...I know, it's hard to believe!!

For anyone interested, there are amazing things happening here in the UK with the General Election looming. It is almost certain that, even if Labour do miraculously survive this Election, Brown will not remain as Leader. But that is best case scenario - going in to the election, the Tories were dead set to win.

But curiously, for the first time in a century, the main parties may not be Labour and Conservative, but Liberal and Conservative. Not since Gladstone in the nineteenth century has the Liberal party potentially become the Opposition party. Though there's hardly a chance the Liberals will win the election, it is an exciting and refreshing prospect in a political system that has, of late, become just as set in its ways as the US party system. British politics used to be known for its fluid development and organic changes (if you know anything about late nineteenth and early twentieth century British party-politics, it reads like a soap opera), but for almost a century Labour and the Tories have polarised the political seats and there has been no sign of change, like a sea-saw in endless motion.

So for modern politics, as well as the UK's future, this could be a tremendously exciting thing - a telling commentary, too, on how the people have judged Labour's showing these past years.

For those unfamiliar, Lib Dems stand for higher taxes to support public works and institutions, less state interference in civil liberties (or 'no red tape') - but interestingly, pro-welfare state, closer integration with Europe, no nuclear arms (see: scrap the Trident subs), and are generally doves on the foreign policy front.

The town I live in is generally representative of the current state of affairs. The borough has been a Conservative seat for 90 years, and the current MP has controlled the seat for 15 years. But opinion polls suggest that it could easily become a Lib Dem seat, who have been the second-leaders here for the past decade or two. Labour has never done well down here (it's a terribly conservative - with a small 'c' - area), but there will be few living people that will ever remember Eastbourne being something other than a Conservative seat.

Exciting times! Watch this space, 6th May.

I've been watching this one for a while, even watched the last debate. Its interesting seeing the 3 parties going at it, something quite alien to us here. I can't help but admire the British people for their doing what Ralph Nader tried to do in 2000, give liberals an alternative to the party in power whom they've become disillusioned with. We have a radical left and a radical right here that refuse to work together (though far less fun to watch than Parliment) and I could foresee us following a similiar route and a third middle ground (named Labor maybe, you know, spelled correctly and all) party springing up.

Hehe, watch Canadian debates sometime. We have four parties in the house right now, not to mention a few independants.

Minority governments always make for interesting debates and generally good politics for the average citizen.

The news tells me Nick Clegg is the atheist Jesus. I likes him!

Was watching the news and saw a real ruckus taking place in the chambers, with eggs being thrown and smoke-bombs, and thought to myself "Those silly Brits are getting loonier with each pending election." Lo and behold, it was actually the Ukrainians I was watching, and the Brits are behaving in a rather civil fashion.

Too much money and power are invested in our two party system to ever allow for a third alternative to get honest traction. At least, I don't believe it will be realized in my lifetime.

If ever an election was lost due to a clumsy gaffe...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8649853.stm

- Ouch.

If the woman was being bigoted, what is the problem with him discussing it in what would normally be a private situation?

Was she being bigoted? And even if she was, can you not understand how damaging it would be for Labour, for the campaigning candidate to call his prime target audience bigotted?

While I am of the opinion that it actually all means very little, and Brown is entitled to say what he wants in private, I can easily see how disastrous this will prove.

Halo, I want to know what you think of the US-style debates in the UK. I honestly think they're pointless, since the prime minister is not the one directly up for election. If there was a vote for who would be prime minister within the party, they might have a point, but the party and the party alone makes the decision who will be prime minster.

Yes, I won't deny the US-style debates would be a useful talking piece for the parties. But if you haven't seen the results and effects of US-style debates in the US--and even with an election system where the president is effectively selected by general electors--it has largely just been a good time to rack up PR and a dog and pony show.

I understand the aftermath will be disastrous. My question still stands though, if (and I don't know) the woman WAS being bigoted, why should Brown face wraith for what he said about the situation in what should have been a private conversation? If she were being bigoted, and I'm sure we will never know this, shouldn't she face more of the wraith than Brown?

