US and US Government Formation Comparison

Published Date: 19 Oct 2017

CONTENTS PAGE (Jump to)

INTRODUCTION

Communication strategy used by George Bush and Tony Blair [Similarities and Differences]

LITERATURE REVIEW

METHODOLOGY

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

Reformation of the Labour Party

Labour gets new supporters

The Tony Blair effect

The Media – role of press, television and papers

American Value system and Image –

Differences between USA and UK- Social, Cultural, Political and Electoral

CONCLUSION

BIBLIOGRAPHY

INTRODUCTION

The political environment of two of the world’s leading countries has always held a degree of interest amongst researchers of international relations and politics. It has perhaps to do with the level of impact that the internal and external policies of these two governments have on the global economy. In this paper, we shall attempt to understand the differences and similarities between the political setups of the UK and the USA and follow the strategies and tactics of the elected governments over the past decade or so. At this stage, it is important to point out that there are many contrasting viewpoints on some of the decisions taken by the governments of these countries, hopefully; they can in their own way provide an all encompassing picture of the political canvas that surrounds these countries.

On the one hand, we shall discuss in detail the formation of the Democratic government with Bill Clinton until the current Republican administration of George Bush. On the other side of the Atlantic, we shall visit a different piece of history where Tony Blair and the British Labour Party which has been in power over much the same period.

Beginning with the UK, the Labour Party has been somewhat of a trendsetter. It has been in power in the UK since 1992 with its first elected leader as John Smith. 2 years later, with the passing away of John Smith, Tony Blair was elected as the leader of the Labour Party and has remained so ever since. The party has been in existence through the most part of the 20^th century and it came into being on the backs of the large labour force during the advent of the industrial revolution in the UK. It has been seen as the voice of the people and responsible for many social causes such as the introduction of free education and healthcare (when it has been in power during various pockets of the 20^th century). The NHS (National Health Service) was created by the Labour Party and is the lifeline on which the people of Britain are heavily dependent upon. Over the years, the Labour party has also been known to be the ‘People’s party’ – as the name suggests it represents the needs of the people at all levels of society. Interestingly, Tony Blair in the Book – “The People’s Party” by Wright & Carter (1997) mentions that the Labour Party is different from all other parties in Britain for 2 primary reasons. Firstly, it is a relatively new party that has been created over the course of the 20^th century and imbibes the modern values and cultural needs of the people. Unlike other parties, it understands the contemporary needs of people and is proxy to the more recent callings of the nation. Secondly, the formation of the party did not take place in the City of Westminster. It was created as a result of the needs of the people in the countryside and in the small towns that lined the UK.

The Labour Party was also renowned for bringing in a breath of fresh values and beliefs in comparison to the Conservative Party that had become to be known as the party which didn’t bring about changes to the degree required by the people. With Labour in power over the last decade, things have changed today. It all began very well with Tony Blair drafting policies that was well accepted by the people, but ever since; the Party has seen a steady decline in support over the years. A few years back, there were reservations that the Labour government could not take the country beyond a certain point. Soon after, Tony Blair’s uncompromising support of the US to enter the Iraq War was seen as a shot in the foot for the party. The people were divided in their sentiments on supporting Labour to take down the Saddam Hussein regime. In their opinion, it was correct to go into Iraq but through the United Nations and not as part of the US Taskforce. The few who believed otherwise began to change their minds after the invasion of Iraq when more and more British soldiers were killed in action. This created huge waves of disappointment in the UK and the support of the British people slowly left Labour. Whilst Tony Blair was re-elected in 2005, it was by the narrowest margin in the decade old history of the government. And even though Tony Blair finds himself in power, his position at the moment isn’t the best it could be.

