Websnark: Keeping one's ear to the ground. (Warning, politics.)

« Stealth Pathos | Main | Annotations on the Day »

Eric: Keeping one's ear to the ground. (Warning, politics.)

It's a day of tremendous significance to the United States of America, of which I am a citizen in (as far as I know) good standing. A day when the entire geopolitical position we're in may be inexorably altered, with far reaching consequences in every theater of foreign policy we're involved in.

I mention this because it seems to have slipped the attention of... well, everyone. At least, everyone in America.

For those who don't know, today's the day of the General Election over in the United Kingdom of Great Britain. Unlike American elections, people vote parties instead of individuals over there (officially, I mean. We pretty clearly vote parties over here too, only we lie about it), and also unlike American elections, there is at least some slight doubt as to the configuration of the final Parliament as a result. It's possible -- albeit unlikely -- that Labour will fail to hold the House of Commons and the entire British government will change. Even if it doesn't, there's likely to be a shift in the composition both of the majority and the backbench, and there will almost certainly be an alteration of policy corresponding to that shift.

This is of course of major significance to the Britons (do we still call them Britons? I never know), as well as to the European Union. Oh, and Australia. And Eastern Europe. The Pacific Rim is also keeping a close eye on this -- especially Hong Kong, despite the lack of formal ties. And the Mid-East is keeping a very close watch on what's going on. Great Britain, after all, has been the staunchest ally the United States has in the "Coalition of the Willing" up until now. Certainly, they're the strongest power to solidly stand behind the United States in Iraq and elsewhere.

Step away from American politics for the moment and take a look at American interests overall. (Taking the old aphorism "politics stops at the water's edge" as read for a minute, even though it's no longer true.) We strongly need Great Britain's support in what we do. At a time when America's international reputation is at a low ebb, we need as visible a set of allies as we can muster, saying in a clear, certain voice that we don't stand alone -- that for all the discussion of unilateral action, we are in fact a coalition, and we do in fact have allies of significance who agree with our stance. If Great Britain pulls significant support from Iraq, our costs go significantly up alongside the risk, and we lose a tremendous amount of what authority we have left in the region.

And make no mistake -- the United Kingdom's Iraq policy will change as a result of this general election. If Labour retains Parliament, they're not likely to pull out entirely -- but it would not be a surprise if they reduced their presence and role. Certainly, to maintain a significant presence and role, the United States is going to have to give them some reasons -- some stake -- beyond what they have, so far.

Which is why I find it... interesting that so few pundits -- especially online pundits like myself -- seem to care. American Livejournal members have barely acknowledged the elections, as near as I've seen. Instead, we're seeing the highly typical American response -- if it's not happening in America, it somehow doesn't matter. (It goes without saying that a vastly higher percentage of Canadians and Mexicans know who our President is than Americans know who their chief executives are, despite our sharing the continent with them.)

It does matter, though. Those Americans who want our own policies to change should be yearning for a significant Parliamentary shift. Those Americans who want our policies to stay the course should be hoping for Parliament to remain mostly the same. There should be debate about the significance, tracking of results, hopes and fears and doomsaying. It should matter to us, because it does matter to us.

Well, it matters to me. I'm keeping an eye on the elections today. I have my own hopes on how it comes out, and my own hopes for what it will mean for American Foreign Policy, for Iraq, and for our general positioning in the Middle East. More than that, I know that it's going to have an effect, and that it's an effect I have no ability, no matter how cursory, to control.

And through it all, I remember how clearly important the American elections were to British Livejournal users and pundits, and feel just slightly embarrassed on behalf of my nation that we haven't seen fit to return the favor.

Edit: And just after I finished composing this essay, I learned that explosives went off in New York City at three thirty this morning in the same building as the U.K. Consulate. We don't know more than that at this time, or what if any impact they were intended to have. According to CNN, there were no injuries, for which I for one am grateful.

Posted by Eric Burns-White at May 5, 2005 10:10 AM

Comments

Comment from: Christopher B. Wright posted at May 5, 2005 10:46 AM

I'm not sure how significantly the British presence in Iraq would actually change if the Tories won. Isn't that the party of Thatcher?

They're criticising the way Blair has *conducted* the affair, but most of them supported the affair to begin with.

In my opinion, the biggest chance of a change in policy is if Labor wins, but is weakened after the win. Then Blair will have to deal more directly with the rest of his party in order to get anything done.

