We're into the final 10 days before the UK elects its next government. Americans would be amused to spot the many ways Brits are living in the shadow of Obama's historic achievement - yearning, above all, for the excitement he generated. So much so that all the major parties have borrowed pieces of Obama's election machinery - his speechwriters campaign managers and strategies. Each party leader hopes to channel his charisma and trigger new levels of engagement with the electorate.
For the first time, the three largest parties agreed to a series of American-style TV debates. But to the alarm of the Labour and Conservative parties, who have taken their turn to govern for the past 50 years, these televised spectacles brought the smallest party of the big three, the Liberal Democrats, into voters' sitting rooms for the first time. By simply pointing out that novelty, their leader Nick Clegg has stolen the mantle of being the Change Candidate from the Conservative Party's David Cameron, the leader of the current Official Opposition. He's even earned himself the right to become an Obamaesque graphic.
But how much newness can Nick Clegg deliver? Obama is the first black American president ever, implicitly the embodiment of a level of inclusion rarely seen in the USA. He does not need to promise change; he is change. In contrast, Clegg is another upper middle-class white man of the kind that regularly leads Britain. His party, while barely visible behind the familiar duopoly dominating British politics, has nevertheless been around in its specific form for over 20 years (and as the Liberal party since 1839). While he has some brave propositions, such as dropping the Trident missile system, he is not a revolutionary
: he does want to maintain a cheaper military nuclear deterrent and holds off exploring nuclear power for energy.
But with the arrival of a third party in the spotlight, there is a major chance of significant change - not so much the individual politician, but the way we do politics over here. While the Lib Dems were traditionally viewed as the referees between the Leftist Labour Party and the Rightist Conservatives, the financial crisis has them weighing in on the far left with game changing tax plans. This has prompted The Guardian, Labour's staunchest supporter in the past, to ask their readers who they should back for this election. The less partisan Independent meantime, has capitalised on the confusion by challenging Rupert Murdoch's right-leaning hold on British politics through The Sun, The Times and Sky News.
No clear winner will lead to what Brits refer to as a hung parliament whereby the party with the most seats will either create a coalition or be constantly beholden to the smaller parties to pass law, a familiar scene in Congress. Cameron, who until recently was expected to be the next PM, characterises this as paralysis. The Clegg phenomenon has revealed the British public to be keen on the possibility of this kind of coalition (or post-partisan) politics, so much so that the BBC has decided to rename the old term: now they speak of a balanced parliament.
This may signify much greater change than is currently being discussed in the op-ed columns of the UK press. When The Downing Street Project first began to talk up balanced leadership as a way to describe more women in politics, it was a deliberate attempt to create a wider context for the change we are looking for, beyond the simple math of an equal representation of the genders. Balanced leadership implies more input into decision-making from different sections of society: the natural result of this would be a more feminine/less macho style of leadership, displaying less debate and seeking more dialogue, more soft power and less hard power. Beyond constitutional or institutional tinkering, we sought deep cultural change.
Similarly here, balanced parliament evokes more cooperation between the parties and less of the usual knee-jerk contestation. Much has been written about the public's distaste for YahBoo politics where the opposition is over-invested in the failure of the government. Against expectations, this sudden shift in the political dynamics appears to offer voters the chance to usher in an alternative way of doing politics.
But is the public being naive about the politicians' ability to act differently - simply because the largest party in the Parliament will be bereft of a majority, and need to start talking to others? Will the parties in government begin to see each other as partners for the greater good, or will they become obsessed with scoring minor points? In a further twist of events, this may turn out to be a good time for women politicians to show off their mediating skills.
Ironically, it is exactly this challenge that tests whether any of these candidates on offer truly have "The Obama quality". The American public believed this underdog challenger to John McCain, when he said that he could unite America. Everything about Obama's manner and style of leadership suggested that he could listen, empathise and build relationships with people of all kinds. Obama was able, in Gandhi's words, to be the change he wished to see in the world
For a hung parliament or to use the much more preferable term, a balanced parliament - to work in the UK, all three of the party leaders will have to show these qualities. If not, they will be marginalised in this new political culture that the public seems to be calling for. If they can, they will surely also get a mandate to go further. Perhaps, as Nick Clegg's Liberal Democrats are calling for, the more European style of democracy as proportional representation will come to the UK. A system where the political choices of citizens are given their due share of seats according to numbers of votes cast for parties - rather than those votes being distorted and misrepresented through wildly differing sizes of constituencies, each still delivering one single MP. That would be an extraordinary change for British politics.
