Making a biopic about Margaret Thatcher is not an easy thing to do. She’s not a sparkling conversationalist, she’s not overly witty, and she’s not electric in personality. However she is one of the most significant women of the last century and remains England’s first and only female Prime Minister. She is a woman who, while in office,  caused as much controversy as she gained accolades.

Thatcher is the subject of a new biopic, ‘The Iron Lady.’ In the film Meryl Streep plays Thatcher in her older years with Alexandra Roach portraying her in her formative years. Jim Broadbent co-stars as Denis Thatcher. Richard E. Grant and Anthony Head also appear in the film.

Encapsulating the entire life of someone as significant as Ms. Thatcher is no easy task. She is a daunting figure who even today casts a shadow over the office of Prime Minister. Nonetheless this is what ‘The Iron Lady’ sets out to do. Using flashbacks the movie establishes early on that Ms.Thatcher was a potent political leader who came from nowhere to smash through barriers of gender and class to stand side by side with other leaders in a male dominated world.

History shows us that Margaret Thatcher was a woman who, when she set out to do something, got it done. Her Achilles heel however that was she often didn’t play well with others. As she rose to power in the Conservative Party she stepped on a lot of egos and spewed a lot of venom at some of the most respected people in Britain. Streep brings this out in her performance with rich detail, upending tranquil scenes with sudden bursts of rage and anger. She also does a magnificent job of bringing the inner turmoil that Maggie suffered all her political life; being a woman in a man’s game.

In fact it is this that haunts Thatcher and makes he lust for power so intense. As Thatcher, Streep perfectly mimics her voice, mannerisms and vocal pitch. It is a striking proposition to play her and Streep undertakes this fearlessly.

Alexandra Roach has it somewhat easier. Her younger Thatcher, although fighting early on for a political seat, is far more endearing and naive. The film’s few tender moments come when she and a younger Denis (Harry Lloyd) meet, court and fall in love.  Roach sets the groundwork for what is to come and allows Streep to roam free in the role later on. Thatcher’s early years in politics were not easy and Roach’s performance reflects her ambition, drive and determination to be seen as more than a grocer’s daughter. She too has taken a dauntless role and made it her own.

Broadbent is superb. He gives the film a breath of air when things get intense. He also holds his own with Streep onscreen as she hustles and bustles boisterously from crisis to crisis. Broadbent, although appearing mostly as an illusion of Thatcher’s dementia throughout most of the film, gives Denis a life, albeit one that is subservient to his wife’s insatiable desire for adoration and power.

Olivia Colman plays Carol Thatcher, Maggie’s daughter who watches helplessly as her mother moves from the worlds of the past and present without any differentiation. It’s not easy being the daughter of one of the most controversial figures in the world and Colman brings this out in the role. She brings a sense of angst as a daughter caring for a mother who is in mourning and suffering from dementia.

The film is set over three days in Thatcher’s life following the death of her husband. Over this period Lady Thatcher, suffering from dementia, recalls her life. It is not obvious at first, but her dementia is profound. She struggles to control herself and oftentimes finds herself speaking to her dead husband. Flashbacks and archival footage tell the story of her ascension and decline from power as well as her life out of office. These flashbacks chronicle her rise from obscurity to her rise through the House of Commons and eventual leadership of The Conservative Party. This is where Streep really takes the reigns of the role and runs with it. As Thatcher becomes PM and leads Britain into the Falklands War she intensifies her performance. She perfectly nails Thatcher’s cold ambivalence to labor strikes, youth protests and the antiwar movement.

Streep skillfully recreates the cold and calculating Thatcher that got things done her way and balances that with a woman, who late in life, struggles with getting a grip on reality and being an ordinary citizen. This careful balancing act enables her to bring a sense of tragic melancholy to the elderly Thatcher who clearly remains bitter, angry and lost after leaving office.

During Thatcher’s rule she faced several crisis situations. The UK’s youth culture and union workers protested and criticized her ever move. The riots they caused were profoundly demonstrative in illustrating how divided she often made her nation’s citizens over her policies. As Prime Minister she was not always popular. She was one of the most controversial leaders of the 1980s who oversaw a period of economic malaise, went toe to toe with the IRA, and went to war over the Falklands. She also  staunchly supported American interests in the Cold War by allying Britain closely with Ronald Reagen’s United States, another move that enraged her colleagues and most vocal opponents.

When Meryl Streep takes a part she inhabits every fiber of that character. Here she completely transforms herself into Ms. Thatcher. The tone, inflections and mannerisms are pitch perfect and thus the audience completely forgets they are watching an actress.  Thatcher is not an easy person to like and Streep gets it right by not trying to make more out of her then she is. She doesn’t shy away from the fact that Thatcher is often very cold and domineering . Yet her version of the PM is tinged with a sense of loss over the death of her husband and frustration over how she left office.

Although The Iron Lady is one of Streep’s triumphs as an actress, the film itself  misses its mark. The pacing is off and the audience is left to wonder somewhat as they attempt to discern what Maggie perceives as real or imaginary. The  ensemble is terrific but suffers from a script that drags a bit in places as it struggles to make Thatcher interesting and compelling. The fact is that  it is hard to make one of the world’s most unlikable political figures interesting to a wide audience.

Director Phyllida Lloyd
 adeptly chronicles her life and political rise by, at times, presenting the film like a stage production with closed in sets, tight dialogue and powerful acting. By staging the film in this way she manages to make this daughter of a shop owner watchable. It also creates a natural spatial tension that enhances the scenes where Thatcher is at combat with her rivals. Lloyd also takes advantage of some great locales for filming. Being able to film inside some of the most powerful places in the British government lends a lot to the production. It is a cinematic treat. The costumes and sets are also great.

She also knows enough to let Streep go out on her own and inhibit the character without interference. With Roach she lets a young actress find her way with the part, resulting in a breakthrough performance.

‘The Iron Lady’ is a film held together by Meryl Streep. The supporting cast is also quite good, however there is something flat about the film that makes it difficult to connect with. It could be that even on screen Thatcher is not easy to warm up to. Another problem is that this movie is over ambitious in trying to deliver a complete picture of someone as complex as Margaret Thatcher. The film is unapologetic of her flaws and characteristics and doesn’t try to rewrite history. Nonetheless it somehow misses  capturing her many complexities which is probably impossible to do in a feature film.

This evasive, all pervading problem of Thatcher’s unlikability is what makes ‘The Iron Lady’ a good film but not a great one. It is a very good film that has so much more potential to be a great one. Maybe the film suffered from Thatcher’s problem of not knowing when to hold back and ease up. Still, despite this, it is worth seeing.

‘The Iron Lady’ is a must see for fans of British politics, popular culture and history. Sadly many people today know little of the discord she brought to her nation’s youth culture or just how close she came to plunging England deeper into the murky depths of The Cold War. She was controversial, powerful. resourceful and resolute. She moved Britain from austerity into a new era of nationalism while restoring it as a world power. ‘The Iron Lady’ affords Anglophiles the opportunity to familiarize themselves with one of Britain’s most polarizing personalities while watching an amazing actress, Meryl Streep, make the part completely her own.

Brit Movies: The Iron Lady Review from an American Perspective is a post from: Anglotopia.net

The first official trailer for The Iron Lady has been released. Ironically it was first released on The Daily Mail’s website.

Whether or not you care for Thatcher as a person it looks like it will be an interesting historial exploration of 1980′s Britain and her impact, good or bad.

The Iron Lady opens in the USA and the UK in January.

Check out the trailer below:

First Full Trailer for The Iron Lady Release – Meryl Streep as Thatcher is a post from: Anglotopia.net

British Prime Minister David Cameron announces that the 16 Commonwealth heads of government have agreed to end gender discrimination in succession to the UK throne. Report by Adam Sich.

ROYAL SUCCESSION: Gender discrimination rules to change is a post from: Anglotopia.net

The British Government is seeking to boost Britain’s reputation abroad by launching a new multi-million pound advertising campaign to highlight what makes Britain great.