Comment from: Bob Stevenson posted at May 5, 2005 11:12 AM

I'll be very interested to see how much of a swing the liberal democratic party can pick up. I assume labor will win by at least a few points, but the anti-war sentiment should be reflected an increade in votes for the liberal dem's. I guess lots of anti-war voices will vote labor anyway as a vote for the lib's may seem akin to a Nader vote in the US - wasted and maybe dangerous.

I actually pay quite a bit of attention to international politics but tend to avoid it in my comic and blog stuff.

I have been intrigued by the BBC coverage of the elections. Normally, they're very much a face-to-face news outfit. They bring the news-makers on live and go at it, exciting stuff compared to our (US) canned/taped news. Oh, and they don't just scream at each other, they stick to things like, um, issues. On the other hand, during the election, they seem to have gone after the public sentiment much more than they've gone after the politicians. A reporter's been broadcasting live each morning from different spots around the country, talking to citizens in very different communities. It's the first British election I've ever watched with any interest so I wonder, is this the norm for British election coverage? I wish they'd spend more time with candidates, but I'm thinking I recall some strict regulations about that. I am thankful to cut the spin doctors out of the loop though - far too much of that on this side of the pond.

I also seem to remember a snark about political comics or was it a column in comixpedia. At any rate it proposed that politics in comics was mostly a no-win situation. Eventually, you'll drive away much of your audience. Should the same apply to blogs that are largely about webcomics? For my money, they've got their place in both realms.

Comment from: siwangmu posted at May 5, 2005 11:22 AM

Bless you, Eric. I'll admit off the bat that I'm part of the problem, here--I have no idea who the leaders of Canada and Mexico are and precious little concept of the major parties and issues in Britain. I do very much want to ascribe to the philosophy you espouse here, though. (I also can't help thinking that while obviously we can't and shouldn't control the news outlets in countries that dislike us, part of the reason worldwide opinion of us is so low is that we deserve it (this comment refers to our privileged position of not having to care about languages other than English/countries that aren't us/etc.)) I hope that last aside doesn't strike people as inflammatory--I think Eric's post is laudably apolitical and would hate to be the cause of the discussion getting acrimonious.

Anyway, as I said, I don't know enough about the major parties in Britain (yet) to speculate on what results would mean, but the little I've seen doesn't suggest that (as I perhaps incorrectly am gathering from Chris' post) any outcome would mean continued support of our stuff in Iraq--I don't know if you mean Party officials or British people when you say "most of them supported the affair to begin with," but if you meant Britons (it's fun to say!), my impression is that they overwhelmingly did not. I don't know what that all means, but there's my two cents (oh, and by quoting and referring to you, Mr. Wright, I didn't mean to be attacking, just specific).

Comment from: coldcut posted at May 5, 2005 11:30 AM

Arguably the biggest online pundit has been following the story pretty closely:

www.dailykos.com

He's actually over there in some official capacity with the Guardian.

Comment from: baf posted at May 5, 2005 11:32 AM

Comment from: Pooga posted at May 5, 2005 11:52 AM

In addition to the aforementioned Daily Kos, Kenneth Baer took over as guest blogger at Talking Points Memo yesterday (Josh Marshall is on his honeymoon), and has shifted the from the recent "All Social Security, all the time" tone to focus exclusively (so far) on the British elections.

As a matter of fact, although it may be my shift to getting news from Internet sources, but I've seen more coverage of this election than any previous British election (from within the States).

Also, while I had to look up the Canadian PM (I was under the misimpression that it was still Jean Chr�tien), I knew Vicente Fox off the top of my head. :p

Comment from: Abs_of_Flab posted at May 5, 2005 11:57 AM

A quick message for siwangmu: President of Mexico - Vincente Fox; Prime Minister of Canada (well, maybe for not much longer since our ruling party is now in something of a pretty big corruption scandal and the opposition is trying to bring it down) - Paul Martin (who also happens to come from my hometown). Hope that helps!

And to comment on Eric's essay, I have to say that I've really given up following American news outlets. I'm not trying to be inflammatory, by the way; just stating a fact. Some years ago (I'd say about three federal elections ago), American news outlets completely buried news of Canada's new prime minister. And that pretty much did it for me. Canada is the States' biggest (or at least one of the biggest) trade partners with whom it shares an undefended border, and if announcing who Canada's new leader is weren't big news, it's pretty clear that American journalism had strange priorities. I still check it from time to time, but I stick mainly to Canadian and British news these days.