Moving on to the US side of elections and government policies, the most basic difference in the US is that it has adopted a presidential form of government as opposed to the parliamentary system in the UK. Bill Clinton, a democrat was voted into power in 1993. This was around the same time that the Labour party came into power in the UK. However, the political campaign was not a bed of roses for Clinton. His character was questioned with examples being cited from the Vietnam War of a ‘character issue’. At the same time, he was also personally attacked for alleged infidelity which both him and his wife – Hillary refuted and embarked on a campaign through television interviews and other media vehicles to reassure the American public that they had a strong and workable marriage. To add to this, just prior to the elections, the Clinton’s were involved in what came to be known as the ‘Whitewater Real estate’ scandal. Through trial in 1996, the partners in the venture were all convicted of fraud whereas the Bill Clinton was never accused of any wrong-doings on his part. The first real challenge that Clinton faced after being elected was to allow homosexuals in the armed forces. This was faced with a lot of resentment and he received considerable flak for allowing such a rule to prevail in the military. After much debate, it was agreed that homosexuality would not be used against the people serving in the armed forces – more like a ‘Don’t ask me and I wont tell’ policy. Internally, Clinton also faced problems with the issues of welfare reform, the prevention of crime and the healthcare system. The one area that Clinton really shone was on the international map. He instrumented many successes for the US and built valuable bridges for the country’s future. Some of these achievements included the showcasing of America as a friend to the Israel – Jordan peace program, an improvement in the relations with Russian by proposing economic benefits to President Boris Yeltsin, tackling the instability and security issues in countries in Eastern Europe such as Bosnia and lastly, the improving of relations between the US and India, China and the Far eastern countries. The one significant area which was worked upon together with Tony Blair was the NATO intervention in 1999. Here, the 2 leaders worked to get the NATO to respond to the ethnic cleansing that was taking place in the Serbian capital of Kosovo. As a result, they were able to bomb Serbia for 78 days. However, Clinton did face some degree of criticism of holding back the troops to enter Serbia but was rewarded soon after since the President of Serbia did sign a peace treaty in the following months after the bombing campaign.

And Clinton was re-elected and stayed in power till 2001. During his stint, he was popularly renowned for giving America its most prosperous period in terms of peace and economic well-being. The US faced its lowest ever period of unemployment, the highest home ownership in the history of the country and the lowest rate of inflation as well. The only slur on his tenure came in the form of the ‘Monica Lewinsky Scandal’ where he was allegedly involved intimately with one of the White House interns. It must be noted that Clinton was the first president to ever appear before a grand jury in an investigation. Over a period of time, the people of the US gradually forgot about this scandal and allowed him to move on with the governing of the country. On the whole, Clinton was remarkably adept at improving the American equation with a host of countries it had not done so in the past – South Africa, India, China and many more especially in the South East.

(http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0760626.html)

George Bush came into power in the year 2001 as the successor to Bill Clinton. However, he is a Republican and in a short space of time, came to have an impact on world politics and international relations in a way never conceived before. Bush’s tenure has been populated wit the fight against terrorism which began with the attack on the World Trade Centre on September 11^th 2001. This has been somewhat of a 2 phased campaign against terrorism. Initially, it began with the hunt for Osama Bin Laden, the terrorist responsible for the September 11^th attacks and the corresponding hunt to catch him in the country of Afghanistan. More recently, the campaign trail has focused its efforts on the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq. And this in turn, has divided the American public in their opinion on whether the act of entering Iraq was in fact, justified. The problems for Bush rose closer to the end of his first electoral period when many American soldiers were being killed in Iraq. The people of the US were growing more and more uneasy with the Iraq campaign and Bush was on the verge of losing his chances of being re-elected in the next election. Experts found that Bush had unfortunately concentrated his efforts and attention too heavily on the war against terror and people were getting tired of it. Additionally, the common man was looking to improve his / her standard of living and with unemployment rising and a stained economic scenario, Bush was looking like he might be in trouble. However, the primary strategy adopted by the Republican administration was to try and highlight the economic benefits that the Bush administration had created over the years and try and push into the background, the campaign against terrorism and the Iraq War. Add to this, the opposition leader from the Democratic Party did not have the political clout to seriously challenge the Republicans. All these ingredients came together to ensure that George Bush was re-elected into power for the second election term. Ever since his second elected term, George Bush and his political policies have stayed relatively sublime in the eyes of the people and the media. What has never ceased to stir interest and conflict in the minds of the people of both the US and the UK is the relationship shared by the two leaders. Both Bush and Blair have been known to share similar political agendas and Tony Blair has received a lot of flak for supporting Bush on the Iraq War and other global political campaigns. The general consensus in the UK is that Tony Blair has not done justice to the UK by bending backwards to the demands of the US. This was once again, explicitly highlighted with growing number of deaths of British soldiers in Iraq. At the time of writing this report, the feeling shared by most people is whether the War on Iraq was justified in the first place and was there a need to go in to it supporting the US as opposed to entering Iraq as the United Nations. Unfortunately, the UK has been hit by a wave of terrorist attacks in the last few months and this has made the people much more uncomfortable in the security assurances by the Blair government. Going forward, the relationship between these 2 leaders is always going to be tested as the people of these countries learn to live through problems inflicting upon them.