From a release from the UK Government:

A new drive to promote Britain abroad, as a place to visit and do business, was launched today
by the Prime Minister, David Cameron.

With the Royal Wedding this year, and London 2012 and the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee next
year, the eyes of the world are on the UK. The Government is determined to seize this
unprecedented opportunity to ensure that the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games are not only
a spectacular celebration of sport, but also deliver a lasting economic legacy for the whole
country, boosting investment, jobs and growth.

A new GREAT campaign, announced by the Prime Minister in New York, will
focus on everything the UK has to offer as one of the very best places to visit, study, work,
invest and do business. It will allow Britain to speak with one voice about the opportunities to
invest in the UK and help to attract millions of extra visitors

Here’s a quick video about the campaign:

They also published a series of ads focusing on aspects of Britain – check them out below:

So – what do you think? Will this campaign work? Personally, I think they should focus on making Britain a more affordable place to travel if they want visitors to come. But that’s my two pence.

British Government Launches Britain is GREAT Campaign to Generate Interest in UK is a post from: Anglotopia.net

Judi Shekoni rose to fame with her portrayal of Precious in the UK’s number one soap ‘Eastenders’. An abundance of exciting roles followed including; King of Queens, NCIS, All of Us, Damages, Brothers and Sisters, Garfield 2 to name but a few. Now Judi has a role she can really sink her teeth into and has just finished filming her role of Zafrina, leader of the Amazon coven in Twilight’s Breaking Dawn, as a Twilight fan herself she loved bringing the character of Zafrina to life.

Recently the news broke that Judi is the most anticipated new Vampire from a poll by Team Twilight one of the largest Twilight Fan organisations. With all this anticipation, Judi wanted to share something she supports and introduce you to the UK’s Bite The Ballot Campaign. With the huge number of young people who do not vote in the UK, 60% in fact!

Judi wanted to get behind the Bite the Ballot Campaign to encourage young people to learn about politics, share their own voice and use their vote. Politics effects what we do every single day so making your own choices and knowing what your options are is essential, even from the very first vote! This campaign was founded by fellow actor Michael Sani and breaks the barriers to let you know that politics can be simple, personal and fun. It also follows in the footsteps of the American campaign ‘Rock The Vote’ which saw a huge increase in young people voting for the first time.

As well as Judi ITN’s Alistair Stewart, Actress Rosie Fellner, Eastenders star Tanya Franks, British Director Adrian Vitoria, Actor Shaun Parkes, Nick Clegg and Simon Hughes also support this campaign. Judi would love you to support this campaign too, by following them on Twitter joining the Facebook and/or donating on their website  Bite The Ballot – Be The Difference!

You can also follow Judi on Twitter or Facebook

British Twilight and Eastenders Star Judi Shekoni Bites The Ballot is a post from: Anglotopia.net

Here are a selection of pictures that highlight the key events that took place today during President Obama’s second day in Britain on his state visit to England.

The First Lady Michelle Obama gets a tour of Casa De Cameron in Number 11 Downing St (Number 10 is not large enough for his family so they swapped with the Chancellor of the Exchequer).

Obama and David Cameron serve BBQ to soldiers.

More shots of them trying to look normal. No, we don’t run the world at all.

Samantha Cameron and the First Lady helping out at the BBQ.

Cameron and Obama mingling with the guests.

Cameron and Obama gives a joint press conference. There was no ‘Love, Actually’ moment.

Obama meets with Nick Clegg – the Deputy Prime Minister.

Obama and Cameron photocall.

Obama was invited for a meeting in the Cabinet Room – quite an honor for a foreign head of state.

The standard wave outside Number 10.

The President’s Motorcade goes down the Mall – not the American flags out for the occasion.

The President’s Motorcade leaves Buckingham Palace.

More Pictures from the Joint Press Conference.

Walking together in the gardens of Lancaster House.

President Obama is escorted by House of Commons Speaker John Bercow to the speech in Westminster Hall.

While the President was at Parliament, Michelle Obama visited Oxford to give a speech. If the room looks familiar it’s because it’s used as the Great Hall in the Harry Potter films.

President Obama gives an unprecedented speech in Westminster Hall – the first President to ever do so to a joint meeting of the House of Commons and the House of Lords. Westminster hall is almost 900 years old and the oldest surviving part of the Palace of Westminster – which was destroyed in the Great Fire of London in 1066.

UK State Visit: Photo Highlights From President Obama’s Second Day in Britain is a post from: Anglotopia.net

President Obama is making a State Visit to the United Kingdom this week and his schedule is looking pretty interesting for us Anglophiles and watchers of the Anglo-American relationship. Here’s a peek at his itinerary and schedule for the week.

On Monday, Obama will visit Ireland briefly and check out his ancestral roots in Moneygall and he’ll also meet with the Irish President and Prime Minister.

On Tuesday, Obama and the First Lady will arrive in the UK for the first day of their visit. They have lunch with The Queen, lay a wreath at Westminster Abbey and in the evening The Queen will host them again for a banquet at Buckingham Palace.

On Wednesday, Obama will meet with British Prime Minister David Cameron and they’ll hold a joint news conference. Obama will also make a major speech to Parliament at the Palace of Westminster. The speech will take place in Westminster Hall – not the House of Commons (don’t think they would ever let a foreign leader address the Commons in the Commons).

The First Lady will also pay a visit to the University of Oxford to promote education awareness. They will cap the day with a dinner for The Queen at the US Ambassador’s Residence.

On Thursday, the Obamas will head to the G8 summit in France, ending their official visit to Britain.

Should be an interesting visit and you can count on us to cover it!

President Obama to visit the United Kingdom This Week – Itinerary Highlights Inside is a post from: Anglotopia.net

Did you know that there was a National Churchill Museum in the USA?

I didn’t either until yesterday and normally I’m pretty on top of these things.

The National Churchill Museum on the campus of Westminster College in Fulton, MO is the only North American institution fully devoted to immortalizing the life and work of Churchill. Founded in 1969, the Museum was recognized in 2009 as ‘America’s ‘National Churchill Museum’ by the United States Congress.

Not only is it an entire museum dedicated to Churchill – it’s located within a church designed and built by Sir Christopher Wren that was dismantled piece by piece and brought to the USA.

From their website:

The most visible element of the Museum is the magnificent Church of St. Mary the Virgin, Aldermanbury, a 17th century Christopher Wren church. This church left in ruins courtesy of German bombs in World War II was brought, stone by stone, to Fulton and resurrected on Westminster’s campus in 1969. The Church serves both as a permanent memorial to Sir Winston’s life and to his visit in 1946 when he delivered possibly the most famous speech of his long career, the “Iron Curtain” address.

Very very cool! I’m going to have to make an effort to visit this place! And it’s actually an inspiration for a future article – top British places to visit in America.

Here’s more info on the statue unveiling and if you’re in the area on Friday you can attend:

Edwina Sandys, Churchill’s granddaughter, will help dedicate a new sculpture of Sir Winston Churchill created by noted St. Louis sculptor Don Wiegand at a special unveiling ceremony at 11 a.m., Friday, May 13, at the National Churchill Museum, located on the campus of Westminster College in Fulton, MO.

Sandys, an acclaimed artist herself, is responsible for “Breakthrough,” a sculpture on Latshaw Plaza at the Westminster campus that she made from eight sections of the Berlin Wall in memory of her grandfather. The work is the longest contiguous section of the Berlin Wall found in North America.

“This new sculpture, which will be erected on the newly constructed Plaza in front of the National Churchill Museum, will create a much more dramatic entrance to attract visitors to our remarkable Museum,” says Dr. Rob Havers, Executive Director of the National Churchill Museum. “The piece captures the decisive moment when Churchill vividly described the Iron Curtain that had fallen across the Continent and, in doing so, provided the metaphor that would encapsulate the Cold War for the next 40 years.”

The bas relief sculpture showcases the moment when Churchill delivered the famous “Iron Curtain” line at Westminster College in his landmark address with a metaphor which defined the Cold War for a generation.