Comment from: Abs_of_Flab posted at May 5, 2005 11:58 AM

Comment from: Adam Tinworth posted at May 5, 2005 11:59 AM

or (b) the Conservative party.

This will be the same Conservative Party whose leader has been directly snubbed by Bush, depsite being closer in political outlook to him than the Labour Party?

Bush has already expressed a personal dislike of Michael Howard that would make it extremely unlikely that the two could work easily together.

Comment from: Dave Van Domelen posted at May 5, 2005 11:59 AM

The Tories may be conservative, but that doesn't mean they're on Bush's side any more than the liberal Labour was against Bush. In fact, they seem to be running on (in part) an anti-War-in-Iraq position.

Comment from: Abs_of_Flab posted at May 5, 2005 12:00 PM

Comment from: Abs_of_Flab posted at May 5, 2005 12:01 PM

Oops! I've been having serious trouble with my browser today; I apologize for the triple posting. Please delete my extraneous posts.

Comment from: The Gneech posted at May 5, 2005 12:44 PM

You remember how much backlash there was when some helpful cherubs in the U.K. tried to convince a county in Ohio to vote for Kerry?

I think a lot of the American attitude may not be so much one of "it doesn't matter" as "it's none of our business." If you're not a news junkie, it's not something that directly effects your life.

-The Gneech

Comment from: Shadowydreamer posted at May 5, 2005 12:44 PM

I think it's important Paul Martin's name be recorded in as many places as possible before he becomes as well known as Kim Campbell. ^_^ (Canada's female Prime Minister 4 terms ago.)

We have a man who was our Minister of Finance. We have a Liberal Gov't that was sending money to organizations/corporations in Quebec for doing nothing. P.M. Martin says he has no knowledge of it. That either makes him a liar or a really crappy Finance Minister.

But I can't say I'm surprised by the average American's lack of interest in the British election. Canada's their biggest trade partner and they don't care the U.S. if inflicting illegal trade practices on us and we're pushing to nullify the free trade agreement because of it. (For SOME reason, Mexico supports us.. [/sarcasm]) Many Canadians want to legalize marijuana.. purely to give George W. Bush the middle finger.

So, y'know, if they can't care about politics north of the border, when it's a short drive to send reporters.. why would they care about some small island across the sea? To quote one forumer the other night, "Not like Britain's done anything important, like, ever." (Punctutation added.)

Comment from: FlyingFish posted at May 5, 2005 2:04 PM

I've heard the random mention of it here and there -- analysis of how different results will affect different issues -- but nothing as heavy as the sort of attention the US elections got. And there's a reason for that: these pundits have a largely American audience. Thus they can argue about which party should take Parliament until they're blue in the face and have very little effect on the outcome, because few people who will actually vote on the matter are listening. (Compare that with, say, the Power Line-Dan Rather feud and the results thereof.)

American pundits can be very pragmatic in that respect.

Comment from: Haver posted at May 5, 2005 3:23 PM

I'm a British politics student who's lucky enough to have had both an American Presidential Election and a General Election in my study period.

Therefore, tonight is a very important night. I'll be on the sofa armed with coffee and biscuits and I'll be getting all giddy.

Unfortunately, I'm 17 so my only influence was that over my siblings vote. Labour will win once again, but with a smaller majority, say 90, but I think the real winners will be the Liberal Democrats.

They're the only ones who've come out of this terribly negative election looking honest and fruitful. Hopefully they'll gain some seats tonight.

Comment from: egometry posted at May 5, 2005 4:16 PM

I'm wondering as to which pundits you're referring, Eric. My RSS feed has been abuzz lately with this whole matter.

Were you referring to mainstream media pundits, or do you just grab your news from entirely different sources than I, online? If the latter, where do you frequent?

Comment from: Fu-Child posted at May 5, 2005 5:12 PM

I recall someone on another blog saying that there's no way for the Bush administration to lose on this one. Barring a really major upset, the party in power after the election will be either (a) the party of Tony Blair, or (b) the Conservative party.

Since this is about my country Ill chip in =D. Ok off the bat, Tony Blair's party is the Labour party. These guys had some massive support after world war two and the basic ethos is "for the labouring man".

