|
During
the days before the United Kingdoms
May 5 parliamentary election, British newspapers and
media commentators commented, sometimes sharply, on
the contrasts between Britains
electoral system and Americas.
And indeed, it must be a relief to be bombarded by
politicians for only six weeks or so rather than for
more than a year; and the cost of the British
campaigns of all parties, about $80 million, is
minuscule compared to the $4 billion spent in the
United States. On this, most American voters would
probably agree with their British counterparts. But it
was interesting to be in England and to hear
British critics denounce the vacuous
American
presidential and vice-presidential debates and the failure
of the electoral
system to produce a truly democratic Senate.
In truth pre-election discourse in the
United Kingdom was marked by a singular lack of vision
and a preoccupation with personalities and their
character flaws; and New
Labors
third victory in a row produced the uncomfortable
reality that 36 percent of the vote yielded Labor 55
percent of the seats in parliament. The following day,
the British press was full of commentary about the
need for reform and the virtues of proportional
representation. But no one should have been surprised.
Where were these experts the day before the election? |
Britains
polls close at 10:00 p.m., giving people a chance to
vote after a long work day, but turnout was no better
than Americas:
barely over 55 percent of eligible voters bothered to
participate. And Britains
electoral map would look familiar to Americans used to
the red-state/ blue-state dichotomy: rural southeast
Britain is the Conservative Party heartland; urban
England is the core of Labor. But the political
geography of the U.K. is more varied than Americas.
Constituencies are contested not only by the three
major national parties (Labor, Conservative,
Liberal-Democrat) but also regionally by Welsh,
Scottish, and Ulster nationalist parties. Splinter
parties and independents further diversify the map.
Look for a fellow named George Galloway, a Respect
Party member who
won in a London constituency named Bethnal Green &
Bow, to raise hell in parliament. In his victory
speech, he screamed Mr.
Blair! This is for Iraq!
If American polls and British media
are to be believed, voters on both sides of the
Atlantic have grave doubts about their political
leaders. On the morning of May 6, just after Tony
Blair had given his modest and pensive victory speech,
a chorus of calls for his resignation arose among
|
his own party members - this after his
party s
historic third-time success. Michael Howard leader of
the Conservatives who took 33 percent of the vote (but
secured only 197 seats against Labors
355) announced his intention to resign as soon as
practical. The Liberal Democrats, who had a great
opportunity but failed in large part because of Charles
Kennedys
lackluster leadership, also demanded change at the top.
What lies ahead? Blair will be less able
to pursue the unfinished goals of his second term, and
the shadow of Gordon Brown, his anointed successor, will
loom larger, potentially dragging new
Labor back toward
the social policies of the Old.
The Conservatives
will have a major opportunity should this happen, but
they will be in for a leadership struggle that may
damage their prospects. Watch for the name of David
Davis to emerge in the fray. As to the Liberal
Democrats, theres
a lesson here for Americans eager for a third party to
break the current monopoly: Charles Kennedy makes Ross
Perot look like George Washington. Credible leadership
is the key. They do not have it and none is in sight.
So the critics among our British friends
make valid points. It s
just that they apply to the British as well as the
American side of the Atlantic.
|