(http://www.whitehouse.gov/)

People and Democracy have been long standing battles between governments and masses. There are a lot of issues which are of prime importance to the government for resurrecting their policies and objectives, the people on the other hand have to understand the impact of these policies to determine how they vote for the government and their representative. In the current scenario, the re lections of George Bush and Tony Blair took place amidst a lot of surprise, indignation, horror and laxity, while some people were expecting it, the others had nothing but stingy remarks about how uninformed people are about world issues to bring back leaders like Bush and Blair back in the lime light. The highlight and common issue which has plagued both these leaders has been terrorism and the Iraq war. It all started with the unfortunate 9/11 attacks on the twin towers. In his quest to prove to the American public his commitment to the people, Bush extended his powers to regimes in Iraq and other places which were supposed breeding grounds for the likes of Osama Bin Laden and terrorism. Tony Blair in his quest to support the American government participated in the war at an equal footing. The people and democracy in USA and UK has harnessed a notion of fight against terror yet the public has been against the government’s initiatives.

Communication strategy used by George Bush and Tony Blair [Similarities and Differences]

• Canvassing
• Approach and Messaging
• Public Meetings
• Agendas for these meetings – Iraq, Health, Taxation, Drugs, Education, Homeland Security, National Security and Environment
• Advertisements
• Press Relations

Communication is a powerful tool which has been used many a times to gain power and win elections. The communication strategy can be based on various levels covering press releases, campaigns, canvassing, advertisement and mailers among other avenues. Even then the communication strategy used in USA differs a great deal from that of UK; this will be discussed and dissected later in another section.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Richards Paul(2001) in his book, How to win an election talks about preparation and planning, the different tribes of politics, planning a campaign, direct campaigning and indirect campaigning.

Elections are probably one of the most components which differentiate a democratic society from a non democratic society. An election is what makes a democracy work when people truly have a right to vote and choose who is their representative and who would drive and support their. General elections decide which party goes ahead and forms a government and also how the politics and economy work for a country. There have been various attempts to increase interest in elections and their outcomes. In UK, the home office came up with a list of variations:-

• “Polling hours: variations in polling hours to allow different start or finish times.
• Polling days: moving polling to an alternative weekday or a day at the weekend or allowing voting over more than one day.
• Early voting: opening a limited number of polling stations in the period before polling day at accessible locations to allow any eligible elector to vote.
• Mobile polling: providing a mobile polling station which could take the ballot box to groups of voters, for example, by visiting residential and convalescent homes.
• Out of area voting: allowing electors to vote at any polling station in the electoral area, or even outside it
• All postal ballots: allowing an election to be held on the basis of postal voting only
• Electronic voting: supplementing polling booths and polling stations with automated voting equipment, telephone voting or online remote voting via the internet.”

[Richards Paul (2001), p 20-70]