Are you familiar with the conversation this lady and Brown had? Can you shed some light on the specific conversation and topics they discussed that led Brown to the conclusion that this lady was a bigot?

It's hard for me to hold something someone says in what should be a private conversation against them. Granted, this is irrelevant to me since I'm not British and won't be voting. I have yet to read what Brown and this lady discussed though (and I haven't read much about the situation, just a couple of articles).

If she were being bigoted, I view this as a complete non-issue. I almost expect someone to be called out in today's society for bigoted comments. This isn't even a case of her being called out however. This is someone overhearing a private conversation.

I understand it IS a big deal, but I don't understand WHY it's such a big deal.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/28/gordon-brown-gillian-duffy-transcript

Ok, I read this transcript. I can't tell if she's being bigoted about Eastern Europeans or not. It doesn't look like it, but text can be misleading without the vocal inflections. The transcript also doesn't specify what she was saying when heckling Brown, which could definitely make a difference in how any conversation would have been perceived.

It basically looks like her concerns about Eastern Europeans mirrors the concern many in the US have for "Mexicans."

I understand it IS a big deal, but I don't understand WHY it's such a big deal.


Just as it is here, the media can take a comment off the cuff and make a mole hill into a veritable mountain.

The woman represents the 'typical' Labour voter; Brown (in a Biden-esque moment) made an off the cuff comment not knowing there was a live microphone present; Labour voters see the person that was representing them being besmirched by Brown on the news; Brown is left no option but to make an effort to repair the damage caused by zealous media folks.

When it comes to politics, we have seen way too many of these situations of a small, seemingly unremarkable comment become the focus of a week's worth of news coverage, because it can be spun so easily.

[URL="http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/thu-april-29-2010-michael-caine"/url]

While i cannot say its particularly enlightening, its a fun watch

My vote has been cast - and so has the die!

Will be a late one tonight. The country may very well be a different place tomorrow.

My vote has been cast - and so has the die!

Will be a late one tonight. The country may very well be a different place tomorrow.

Yup. We have that saying over here too!

Or not... it's looking very much like a Hung Parliament right now. That is probably the worst outcome, IMO.

Perhaps too early right now. Still only 1am, many hours left until a proper picture can emerge. Tories just took a seat in Gloucestershire - that was a surprise.

Looks like the left sided Brits split their votes pretty evenly, giving the Conservatives the majority. Is it not realistic to assume the Liberal Democrats would generally side with Labor (that's right, I'm gonna spell it correctly ;))? I suppose even with that, they combined won't have a majority and will have to be quite "tri-partisan", quad partisan if you count the new Green lady. I wouldn't look forward to any sweeping change in the next few years Halo.

It really will take the unifying presence of the new MP from Staines to bring the country together, aiight?

Well, no majority - no progress. The usual course for a Hung Parliament is a few months of political stalemate followed by a decisive General Election (ala '74). I would be shocked if Brown made a coalition with the Lib Dems (haven't had one since WW2, if memory serves right). The Tories will see it as a gross political injustice, but we'll see how it plays when Brown visits the Queen at lunch today. All depends if he picks up the phone to Nick Clegg and asks him to come on board, though of course electoral reform will have to be his concession card.

It's all quite exciting, personally here at Eastbourne Lib Dems won the seat from the Tories for the first time in about 90 years. This whole election has been very surprising. I am, to be honest, genuinely shocked the Tories didn't sweep to power like Blair and Labour did in '97. I'm also shocked Lib Dems did so badly, despite all the hype lately - and most surprised that Labour could still cling on to power.

I've had about 3 hours sleep and now I'm off to work - so I'll update a bit more later.

It's LABOUUUUUUR! /smack Kel

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8668232.stm

- Well, Lib Dems really will be the Kingmakers, by the looks of it. Initiative wrestled from poor old Brown. Will be interesting to see if enough Tories can swallow their principles and allow Fair Representation as the price for Lib Dem support. The excitement in this election is certainly on par with British politics of the nineteenth century!