The sculpture is the work of Don Wiegand, a St. Louis artist of national and international reputation who has won countless awards for his work.

Born in St. Louis, Wiegand is responsible for numerous pieces in and around the St. Louis area, including the George “Buzz” Westfall Memorial in the St. Louis County Government Center’s Memorial Park in Clayton. His work may be viewed at the Anheuser-Busch Visitors Center, Cathedral Basilica, Cervantes Convention Center, Jefferson Memorial Museum, Missouri Botanical Garden, and Lambert International Airport.

Outside of St. Louis, his work is on display at public institutions such as the John F. Kennedy Library, Mark Twain Home and Museum, Ellis Island, NASA Space Center, U.S. Senate Building, Texas Stadium, The Vatican and the White House.

His stainless bas reliefs of “Charles A. Lindbergh” and the “Spirit of St. Louis” became the first bas relief sculptures in space.

The Churchill statue has been donated by Richard J. Mahoney of St. Louis, who is a Churchill Fellow and a member of the Board of Governors. He is a longtime supporter of the Churchill Museum and a lifelong admirer of Winston Churchill. He was instrumental in the creation of the “Winston S. Churchill: A Life in Leadership Gallery” at the National Churchill Museum.

National Churchill Museum Website.

Churchill Statue Unveiling This Friday in Missouri at the National Churchill Museum is a post from: Anglotopia.net

The British government has begun a consultation on reforming the Royal Line of Succession — a complicated issue that will take years to resolve.

According to current law relating to the succession of the monarchy first born sons take preference over any first born daughters.

Many say this is an outdated concept in a modern, gender-equal country like Britain.

The problem is that it’s not just up to Britain to change the rule. The British Monarch is also the head of state for many Commonwealth Countries, meaning their parliaments would have to approve the change as well.

According to the Telegraph:

The Government is examining ways of scrapping the principle of male primogeniture in order to grant any future princesses born to the couple the same rights as male heirs.

Under current arrangements, the Prince’s first born son would be next in line to the throne, even if he had an older sister.

Mr Clegg, who is responsible for constitutional reform within the Government, is seeking to change this so that in future the line of succession is determined without regard to sex.

He has already raised the matter at the Privy Council, and is understood to have obtained the Queen’s consent to the move if this proves to be the will of the people.

However, David Cameron is said to be less keen on the change due to the complications involved.

As the British monarch also acts as the head of state of a number of Commonwealth nations, any change to the line of succession would require legislation in 16 separate countries.

Opening up a debate on the Monarchy in Commonwealth countries would be complicated and could lead to a debate and possibly movement towards Republicanism in those countries.

It will be very interesting to see how it plays out and whether or not Britain’s already weak Coalition government will want to expend valuable political capital on what many might think is a minor issue.

Reports: Royal Line of Succession Reforms Being Discussed is a post from: Anglotopia.net

You know it’s a slow news day when the big news in Britain is the government announcing that it wants to make the day longer.

According to various sources, in order to boost tourism, the British Government would like to add an hour to the day in the summer and two hours outside of the summer. The goal would be to more closely align them with most of continental Europe which is an hour ahead of Britain.

From the BBC:

Longer evenings could move a step closer with a government plan to move UK clocks forward an extra hour.

A “tourism strategy” will include a plan to move the clocks in line with most of Europe, bringing lighter evenings but darker mornings.

Bringing the clocks forward by one hour would bring the UK into line with Central European Time (CET), which is Greenwich Mean Time (GMT) plus one hour.

It would mean, for instance, that instead of the sun rising in Newcastle-upon-Tyne at 0714 and setting at 1723, as it does at this time of year, it would rise at 0814 and set at 1823.

Tourism bosses say the number of overseas visitors would increase if summer evenings were lighter and they estimate the benefits to the economy could total billions of pounds.

It seems like a sensible policy from a government that needs positive headlines. I’m not sure Britain needs the extra sunlight, especially in the summer as it already doesn’t get dark until almost 10pm in the summer months.

When we were in London last summer, we actually had trouble dealing with the extra amount of sunlight – it really messed with our internal clocks. I’m normally ready for bed around 10pm but last summer in London – the sun was still shining!

What do you think? Should Britain get more sunlight hours?

The British Government Wants to Make More Daylight is a post from: Anglotopia.net

It was a slow news day yesterday so this was pretty much the top story everywhere in the British news outlets.

Downing Street has a rodent problem and they’ve called in backup to help solve it.

This video below explains it:

Downing Street Gets a New Chief Mouser: Larry the Cat is a post from: Anglotopia.net

Politics is back for the autumn, and I’m back too, having taken a break since August. I went to Cornwall for a week – more of which later. While I’ve been away there have been two big political stories here: Labour’s leadership, and the government’s cuts. Cuts first.

Everyone knows the UK has a serious budget deficit, and mounting debt, and that serious fiscal discipline is needed to get the country back on a sustainable path. In other words, we need public spending cuts, or tax rises, or both. The coalition government has been building up all summer to an announcement of its specific plans next Wednesday in Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne’s “Comprehensive Spending Review”. But the government has been trying to prepare the country for the scale and nature of the cuts by a series of announcements over the last couple of weeks. Child benefit, Osborne announced at the Conservative conference in Birmingham, will no longer be a universal benefit: households in which someone earns over £44,000 a year will lose it.

Conservative Party | CreativeCommons

Child benefit is currently called universal because literally every household with a child gets it. It amounts to about £1000 a year if you have one child, and £700 for each child you have after that. In effect, it’s a transfer of money from all childless taxpayers, no matter how poor, to parents no matter how rich. The original idea was to ensure all mothers received some direct help to bring up children  – and payment does normally go to the mother – without having to go through a bureaucratic process of form-filling and means-testing. A good system in a relatively poor and equal society without reliable contraception and in which few mothers work, like 1940s Britain. Not necessarily what you’d set up today.

The apparent public hostility to the announcement, though, tells you something about Britain right now. First, that cuts will be much easier to get through if they are visibly and undoubtedly fair: the big problem with the plan is that household in which both parents earn £40,000 will keep child benefit while those in which just one of them earns £44,000 will lose it. An obvious anomaly that the government is already scrambling to compensate for. But second, it shows you that much of middle-class middle England is in reality addicted to public subsidy although it doesn’t need it, in denial about the deficit and debt and will seize on any hint of “unfairness” in order to object to losing a penny. Third, though, it shows you that the British will moan and grumble about these cuts but unless they are really big, really surprising and really savage they will not strike or demonstrate in numbers, and certainly won’t try to bring the country to a halt like the French. I think the government needs to take care with its cuts, and will probably meet with horrified reactions from the English suburbs. I think it’ll get away with them, too, though, unless it’s politically inept.

William Hague, George Osborne and Nick Clegg | Prime Minister's Office | CreativeCommons

How will Labour react? That depends on its new leader – Ed, not David Miliband. I was wrong. I expected David to win, and he was preferred to his rivals by most Labour Party members and MPs. What lost it for him, just, was that more trade unions members (many of them had a vote in the contest) preferred the kid brother whose slightly more leftish stance earned him more union endorsements. It was not the ideal way for Ed to have won – he must now show he is not the unions’ boy – but win he did. David Miliband, an outstanding politician who looked and was ready to be Prime Minister, now appears to be a sort of internal political exile, and may only return to the front line when Ed succeeds – or fails.

Ed Miliband

Ed’s positioning of Labour is only slowly becoming clear. At his conference speech he told the country that war in Iraq was “wrong”, signalling a much less interventionist, much more cautious foreign policy certainly than Tony Blair’s. But in appointing his shadow team he raised eyebrows by appointing the Blairite Alan Johnson as his financial spokesman, noticeably keeping Labour’s power couple Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper well away from economic responsibilities. That shows he means to take a moderate approach to the cuts, resisting the temptation (which Balls gives every impression of wanting to give in to) to fight every cut as though the deficit can be ignored. In truth many serious economists see force in the Balls analysis, according to which the deficit is better turned around slowly and carefully in order to nurse the economy back to solid growth. Miliband, though, must fear the political trap of appearing to reject all retrenchment. It is, after all, politics that matters to his prospects over the next two years more than economics, and he may rightly suspect he will benefit from opposition to the cuts without adopting an apparently radical, vulnerable stance.