No election can be fought in isolation; there are always background issues which have relevance to the election and campaigning. In September 2000 the British government almost came to a halt due to the widely proclaimed petrol price protests, yet no politician or government was prepared for this action and its repercussions. Candidates who are seen as rising stars could soon be biting dust; history is littered with example of failed careers as aspiring politicians have lost their claim to fame due to the unpredictable ways of elections. Elections have always been a ground of unpredictability and surprises, who would have thought that Winston Churchill after his brilliant win in the year 1940 would be miserably defeated in 1945. The conservatives suffered badly in the year 2001 when Tony Blair defeated them with a massive victory. One does not need massive knowledge about political theory and how it works to know that elections are random and unpredictable. The reason being, that elections are all about people, people who decide who they want to vote for or who they want to disregard based on their perceptions. People are beyond scientific interpretation or calculations, how they react and what the do is beyond anyone’s understanding of the human psyche. Interestingly so the way people choose a brand of washing liquid is probably the way they choose their next political leader. Elections need a lot of research and manpower; there are strategists, campaigners, sociologists, pollsters who work on the way the votes would swing in a direction. There is intense study involved about the last elections and the way they panned, the way people reacted to the campaign and the activities undertaken by the previous government. Modern politics has become an art, the most unlikely candidate can sweep house, and how does one explain the theory behind the victory of George W. Bush? Although politicians will try to sway the way voters work but in a democratic society it is always difficult to understand what really make the people tick. A lot of incidents in political history show how elections can actually sway either way for any candidate and no amount of confidence can confirm the victory or loss in a campaign. In the April 1970, Prime Minister Harold Wilson was extremely fond of using a football metaphor, “If I were a football manager, on present form I would be more worried about job security than I am a prime minister”. Harold Wilson lost the elections in June, 1970, his confidence in his victory was based on real time facts like good poll ratings, sound majority in the House of Commons, media and peer opinion led him to think so. [Richards Paul (2001), p. 45-55] Yet the voters had other ideas in mind, despite all the facts pointing in the direction of a straight win, Wilson lost badly. So no matter how one campaigns, votes cannot be taken for granted as situations can change really fast.

Election campaigns are a very expensive task, consuming hundreds of millions for resources like advertising, media, posters, television broadcasts, direct mail and canvassing. In short winning an election is a tough job and a risky business. Politics is similar to fashion, it runs of trends and fads which are hard to predict and adopt. Election campaigns are also dependent on unforeseen circumstances which can prop up anytime, scandals, loose press criticism, reports and issues which can blow the campaign in minutes. Campaigns are dictated by what Harold Macmillan calls “events dear boy, events”, they cannot be run with static rules, one need to get innovative and adapt to the current environment and what it seeks. A set of tactics is not what drives one to political victory; it’s the form of changing and learning from others mistakes and best known practices. As the soviet foreign minister said to Ernest Bevin, “the disadvantage of free elections is that you can never be sure who is going to win them”. [Richards Paul (2001), p 30-40]

Richard Paul (2001, p. 65 - 75) says “Other than the artistry of the campaign, there is science too. There are components and buildings blocks of a campaign which are crucial to standing a chance. There are the techniques tested against real experience and real elections, and the accumulated knowledge of a thousand campaigns and campaigners. There are a plenty of representative politicians in office today all over the world who owe their positions of power not to have a better ideas or even a majority of support, but thanks to better organization. The result of the 2000 US presidential election was decided on the tiniest margins, was won by an organization – the ability to get out the vote”.

This takes us to how much a campaign contributes in the election results and which way they go. Political choices are made by voters not just by weeks and months of campaigning. Neil Connock famously said that “elections are won in years, not weeks”, the voters get to decide whom they vote for based on a combination on reasons, one of them being a campaign which serves a reminder of what has been done in the past. Analyst David Butler echoes the idea of a campaign as a ritual. He says, “The campaign may to some extent be a ritual dance, a three-week repetition of well-aired themes, making no substantial net difference to the outcome. British elections are usually won over the long haul. A very large proportion of people vote out of loyalty, supporting the party that they and their parents too have always supported; those that change their minds are usually converted, not because of the final three weeks, but over the months and years because of an accumulated impression, positive or negative, and of the values and the performance of rival parties”.

[Richards Paul (2001), p. 50 - 65]

Politics in America has been an integral part of International Politics and it affects all nations. If we look at the American political and electoral process and their insightful history, it would help understand how democratic they are in their ways. Richard Maidment and Anthony Mcbrew (1993) in their book, “the American political process”, talk about liberal democracy in the American political system. The language of the current American politics can leave little doubt in our minds that it’s all about democrats and upholding the values and power of democracy where the public and voters stand the strongest. A very important factor which distinguishes the American society and the people also its political stance is the society. The lack of class consciousness in the American society, the heterogeneous religious and social environment also the lack of feudal system has made it into such a democratic society. The American attitude towards government politics has been very individualistic. The stress has always been on the American offices being run by a place of legality and enshrined in the view that this is what makes this society and political distinctive. The nation is so heterogeneous in its approach and outlook that it’s difficult to pinpoint the political culture. The American politicians have had a large share of history and legacy to deal with, the American history which needs the same culture to carry on. The politicians need to make their own choices of public policy options all of which need acceptance on a wider level within the system. It just means that the boundaries are being stretched and the politicians and political systems so that there is a room for more man oeuvre.

