91Èȱ¬

Crucially, the British Prime Minister has back tracked on everything he promised us when he assumed power; from spin doctors to celebrity culture.

Now I think we can expect a back track on the distancing from the US on everything from fiscal and monetary policy to going to war.

How right you are, Nick

Nick,
It goes without saying that what happens in America can have an impact here, whether politically or economically. What the 91Èȱ¬ pundits don't seem to get is the fact that this will happen whether or not we send reporters to the States to quiz any number of politicians or other pundits. Take News 24 yesterday as an example. This programme spent over 10 minutes mainly talking about the Democrats, then moved seamlessly into a report on Bush in Israel - a total of 15 minutes approx.

By definition, other reports (often domestic) are squeezed out. So what may be up to the minute and urgent in a UK sense is pushed out by an election that has only just begun, and has much, much further to go.

As has been suggested already, the 91Èȱ¬ needs to tone down the USA election content, and focus more on what really matters to the UK citizen.

Another key aspect of the forthcoming election is that Congress will be up for grabs again. If the winning candidate also has control of the legislature you might actually see less engagement in world affairs as the domestic agenda will be more important. If not the next president's ability to shape domestic policy is limited and you will see a lot more intervention on the world stage. Clinton who never had control of Congress found it very handy to stride the world stage when matters got ugly at home over various scandals. Similarly Bush who has been marginalised domestically since the mid-terms has now found time to engage in the Middle East peace process.

I understand where you're coming from here Nick, that's the realpolitik of the current relationship between Britain and the US, as so ineloquently demonstrated by Bush's "Yo Blair!", as if Blair were some two-dime governor of some backwoods US state. Pretty it ain't.

There are many, doubtless, who wish that it were not so; that political affiliation was re-oriented more towards a European fulcrum, which isn't too likely under the current incumbent, who's on the point of giving the visionless short-termist go-ahead for British power generation for the immediate future (nuclear).

Anyone who can't see that we are indeed already the 51st State int terms of social, sociological and political influence is, as you say, just not getting it. It's half the reason for some of our present troubles; instinctively we're more inclined to the American view of much of what goes on while trying to force ourselves into a Europhile mode - and of course the two are often in disagreement.

I sometimes wonder whether we wouldn't have been better simply accepting our fate and turning gratefully into the arms of America economically as well as most every other way. Had we joined NAFTA rather than the EU we'd be without masses of hopelessly counter-productive legislation, we wouldn't now be sacrificing the essential freedoms of our legal system, we wouldn't be controlled by an unelected elite in Europe, and as the 51st State acting like a Freeport on the doorstep of Europe, we'd have trade buzzing both ways.....

I think the trouble is with the chattering classes, who just luuuurve to hate America :D

I don't have an opinion either way on this. While the Americans are good at selling themselves and building markets, and the British can be a bit contrary and insular, it's just another game, within a game, within a game. It does matter. It doesn't matter. It may matter.

My main influences are America and Japan. I look to America for confidence and flexibility, and Japan for teamwork and the long-term. The Americans tend to explain more and the Japanese tend to formalise more. Britain tends to fiddle as it goes along.

The core of Prime Minister Gordon Brown's agenda is positive, sociable, and long-term. It routes around the cluttered and disjointed approach of Britain, and aims for something that doesn't just emulate but transcends the lessons from abroad. Does anyone get it?

Nick

1. Only because British politicians allow the US to determine this. Have you noticed how no other nation does - we too could say 'no'.

2. So to can the policies of China, Japan and the Middle East. i don't see hundreds of 91Èȱ¬ staff camped out there too often though.

3. Only because British politicians are too lazy to think for themselves.

What YOU don't seem to like Nick is that it's not necessary for the US elections to have any read across.

It's just a shame that - for example - PMQs doesn't get the same massive amount of airtime the 91Èȱ¬ devote to the US every 4 years.

If there are resources for news specials from Washington, Iowa or New Hampshire can you tell me why the 91Èȱ¬ can't spend half an hour a week in prime time to screen PMQ's in prime time on 91Èȱ¬ One?

If England had been governed by more astute people in the past, we might have now found ourselves exploiting a triangular membership of NAFTA, the EU and the Commonwealth.

Rather than not in NAFTA, mostly perceived to be abused by the EU and less than half-hearted members of the Commonwealth.

The world is full of "could have beens" and so, in my opinion, England currently remains marooned in a sort of political no-mans-land, as the Scots and Welsh look to bail out of the so-called 'UK'.

That is the price of English political apathy and as a by-product makes us English more dependent on what America and its President does than would otherwise be the case.

Asimportant an effect as events in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran in terms of impact on stability in areas providing the world's energy? I think not.

