What Clinton's victory means for us...
1. After Hillary's stunning surprise victory last night, "the Comeback Kid" will inevitably be applied to Gordon Brown -even if all he does is simply get through the first full week of politics in 2008 without a crisis.
2. The prime minister will come under pressure to follow Hillary by showing his emotion, finding his true voice and, perhaps even, welling up with tears.
3. It won't be long before Labour politicians steal the line that appears to have helped turn things round for Hillary by claiming that their guy has "the experience to deliver change"
4. Those who suggested that Brown like Clinton was doomed for being associated with the past and standing for experience rather than change will be mercilessly reminded of their predictions (yes, before you remind me , I know that I alluded to this parallel on the radio the other day).
5. Friends of the PM will point to the success of the age and experience of John McCain against the alleged charisma of Mike Huckabee.
6. Every politician will use the result last night to remind us not to trust the polls, the pundits and the headlines (which, other than in the Guardian, do appear to have got it horribly wrong). Nevertheless polls, pundits and headlines will continue to make predictions that often prove to be horribly wrong.
7. Gordon Brown will surely have to think again about listening to his favourite American political adviser, Bob Shrum. Shrum predicted yesterday that the "Clinton industry" had turned Hillary into a "product whose sell-by date has passed".
8. Those who insist that there cannot be any read across from the votes of small American states to British politics will be ignored because they simply don't get it. The political classes are gripped by this campaign. It will continue to feed into commentary, oratory and prediction all year - sometimes absurdly, occasionally aptly. The battle between Clinton and Obama, McCain, Romney and Huckabee is, like it or not, a part of Britain's electoral struggle.
I'm 
Comments
Nick, I am glad to see you admit that today's media is trying to be the judge and jury for all of us!
Reporting is the only thing the media should be doing. Is it not a fact Nick, that the media is putting diluted, unsubstantiated questions along the way, giving the impression that the writer actually knows what he/she is talking about!
Huckabee. And this all smacks of Brown-nosing under cover of drawing cross border parallels.
The difference is though Nick, the USA has had an interim disastrous Republican Government to contrast Hilary against. Gordon can only contrast his new self against a self that is very much... well... himself. At best Tony Blair.
In fact on Radio 4 the other morning, I noticed a little bit of Blair's inflection in the voice of our PM, when trying to rebuff criticism.
Gordon is using his experience to deliver change and 'his vision' right now. What I don't understand is why he never piped up with part of his vision when he was sat in number 11? And if he has such vision let us be the judge by giving us an election and showing us that vision in a manifesto.
I hope the lessons learnt from the US elections will be that we require democracy and not leadership via the backdoor.
OK Nick, but you ignore the fact:
1. GB will only be a Comeback Kid if he has a measurable success like Clinton. There is no opportunity on the horizon.
2. GB getting emotional will be like GB smiling - scary to small children and animals because its not in his DNA like it is for Hilary. She is gloss; he is matt. She has glamour; he is dour.
3. "Experience to change" only works because Clinton hasn't been part of the last ten years of status quo that needs change. "Change" implies what went before has failed. GB has to get over the hurdle that change is needed because the government in which he was no.2 failed.
4. Like Michael Howard?
I could go on. Yes there are parallels, yes there are warnings. I agree the mood music can translate across the channel, but we've been out of step with US politics for a little while. Why not a Clinton-Cameron axis, a reversal of the JFK- Macmillan success story?
The other comparison that should be made is between how American politicians have to meet the people and work hard to get to high office compared with the elevation Gordon Brown to PM who was only elected by his constituents who would have voted for anyone wearing a red rosette. I feel tht UK democracy is now very weak in comparison.
Leadership and experience trumps image and cheap PR message....Brown must be pleased - I think he secretly backs Clinton anyway; could be the start of a new UKUSA duo...first Blair/Bush now Brown/Clinton.
Obama cant recover, this campaign will be on issues - and he is weak on these and cant realistically retreat to a hope message - where Clinton excels is in the details...and that's why she will win.
I hope someone tries to coax a comment from Brown at PMQs.
Nick
The lesson Clinton's win gives is the one the media will refuse to learn: don't report opinion polls as fact, they're not and are often wrong.