Francesca at Padstow, Cornwall

Cornwall was great. I stayed with my girlfriend (my “bird”, she said I should call her) Francesca in the village of St. Cleer, near Liskeard, in a converted Sunday School building that was just right for a couple, with an open-plan kitchen, a wood-burning stove and bath made for two. What we did was read, cook, drink too much scrumpy over Scrabble and visit Polruan and Padstow, Newquay and Polperro. Our rainy day took us to the Eden Project, the much-praised enviro-theme park near St. Austell, a place that was fairly interesting – but that lacked the “wow” factor for us and that, at £17 a head to get in, I’m reluctant to recommend. Much more fun is the monkey sanctuary further east  at St. Martin, near Looe, where you learn a lot about monkeys and get to eat at a brilliant vegetarian cafe.

Back to monkeying around in London now though, for the foreseeable.

A Pint of Bitter: Child benefit cuts and Labour’s new leader is a post from: Anglotopia.net

Thankfully for us international audiences – ITN news has posted the entire PMQ’s from yesterday. It was David Cameron’s First Prime Minister’s questions and it’s very exciting to watch.

It’s such a change from the last 13 years!

Prime Minister’s Question Time – June 2nd 2010 – David Cameron vs Harriet Harman

Watch David Cameron’s First Prime Minister’s Question Time – PMQ’s June 2nd 2010 is a post from: Anglotopia.net

In one way, Britain’s new government – the coalition, as we’re beginning to call it – resembles the  administration it replaced, rather than representing a break from it. Just as Labour government since 1997 was dominated by the relationship between two men, so this government is clearly based on and revolves around the obvious chemistry between David Cameron and his deputy Nick Clegg. Their first joint press conference in the Downing Street rose garden was an almost embarrassing love-in, partly because the two men do visibly get on well, and partly I suspect because of their shared exhilaration at sealing their deal, each having demonstrated political panache and each now tasting the reward of power. Do watch it here if you want a flavour of how the Conservative-LibDem government started. The two men’s reaction to the question 18 minutes in tells you a lot.

Prime Minister's Office | CreativeCommons

And the new government is, as Alastair Campbell said on the BBC’s Question Time on Thursday, motoring. Since I last wrote, the coalition has published a detailed programme for government, fleshing out what it’s proposing to the country. Some of the agreement is unsurprising: the coalition will take urgent action to reduce Britain’s budget deficit, it will reform banking and it will legislate to reverse what it sees as Labour’s authoritarian measures, getting rid of the planned identity card scheme, for instance, and reducing the scope of the national DNA database. Some of it is clearly compromise – on European policy, on human rights and on immigration. But other parts of the agreement are much less expected.

The coalition Cabinet | Prime Minister's Office | CreativeCommons

Most controversial has been a complex but important proposal to require a super-majority of 55% of MPs to vote in favour of an early dissolution of Parliament and a general election within five years. Parliament’s term is not fixed like that of the American Congress: at the moment, the Prime Minister can ask the Queen for an election at any time, and most Prime Ministers do so before they are legally required to, usually after about four years. And if the governing party loses its majority in the House of Commons, a vote of no confidence in the government usually triggers an election. The coalition wants to change that for a number of reasons. Liberal Democrats for their part believe in “fixed-term Parliaments“: they have long wanted to remove the PM’s power to initiate elections, which they believe should happen at regular intervals even if the government changes in the meantime. But they also want to remove David Cameron’s ability to undermine the coalition by seeking an election they don’t want. For the Conservatives, abandoning that unilateral right only makes sense if, equally, the Liberal Democrats lose the ability to leave the coalition and join with other parties to force an election. Since non-Conservatives are 53% of the House, settling on 55% as the threshold suits both parties’ aims admirably. But it is precisely this transparently partisan benefit that makes the proposal highly controversial. I’ve written against it myself.

The other surprise proposal is to grant anonymity to rape suspects, a policy that was adopted a few years ago by the Liberal Democrat conference but which most political junkies, never mind the general public, were unaware of. Women who report being raped have been granted anonymity since the 1970s, when the protection was brought in to encourage them to come forward, but this is a rare exception to the principle here that justice should be in public. There is a strand of opinion that thinks defendants in rape cases should be given “equal treatment” with their alleged victims; but strong resistance to this idea comes especially from feminists who see the policy as pandering to the idea that false rape allegations are widespread. The 55% policy will be the first of these to cause real turbulence, as it’s an immediate priority for this year and was trailed in the Queen’s speech – which you can see in its entirety here. There’s no suggestion of a criminal law, sexual offences or criminal justice bill in this session, so the row about rape anonymity will be postponed for the moment.

David Laws | Liberal Democrats | Alex Folkes | fishnik.com | CreativeCommons

But nonetheless, the coalition has already run into a serious, unexpected difficulty. Its early star was David Laws, the rather dashing Liberal Democrat and new Chief Secretary to the Treasury. This is always an important post: it’s effectively deputy to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and is itself a Cabinet post often held by future Chancellors such as John Major and Alistair Darling. But because the Chief Secretary is specifically responsible for public spending levels, it’s even more important than usual at this time of budget cutting. It was Laws who announced the detail of the government’s immediate savings package at the Treasury last week, and it was he who defended them in Parliament. He’s become the pin-up of fiscal conservatives who admire his parsimony in small things as well as big. So it comes as a massive blow to both him and the new government that this Saturday morning the Daily Telegraph reported his having claimed expenses to pay rent to his partner, contrary to Parliamentary rules, since 2006.

The scandal seems to be dividing opinion. David Laws clearly wanted to keep his relationship private; and neither his sexuality nor his desire for privacy are matters of scandal or controversy in Britain, where people increasingly take pride in seeing such things as irrelevant to public life. Some, and not only Liberal Democrats, defend Laws on the basis that he was simply trying to maintain his privacy and that, by claiming for the rent he paid to his partner he actually saved public money, as compared with what he could have claimed had the pair openly bought and shared a property. Certainly, Laws is attracting some sympathy on a human level and because his visible competence has made him look the right man, in the right job at the right time. But this is a very serious business. Laws seems to have plainly broken the rules, which since 2006 have prohibited payments from expenses going to MPs’ partners, and this exposure resurrects the poisonous expenses scandal of last year. Not only that: this apparent abuse of taxpayers’ money comes from the very man – a rich man, at that, who it’s said retired from the City, a millionaire, at 28 – whose duty it is to make the nation face the need for austerity in the use of public funds. This is a sad story of a talented man brought down by a collision between 1950s-style prejudice, or the fear of it, and the fierce new mood of fiscal rectitude in Britain. I’m afraid he’ll probably have to go; perhaps even has gone before you read this.

Maybe next time there’ll be a little less politics to write about, and a little more room for pubs.

A Pint of Bitter: UK Coalition government, and how men’s relationships matter is a post from: Anglotopia.net

If you missed the Queen’s Speech at the State Opening of Parliament today, ITN news has posted a video of the whole there.

Here is the entire Queen’s Speech:

If you’d like to see the entire pomp and circumstance behind the State Opening of Parliament, CSPAN has the whole thing for view on there website. Click here to watch it all.

Watch the Queen’s Speech in Full Here – State Opening of Parliament is a post from: Anglotopia.net

The recent British Election drama doesn’t officially end until tomorrow when the Queen makes her way from Buckingham Palace, dons the Crown of State and delivers her government’s speech to the House of Lords. The House of Commons then votes on whether or not to accept the speech – and when they do that’s when government business really starts.

It’s guaranteed to be a day of British pomp and circumstance spectacle. I’ve watched it many times and it’s a lot of fun.

So, where can you partake the fun in the USA if you’re so inclined?

CSPAN2 will be simulcasting the BBC’s coverage of the entire events of the day.