And if that happens, watch out America. Change has a habit of rebounding across the Atlantic.
Follow Indra Adnan on Twitter: www.twitter.com/indraadnan
Simon Jenkins: Cry for Help From UK to USA
Britain is the victim of a constitutional asteroid attack. The election delivered exactly the secretive backroom bargaining that a first-past-the-post constituency system -- as in the US house of representatives -- was supposed to avoid.
Anyone looking for change from Nick Clegg, the Lib Dem candidate will be dreadfully disappointed. His expenses exceeded those of Brown and Cameron. He also admits to fiddling his expenses for two years while an MEP. With all the problems we have in the UK the main issue he is pushing for is proportional representatin, which takes power from the voters. He is a fanatical European and opposed a referendum for the Lisbon Treaty.
http://cyberboris.wordpress.com/2010/04/26/an-explanation-of-pr-for-the-ordinary-person/
He had so little support before the first leadership debate, he never had any press scrutiny. Now it is almost too late to show what he is really like and what he really stands for.
In spite of his own dishonesty, in the first leadership debate he preached to Brown and Cameron about corruption, getting a lot of support from voters who had not seen him anymore, and who fell for his pious and hypocritical talk of "change" a subject he never elaborated on. Any power he achieves will have been gained under total false pretences. It is Tony Blair all over again.
"TORY POLICY CHALLENGED
David Cameron has had an awkward encounter with a member of the public who is the father of a disabled child. The man - with his son present - complained of how difficult it had been to get his son into the same school that the boy's sisters attend. He drew attention to the fact that the Tory manifesto states the following: "We will end the bias towards the inclusion of special needs children in main stream schools." Mr Cameron retorted that it didn't say that - as "I wrote it, I know". But unfortunately it seems to have been a misspeak from Mr Cameron whose own disabled son sadly died last year. Sarah Smith has the story.
Cameron confronted on special needs policy:
http://bit.ly/bbE3Fd
I enjoyed reading your article - it gave me much more insight into the current British election process.One thing you misunderstood about the Obama presidency: Obama didn't challenge George Bush because Bush was "termed out" (he could not run again for the presidency). Obama ran against John McCain, the Republican from Arizona.
By the way, have you ever read the book titled "Bring Home the Revolution" by Jonathan Freedland? It is a gem. It taught me more about the differences between the British and American processes in both peoples' understanding and use of government. It is not a quick read.
Obama-Style change seems a lot like putting a different face on the same old failed policies.
this thread is about canada mister
leave your obama prejudice at the door
Take a geography class.
A hung parliiament would be a total disaster for us; the last thing we need is government by commitee.
As for more women in Parliament look at the so called 'Blair's babes'. all of them totally useless. If we are to have more women in Parliament, we need more Like Margaret Thatcher or Clare Short, love or loathe them they never needed special shortlists and ,they made themselves heard and left their mark.
The change needed in Britain is a party that will get us out of the corrupt madhouse of the EU, restore law and order and drop the stupid climate change agenda. (yes it's happening but we're not causing it)
Blair is not loony left.
the debate was a good change -- finally voters got to hear and see what the Lib Dems were about .. . proportional representation is a good thing . . .
Cameron is doing all he can to worry voters about a hung parliament but the only thing he really is doing is scaremongering . . .
we don't need Trident . . bliar went crawling to the tories to get the support he needed to renew it . . . he couldn't get the support he needed from labour or the lib dems .. .same with joining his buddy georgie in the illegal invasion of Iraq . . . the British public were against the Iraq war . . so were most of the Labour politicians and the Lib Dems stood firm . . . they were to a man against it . . . and then there are the recent expenses scandals . . . the British want to clean up Parliament . . .they are
Canada has had minority govts and canada has gotten by. I think the UK will as well.
If the people are divided, so should Parliament.
Frankly, I prefer being able to see what's going on.
I don't agree with the above . . . we know all three party leaders do not have the qualities she asks for . . . and it doesn't matter if they don't . . the pivotal leader must have them . . . because a hung parliament could mean another general election in a few months time