When Brown was doing really well Cameron was said to be under threat. When the polls flipped it was Brown's turn to be reported as facing the plank.
Neither man is under any serious threat of being jettisoned befoe the next election.
The excitement with which they're reported wouldn't matter too much if the media honestly reported when they're wrong.
However because they ill suit the media's preferred narrative the recent polls showing a much reduced Tory lead have been almost unreported.
It makes for a dishonest form of reporting which sadly the 麻豆官网首页入口 are starting to play along with.
I was up until 4:30am watching the 麻豆官网首页入口 coverage and the word "comeback" alone (even without being followed by "kid") is really starting to grate. I know it's a sign that I've been obsessing over a story too much (combined with a lack of sleep!) but PR types and the media do know how to repeat something until it makes me want to strangle people!
surely one clear difference is that Brown has been at the centre of Government for 10 years, and personally in charge for 6 months already. If he was a great force for change, why haven't we already seen it?
Clinton and Obama can spend their time trying to convince people they are the candidate of change but Brown isn't a prospective leader, he's a already doing the job. Why doesn't he just get on with it?
Nick, an interesting parallel for the UK in that during the 80's and early 90's the polls frequently showed labour ahead but the conservatives won the elections. Brown's administration is in danger of spinning themselves votes and popularity that they don't have - we ALL see through them when they say that they are STILL having to deal with the failings of a conservative government that left power over 10 years ago. Brown needs to show some charisma (sadly our politics IS becoming more like the US) and he needs to stop talking about change and actually making things happen -> currently we're staring down the barrel of falling house prices, increasing energy costs, unstable job prospects, and increased standards of living in China/Poland et al (thereby reducing our ability to get cheap goods). What's his vision to keep our economy going? I just don't see it.
Surely one clear difference is that Brown has been at the centre of Government for 10 years, and personally in charge for 6 months already. If he was a great force for change, why haven't we already seen it?
Clinton and Obama can spend their time trying to convince people they are the candidate of change but Brown isn't a prospective leader, he's a already doing the job. Why doesn't he just get on with it?
The US primaries are only an issue for pur politics because the media wants them to be. It fills the dull gap when not much is happening here politically. Yawn!
"I listened to the people - and found my voice!" No mention by her of a "come back, kid" but listening to all the come backs from the New Hampshire voters - and she speaks!
As I have said elsewhere - it just means she has listened to all her opponants and found out what the people really want to hear. Cynical view - yes - but a voiceless Presidential candidate until now? I hope the voices she hear from now on are those with the good of mankind in mind. All mankind and not just Americans.
Nick Said "Those who insist that there cannot be any read across from the votes of small American states to British politics will be ignored because they simply don't get it."
I don't get it.
Well I do get that the political classes may be drawing all the parellels under the sun but come on Nick, aren't you getting carried away? Its only Primary 2 and there is an entire contest left to go in which anything can happen (think 'Dean Scream'). Mrs Clinton is far from victory.
Please correct me if I'm misguided in thinking this but wouldn鈥檛 drawing these parallels for political gain in this country be clinging on to coat-tails that don鈥檛 stretch well over the Atlantic? If Mr Brown, his team or his champions within the column inches (are there any?) were to say to Joe Public 鈥淚鈥檓 the comeback kid like Hilary!鈥 or 鈥淚鈥檓 experienced just like Senator McCain!鈥 then they would quite rightly start texting 鈥榳tf鈥 to their chums. If the spin machine started to spout off points 1, 3 and 5 then they would show an even more serious lack of ideas.
I admit it鈥檚 a fun contest to watch but it will only effect UK politics with any volume with the run up to November鈥檚 election.
Stephen Okusaga wrote 鈥淚 noticed a little bit of Blair's inflection in the voice of our PM, when trying to rebuff criticism.鈥
Was that the 鈥淟ook/Listen鈥he thing about ___ is 鈥 and let鈥檚 be clear about this 鈥 is that (said in painfully slow and clear drone) and (carry on with point)鈥?