They’ll also be streaming the State Opening live on the web here.

Don’t expect it on BBC America – though they may cover some of it on their early morning shows since it will be going on at the same time.

No word yet as to whether or not the BBC website will be simulcasting as they did during the election. I would hope they would – we’ll keep an eye out so follow our Twitter or Facebook accounts for updates if they start streaming live.

But as of now, it looks like the best place to watch the Queen’s Speech and the State Opening of Parliament in the USA is on CSPAN2 on the TV and on the Web. Also, if you don’t have the heart to wake up early to watch the Queen in action – CSPAN always re-airs it later.

Also, this is a special Queen’s Speech due to the election and new Parliament – there will be another Queen’s Speech and State Opening this fall as usual – so you can see it all again if you miss it.

Where to Watch the State Opening of Parliament in the USA is a post from: Anglotopia.net

This has been a truly unusual, historic week in British politics. As I delivered Labour’s final leaflet in my London constituency, I felt Labour was coming back slightly. Not enough to win, perhaps, but enough to stave off disaster. Election night itself was reasonably dramatic – we spent hours wondering whether the Conservatives might still gain a majority in Parliament – but it was a night that teased us. By dawn it was clear that the Tories hadn’t quite made it. We would have a “hung Parliament”, no party having a majority. With 306 of the 650 seats, David Cameron’s Conservatives would have great difficulty governing as a minority; Labour, with only 258 seats, would have no chance of doing so. The only stable majority could be formed by Conservatives and Liberal Democrats somehow working together – and that was the truth that politicians grasped early last Friday.

Prime Minister's Office | CreativeCommons

Nick Clegg was first, saying the Conservatives – with more seats and more votes than anyone else – had the right to prove they could govern in the national interest. David Cameron acted quickly and more boldly than expected, making a comprehensive offer to open talks about forming a stable government. Gordon Brown emerged from 10 Downing Street to say the other parties could take what time they needed – and that he was ready to talk to Nick Clegg if Tory-LibDem negotiations foundered. The horse-trading began.

The BBC's Nick Robinson reporting on Cameron's "big offer" | Tom Page | CreativeCommons

On Saturday it looked as though agreement could happen very quickly. Tory and Liberal Democrat teams got on well and were clearly engaged in real detail. The mood music was so good that, by Sunday, we wondered why a deal hadn’t been closed. And on Monday, it seemed almost to fall apart when the LibDem MPs met and asked for clarification on various items. At that point, Gordon Brown’s machiavallian instincts showed one final time, as, announcing his own departure as Labour leader, he in effect invited Liberal Democrats to speak to him instead. Was it a last, desperate throw by a man clutching at a last few months of power? Or was it just a low tactic to poison Tory-LibDem relations and damage the new government from the start? We may never know. But for a moment it did throw everything into confusion. Most Liberal Democrats dream, in truth, of an arrangement with Labour, not the Tories, and they found siren Labour calls hard to resist. What killed it was partly the arithmetic – Labour and the LibDems together would still be a majority, dependent on the tolerance of Scottish, Welsh and Irish nationalists – and partly the resistance of a number of prominent Labour MPs for whom clinging on to power would damage Labour and give the country unstable government. Reality took hold again yesterday, when the Tory-LibDem contract was finally signed.

Gordon Brown left Downing Street to offer his resignation to Her Majesty – early on Tuesday evening,  in a final touch of spin, to deny David Cameron a “new dawn” arrival at Number 10. Even before his deal was signed, David Cameron was clearly the man most likely to command a Parliamentary majority, and was summon by the Queen to form a new government as Prime Minister. And we now know the rough shape of that new government. Under Cameron, Nick Clegg will be deputy Prime Minister, and a number of Liberal Democrats will be in Cabinet, including Vince Cable as Business Secretary and David Laws as Chief Secretary to the Treasury – the cutter-in-chief role.

Downing Street | CreativeCommons

The political significance of this week is huge. It marks the end of New Labour, at least in this manifestation. A political era that began with the death of Labour leader John Smith in 1994, and dominated by Tony Blair and his modernising philosophy, will be over. It is the first time Conservatives have defeated Labour to return to power since Margaret Thatcher in 1979. But much, more more historic is the fact that this will be the first peacetime coalition, and the first time Liberals have been in government, since 1935. The political effects are likely to be enormous, too. The Conservative party has survived the civil war that has lasted since Margaret Thatcher was removed from office, and has finally recovered enough to take office. But it remains damaged, without the swagger and confidence it once had. How it fares from now will turn on how well  ministers deal with the serious fiscal position they face, and on David Cameron’s performance as Prime Minister. There’s an upside to the compromises he has had to make to Nick Clegg’s Liberal Democrats: he is free from the shackles of his own campaign pledges, and can discard his less popular policies. He’s been dealt an unusual hand, and has the chance to play it with skill.

The Liberal Democrats have achieved office for the first time, a development that marks their coming of age. I expect their popularity to decrease somewhat as they lose their opposition identity and are tainted by power. I also think there’s a risk they might even split: tensions are bound to surface in a party divided between the left-leaning majority and the more genuinely centrist group around Nick Clegg. They’ve also lost their dream of proportional representation, not just this time but I suspect for some time. Britain has tasted, this week, what coalition politics is like, and most people have disliked the backroom wheeler-dealing it involves. Exciting though the spectacle may be, it seems undemocratic. I’d be surprised if, at the next election, the two main parties do not increase their share of the vote. There’s a vocal lobby for proportional representation, but I doubt many people support it. We can probably forget it for a while.

President Obama calls David Cameron | Prime Minister's Office | CreativeCommons

Labour is defeated, but not crushed, to the relief of many of its supporters, and its leader Gordon Brown – a divisive and poor leader – is leaving. Opposition to a government making deep cuts and facing certain difficulty gives it a big opportunity to rebuild, and opportunity made all the greater with the effective removal of its competitor on the centre-left. Ideally, Labour would take some time to rethink its new direction. Gordon Brown, with his last-ditch resignation as leader to lure the LibDems into talks, may have done Labour a final bad turn by accelerating its leadership contest unnecessarily. David Miliband is the front runner already, and most expect the fight to be between him and Ed Balls. I’d caution, though, against ruling out Jon Cruddas, who I think stands a good chance of leading Labour by this autumn.

If the British constitution is a fine old stately home, this week we’ve revisited a disused and dusty wing. Absence made the heart grow briefly fonder. I expect, though, that we’ll only visit again if we must.

A Pint of Bitter: a hung Parliament, and a new kind of government is a post from: Anglotopia.net

Even as you read this I may be exercising my civic duty as a UK citizen by voting in my first General Election. Then again, I may not be; I may have already voted by now, so I’m probably down at the pub discussing the weather or the economy, or, just perhaps, the election.

This is a significant and historic election for the Brits, every bit as historic as the last Presidential race. But we won’t delve into that. Instead, I would like to point out the differences between voting in the UK and the US. First and foremost, I had to work today and I am going to the pub afterward. Now, I can’t say I’ve been paying much attention to what you do on the first Tuesday in November over there, but when I was young, the bars were closed and we got the day off.

I have trouble believing that is still the case.

Other differences include ticking a box with a pencil instead of pulling a level, but that was specific to my locality in America. We had voting machines where I lived; but you may have voted in “Hanging Chad” country.

So that narrows the big differences between a US and UK election down to who you get to vote for and the length of time they get to campaign.

In the US, I was able to cast my vote for the person I wanted to run the country, and a host of others, besides. But here, I don’t get to vote for the President, my State Senator, my local Representative, the county sheriff and the dog-catcher all in one go. What I do get to do is vote for my local MP. Period.

The idea is, with the backing of my vote, my MP will get elected. If enough MPs from their party get elected, then the party’s Head MP gets to run the country, and that would be the person I would naturally have voted for if I did get a say in who I wanted running the country. Perhaps, but not always. And this year, not bloody likely.

On the other hand, I rarely point this out to the locals because they usually counter by asking me to explain the Electoral College.