Two points. One, we can do nothing about the outcome of the election so the detailed coverage should start once the result is known. If US policy has such an impact why, despite watching the News and Newsnight, so I know next to nothing about the Presidential candidates' policies?!! Surely not because the 91Èȱ¬ is wedded to personality-based coverage and politics with a small 'p'?

Secondly the important States are still to come.

Mark C says: "Had we joined NAFTA rather than the EU we'd be without masses of hopelessly counter-productive legislation, we wouldn't now be sacrificing the essential freedoms of our legal system, we wouldn't be controlled by an unelected elite in Europe, and as the 51st State acting like a Freeport on the doorstep of Europe, we'd have trade buzzing both ways"

Mark, you couldn't be more wrong.

EU laws are not additional laws burdening our legal system, they are europe-wide laws on topics that we would have laws on in any case, like health and safety, trades descriptions, standardisation, and so forth. If you really believe all health and safety laws would be abolished if we pulled out of the EU, then I don't know what to say to you.

Do you see Norway or Switzerland being massive freeports? No, because they have to follow the same EU laws in order to sell products into the EU. They just don't get a vote when the laws are being agreed. Yay, freedom!

Your "unelected elite" - a wholly-elected Parliament and a Council of Ministers made up of elected heads of Government - have influence on trade, on climate change, and on big international issues more than any member state could dream of if it acted on its own.

I'm fascinated by the US elections, but I wish the British media also looked properly at policy issues (rather than political personality issues) in other European countries. They may not speak English across the Channel, but politically we have much more in common with them than we do with the US.

Of course the eventual result of the morally bankrupt US elections is important. Of course "campaigning techniques" [spit] developed over there to win votes without actually having to be good at running a country will filter into use by our political parties. They don't have any other attractive features, after all.

What I object to is the media's sycophantic overdramatisation of events. I can see a purpose for the whole circus over there: portraying it as a see-saw Sportacular Event will escalate interest and engagement in the process.

Since, however, we are not enfranchised in these elections, our engagement is unnecessary, and the "pundits'" talk of "momentum" and their "writing people off" after 2 attention-hungry states have made their decision just comes across as hot gas for filling time in a news bulletin because there is nothing else to report.

Report the facts without the histrionics, and I might actually be able to bear listeneing to the news for the next 12 months.

My comment on the coverage is that it is genuinely not relevant to us. There is very little on what the candidates might actually do or stand for barring labels - would they start wars! - and a great deal on personality, experience, how people feel abou change etc. etc. etc.. The focus is Zeitgeist!

The coverage to date is largely meaningless as there is no idea of what differences there would be between Obama/Clinton/McCain/Romney/Giuliani in terms of policy once they get to the Whitehouse. The answer may be very little in which case the coverage is meaningless or little in substance but major in presentation in which case this is worth highlighting.

Forget the polls and lets have some substance allied to some extent to the probability that this person will become President. It may be far more worrying but would at least have relevance. Ask the candidates questions on policy, who would be Secretary of State etc.. That is what will impact on us.

@Anthony (13):

My thinking on EU-inspired legislation isn't restricted to elf'n'safety and I'm sorry if you can see no further.

Your comment about Norway and Switzerland makes as much sense as Alex Salmond claiming that Norway is an exemplar for Scotland of a small country of 5 million people becoming wealthy on its own. Our common links with the USA of legal systems, history, ancestry, cooperation over many years, and language, Anthony, language, puts the UK in an entirely different position.

Coffee, the, wake up, smell, and.

Rearrange!

I love how in America the main Democrat candiates all have the same campaign slogan 'Change'. Yet none of them in detail say how they are going to change the U.S.
Imagine if at the next election Dave Cameron went round the country with the slogan 'change' without any real policies.
The problem with the U.S is that these elections are based on personality, which is slowly filtering into our elections.
Like many i wish we would spend less time if any on the American primaries and only start covering the election once the primaries are over and were into October.

If our government and economy are going to continue to play 'follow my leader' with the US, then it stands to reason that what is going on in small town USA will have an effect...

Twenty years on and the debate between a former Prime Minister and his Cabinet Secretary remains as relevant as ever:

Jim Hacker: "Humphrey, who is it who has the last word about the government of Britain? The British Cabinet or the American President?"
Sir Humphrey: "You know that is a fascinating question. We often discuss it."
Jim Hacker: "And what conclusion have you arrived at?"
Sir Humphrey: "Well, I must admit to be a bit of a heretic. I think it is the British Cabinet. But I know I am in the minority."

>> . . . the realpolitik of the current relationship between Britain and the US, as so ineloquently demonstrated by Bush's "Yo Blair!", as if Blair were some two-dime governor of some backwoods US state. Pretty it ain't.