I think it would be dangerous for Brown to read too much into the American election and go hell for leather on a "change" programme. I just don't think there is the stomach for a rash of new policy initiatives here. The furore over Northern Rock and the missing disks have shown people largely want the government to get to grips with it's existing brief rather than finding new ways to wield power.I think the blizzard of re-launches and legislation in the Blair years has left the public a little immune to yet another big policy announcement. Brown sold himself as the safe pair of hands like Nick stated he needs to get through the next few months without anything too spectacular happening to rebuild the public's trust.
In terms of the States the "change" programme is inevitable. A huge amount of civil servants are political appointees which means whoever captures the white house will be making big changes to policy makers and implementors. Having said that I am surprised by how much waffle and cant is spouted by the various candidates. I am still at a loss to knowing what differentiates Obama from Clinton apart from their sex and race.
I find the 麻豆官网首页入口's coverage of this subject deeply depressing. Why was the coverage of the exit polls of a primary election of one small US state given prime billing on the 10 o'clock news while the events in Kenya, a Commonwealth country,which is experiencing a deep trauma with it's democratic system,fitted in towards the end of that news.
I also find your comments at point 8 insulting, the reason being that these US primaries are being used to deflect attention from the deep social and economic problems in Britain, problems which I do not believe "the political classes" can solve without the involvement of people they profess to represent.
Not sure of the effect, but it looks odds on at the moment that the USA will be getting shot of it's useless Tory government - as did Australia recently - just as the UK is on course to do the very opposite.
Lesson: each is as bad (or as good) as the other!
Nick Said "Those who insist that there cannot be any read across from the votes of small American states to British politics will be ignored because they simply don't get it."
I don't get it.
Well I do get that the political classes may be drawing all the parellels under the sun but come on Nick, aren't you getting carried away? Its only Primary 2 and there is an entire contest left to go in which anything can happen (think 'Dean Scream'). Mrs Clinton is far from victory.
Please correct me if I'm misguided in thinking this but wouldn鈥檛 drawing these parallels for political gain in this country be clinging on to coat-tails that don鈥檛 stretch well over the Atlantic? If Mr Brown, his team or his champions within the column inches (are there any?) were to say to Joe Public 鈥淚鈥檓 the comeback kid like Hilary!鈥 or 鈥淚鈥檓 experienced just like Senator McCain!鈥 then they would quite rightly start texting 鈥榳tf鈥 to their chums. If the spin machine started to spout off points 1, 3 and 5 then they would show an even more serious lack of ideas.
I admit it鈥檚 a fun contest to watch but it will only effect UK politics with any volume with the run up to November鈥檚 election. I hope your post was light hearted but if it isn鈥檛 then鈥 I don鈥檛 get it.
Stephen Okusaga wrote 鈥淚 noticed a little bit of Blair's inflection in the voice of our PM, when trying to rebuff criticism.鈥
Was that the 鈥淟ook/Listen鈥he thing about ___ is 鈥 and let鈥檚 be clear about this 鈥 is that (said in painfully slow and clear drone) and (carry on with point)鈥?
Brown's "vision" is to get re-elected, whilst pushing as much of his pathetic moralizing on the rest of us as he can.
Labour will obviously use spin come the next general election. But to compare the US presidential elections with Gordon Brown is fantasy. The problem Labour has right now is the same the Conservatives had - they have been in power too long. People are being taxed rigid with no tangible benefits, and we are about to nose dive into a recession. In these cases the Government of the day always takes the blame. "Comeback Kid" won't apply in this case.
The media are probably partly responsible for what happened in that their predictions may well have stirred the fringe supporters of the Clinton campaign into action resulting in the high turn out and the ultimate result.
The medium is the message - alas!
Your last point is interesting; that we cannot ignore the US elections and their implications for the UK and GB and his team.
If we're not ignoring it then we should remember that all candidates are saying America is calling for 'change' whereas here in the UK despite the change of leader we seem to have the same agenda. Brown's prolem has been that he's not the answer to the problem that we are calling for he's the reason we have the problem in the first place. This is not 'change' this is more of the same.
Where we do have 'change' under Brown/Darling we have an extraordinary elevation of intervention. Intervention over Northern Rock; intervention into Offgem and energy prices; interventon now into the banking system to discover why banks are not passing on rate cuts.
Anything that creates bad headlines and a problem we will now see intervention; that much seems clear. This is the characteristic of a government that has completely lost control of the agenda and will do anything to get it back. In this respect I think the US election experience has nothing to offer us by way of comparison.