The best thing about British elections, however, is that they only last a month. This pales in comparison to the year-long media frenzy that is an American election. As an American, I just assumed our way of doing things was The Way It Should Be and never considered an alternative. But having experienced a different reality, I have come to the conclusion that the US method is well and truly bonkers.

Think of the waste, the effort, the drain on our economy and our nerves. The only winners in a US election are the manufacturers of red, white and blue bunting and media underlings with maxed out credit cards who are glad for the overtime. We put the person who would be President though a media gauntlet designed to kill an average person and expect them to come out the other side unscathed. What we are doing is making certain that, once the election is over, our successful candidate is as totally and thoroughly exhausted as we are tired of listening to them. And by the by, who is running the country during this time?

Our method makes it impossible for anyone but the obscenely rich to even attempt running for office. And the constant need for greater and greater amounts of money practically guarantees that our candidates, if they did not go into the election corrupt, will surely come out of it that way.

Now I’m not naïve enough to believe the UK candidates are any less sullied, but at least I don’t have to suffer their attempts to convince me otherwise for eleven additional months. And, seriously, if it takes you a full year to make your mind up concerning who you want to run the country, maybe you should practice making decisions a little more often than once every four years. Or invest in an 8-Ball.

Really, four weeks is plenty long enough for an election campaign. Try it; you’ll wonder how (and why) you put up with protracted electioneering for so long.

And the best part is, enjoying the post-election coverage at the pub.

Dispatches From the South – The Election is a post from: Anglotopia.net

Good news for Brits in the USA and Anglophiles interested in the outcome of tomorrow historic British Election, there are several places you’ll be able to watch the live coverage of the results coming in.

So, while it won’t be on the major networks (probably no more than a blurb on the headlines) there are a couple places in America to watch the British Election results live.

The first is C-SPAN 3 – they’ve been doing a great job so far covering the election by showing the leadership debates to an American audience and showing other party political broadcasts.

I’m happy to report that C-SPAN 3 will be showing the live BBC News Election feed as it happens starting at 3:55pm CST/ 4:55 EST. You’ll see it as the Brits see it with results, analytics and commentary. LIVE. This is incredible and I wish we got C-SPAN 3!

C-SPAN 3 Details Here.

In addition to C-SPAN’s coverage, you’ll also be able to watch the exact same feed LIVE on the BBC News website on their live election coverage section. It’s the same site they’ve been streaming the debates and other election related broadcasts. The streaming quality is quite good and the only drawback is that you’ll have to be glued computer.

Watch the BBC Election Coverage in the USA here.

Also, I haven’t gotten word from my friends at BBC America as to whether they’ll have an special British election coverage. But I have heard that their regular evening news will have an Election special with Andrew Sullivan providing commentary. Whether or not it will extend for several hours beyond their regular 1 hour broadcast, remains to be seen. Their schedule only reflects the one hour news show.

Either way, if you get BBC America, you probably also get C-SPAN 3 so you’ll be covered there.

We’re very much looking forward to tomorrow and we can’t wait to see how things shape up. This election could shape immigration to the UK for years to come – so it could affect us in our plans to move there one day. We shall see.

We’ve been invited to an election party here in Chicago where they’ll have a special live feed from the UK as well. Can’t wait!

Where To Watch the British Election Results in the USA on May 6th is a post from: Anglotopia.net

Last time I wrote, we’d just had the first election debate and it looked as though Nick Clegg’s strong performance promised a breakthrough for his party. It did: Cleggmania swept the country and the Liberal Democrats leapt in the polls, ahead of Labour, making this the most unusual general election for years. It looks now as though the LibDem peak has passed: Labour may have just squeaked back into second place. But this is still the most three-cornered election in living memory, and looks like resulting indecisively in a hung Parliament. We’ll see next week.

Adam Tinworth | CreativeCommons

The campaign has been a disaster for Labour, in all frankness. Gordon Brown always had an uphill fight to stay in power, after 13 years in office and against the background of the credit crunch, the recession and a ballooning national debt. He had to take huge risks. But they’ve just not worked for him. The big gamble was to agree to televised debates, but he’s not landed the kind of punches he was hoping for. He’s not performed all that badly in fact: last night’s final debate was his most combative and best performance even though he looked shattered. But his hope was always to blow David Cameron in particular away with his gravitas, and with luck to embarrass or browbeat the Tory leader into some sort of blunder – perhaps last night, when the questions focused on the economy. It never happened, and most viewers think Brown lost all three debates. Otherwise the campaign has been lacklustre at best. And “bigotgate” didn’t help. Gordon Brown, visiting Rochdale and being cornered by Gillian Duffy, dealt pretty well with her policy concerns, concerns that included the deficit and immigration. But, forgetting to switch off his TV microphone when he got into his getaway car, he was caught calling her a “bigoted woman” and seeming to blame his staff for what he thought a disastrous encounter. See his reaction when his words are put back to him. It’s just ridiculous, you might say.

Dominic Campbell | CreativeCommons

Most people’s immediate reaction was to think this would destroy him completely, and that Labour would plunge further in the polls – but oddly, that’s not happened. Why not? First I think because most British voters are pretty forgiving about small hypocrisies and muck-ups. We know we ourselves are two-faced, and might smile at someone in public, only to insult them in private. Second, many people seem to me to have felt the broadcasters overdid this story – it got wall-to-wall coverage, and I think many people started to feel it was unfair to Brown. On top of that, “bigotgate” happened at a fortunate time for Brown, just as the final debate was about to happen and just as voters’ minds are turning away from surface and presentation, and, finally, towards policy and substance – causing a certain frustration with this sort of trivia. Lastly, though, and less reassuringly for Gordon Brown, many people already dislike him and think him a rude, out of touch bully and boor. His poll ratings may just be incapable of sinking much further because he’s already down to Labour’s 25%+ core vote.

Dominic Campbell | CreativeCommons

David Cameron, though, must also be hugely frustrated: with such an unpopular government, such a widely disliked Prime Minister and with such a difficult economic outlook, he and his party should be streets ahead by now, with over 40% in the polls. Stuck at about 35% as I write, he looks likely to have the most seats in the next Parliament, but no majority. If that’s next week’s result it will be a most unpleasing kind of victory for the Conservatives – and will feel more like a sort of defeat. What’s happened? The global economic crisis is what happened. Of course in one way that’s helped David Cameron. But in another, it threw his 2005 strategy off balance. He had presented himself as a fresh, optimistic face of a more open, modern Conservatism, committed to public services and the environment. But circumstances have forced him back towards an older, drier, more money-minded Toryism focused on cutting public spending and resisting immigration and Europe. That’s been an unpopular stance for at least 15 years, and precisely what Cameron had succeeded in dragging his party away from. Their retreat to that place left a gap for the fresh, optimistic Nick Clegg to fill – which he did.

So what happens now? There’s always the unexpected – who knows what further gaffes Gordon Brown is capable of. But I expect Tory support to firm up a little as undecideds decide. Labour support may also firm, and LibDem poll support is likely to fall. All Labour supporters must hope so, because if they really did come third, as has seemed likely, that would be a terrible, historic defeat. If the Conservatives manage somehow to scrape a majority, the LibDems would have a good moral claim to be the real opposition; there might be no way back, for Labour, from there. If on the other hand we get a hung Parliament – as seems likely – history will be made anyway. Unless the Tories are close enough to a majority to try to govern on their own, we may have a period of coalition government or at least inter-party cooperation, something that would change the political game here dramatically, and perhaps for good.

Liberal Democrats | CreativeCommons

Who would govern with whom? That’s the big question. Under our constitutional system, Gordon Brown as the incumbent will have the first chance to negotiate another party’s support. But if Labour and the LibDems can do a deal, it’s almost certain someone other than him would be Prime Minister – and the most likely someone else is Nick Clegg. If they can’t, Clegg may negotiate with Cameron – but if he does he may well split his party at the moment of its greatest triumph. The political possibilities are awesome, and the week after the vote looks like being much, much more dramatic than the week before. Is it obvious I’ve no idea what’s going to happen? Almost anything could.

