Americans uninspired by UK poll (BBC)

[Dauphin]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4490809.stm

Lightning strikes Blair's plane

Prime Minister Tony Blair's election campaign plane has been struck by lightning during a flight.

BBC Radio Five Live presenter Peter Allen, who was on board, said it was hit as it approached London. The plane was not damaged and landed safely.

Mr Allen said he heard a loud bang but the prime minister, who was talking to a journalist at the time, was apparently "imperturbable".

"The rest of us certainly weren't imperturbable," Mr Allen said

[Shi Huangdi]

Originally posted by Dauphin
A hung parliament would be great! It won't happen though.

I don't see why you would dismiss the possibility of a result that is within the margin of error.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Starchild
The Prime Minister goes to the Queen, asks her to dissolve Parliament. She consents and all the MP's go back to their constinuencies to campaign. Six weeks later, everyone votes, the re-elected or newly elected MP's meet and form a new Parliament and the majority party forms a Government.

It's short cause A) the potential Prime Minsters are already known (ie, party leaders) and B) the entire executive-legislative branch of government ceases to exist. We really can't drag that situation out over two years.

How barbaric.

[DanS]

I meant, why does a short election campaign impress american voters as opposed to their ~2 year version?

The American vote is good for some stuff. You can get a good sense of whether the candidate can keep a staff running cohesively. You can tell whether the candidate can keep a coalition together (presidential politics are coalition politics). You can tell how the candidate acts under pressure. You can tell if the candidate has the required stamina. You can tell how the candidate reacts with voters in most areas of the country on a personal level. You can tell how well the candidate will wear over the next 4 years of being in the news, etc.

On the other hand, it is a question of whether the electorate has the required stamina.

[Agathon]

The American people had a similar uninspiring choice in our last election

That's why you need a revolution.

The American vote is good for some stuff. You can get a good sense of whether the candidate can keep a staff running cohesively.

Only if no scandals come out.

You can tell how the candidate acts under pressure.

Only if no scandals come out.

You can tell if the candidate has the required stamina.

Only if a chick tells the tabloids how long he goes for.


You can only have two of three at most.

[DanS]

An American presidential campaign is gruelling in the extreme for both candidate and staff. It's even more gruelling than the presidency itself. It gives you an excellent sense of their stamina.

[Qilue]

So it's not so much a case of picking the best canditate, but rather strongest?

Why not just put them all into a pit and give the job to the one that comes out alive? Would save a lot of money.

[DanS]

Sounds to me like a distinction without a difference.

[DanS]

In any event, no we don't care about the Brit election. Why would we?

We like Blair and think he's a very strong leader, even if he is to the left of most Americans. The Tories don't inspire any confidence at all. The LibDems aren't even on our radar.

[alva]

Paxman for prime-minister.

[MikeH]

Originally posted by DanS
In any event, no we don't care about the Brit election. Why would we?

We like Blair and think he's a very strong leader, even if he is to the left of most Americans. The Tories don't inspire any confidence at all. The LibDems aren't even on our radar.

Exactly, it doesn't affect you, whereas the American election does affect us so we care.

This story is a bit of a nothing story really. Us Brits wanting to matter globally but we don't much.

[Starchild]

Originally posted by DanS


The American vote is good for some stuff. You can get a good sense of whether the candidate can keep a staff running cohesively. You can tell whether the candidate can keep a coalition together (presidential politics are coalition politics). You can tell how the candidate acts under pressure. You can tell if the candidate has the required stamina. You can tell how the candidate reacts with voters in most areas of the country on a personal level. You can tell how well the candidate will wear over the next 4 years of being in the news, etc.

Situations that are taken care of in our system by a potential prime minister being the leader of their party. Keep a staff running chohesively? Check, they have to keep their party machinary working, their cabinets/shadow cabinets together, etc. Telling if they can keep a coalition together? Check, they have to keep the party united and account for all interests (Old Labour vs New Labour; Moderate Tories vs Right wing Tories). Acting under pressure? Check. How the candidate will wear? Check. We can go back to any session of parliament and see how he's fared. We get years to appraise potential prime ministers while they work their way up from backbencher to party leader.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi


I don't see why you would dismiss the possibility of a result that is within the margin of error.

I can't say that there absolutely won't be a hung parliament but I am very confident it will not happen. Interesting to this point, most spread bets I have seen put a Labour majority at 60-90, the chances of a hung parliament seem remote.

Also the margin or error in polls is not particular meaningful, and is often misleading especially the way the media conveys it.

[Shi Huangdi]

Hmm, the Guardian has Labour up by 7. We are seeing quite a wide dispersion in the polls it seems.

[MikeH]

Yeah... the average is labour up by 3 or 4 I think.