George Bush had a lot to inherit and manage considering that they were taking over from the Reagan administration right at the beginning of his political career. In 1989, the relationship between the Soviet Union and the USA were brimming the brightest and that the time due to a lot of positive activity in Easter Europe the USA’s position was fairly strong. In this light of the American political system one does need to consider the importance of congress in the political arena of America. The congress has always been an important aspect of the American election and political arena. In 1985, Woodrow Wilson wrote of the congress: “It is unquestionably the predominant and controlling force, the center and source of all motive and of all regulative power …the legislature is the aggressive spirit…it has entered more and more into the details of administration, until it has virtually taken into its own hands all the substantial powers of government…I know not how better to describe our form of government in a single phrase than by calling it a government by the chairman of the standing committees of congress (Wilson, 1956, pp.31, 44, 49, 52)”

[Richard Maidment and Anthony Mcbrew (1993), p 110-140]

Some years later another very distinguished gentleman who took great care in understanding the American society said, “Congress has been the branch government with the largest facilities for usurping the powers of the other branches, and probably with the most dispositions to do so. It has succeeded in occupying nearly all of the area which the constitution left vacant and unallocated between the second authorities it established. (Bryce, 1889, Vol.2, pp. 711-12)”. [Richard Maidment and Anthony Mcbrew (1993), p 140-180]

Brian White, Richard Little and Michael smith (1997) in their book, Issues in World Politics, talks about the political environment across the world, states and statehood, trade money and markets, regions, development and inequality, arms and arms control, nationalism and ethnic conflict, environment and natural resources. An important aspect of today’s political systems and elections is the role media plays in keeping everyone informed. All the information that we now receive locally, nationally or internationally is thanks to media which may come in various forms like television, radio, newspaper and the modern internet communications. Information is now available free and easy unlike the olden days when a lot of places were thought to be remote and so information traveled slower than usual. All that has changed now, all the political issues and what affects the leaders from coming to power is all available on media. The media is playing an important role now where globalization is making the world a smaller place. Someone like George Bush had to see CNN to understand the Iraq situation since it brought the latest news to the public. The elections use the television as a medium to get their message across to the public and let them know of the work being undertaken by them. All of the canvassing and public debates between political opponents are covered by television on a global scale so that countries across continents have complete up to date knowledge about the happenings. Elections in USA and UK the world super powers are an important place for international policies or national policies which will affect other countries that are in business/trade with them. The selection of the political leader is also an important cause since it determines the amiability or hostility of maintaining relationships with leaders of some countries. The two last most controversial elections have been that of George Bush in USA and Tony Blair in UK especially in the wake of the much controversial Iraq war. A lot of movies, documentaries and new articles have since then been published trying to give the general public across continents a more varied and comprehensive insight into the election process and what tipped the scales in favour of the two most contentious leaders. The American president has been surrounded with controversy since the twin tour attacks and his rebuttal to that, the capture of Saddam Hussein and finally the Iraq war which is a dark reality which has still not ended. The civil disputes are ongoing between the army and anti social elements in that society trying to keep the dispute ongoing. USA has been at the helm of lot of international criticism; all this has been made possible due to the regular broadcasts and news items being provided by television and other media mediums.

An interesting name in media who has brought a lot to the fore front and what George Bush has really set out to do is Michael Moore. His book, “Dude, where’s my country?” is an attempt to uncover some truth and factual information about George Bush, his strategies in the past, terrorism, the use of tax issues to buy the public vote and America the liberal paradise which is no more. The book is a poignant account of how much has changed in America the land of the free under the regime of George Bush who has worked on his terms and conditions against popular demands and International interventions. The history for this big calamity is set in the time when Bill Clinton was the USA president. He being a liberal did not use radical moves to counter attack everyone considered America’s enemy. Clinton was a popular leader by choice who really put USA up there as the world super power and not so by doing direct attacks on countries like Iraq and other nations who presented a threat to America’s prosperity. It was during the regime of Bill Clinton that one learnt in the 1990s how to fight all the wars yet keep the losses of the Americans to a bare minimum. Clinton closed down bases, reduced the number of troops, and funneled money into other projects which were indirect attacks on other nations but without jeopardizing the lives of many Americans. The Clinton era built America to become a high tech lean machine which is was really helped pentagon and the Bush government in fighting back the terrorist attacks.