This will be the same Conservative Party whose leader has been directly snubbed by Bush, depsite being closer in political outlook to him than the Labour Party?

Bush has already expressed a personal dislike of Michael Howard that would make it extremely unlikely that the two could work easily together.

The Conservatives arent really in the running this time round. Thier lacking in the polls even though they have some nice policies about education and some strict immigration policies (some people think its important).

As for the lib dems (Liberal Democrats), hmmph. They have repeatedly insulted Bush and Blair in thier campaign this year, concentrating almost entirely on Iraq with some areas of society being addressed (Mainly police forces, NHS, etc) but thier campaign seems a little hollow. It does however have its following.

Im rooting for Labour in this, the friendship (its not fair to call it an alliance anymore) between America and England is something Ive come to realise as important, and its my fear that the Liberal Democrats (if put into power) will turn it into a far more formal, business like relationship. Labour havent even done all that bad, Public Transport has improved, Education to an extent has also improved (parenting hasnt..) and the Police force is getting the funding it needs (it remains to be seen as to whether it is used correctly).

However, as Eric said, whatever the outcome there will probably be a slight change in policies. On the Iraq issue; Possibly a reduction in troops (although in fairness, we have lost less people and achieved a lot. People do not see the war as a horrible mistake), or maybe some concessions. The Lib Dems will have a larger presence in commons, that much everyone agrees on.

I have been intrigued by the BBC coverage of the elections. Normally, they're very much a face-to-face news outfit. They bring the news-makers on live and go at it, exciting stuff compared to our (US) canned/taped news. Oh, and they don't just scream at each other, they stick to things like, um, issues. On the other hand, during the election, they seem to have gone after the public sentiment much more than they've gone after the politicians. A reporter's been broadcasting live each morning from different spots around the country, talking to citizens in very different communities. It's the first British election I've ever watched with any interest so I wonder, is this the norm for British election coverage? I wish they'd spend more time with candidates, but I'm thinking I recall some strict regulations about that. I am thankful to cut the spin doctors out of the loop though - far too much of that on this side of the pond.

As far as I can recall this isnt quite the norm. Normally you would excpect to see fierce debates or morning discussions between candidates and the like, but it has focused more on the public opinion this time. I have no clue as to why there has been a change in format, it could possibly have something to do with the seemingly late addressing of public and social issues (as I stated, a lot of talk has been around Iraq and how it was handled, theres been some scandal).

One of the big issues this election has been the Euro. Labour wants to push to join it, but the Liberal Democrats want to stay with the British pound (me too! I like my quids :P) and this has worked in favour of the Lib Dems; the British public in general LIKES its currency :).

Comment from: Sundre posted at May 5, 2005 5:28 PM

I think the "Jean Poutine" incident will be remembered up here for a very long time.

But I can't crow too much. I'm flying to Edinburgh on Saturday and I know next to nothing about current UK politics. I could probably sustain a brief conversation about Eleanor of Aquitaine, but I doubt that'll come up.

Comment from: siwangmu posted at May 5, 2005 5:39 PM

Man, I thought I was getting the heck chastised out of me when I saw that post start three times... but then again, I'm not that bright. Also, for the record, I totally knew the leader of Mexico's last name! I don't know why, and I was afraid saying "Something Fox, right?" would prove to be a hideous mistake, so I decided to play it safe, but one-quarter go me for having knowledge.

(Thanks, Abs_of_Flab)

Comment from: UrsulaV posted at May 5, 2005 6:16 PM

I envy the UK Tony Blair.

I mean, if you're gonna have somebody in power who drags us into the Iraq war and lies through their teeth about it ANYWAY...well, it'd just be nice to have somebody who can speak in coherent sentences and handle an unscripted press event. I'm fine with having someone in power I disagree with, but someone I'm deeply humiliated by is...painful.

*sigh* That's all I've got about the matter...

Comment from: Natural Slave posted at May 5, 2005 6:53 PM

America's lack of knowledge about our neighbours' leaders is particuarly funny given that this could be a critical moment in the future of both countries, unless things have been blown out of proportion, since a Conservative/Quebec secessionist alliance could break the province off after another referendum, and Fox seems to have decided that his country's government going to stop the shady backroom machinations and act like a democracy, at least for this round.

Websnark

Protected Gnomish Habitat since 2008