It's LABOUUUUUUR! /smack Kel


Darn Queen's English and adding U's to everything. Like Colour come on :devil

Actually the part that interests me the most is the Queen's role. Monarchy is so foreign to me that we even have an elected coincil in my WoW guild. Now you have a unelected figurehead who ultimately could decide who your next PM is. The people have spoken and Brown has lost confidence, will she honor that or continue with the man she has developed a working relationship with? What would happen if she taps Brown to continue? These are alien choices to me, and quite facinating.

We don't have a constitution, but our political system works to restrictions and constrictions just as tight and constraining as those in the US. The monarch has absolutely no realistic influence on the outcome of any political decision making in the UK. She has a purely symbolic role and, when she is called upon to select a new government or minister, does so purely on the advice of others. Not since George III in the 1780s has a British monarch intervened in the formation of a ministry.

The Prime Minister is almost always her sole political adviser (ie what he says - goes), and in such a case as this, where the PM cannot give unbiased advise, the Queen accepts it from political experts and cross-party members. Buckingham Palace keeps its head down and withdraws in circumstances such as this, and emerges only if the PM hands in his resignation, or a new government wishes to form a ministry with a proper mandate.

The one thing I absolutely love about our political system is that it has matured and evolved over centuries, and is so well balanced between tradition, history and democracy, that watching it play out, like yesterday and today, is like watching a tantalizing operetta. In some ways, it's made richer by the fact that it is so alien to the cut-and-dry mechanics of Republics. They are two very different systems, serving the same democratic ends. Fascinating - I agree.

Anyway, the Tories are meeting with the Lib Dems tonight to discuss terms that will ensure a mandate large enough to usurp Brown and form a ministry. But seen as Cameron has ruled out conceeding Fair Representation to the Libs, I don't see the negotiations going far. Watch this space!!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8672859.stm

- This election is turning out to be a complete and utter rollercoaster, momentous things are happening over here.

PS my money is on either David Milliband or Ed Balls succeeding him.

I hope Ed wins, just because how awesome would Prime Minister Balls be?

Ed Balls, because it's time the English grew a pair!

Also, that is a FANTASTIC picture of Gordon Brown looking like he's holding back vomit.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8675265.stm

- It all happened within an hour, Brown went to the palace to resign, Cameron arrived soon after, and within minutes the whole Tory gang were entering Number 10.

This past week has seen some of the most momentous politics in decades.

Now just waiting to see what kind of a 'full coalition' it really will be.

ROFL - our new Secretary State for Defence? Liam, friggin, Fox, member of 'Conservative Friends of Israel' who believes 'israel's enemies are our enemies', and a man who supports military action against Iran.

This was the one major concern I had about Tories gaining power. Hopefully he is counter-balanced by William Hague as Foreign Minister - IMO a very sensible and expert man in foreign affairs.

What a day and night this has been - will keep anyone, who cares, updated.

What international impact would you expect this to have, for those of us that don't follow British politics closely? Any impact on the PIIGS' financial situation? More or less support for Obama's mission in Eurasia? Anything else?

Oh yes, for the latter. The Tories are very zealous about the 'Special Relationship', and as they so outwardly reject the EU, especially in matters of foreign policy and defence, they naturally (though more than naturally) make themselves out to be die-hard Atlanticists. Cameron, Hague and Fox - the trio that will now decide our foreign and defence policy, have signalled more than once that they plan to form foreign policy around an independent foreign policy in a US led-bloc, namely NATO.

In scenario terms San, any international threat would most likely be met with military force from the UK, if it has been sanctioned or initiated by the US, especially in areas such as Pakistan and Iran, the latter being somewhere Fox has advocated military action for years, especially after a 2007 visit there. While most ministers in this country, from all parties, have advocated dealing with Iran's 'nuclear programme' diplomatically and economically, Fox has repeatedly stated that 'military strikes should not be ruled out'. To say that Fox is a hawk, would be putting it lightly. While Hague, as FM, will provide a counterbalance, he too is hawkish - but sensibly so. Thankfully - this has happened at a time when Washington has a Democrat in office, who is looking to end foreign intervention, as opposed to start a whole new series of them.

