LONDON, 6 May 2005 — It is quick, intense and does not cost a lot of money. As it came to its conclusion Wednesday, Britain’s general election campaign provided some interesting comparisons to the American way of choosing national leaders.
Some analysts see distinct advantages in Britain’s short but grueling campaigns. Others complained that British elections are becoming too much like America’s, complete with an upsurge in negativity.
Critics cite an increased emphasis on personalities, the use of outside consultants and emotional “wedge’’ issues like immigration, and the aiming of messages almost solely at swing districts, known as “marginals’’ here, to the neglect of the rest of the country.
For better or worse, following a campaign lasting just 24 days, the candidates faced the voters yesterday.
Prime Minister Tony Blair, favored to win an unprecedented third straight term for a Labor Party leader, returned to his home in northeast England after asking voters to judge him on the performance of Britain’s economy, and not the divisive war in Iraq. “The central question of this campaign is which party is best for the future of Britain,’’ he said Wednesday.
The prime minister calls an election, normally with one month’s notice, very five years or less.
As they looked back Wednesday, political analysts were rather glum at the direction of British politics after a campaign marked by charges of dishonesty and racism, apathy, and finally a replay of the debate over the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
“We will have reached at this election the nadir of our system,’’ said Polly Toynbee, a columnist for the Guardian newspaper and Labor supporter. She said she expects a low turnout because disaffected voters will refuse to “hold their nose and vote for the least worst.’’
Yet when asked how it compared to U.S. politics, she still sees pluses in Britain, particularly in campaign spending limits and a ban on televised ads.
In Britain, each party may spend a maximum of about $37 million for all 646 seats for Parliament. In the United States, in pursuit of the White House alone, the sides spent more than $700 million.
“One of the great advantages of our system is that we don’t have political advertising, and that really does reduce everything to the 10-second sound bite where every policy has to become as simplistic as possible,’’ Toynbee said.
In other ways, Trevor McCricken, professor on US politics at Warwick University, said he sees British and American electoral campaigns “becoming a bit more like each other’’ with greater focus on party leaders compared to past decades when the platforms mattered most.
One clear difference is the amount of time candidates here spend facing hostile, or at least aggressive, questioning.
When was the last time a nationally prominent journalist in the United States declared to a sitting president that his campaign boasts were baloney. That’s what John Humphrys, host of BBC Radio’s “Today’’ program, did to Blair on Wednesday when talking about his claims on growth and employment.
“Obviously it is nonsense . . . Again, it comes down to a question of trust. You’re making claims that at the end of it all we can’t believe,’’ went one portion of the questioning. A little later he asked Blair “why on Earth’’ he wanted to run again anyway, suggesting that Blair is leaning too much on Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown: “You can’t have him standing beside you every day for the next four years.’’
Howard and Kennedy hardly got off more lightly. On Wednesday, Howard already was being asked how soon he would have to resign as party leader after he loses the vote.
Follow-up questions and rapid retorts are also part of the British way of interviewing. As a result, the most common exchange in British news these days may be: “You’re not answering the question!’’ “I would if you’d let me finish!’’
Rodney Barker, a government professor at the London School of Economics, said it was odd that American journalists are not more aggressive in their questioning of politicians.
“What everybody thinks of about the American system is that it is open and critical and everybody can speak their mind, and you would expect there to be more John Humphrys in a way in the US system,’’ Barker said.
But he added: “Some of your more right-wing television presenters do indeed resemble Rottweilers, do they not?’’