"What Clinton's victory means for us....."
Nick, do you think you could mention policies occasionally? Presumably the long term consequences of a Clinton presidency vs an Obama presidency are more important than the short term PR factors. Do they advocate differing policies? How relatively deeply in debt to business, oil, arms, etc lobbies are they? I never find this out from the 麻豆官网首页入口 in general or you in particular. You are a glorified gossip columnist.
The Guardian's apparently-prescient "Defiant Clinton hits back" headline was a late change. The earlier editions - as seen by most purchasers - have "Clinton moves to plan B". Plan B being, I assume, winning...
ISTM that the main difference between the Guardian and the other papers is that the Guardian had the presence of mind to whump up a new front page to send to the 麻豆官网首页入口 newspaper reviewers!
Nick
Hillary hasn't won anything yet. It's a long way to the election. Politicians at Westminster struggle to get the public interested in what happens here in the UK, so why the 麻豆官网首页入口 attach so much importance to headlining the US primaries is kind of beyond me!
My $0.02
Nick, the title of your latest blog entry, "What Clinton's victory means for us", gives the impression that you are offering an analysis of the relationship between what a future Hilary Clinton Whitehouse might bring and UK domestic & foreign policy.
Not a bit of it. The main focus of this blog entry seems to be on whipping up intrest in the forthcoming 2008 soap, 'The ups and downs of a Prime Minister', written by Nick Robinson. Surely you wouldn't deny that the whole piece is about personalities and not politics?
Why not re-name this blog 'Nick Robinson's Celebrity Come Voting'?
Nick, you forgot:
9. The British media will continue to insist that this is all desperately important to us on this side of the Atlantic because its a handy way for them to fill the maximum amount of airtime and column inches with minimum effort.
10 out of 10 to Mike Huckabee, shown walking away from one of your reporters last night with the words, "excuse me, let me go and talk to these folks. You guys don't vote here!"
How absurd is it that a phalanx of British hacks are chasing foreign politicians small around towns we've never heard of, asking inane questions about whether they 'can still win it', when here in the UK the High Street is in meltdown, our lame duck Prime Minister continues to limp from crisis to relaunch to crisis, 20,000 people are shivering in their homes thanks to severe storms (with no estimate set for restoration of the electricity supply in many cases) and the election of a new leader to one of our own main political parties continues to be all but ignored?
Please, get a sense of perspective. I'm sure you're quite capable of reporting the genuine impact of the Primaries on British Politics without the frankly embarrassing spectacle of 麻豆官网首页入口 reporters haranguing the candidates on the streets of New Hampshire.
This is a genuine question, why all the interest over American elections, surely it is of no interest to the majority of Britons, I certainly could not care less who wins, it is an isolated country with little care for the outside world, so why all the coverage?
"Those who insist that there cannot be any read across..." is probably a pretty significant whack of the British electorate (if, I suppose, they could even be bothered to "insist" rather than just ignore), but, nonetheless, it probably makes sense that these people should be ignored. The "gripped political classes" are no doubt right to overlook their mis-informed, ill understood issues and concerns and focus on plaigarising others to stylise their irrelevant "commentary, oratory and prediction".
Nick,
I simply don't get the 麻豆官网首页入口s fascination with American politics in general, nor the Democrats in particular. I can't believe that Hillary Clinton or any other presidential candidate has ever asked themselves - 'what do the low poll figures for Labour mean for US(A)?' Believe it or not, there is a lot happening in this country which is directly relevant to the ordinary citizen, and no amount of spin or deflection (Becks for goodness sake) will change this. So how about some real politics as it affects us, and much less of the stuff that seems to whet the apetitie of the people at the 麻豆官网首页入口?
Oh please, get a grip. She's won one primary in a tiny New England state, not the nomination let alone the presidency. There's plenty of time for things to change yet, when you will once again attempt to make huge stories out of nothing.
Mean? Nothing at this point as there are 48 more primaries/caucases to go.
She didn't win the primary; she's not the candidate for the presidency.
Chill a bit.
This obsession with US politics in really getting on my nerves. Why on earth are you giving so much attention to the selection process for the leader of another country's opposition party?