On the positive side, it means a continual committment to Afghanistan and international peace missions, which can only be a good thing. The Tories are very proud of Britain's military and, though there will inevitably be defence spending cuts, they have guaranteed the production of our 2 new aircraft carriers and an entirely brand new and up-to-date nuclear missle system to replace the Trident Submarines.

So what impact does it have overall? Well, not much on the day-to-day happenings. Britain has always been militaristic and interventionist, close to the US and willing to pump billions into the forces every year. But in the long term, and in case of an international threat, such as Iran, the impact is a more decisive and bellicose state, willing to intervene and pre-empt, under the leadership of the US. I don't think we'll see a puppy-dog relationship re Blair and Bush, especially as we develop the tools of independence such as new nuclear subs and aircraft carriers, but definately Britain will be taking its other foot out of Europe diplomatically and military, and placing it firmly across the Atlantic, with its other foot.

ps in regards to the PIIG bloc, it can only be a negative thing. George Osborne, the new Chancellor of the Exchequer, has already signalled his future policy in slashing EU funding and reviewing the common agricultural policies. For financially subsidised nations (see: all except France, Britain and Germany!) such as Greece, this may prove potentially disastrous. But the market's haven't yet spoken. If Merkell continues to keep her coalition under control and pump those German Euro's down into the Mediterranean, as she has done, markets I think will continue to react positively (many thought the big drop and then big rise was a reflection of British domestic politics, but of course it was nothing of the sort, it corresponded with the pre-Greece bailout and the post-massive agreed subsidy - sometimes we overestimate our impact on international markets).
In the long-term (if there is one for the Tories), it does not spell positively for anything connected with Europe.

Upon first glance at the change in leadership I was thinking 'we have an interesting future ahead'; and now, reading Halo's comments I am of the mind that we have a very interesting few years ahead!

Israel seems to be chomping at the bit to forcefully inhibit Iran's potential nuclear capability (although the recent inclusion on the agenda of the UN's nuclear folks of a discussion of Israel's nuclear capability might be an unwanted distraction), and having a British government that may well lean toward supporting action might be enough to further widen the divide between Washington and Tel Aviv.

At the very least, I am anticipating seeing many more news items related to Great Britain over the next year than I saw during Brown's tenure.

To gain an idea of the scope of change that this government will produce, within the first hour of the coalition, the Tories - at the wish of the Lib Dems who have campaigned for electoral reform for decades - agreed to implement 5-year General Election terms. This is a major, historic change to our political constitution. We have never had guaranteed GE dates, ever. It has always been at the behest of the PM when one is called. The problem this, all of these state-changing bonanzas are happening on top of each other, and it is very difficult to take a minute to consider it all and let your jaw drop. The past week alone will provide the papers and politicians, the media, news-programmes and academics, with enough to chew on for years.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8684162.stm

- Nice little piece on how foreign policy is working out so far.

"[C] UK the regular period of time when a person can visit their Member of Parliament to ask adviceOur MP holds a weekly surgery on Friday mornings."

If anyone other than me has been confounded by the use of surgery in the British papers and columns, the above came from the Cambridge Dictionary.

One of the sidebar stories from Halo's link was about an MP being stabbed by a 21-year old female during his surgery. The amount of knife violence in Britain may well be their counter-point to relaxing their gun laws; it is much easier to defend against a knife-wielding person than a flying bullet from a gun-wielding person across the street. Hope the MP recovers and continues his work.

On the topic, I think the two Secretaries got off to a nice start and having a good relationship at that level can have a very positive affect on the agreements made by their superiors.


And I also have to say that your new PM did a remarkable job of emulating JFK's entreaty of giving to rather than taking from one's country.