Yeah.......about that.

So Gordon Brown today said something we in America are calling a "Coakley". Martha Coakley was the Democratic candidate in the special election (by-election) in Massachusetts to replace Ted Kennedy. There is no way that she should have lost this race, none at all. A Democrat in a state thats top natural resource is Democratic politicians. But she made dumb comment after dumb comment. She said that Curt Schilling "was some Yankee player". She was referencing the rival of the beloved Boston (Massachusetts) Red Sox. Of course Curt Schilling is a Yankee hero. For my British readers it would be going to Manchester and calling Sir Alec Ferguson "some Chelsea manager". What Coakley and Brown said was not important to the policy of the world. But what both showed was a complete disconnect with regular people and general incompetence that is always rejected by voters. I think Labour numbers are gonna fall.....hard.

What Now?

Sorry I have not been blogging lately I have been feeling awful lately, I must have had some volcanic ash in my sinuses ;). Well the campaign had a huge shock with the Liberal Democrats making a big push in the poll. So what do each of the parties need to do to win. Conservatives need to focus on grabbing liberal votes. Push to make people look at Clegg like a normal politician. If he can get a 5 or 6 point lead over the LibDems, he can truly make the argument that he is the one who can oust Gordon Brown. Labour needs to trash Cameron, make him seem unbearable to the nation, if they can make him seem so bad, Labour can push themselves as the only party that can stop the CamMonster. LibDems need to find one more thing to keep excitement with his campaign. Cable and Clegg excitement will die soon, I believe a pledge not to support a government under Prime Minister Brown, could be more sure of the possibility of change. My suggestions all have the chance to fail miserably, but if you want power you must be daring.

Where would Labour be under Blair?

Americans sometimes do not get the movements of British politics. I was only a toddler, but most Americans could not comprehend the removal of Margaret Thatcher. She seemed to be the ultimate leader who had made Britain relevant again. Something similar happened three years ago. We understood the British people's distaste for the Iraq War in 2007, we had it too. But Tony Blair was a brilliant, dashing figure. He seemed to be the most charming politician on Earth, he was the political Hugh Grant. But instead the Labour Party decided to go with Gordon Brown, who is as charming as a brick wall. Make no question about it, Tony Blair would have dominated the debate last night. I believe Labour would also be leading in the polls if Tony Blair was in charge of the party. Now, they pray for a hung parliament, don't always go to where the grass looks greener.

"I agree with Nick"

This was the line that I read was most repeated tonight. So why would Cameron and Brown, especially Brown, do that. Is it because Nick Clegg is the genius and originator of all great British political thought? If it is true I doubt the Tory and Labour leaders believe it. No, the leaders are making a calculation based off statistics. In the last election the LibDems did very well in LAB-CON marginals. Both Brown and Cameron believe that they can squeeze this vote down. The doorstep line can be "Well the LibDems can't win here, and a lot of our policies are like the LibDems." Will it work? We won't know until May 6th.

Some People Think Everything is About the Election

Some situations are just irrelevant, don't force them into an election.

From the BBC election live text:
"Gordon Brown might hope to get some benefit from the volcanic ash situation, says the BBC's Carole Walker. In his first few months in office he dealt with the threat of terrorism and the chaos caused by flooding, and his handling of both appeared to go down well with the public. They seem to like how copes with a crisis."

There is a lot going into a voters mind on May 6th, but "I can only trust Gordon to protect us from volcanic ash" is not going to be one of them.

Debating the Usefulness of Debates

The leaders are preparing deeply for the first TV debate. So I think an American should give a view of how the American debates operate. First all three debates are televised on every channel that will cover it. They pool into one video feed so no matter where you tune in you are watching the same thing. This enables three different debate formats. The first is usually a stand-up debate about domestic issues. The second is a sit-down about foreign and defense (defence) policy. The third is a town hall where the candidates are asked questions by 'real people' on a mish-mash of subjects. They are hyped by the media and can have defining moments. But for the most part they are incredibly dull and change the views of very few people. In the American system they are essential because the people of America go into the polling booth and choose between the two people on that stage. I personally believe in the British system with the short election span and the fact you vote for an individual MP and not the leader there only needs to be one debate. This first debate will be exciting and informing for the British people. The other two will be uninteresting and a waste of time.

P.S. I think Brown will do better than people think. Remember he is the only one who has had to answer tough questions weekly for nearly three years.