Oi Nick, your number 6 ain't accurate. The Guardian front page today is a massive article on what Hillary will do after inevitably losing New Hampshire. The big G got it as wrong as the rest of the media.
I don't get it either.
As a UK citizen I have no vote in the US elections and I'm sick of hearing all about them every day already, let alone another 12 months of it.
It won't make a blind bit of difference to the general thrust of world developments whether Tweedle dum or Tweedle dee gets to be the figurehead for the following 4 years. Just as with the conservative and new labour parties, there are no significant policy differences between republicans and democrats, so this has more to do with celebrity and media than anything at all to do with politics.
And like Hillary Clinton, Gordon Brown can ignore the polls because, as last night showed, they are not always entirely accurate.
In the same way that you say Labour may steal the Clinton line "the experience to deliver change", maybe Cameron will steal the Obama line "Good afternoon believers"?
This is an aspect of Obama's appeal that is troubling, and ironically makes him the same type of politician as Bush. It's a bit like the Blair-Thatcher connection over here.
On the subject, Blair in his retirement is starting to sound like Thatcher in hers, becoming more dogmatic than ever about the war on terror being between 'right' and 'wrong'.
No one seems to be telling us why the pollsters got New Hampshire so wrong. Surely it was a limited area to sample relatively easily with a small margin of error?
P.G.H.
I can't take credit for the following comment. Here's an astute analysis of NH's voter intentions courtesy of a blogger (wikipedia) on the Guardian website's Michael Tomasky article, and far more astute than most of the real journo's :
Lots of 'independents' in NH wanted Obama and McCain to win, but they could only vote in one primary. The polls said Obama was way ahead of Clinton, but the McCain/Romney vote would be close. So they decided to fix that by taking a Republican ballot - not expecting much of a downside risk. Sensible thing to do under the circumstances, except they didn't realize so many others would be thinking the same thing.
I know it鈥檚 a slow time of the year for news, & it鈥檚 a good excuse to get a free trip to the US & do some shopping while the 拢 is strong. But this isn鈥檛 the election, it鈥檚 1 or 2 of 52 states voting for who they would like to be in the election. Have we got 10 more months of this?
It鈥檚 the equivalent of a weeks coverage of local Conservative party in Cornwall deciding if they wanted David Cameron or Ken Clarke for leader, then the following week moving to Devon.
Or spending a week saying as Labour lost the last by-election they will lose the next election.
You don鈥檛 do it here, so why do it for another country? Or is it what happens in America is more important than what happens here?
The sad things are that in spite of all this fuss, (1) the majority of Americans will not vote for a woman president, never have, and (2) the majority of Americans will never vote for a president whose name is only one letter different from someone most Americans think planned the September 11th attacks.
The political classes are gripped by this campaign.
So, where can we get ourselves a better class of political classes?
The media probably played a part in what happened by stirring the fringe supporters of the Clinton campaign into action leading to the reportedly high turn out and the ultimate result
Nick,
Stephen (#32 above) is absolutely right. Most of us are not as impressed as your 麻豆官网首页入口 colleagues evidently are with wall-to-wall coverage of an election that isn't ours and for which the process is so protracted as to make a single early primary simply not a news item for us in the UK.
It's interesting, yes. Fun, maybe. Gripping, essential, vital for Britons? No.
Can we get back to asking about competence and policy in the UK now please?
OK, momentum is important, but...
If Hillary needed to win NH to stand any chance, and she's now won NH, she stands a chance.
That's about it.
Personally, I thought she continued to stand a chance in any case.
So it does kind of look as though political commentators are just terribly excited at being able to fill those column inches.
Nick, are you so accustomed to trying to persuade the public that politics really matters that it's instinctive? Even when it actually doesn't matter?
Most of the politician using blogs and social networking sites to influence the voters, I must say to get an overview about the outcome. Social media is playing a greatest tool for the voting system and so on for ad campaign for politician.
-Bob
I would beg to differ. I suspect that the New Hampshire result was at least partly due to the 'race' factor. What will happen in the US states with a higher non-white factor?
The equivalent in the UK would be Labour holding onto seats in the North East of England, having been trounced in the SOuth. Such a vicotry is NOT an indication of a comeback - but rather is symptomatic of the voting characteristics in a localised area of the country.
