In 2000, I stayed up and enjoyed the US Presidential election between George W. Bush and Al Gore. Still going at 7.30am in the morning, my then housemates asked me who'd won, to which I replied:
I don't know.
The same goes for the outcome of yesterday's general election. And after being up for over 26 hours (with a brief nap at 5pm), I'm hitting the sack.
I'm looking forward to the behind-the-scenes articles and documentaries that will be available after the election. What self-respecting political geek isn't?
In the meantime, Slate gives an interesting perspective on the General Election from across the Atlantic. Their 5 dispatches are here:
(via Peter Bowers)
The Tories want a cap on immigration. It's a policy I disagree with, but it's a policy nonetheless.
The detailed debate has taken place as to where immigrants come from: since Britain is a member of the EU, we're not in a position to stop people from other EU Member States coming to Britain.
Thus, the numbers EU-immigrants represent can't count towards any Tory cap.
So the Tories are presumably saying they'll cap non-EU immigration numbers.
But this admits the likely possibility that, though non-EU immigration numbers may fall because of the introduction of a cap, the number of net immigrants to Britain may easily exceed any cap, because EU-immigrants can't be turned back at our borders.
The question (which I during the third leaders' debate, and which is also noted by the excellent Chris Dillow) is therefore: does the Tory cap on immigration admit the possibility that they'll want Britain to leave the EU, on the grounds of immigration?
Here's something interesting for you: if David Cameron becomes Prime Minister, he will be the PM with the shortest length of service as MP of any post-war Prime Minister.
Being elected in 2001, he will have had 9 years' service as an MP. The past Prime Minister with the shortest service is John Major, who had 11 years as an MP before he became PM.
If Nick Clegg becomes Prime Minister, he will have served only 5 years previously as an MP (2005-2010).
Full details of all PMs and years as an MP prior to becoming Prime Minister are below.
And the two other candidates in the current general election:
Personally speaking, I don't think there's been enough coverage of the leaders' debates.
But that could just be me.
Being the good blogger I am, though, here are some observations of last night's debate:
I was bemused that the first topic chosen was immigration. Even more bizarre was the fact this was then followed by law and enforcement as the second topic to be chosen. Perhaps the high profile Daily Mail advert just before the debates gave the game away?
This said, I was delighted that the issue of social care was raised as the last question. It's about time the topic got the airing it needs. I never thought I'd hear the day when "Direct Payments" was mentioned in a television debate about anything.
I learnt very early on in my working life that "policy by anecdote" was not a winning contribution. The occasional case study to back up a substantive point was fine; but to offer anecdotes as your point was flakey. And they all did it (whilst seemingly playing minority bingo at the same time). For future reference, then, here's the formula to use:
I was in PLACE NAME just last week, when a NUMBER-year-old, DISTINGUISHING FEATURE (e.g. black, disabled, gay) man/woman/child told me about INSERT HARROWING STORY THAT MAKES YOUR POINT HERE. I agree with them. Things must change.
Clegg was good. Then again, I could be good if I was neither (a) David Cameron or (b) Gordon Brown, and (c) I could promise to deliver what everyone wants to hear, knowing full well I haven't a cat in hell's chance of having to actually, y'know, deliver any of it.
Brown was better than expected, though most people are clearly sick of him, so it didn't really matter how he performed.It did matter, though, how Cameron performed, and overall he lacked substance (see 'policy by anecdote' above) and wasn't comfortable at all. His hypocrisy in his closing remarks - 'This is an amazing country' versus all the Broken Britain rehtoric - highlighted how he'll change what he says so that it's whatever he thinks people want to hear (a version of the "Lisa Loeb syndrome").
The format of the debate was stilted, and most seem to agree that the slots allocated for each policy area weren't sufficient: debate was cut off just before it got going. This wasn't helped by the fact Alisdair Stewart wasn't particularly good as a moderator, though I suspect Adam Boulton will be worse and David Dimbleby will be, well, David Dimbleby.
The viewing figures were 9.4m, or 37% of the audience. Much fare has been made of the fact this was bigger than Coronation Stree and Eastenders audiences. Actually, it bears out my assertion that nearly half the population don't care.
That's what I thought. Seemingly, so many other people thought the debates would get little coverage that they've also written some thoughts, too. Here's a selection of them:
This election is the most important in my life. The outcome really matters because of the state we are in. '97 was the first time I voted in a general election and whilst there may have been a feeling that a change was 'in the air', it felt as if the country at least had a paddle whilst stuck up shit creek. Yes, there was a history of underinvestment in health, education and other key public services but this could in part be attributed to the 90's recession. Who's to say that a Major government after '97 would not have approached hospital and school building with the zest that Blair did? After all the Tories did invent PFI. And it'll be our kids that have to pay for most of it anyway.
Due to our collective greed and especially that of bankers and politicians, we are now neck deep in the most vile smelling turd. All parties have sod all movement when it comes to fiscal policy. The (highly respected*) Institute for Fiscal Studies has calculated that the gap between Tory and Labour proposals at £6bn, which is pretty much bugger all. What is really needed now to save us all from a pretty crappy depressing next ten years are really good ideas, policies that, to paraphrase, everyone likes, cost nothing, are original and brilliant and no one could possibly object to. Tough ask. But at least ideas don't cost anything.
It's with this in mind that I first buried my head in the Labour manifesto and saw in Brown's introduction the bold proclamation that forms the title of this post. Yet all the manifesto's (and yes I have read them all, I was annoyed they were not in Canary Wharf Waterstones today on three for two, as promised) are dull as the giant ashcloud in the sky. And I'm increasingly resigned that tonight's debates will reinforce the image of our politicians as mere machines.
It's true that its not a business as usual election. It's worse, it's slow, nervous, vacuous and cowardly. After the expenses scandle and the chasm it created with the people politicians serve, after our economy caves in due to the slavish adherence to a dubious form of capitalism, at the start of the Chinese century, with peak oil approaching, with the middle east as volatile as ever, and with climate change threatening the very existence of a habitable planet for out children... You would have thought that there's enough out there to get passionate enough about to take some have some ideas and take some risks.
*Is any organisation as "highly respected" as the IFS honestly, how the fuck do they do it? Have they got a picture of every the editor of every newpaper with their penis in a melon... the same melon... whilst dressed up a Nazis... chained to goats?
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.