The book further goes on to pin the blames of the terrorist attacks in USA on George Bush and his former collaboration with the Bin Laden family. The book is highly controversial in nature as it makes factual claims about Bin Laden’s close association with America and with the Bush family. Despite all this being published openly in the wake of the attacks and the negative profiling George Bush underwent, he still came back successful in the next elections which followed. Is this a surprise or does it contain more fact about the truth in brainwashing the public voters into believing what one wants them to. George Bush in a very strategic move has used the war to win the elections; he has put the fear of public safety and the war against terrorism to pass more and more acts which give them control over public records, their activities and lives. The patriotic act is one such act which takes a bite out of American democracy and freedom of speech and action. George Bush has effectively used the wars to tell the public that he won these for them and that all his actions are only to serve and protect the American public. Although there is democracy it’s more under pressure that people practice the same for the fear of prosecution under these new acts which give the government and officials more control over a citizens life.

Some of the information in this book is insightful and frightening as it explores all the dirty facts which have been so far hidden from the public eye but the most inspiring fact is that the man embroiled in such controversy is once again been reelected as president of Unites states of America. The defense budget was increased drastically in the wake of these attacks and the office was in sync with these efforts given the attacks and the inkling of more such attacks in the future. Also George Bush has had a powerful ally in UK, Tony Blair who has silently accepted all terms and conditions and ensured that UK helped USA in every way possible even if it meant going against the UN rules and policies about international and political interventions. Tony Blair has been nothing but a puppet in this game of going against Iraq based on reasons which are baseless and do not conform to international rules about going to war with another country. This seemed like a repeat of the Vietnam War which brought a lot of criticism to America and had long lasting after effects which ironically it lost to the small nation of Vietnam. It seems like America is ready to jump in problems which are not related to them and try and be mediators on international ground which can be a resentful cause for some. The Iraq war has always been used a big reason for terrorist attacks which have become a norm and an integral part of international news and headlines.

The quest to go pro war in America was fuelled by joint efforts between the government and the news channels. Media played a big role in painting a picture the Bush government wanted to. This is again important as now we know how media influences the public voters to vote for or against a poll or leader. The media was given a lot of freedom to report up close and personal about all the heroics of the American army and the difficult conditions in which they were operating to fight for a bigger cause and being patriotic. The other side of the story about why these men were sent to Iraq was unfounded; the plight of the Iraqi people was also not highlighted till much later when other more aware news media started reposting stories about the atrocities of the armies against the civilian population in Iraq. It is estimated that “viewers were 25 times more likely to see a pro-war US source than someone with an anti-war point of view. Military sources were featured twice as frequently as civilians. Only 4% of the sources appearing during the three weeks were affiliated with universities, think tanks or non-governmental organizations. Of a total of 840 U.S sources who were current or former government or military officials, only four were identified as opposing the war. The few appearances by people with anti-war viewpoints were consistently limited to one-sentence sound bites, usually from unidentified participants in on-street interviews. Not a single one of the six telecasts conducted a sit-down interview with anyone who opposed the war.”

[Moore Michael (2003), p. 25 – 60]

Moving on to discuss the Tony Blair government, his first election and then the recent re elections in 2005 offer a lot of insight into the way politics and elections happen in the UK. Robert Worcester and Roger Mortimer (2001), in their book “Explaining Labor’s second landslide” talk about Blair’s first term in 1997, elections and campaigning in England, the results, the pundits and the pollsters and finally the on coming terms.