A Pint of Bitter: The final British Eelction debate, “bigotgate” – and the least predictable election for decades is a post from: Anglotopia.net

The first ever Leadership debates in the British election have turned into a game changer that no one expected and the final debate will be held tonight – and it could end up deciding the entire election.

So, if you’re in the USA – where can you watch the third and final Primer Ministerial debate in America?

The British leadership debate will air live on C-SPAN 3 on US cable networks starting at 3:30 EST/2:30 CST. You should also be able to watch it live on CSPAN’s website here.

If you aren’t fortunate enough to get CSPAN 3 – you can also watch the debate live on the web on the BBC’s website here.

Click here to watch the debate live on the BBC.

I’m going to go the live BBC on the web route – I did last time and the quality was excellent and the connection sustained through the whole debate.

Watch British history in the making!

Where To Watch the 3rd and Final British Leadership Debate in the USA is a post from: Anglotopia.net

It’s an exciting time for Anglophiles and British Expats interested in following the British Election. Last week the first history making debate changed the course of the election and upended everything.

It’s British Political Drama at it’s best.

Last week, the first leadership debate aired on ITV News in the UK and they also broadcast it live on their website which was accessible to the rest of the world.

This week, the Sky News is airing the 2nd debate which will be all about foreign policy. There are two places for people outside the UK to watch the debate live.

The first is on the Sky News’s website. They should be broadcasting it live on their live election page here. However, they may block people outside the UK, we won’t know until the debate starts. I suspect they’ll allow it as they usually do for major events.

You should also be able to watch the debate live on C-SPAN’s website. They broadcast it live last week and it was pretty good quality. Check out the C-SPAN British Election page here when the debate starts. C-SPAN will also air it at a later date on the cable channels but the real magic will happen live.

If you’re lucky enough to get C-SPAN 3 – you can watch it live on your television without having to sit at the computer.

The debate is 8PM UK Time – which is 3PM Eastern Time and 2PM Central Time in the USA so plan accordingly.

Where To Watch the British Election Leadership Debate in the USA is a post from: Anglotopia.net

I wouldn’t say there was election fever in Britain; most of the election campaign’s first week has been uninspiring, dull stuff without real controversy or passion. That may be because the two big parties both have such visible weaknesses (Gordon Brown, for Labour; most things except David Cameron, for the Conservatives); it may be because of the general mood of quiet, surly anger against politicians not entirely caused by the expenses scandal of last year, but very much sharpened by it. It may be that this election will turn out in the end to be truly dramatic, but that the drama will begin only after the votes have been counted – that is my suspicion. In fact, though, general elections usually begin like this, with a sluggish yawn. At some point we forget the dull ache all over and fever breaks out. Perhaps that’s now happened after Thursday’s debate. More of that below.

Sarah Teather and Vince Cable with Brent activists | Liberal Democrats | Creative Commons

But first, the manifestos. Traditionally in the first week of the campaign each party issues a manifesto – a book or booklet outlining what its programme will be for the next Parliament. What it would do in government, in other words. Manifestos are mysterious things, hugely varying in length and style, and anyway not much read by voters. It used to be that you had to buy them, if you were interested (by law the parties had to sell them; they couldn’t give them away), so no one other than political geeks ever did. And manifestos only tell you so much: a party is in no way bound to carry out its manifesto pledges, and is likely to do many more things, if it gets power, than are contained in its pages. Look at Margaret Thatcher’s 1979 manifesto, for instance – you’ll find no mention of the privatisation agenda that became so important a component of Thatcherism, except for the suggestion of a partial sale of one small organisation. If you’re interested in British political history, you can read old manifestos here. Another interesting website is The Straight Choice, which has now collected and archived over a thousand British election leaflets.

David Cameron | Conservative Party | Creative Commons

This time, manifestos are online. Labour’s, much mocked for it Maoist imagery, promises to secure the fragile economic recovery, and to protect front-line public services, and to deliver constitutional reform including change to the electoral system and even work towards a written constitution. The Conservative Manifesto invites us to “join the government” and pledges to stop Labour’s planned national insurance rise for employers – a kind of payroll tax and to cut the deficit more quickly, while protecting the National Health Service. It promises tougher rules on immigration and a radically different approach on Europe, changing the law to protect the British constitution from EU encroachment. The Liberal Democrats promise fair taxes – including removing all those earning under ï¿¡10,000 a year from tax altogether – and, as they always do, substantial constitutional change including a move to proportional representation.

leaflets I've been sent in Brent Central

Locally, there’s not massive evidence of campaigning yet, at least in my part of London: Brent Central constituency is a rare Labour-LibDem marginal where two current MPs – Labour’s Dawn Butler and the LibDem Sarah Teather, who has the advantage of being one of her side’s most televised faces – fight each other because boundary changes have extinguished their existing seats. There have been a few leaflets, mainly from the LibDems, and there are a few posters around – but nothing at all from the Conservatives, which reflects the highly targeted way all the parties campaign these days. All the declared candidates for Brent Central are listed here, by the way. The leaders have as usual been touring the country wildly in what seems the most “presidential” campaign yet in the UK. This is a development many British people are depressed by: we want politics to be about parties and issues rather than about personalities, or at least we say we do. But somehow, election by election, the focus on the style and personalities of the leaders, and even of their wives, continues inexorably.

Which brings me to last night’s debate between the leaders – a truly historic moment in British politics, since we’ve never had such a thing before, a fact that may amaze Americans and Europeans for whom this sort of thing has long been a fixture. Why has it never happened before? Perhaps precisely because of our traditional preference for seeing politics as a team sport. More importantly, there’s never been agreement before now because it’s never been in the interests of all the party leaders to take part. Conventional wisdom here has been that whoever is in the lead can only lose from a debate: Tony Blair for instance avoided a debate in every election he fought, because he was streets ahead and had nothing to gain. This time, though, things are different. Gordon Brown wanted a debate because he is, or was, so far behind, needed to gamble on a game-changer and, more cynically, want to neutralise the Conservatives’ ability to outspend him in the campaign by focusing the whole election on the equalising format of television. The question is why David Cameron, who was so far ahead, agreed; I think the answer must be that, since he personally is by far his party’s strongest asset and Gordon Brown is by far Labour’s biggest problem, he was happy to make the election a man-to-man contest.

the very first UK TV leaders' election debate

But to comply with the requirement to achieve balance the broadcasters has to include the LibDem leader Nick Clegg – and last night he was the clear winner. You can watch the full 90 minute debate here. Clegg relaxed into the format much more quickly than did the other two, an impression that I think stuck in viewer’s minds even as the other men got into their strides. Although at times he hesitated and looked to his notes, he also on occasion managed to communicate to the audience in front of him and at home much more effectively than his opponents.

The strategy of the others was intriguing: David Cameron steered clear of strong attacks on Gordon Brown, his own polls apparently having told him that goes down badly with voters. But he’ll surely have to revise that before the next debate, having seemed relatively ineffectual in the face of Gordon Brown’s reasonably effective combativeness. He only really impressed in the way you might have expected from such a normally capable public performer right at the end with his prepared speech – though Frank Luntz, the American pollster who’s been hired by the Sun, has been saying this morning he felt that speech came over as too personal and “American” for British voters’ tastes. Brown certainly didn’t land the kind of blow he was hoping for – most people think he didn’t shine. But he’ll be delighted not to have been beaten by Cameron, and that Clegg has done so well. It might not help his candidate here in Brent, but the normal conventional wisdom here (which might not hold quite as usual this time, it should be said) is that LibDem success hurts the Tories more than it does Labour; plus, he’ll be hoping for tactical votes from those in Labour-Tory marginals who are attracted to Clegg (hence his keenness to tell us he “agrees with Nick”).

