[pp.int.general] General Elections in the UK

[Eric Priezkalns]

I will try to address everyone's questions.  Given how long this will  
take, perhaps it might be better shared as a post on the PPI blog to  
follow up their intro to PPUK!

> Did you manage to get some press coverage? During the campaign and  
> specially today with the results?

PPUK attained very significant coverage in mainstream media at  
national and local level.  In fact, PPUK has always been 'lucky' in  
this regard, though it should be put into context.  Although UK  
coverage inevitably focuses on the parties considered to have a  
realistic chance of winning, two of the obstacles to PPUK's success  
actually help to encourage greater media coverage.  First, because it  
is expensive to run a campaign of any size, then anyone who does so is  
guaranteed a degree of media interest.  Second, because the UK's  
election system has a very strong orientation around there being one  
and only one elected representative for each geographical area, then  
local media is very keen to give coverage to any local candidate that  
they are aware of.  Indeed, coverage would have been higher if we had  
moved sooner to select candidates and notify local news organizations.

This brief list gives some examples of the old media coverage the  
party got.  I am sure it is incomplete.

- Leader Andrew Robinson was interviewed on a daytime BBC television  
politics discussion show.
- One of our candidates, Graeme Lambert, took part in a debate  
sponsored by a national newspaper.
- Several candidates and spokespeople gave interviews to various  
national and regional radio stations.
- All of the candidates received significant coverage in local  
newspapers.
- Profiles and information about PPUK was highlighted in the website  
outlets of various organizations like the BBC, Scotland TV and many  
sites dedicated to politics.
- The results in one of the seats fought by the party was broadcast on  
live television by several TV channels.  Viewers heard the result  
being read including the votes for our party.  PPUK's candidate,  
Alexander van Terheyden, was seen prominently in the frame reacting to  
the result.

Post election coverage was poor but this is unsurprising.  Mainstream  
news coverage is dominated by what is a very unusual situation in UK  
politics, with no political party in overall control.  British web  
commentators have given some coverage to PPUK's result, but with a  
British skew on what 'success' means, meaning they have applied  
unrealistic expectations for what a new party can achieve in British  
politics.  To illustrate, in the election the UK's Green Party won its  
first ever seat in the UK Parliament, by parachuting their leader into  
their most favourable seat and concentrating their resources on it,  
and being helped by an unusually even split in the votes for the three  
main parties.  This victory for the Greens came after losing literally  
thousands of contests for parliamentary seats (and deposits) over the  
last 20 years.

> Could you speak more about its electoral strategy?
>
> It is best to use several candidates in various regions or  
> concentrate on just one campaign area or few areas?

The party is too new to have a sophisticated electoral strategy.  UK  
parliamentary elections involve selecting one candidate for one  
geographic constituency.  The party decided to select the individuals  
that would best represent the party, and asked them fight their home  
constituencies.  Nine seats were fought, and these were spread around  
the country, with three in or around London, three in the English  
midlands, two in the English North, and one in Scotland.  Some of  
these seats were safe seats for the Labour party, some safe for the  
Conservatives, and some were marginals where more than one party had a  
chance of winning.  A tenth candidate had been selected but was unable  
to fight his seat due to administrative problem when the ash cloud  
airspace shutdown left him unable to return from abroad to sign some  
paperwork.  Ten candidates were chosen because this was the number the  
party could afford.

> I'd like to comment on one point which seems to have been the major  
> topic of many discussions yesterday night and of today's press  
> coverage and which you seem to implicate as well - that the election  
> has been a "mess" and a "disaster with no one winning".

You are quite correct that Brits interpret political results very  
differently to continental Europeans.  Of course, political cultures  
vary greatly around the world.  Brits are not used to the idea that no  
party has overall control.  It is natural that media coverage would go  
into overdrive and that some strong opinions would be expressed.  Many  
consider the tendency to give majority control to one party to be a  
benefit of the British system.  However, we can reasonably interpret  
the result in the UK as a sign that many no longer like the way  
politics has worked in the UK and want to see reform to what has  
previously been described as a 'two party system'.

E