What decide the results of an election in UK are also the voters? This is a phenomenon which is similar in USA and UK. The members of the public have an important part to play in who leads the government, what they think, what they perceive and what they understand is crucial to elections. Opinion polls are an important tool to understand the behaviour, knowledge, opinion, attitudes and values of what the voters think. Within the realms of science and behavioral surveys, one can understand the general atmosphere of the public and which way they might sway. The beliefs may be wrong and that is where media plays an important role in casting a shadow of what the external picture might be like. The personal motivations of the people might be individual and so might guide them to vote to sustain the values which in the larger scheme of things might be naïve. What the public think is crucial, about who might be a trust worthy leader with a sound background and someone who fulfills their promises and works towards the interests of the nation and public. Also whether the party has the capability to come into power and form constituency. The author of this book has formed a framework which gives them an idea about electorate’s decision. The centre of this framework is a political triangle; the three aspects of this are between the three competing governments and parties in UK- the attitudes of the parties, the leaders and finally their policies on issues which are important to the country. There is a fight between the image and the issues which are important to the general public. In most cases if the issues don’t really matter it is because of the following four reasons –

1. “Salience: If people don’t care about an issue, on party or another’s argument if not going to sway that voter to move his or her allegiance.
2. Discernment: If people don’t discern differences between the parties on the issues they care about, then they are not going to change their allegiance either to support the party which they think has a sound policy on the issue they care about, or reject a party which they don’t think has the best policy on that issue.
3. Ability: If people don’t think the party that has the best policy on the issue they care about has the ability (power) to do something about it, they won’t be moved; and
4. Will: If people don’t think the party that has the best policy on the issue they care about has the will to something about it, they won’t be moved.”

[Robert Worcester and Roger Mortimer (2001), p115 – 160]

Tony Wright and Matt Carter (1997) in their book, “The people’s party”, give more of an insight into the elections of Tony Blair and what followed after that. The election of Tony Blair being the youngest person in the labour party was a move to show that the radical modernization of the labour party had become. Tony Blair won every section of the Electoral College, this was a great achievement, since he was elected at age of 41 only, is youthful and dynamic style was an instant appeal. He brought the party a new sense of community values, he was all about review and change and something which is a bit more radical. A major achievement which brought a lot of change in the party and the political arena was the rewriting of clause IV. It proclaimed, “The labour party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavor we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many not the few, where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe, and where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect.”

[Tony Wright and Matt Carter (1997), p 180]

From then on in 1995, Tony Blair speeches were all about the party’s successful ventures and addressal of issues which made a difference to the nation as a whole. Although the party was moving to a new ground of reality and modernism yet they had kept up the traditional parties which were at the core of the party when they started. Now that the party was renewed there was also a need to renew the country. “Today a new labour party is being born. Or task now is nothing less than the rebirth of our nation. A New Britain. National renewal. Economic renewal so that wealth may be in the hands of the many and not the few. Democratic renewal: labour in office, the people in power. And social renewal, so that the evils of poverty and squalor are banished for good. New labour”.

METHODOLOGY

The paper was written after due consideration of the manner in which information was collated through different sources – mainly primary and secondary sources. These are the two most common methods used in research and help us present a holistic understanding of the subject matter. As part of the primary source collation methodology, questionnaires are one of the most important pre-requisites to help validate information in various sections of the paper. However, due to limitations on the amount of time given to write this paper, unfortunately; this option was relinquished. Under normal circumstances, it is imperative that questionnaires are used to substantiate the findings from other forms of primary research as well as secondary sources. Instead, primary research was carried out by interviewing people on a one to one basis gathering their views and beliefs on the political climates surrounding these two countries. It is understandable that the samples interviewed do not have any political or internal relations academic backing, but the whole point of speaking to these people was to gain a larger understanding of what the common man really thinks about issues that the governments of the UK and the US face.

Additionally, to add more credibility to the findings, discussions were also carried out at various internet chat forums on the subject of politics and international policies governing the 2 countries. The one key advantage of internet forums is that opinions are usually very blunt and the people giving these opinions are not scared to share them since they more often that not ‘hide’ behind their computer screens. It also enables internet users to provide opinions from various walks of life and from different countries across the world. In this case for instance, there were opinions shared on the US governance not only from internet users within the US, but it was interesting to see how differently US citizens based outside the US saw the governing policies.

It must be noted that due to the direct nature of the sharing of content on the chat forums, the information used from this source was carefully validated and placed in the context of the discussions within the realms of this paper.