Except that wasn't what Bush said. The real phrase was "Yeah, Blair. What are you doing?" There was a radio 4 documentary on this invented misquote a while back -- didn't get much coverage in the 91Èȱ¬ news pages of course.

.....and despite what some think or hope it will matter more and more as time goes by.

Nick, your original read-across from the Primaries to the UK scene was entertaining.
Yes the USA matters more than any other country, but other countries still matter and we are NOT the 51st State, however much Tony Blair took us down that path.
But admit it; all we have to cover in UK politics at the moment are the intricacies of Northern Rock and the monthly drama of the MPU. Boring.
The Primaries are full of froth and fun, who's up, who's down. It's what political types enjoy.
So you cover it in detail. That doesn't mean it's all going to translate here.

At 12:20 PM on 10 Jan 2008, Charles E Hardwidge wrote:
"I don't have an opinion either way on this."

Blimey - that's a first!

Of course what happens in the US matters to us - we are their closest military partner, like it or not (and I do), and one of their biggest trading partners too. More than that, we share many of the same ideals, even if we tend to differ on how best to achieve them. America bashing tends to be most popular with those who still believe that we can "fit" into the outdated EU model, which history plainly shows we can't, nor should we try. The basis for the American system is English common law, as it is in places like Australia and New Zealand, and it is with these countries that we should be looking to forge our futures. We can be friends with any peaceable country, but we can only truly be partners with those who share our core traditions, customs and values. America is one such country.

Bang on, im studying USA politics for A level, and realise that like it or not, the USA elections affect us in a big way.

I personally hope for Obama, even though his policies are under scrutiny, mainly as no-one is entirely sure what they are yet.

Rest assured that some of us here have the ability to read between the lines, and will decide for ourselves who should our next President. I realize our country as a whole has a fairly poor track record the last two elections, but there has been sufficient shushing of those Religious fanatics who turned out in droves to elect our current oval office occupant.

Anyone, and I do mean anyone, would be better than what we have now, so in all reality things are looking up!

This is absolutely correct Nick which is why I am so hopeful that Barack Obama will be the next POTUS.

He voted against the war in Iraq, has not only been overseas (unlike Bush when he was elected in 2000) but actually lived abroad and been a former president of The Harvard Law Review.

All in all, Barack Obama is the complete opposite of George W Bush. He is, in other words, just what this world needs. And this is why, on behalf of Great Britain, I can confirm that we, the British people, are officially endorsing Barack Obama as the next President of the United States*. That's right. You heard it here on Nick's blog first. BritainBACKSBarack2008!!!

* = this is in no way an intention by the UK to interfere in American politics (though to be fair, America does have a tendency to interfere in the politics of other countries) rather it is a statement of hope that Barack Obama will be elected or declared by the Supreme Court the next POTUS.

Forget 'read across', as the US president is, apparently, the 'leader of the free world' we should all get a vote, shouldn't we?

I can't believe people think that the US presidential campaign is boring or irrelevant! Look at the impact that Bush (1&2), Clinton and Reagan have had on the world - for good or bad - and tell me that we shouldn't be paying attention to what's going on.

Not to mention that the whole process is fascinating. As news stories go - it's the biggest one of 2008.

If you think it doesn't matter whether it's McCain, Clinton, Huckabee or Obama, you're mad.

The point isn't whether or not the US has an impact on Britain politically and economically, or how "interesting" it is: the point is the disproportionate coverage. Reporting on the results from NH and Iowa would have been enough, without all of the hype and build up; it's not even the real election.

The contrast is with the relative paucity of coverage of European politics, which equally has (very obvious) political and economic consequences on the UK.

The news media generally appears to think that the UK is an island off of the coast of the US, and not France.

Surely, Nick, those small US states won't be deciding future US presidents or policies. It always seems to be Florida which decides, and Florida is not a small state, it's a big one. Then, of course, there's the judges, who have to decide what it was FLorida actually decided.

Just came across this thread. I was glad of the coverage of the US elections and look forward to much, much more. I supplement with coverage from CNN (generally awful), and from National Public Radio in the US via the internet. I would say the 91Èȱ¬ got it about right. They could have done more and I would have lapped it up, but the coverage was high quality - in terms of talking about policies and personalities which both matter very much in US elections - and in depth.

How the next President manages the sub-prime mortgage fiasco in the states will determine whether house prices drop a few percentage points or crash through the floor here - and thus whether we have a recession.

The next President also has to allow us to develop nuclear warheads, buy missiles and continue to be a nuclear power. If we refuse to go along with the next war, we might just find ourselves without a bomb. Not a bad thing, just a reality.

We should all listen to as much on this subject as we can get.