The previous example of this was the 1992 election where people voted Conservative but would not admit to the pollsters that they would - as if they were ashamed of doing it.
"As a UK citizen I have no vote in the US elections and I'm sick of hearing all about them every day already, let alone another 12 months of it.
It won't make a blind bit of difference to the general thrust of world developments whether Tweedle dum or Tweedle dee gets to be the figurehead for the following 4 years. Just as with the conservative and new labour parties, there are no significant policy differences between republicans and democrats, so this has more to do with celebrity and media than anything at all to do with politics."
Couldn't agree more. We are a sad country still deluding ourselves that it matters what we think about who shoud be US President.
I do think too much air time is given to this selection charade. Matt Frei has been completely sucked into the woohooping brigade and psychobabble of the American process. About 3 sentences would succintly describe what happened in New Hampshire today.
Did Clinton "really" win NH? Too much was made of the opinion polls leading up to the primary, are we now not making the same mistake again by making too much of the tiny lead she did win by?
I've got to agree with the above poster who mentioned that many Americans will not vote for a woman. So for the sake of the Democratic party I hope Obama does win. (although personally I have no preference for either candidate)
I also feel that his "one nation" rhetoric is far more likely to influence Democrat/Republican "swing" voters than Clinton can. The general election is going to be influenced by who Clinton/Obama is up against, rather than which of them win the democratic nomination. I think they should be grateful that JP is nearly out of the Republican race, since he's the Republican candidate most likely to steal "their votes"
I have no doubt that the US primaries are newsworthy, but British journalists' almost slavish fixation about them is becoming embarrassing. Contrary to what you may think, we are are not that much interested in the minutiae of American politics. Get some perspective.
Gord's been doing "I'm-the-stout-chap-in-a-crisis" since New Year, trying to regain lost he lost after his 99th day in the job. Given the hard times ahead, it might even work if he isn't rumbled and humbled by Events.
Nick most of us have already made our minds up that Brown is yesterdays man, he can appoint whoever he likes to present him in any light the fact remains he bombed after 10yrs to get ready for the job!
Brown would be better off in a flared pair of trousers, Brown in colour taking the low road back to Scotland because he looks and sounds like a 1970s leftover! The time for change is here in the UK, no one trusts anything New Labour say anymore and its just a case of working around their 'schemes' to releive us of our hard earned cash and await the day to vote them out.
That we should keep to hand counting and have lots of checks an balances. Was it a victory? Have you seen the votes where there were significant differences between hand and machine counted systems percentage swings. Also suggesting that in Sutton Dr Paul got zero votes, when it was known that there are lots of his supporters in that location!
Way too early to read anything into Clinton's victory. If she could not win in NH then she was finished anyway. There is a lot still to come. Watch Gulliani storm in!
Nick,
I have to say that I, for one, "dont get it". But people are making very valid pionts here about the state of the UK which are being ignored, and I for one "dont get it!"
Obama won New Hampshire. In the polls beforehand, he had a staggering lead which is matched with the results he recieved from hand-counted votes but the machine-counted votes differed so dramatically that they gave Hillary a 3% lead.
Same with Ron Paul - he came forth, ahead of Guliani. The votes recorded on the machines compared to the hand counted swung their votes by the margin between 4th and 5th place, and there are some districts which recorded zero support for Ron Paul completely at odds with the votes he has recieved from people in those areas.
It's a shame that these computers do not allow someone to validate which votes were put in - unlike nice Mr Chavez's.
On the brightside, a US court recently upheld a charge of vote tampering on the Ohio recount from 2004: obviously if someone felt the need to tamper with the votes they can't have felt that they would add up to the published figures.
So what does this mean for British elections? That, if we value democracy, we shouldn't allow Labour to bring Diebold and their ilk anywhere near them!
I cannot for the life of me understand why people are criticising the 麻豆官网首页入口 for giving good coverage of the US elections.
The office of President of the United States is the most powerful position in the world and as you should have learned from Bush's time in office has a huge impact on decisions made in this country as well. Iraq ring any bells?
The people running to succeed Bush have huge difference of opinion in their approach to global politics and how best to confront the issues that will challenge us - and it is US and not just the U.S. that face these problems.