I think this debate has shaken up the campaign considerably. It wasn’t hugely exciting, but in imposing Nick Clegg so firmly on the scene, it may well shift votes. Clegg is already the most powerful liberal in Britain since Lloyd George. If he can perform as well as this in the next two debates, and avoids blunders, he could achieve his party’s most serious breakthrough yet and have a decisive influence in or over the next government. Remember, too, that his economic spokesman Vince Cable is the most popular and trusted major politician in the country, so you can expect to see them together as often as the LibDems can possibly manage it. A hung Parliament – where no party has a majority – was a real possibility even before last night. Now, it looks like the most likely outcome. And that could change Britain for good.

Just three weeks to go…

A Pint of Bitter: British Election Campaign Week 1 – Lib Dem Clegg wins first TV debate is a post from: Anglotopia.net

It’s election time! The UK is hot with election fever – kissing babies, making babies, the party leaders are going all out to win voter support.

British democracy is a funny thing. For starters it’s not quite a democracy… there’s that whole royal family thing hanging about in various palaces. So the term for the British form of government is a constitutional monarchy. Effectively the country is run by the parliament in the form of the prime minister and cabinet, with the queen serving as head of state. In the US the head of government and the head of state are one person. In the UK there are some elements of the electoral process that are cause for high drama. This time there is only about a month of campaigning before the official vote. The craziness has commenced!

Rules of the UK Election

1. An election can be called at any time by the Prime Minister. The PM asks the Queen to formally dissolve Parliament, which she always does. Then the official horse race begins. First past the post wins! Check out the BBC’s fun Election 2010 tool
2. You must at least pretend to love small children. Conservative (“Tory”) leader David Cameron has really kicked the competition up a notch this year by actually getting his wife pregnant in time for an election season announcement. Visits to schools abound. All the candidates have cute small children.
3. There is a serious contender third party. Sort of. The Liberal Democrats! The third man – Nick Clegg – in the race that could make or break the fortunes of the two more popular parties. Or have absolutely no influence. The excitement of the British system never ends.
4. You must wear the color tie of your party. This is not dissimilar to the US mode of operation, but being Brits, Labour and party leader/ Prime Minister Gordon Brown is allowed to wear various shades of pink. I like it.

[picappgallerysingle id="8491508" align="left"]

David Cameron

So there is your unofficial guide to the UK Election. Countdown until May 6th!

Life in London: It’s election time! Guide to the UK Election for Americans is a post from: Anglotopia.net

Last week’s budget wasn’t much to write abroad about – very few of us here expected it would be. In truth Alistair Darling had very little room for manoeuvre, Britain’s budget deficit being so high at just under ï¿¡170 billion. Some government backbenchers might have wanted to bribe the electors with a giveaway budget: one of the great Labour myths is that it lost the 1970 election because the then Chancellor, Roy Jenkins, opted for fiscal rectitude in his pre-election budget, rather than indulgence. The Jenkins path was forced upon Darling, though. There was simply no money to give away. In any event, the now unsackable and uncontrollable Chancellor clearly believes that the voters are fed up of, and unimpressed by, the apparently dishonest financial sleight of hand Gordon Brown consistently used when he was responsible for the country’s finances. So he opted for solidity by choice and necessity. Tax on cider has gone up, which won’t please the West Country – but then the Labour vote there is low anyway. The rest of the budget was small beer. Even so, conservative and business commentators lambasted him for not doing more to convince the world he plans to reduce the UK’s national debt, which is only going up. My one complaint was that he did not renew his tax on bankers’ bonuses – surely that would have been a popular move, and would have brought in a useful couple of billion.

Alistair Darling | HM Treasury | CreativeCommons

All of which set the scene for this week’s “Chancellors’ Debate” on Channel 4, which you can see extensive highlights of here. As expected, the Liberal Democrat Vince Cable was perceived to “win” the debate. Even a few years ago there were signs that Cable had a rare political gift – I remember the American pollster Frank Luntz spotting in BBC focus groups that he was notably more trusted than other economic spokesmen. Since the global crisis, though, his reputation has soared along with the deficit, and Liberal Democrats must wish, desperately, that he were their leader. A couple of years ago they dumped their old one (Ming Campbell, who’d got the top job off the back of his star performance as foreign spokesman, leading opposition to the Iraq war) precisely for being too old, and replaced him with the less solid, but more telegenic Nick Clegg. Clegg has been doing reasonably well recently but is still untested, while the other old stager Cable would be the obvious choice now.

Vince Cable | Alex Folkes/Fishnik/Liberal Democrats | CreativeCommons

What’s strange about the current political situation, though, is that Alistair Darling’s boringly “stolid” strategy seems to be paying off – and the Conservative challenge to have become distinctly wobbly. It’s very hard to interpret recent polling because some polls still show Conservative leads of around 10%, and the average lead is something like 6 or 7%; but the common feeling of commentators is that that lead is narrowing. Governments here usually narrow opposition leads during election campaigns, so if current trends continue, we may have the closest general election in Britain for decades. Why aren’t the Tories doing better? Surely, with the country’s finances in such a state and against a tired government with an unloved leader, they should be roaring towards power? Tony Blair’s old strategist Alastair Campbell thinks the answer is that their offering is confused; here’s the Times piece he refers to, which agrees. I think the problem for the Conservatives is that they’ve been caught out badly by the banking crisis and recession – in a way, rather like the Liberal Democrats have.

George Osborne | Ewan McIntosh | CreativeCommons

In 2005 when he became leader, David Cameron launched the Tory party in a new direction, trying to ditch the old image of being in favour of cuts in public services and tax cuts for the rich (an approach that had lost them three elections running, don’t forget) in favour of a much more upbeat message of concern for the environment, health and the quality of life. But just as the Tories had successfully case off doom, gloom came to meet them. Now, events have forced their Shadow Chancellor George Osborne back into arguing for deeper, faster spending cuts, which is comfortable, natural territory for them, but means  they can’t help appearing to have turned one way then the other in recent years, with many voters not really knowing what they stand for. So far, so understandable. But they have also made errors, like allowing themselves still to be cast as tax-cutters for the rich. I’m a Labour supporter, so I’m naturally biased, but there is a real feeling here that some voters – especially fed-up previously Labour voters – are looking hard at the Conservatives and are less sure than they were about defecting. It’s not as obvious as it once seemed that they’ll win on May 6th. But who will? Will anyone?

The civil service is certainly planning for the possibility that no one will. This level of organisation for the eventuality of a hung parliament – one in which no party has a Parliamentary majority – is new, but surely sensible. The civil service is the one institution that can provide continuity and offer practical support to politicians if they need to hammer out an agreement for government this summer. The rule is, basically, that Gordon Brown continues in power until it’s clear he can’t, and someone else can, command a majority in Parliament. That could mean even if defeated, he stays in Downing Street for days or even weeks while he tries to put together some sort of deal with the Liberal Democrats. I’m not sure that a hung parliament would be a disaster for the country: a very close election will undoubtedly be good for political engagement here, and a minority government of either colour depending on Liberal Democrat support could be more stable and effective in dealing with the economic crisis than many fear. What would be damaging, though, is a prolonged period of uncertainty – especially if the leader of the biggest appears appears to be trying to hold on to power illegitimately. Whatever else happens, I hope we don’t go there.

The Seven Stars

Booze-wise, I was in the Seven Stars last week, in Carey Street just behind the Royal Courts of Justice. If I had to name London’s best pub, this is one of the three that come instantly to mind. It’s cosy in winter, and the simple, music-free inside is a brilliant place for conversation. The beer’s terrific (it’s Adnams plus a guest beer or two) and it’s worth ordering food here, too – they serve more interesting than usual pub food, which gives the place a really old-fashioned, almost “eighteenth century tavern” feel. It’s right opposite the back entrance to the High Court, so has a very legal theme – and a nice black cat, apparently called Thomas Paine. I’ll be back in the summer when the place is at its very best, with punters crowding the street outside. I wonder which of the three men above will be in Number 11 Downing Street by then – and how much my beer will cost.

A Pint of Bitter: Could Darling’s dullness and Tory wobbles give Britain a hung Parliament? is a post from: Anglotopia.net