up after Yorktown, because there was no longer a will to fight.

    You can’t use that excuse for not liberating people under regimes of terror in the age of the American Empire.

    I do agree that it is a shame that you allowed a lunatic to hold the highest office in the land though. Begs the question of who is more stupid: the fool, or the fools who followed him?

    Comment by Kenny Young — 13 Mar 2004 on 9:11 pm | Link

---

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Post a public comment

Name (required)
E-mail (required)
(You must give an email address, but it will not be displayed to the public.)
Website
(You may give your website, and it will be displayed to the public.)

Comments:

This is not a way of contacting the Prime Minister. If you would like to contact the Prime Minister, go to the 10 Downing Street official site.

Privacy note: Shortly after posting, your name and comment will be displayed on the site. This means that people searching for your name on the Internet will be able to find and read your comment.