In fact, the 2008 elections will probably prove a decisive moment for the future of this entire planet.
Get a grip people - we may not have a voice in this election but it will have a huge impact on the future. If anything, the 麻豆官网首页入口 should be giving it more coverage.
One thing Nick completely failed to mention in his post is that David Cameron and the Conservatives back the Republicans, so Gordon will be overjoyed with the prospect of either Clinton or Obama in the White House. On radio five live on the 8th Jan, Cameron even openly endorsed McCain for president. So while the States contemplate either its first female or black president Cameron has sided with a Republican in his 70鈥檚. The US election will give Cameron the headache not Brown.
"Contrary to what you may think, we are are not that much interested in the minutiae of American politics."
To tell the truth,,,we aren't either! At least not to the degree that the media here and in the UK are reporting it.
Yes, Nick, you are absolutely right. Come the next UK general election I will be ignoring the state of the UK economy, ignoring the war in Iraq, ignoring the price of fuel, ignoring falling house prices and basing my decision solely on the fact that Hillary Clinton won New Hampshire in a contest against her own party members.
I'm just amazed how a country in the midst of an identity crisis and with a seemingly 'lost' sense of political culture and purpose, can reinvent itself and find appeal with so many disillusioned and apathetic young voters.
The fact that such demographic territory has proven to be the 'make-it-or-break-it' battleground, only goes to show that we, the 'facebook generation' are not ready to be given up on just yet.
Brown and Cameron would do well to learn a few things from the impassioned revival of American political involvement.
I 'get it' but you may not. The key for the 'political classes' is they are too wrapped up in their own little world to see what really needs to be done to engage with voters.
The US primaries don't matter a jot to the UK. The system over there is about as different from our democracy as it can be and long may it remain so.
I disagree with some of the posts, many of us are interested in American Politics because ultimately it effects us all.
Obama has the racial wow-factor, but nothing else. Clinton has a longterm durability about her.
As for our own PM, I do not think Labour are like the Conservatives once were in the 80s/90s, it is likely there will be another Labour government next election.
I mean come on, just say "Thatcher" to a Tory, and it kills them dead. They'll never win again.
Who cares! I do wish the 麻豆官网首页入口 and other UK-based media would stop constantly ramming everything American down our throats. The American election campaign is of little or no consequence to us at the moment and I for one am not particularly interested. And stop referring to the president of the USA as "The President" or "President Bush". Correctly he should be referred to as President Bush of America, as per "President Sarkozi of France". The American president is not OUR president - at least not yet! And another thing - when Bush appears on our TV screens why doesn't he get a caption? The missing caption places him on the same level as the prime minister or The Queen.
>>However because they ill suit the media's preferred narrative the recent polls showing a much reduced Tory lead have been almost unreported.
>>It makes for a dishonest form of reporting which sadly the 麻豆官网首页入口 are starting to play along with.
I couldn鈥檛 agree more. I can鈥檛 help thinking that ever since the license fee (for which my former full support is starting to wobble) settlement the 麻豆官网首页入口 has clearly had the knives out for the government.
I think we should remember that the UK electoral system is (I'm told) skewed towards Labour because the Conservatives have to win a bigger share of the vote in order to get a working majority.
Therefore a similar lead for Labour is more likely to lead to power than it is for the Tories.
---
On a slightly different tack, this New Year blitz and vision thing from GB will go phut.
Unless GB comes up with a completely different set of policies, I can't see the present, failing, ones working - however hard the Government tries (and tries to convince that they are).
That said, I can't whether I want GB to succeed for the good of the Country, or whether I'm right to undermine him when I can because I don't believe he will...
The United States of America is the world's only true superpower at present and therefore who the next President will be is important to us English.
The Americans have an amazing ability to reinvent themselves and I fully expect the majority to select the 'audacity of hope', which will present a much better image of the USA to the world.
Besides, Barack Obama has 'the magic' which none of the other candidates possess.
Please Nick, lets not compare our politicans with their American conterparts.
When you hear on the radio, a humble Congressman running rings around the so-called 'aggressive' John Humphreys, then you realise pretty quickly that our politicians are'nt even in the same league as the Americans.