On the other hand, the sources of secondary information was mainly in the form of journals and published papers such as industry and political articles, referring to the political history, climate and strategies of the 2 governments. Interestingly, there has been more content on the relationship, similarities and differences of the 2 countries in the more recent years in comparison to previous years. This has been due to the invasion of Iraq in the recent past and the political storm that it has created in the 2 countries. The few books that have been written on the subject have in previous years been dedicated solely to the political governance of the 2 countries in isolation. However, in more contemporary times, the books have spoken out more bluntly on the increasing relations between the two countries and the resulting political scenario. Not to mention, the various government websites also contained useful information on political dates, historic timelines and background information on party leaders. However, for the sake of analysis, these websites were used sparingly and their content used in the right context since they are indeed biased with propaganda, which would have in turn diluted the other areas of research.

Statistical information was primarily consolidated into information that could in turn be presented in the form of more meaningful analysis and this was done using numerous reports and journals written in the recent years by both US and the UK websites to get a more comprehensive picture. During the course of the research, an interesting finding that stood out in comparison to other research topics was the concurrency of the information available on this topic. Being a ‘hotly’ debatable topic in world politics, information was easily obtainable on a daily basis. The one area that the researcher had to be careful of was to ensure that the data being used was consistent from past articles, only because there are some extremely contrasting opinions on this subject.

It is also important to mention that questionnaires are essential to this research and in the event that more information is required in the future on this topic, some crucial questions through a questionnaire are required. These should address:

• The long-term strategies of the governments in power and how they propose to go about addressing them? How have these strategies changed over the years and how have they evolved?
• Understand the key drivers of the political agendas lay down by the respective governments and to what degree do the international policies dictate how the agendas take shape.
• How does the US – UK political relationship or more precisely, the Blair – Bush relationship impact the future of the 2 countries and how will it challenge international relations issues the world over. This is important to consider since the decisions taken by the 2 countries have a global impact on economies and this in turn, dictates the lives of most people on the planet.
• The primary differences and similarities in the minds of the people on how they were governed. It is one thing to listen to what the political leaders and their parties believe in on what their strengths and issues are, but it usually is a very difficult picture when painted by the people they govern. This would provide a degree of balance to the research and ensure that the views and opinions expressed are multi-dimensional.

Lastly, it is important to consider that the data collated through these questionnaires can be managed effectively so that it can be analysed to provide meaningful information. More simplistically, the backgrounds of various people, the regions where they come from, their backgrounds and their political compulsions will bear heavily on the findings during the surveys. This must be kept in mind at the time of anlaysing information.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

Reformation of the Labour Party

Since of the major objectives of this paper is to explore the coming to power of Tony Blair and his re lections, some findings in this arena are critical to the core of this paper. The labour party underwent a lot of changes between the period of 1992 and 1997. The changes and reforms made a deep impact on the public voters in their perception of the party. By the time the 1997 elections were approaching soon, the public knew that the labour party has not inclinations to nationalise the industries, increase tax or give any priority what so ever to inequality. The change in ideas and labour party ideologies cam to the fore front way before Tony Blair was elected in the year 1994. The interesting fact which came to light at this point in time was that although the labour party was slowly moving to the centre, the voters were moving leftwards, they wanted higher spending, less inequality and lastly a keen sense to nationalise industries. All these reason increased the commitment of the voters to the labour party during this time.

The voters perception about the conservatives was just the opposite, they felt that they had moved right their ideas and policies, this created more of a distance between the two.

Labour gets new supporters

In any electorate, it’s not that common to see people take a direct liking to a party and shift their loyalties from conservatives to labour or the other way round. The people were shifting between the local parties and liberal democrats or rather they chose not to vote at all thus not supporting any of the main parties.

The time when Tony Blair came to become a leader between the years 1992 and 1994, labour did gain a few extra votes since people were in favour of this young dynamic leader with radical moves and willingness to change. The former conservative voters were also swaying in favour of the labour party, this strengthened their position is elections.

The years after 1994 saw a trend between loyalties shifting between parties, five times and more people shifted from liberal democrats and conservatives to the labour party, a direct sign of their new allegiance. Tony Blair’s new re branding of the party was a successful move and they did help in winning the vote from the liberal democrats in the upcoming elections. In fact this was the strategy deployed to make sure that the labour had a strong view and standing with the voters.

The Tony Blair effect

The effect of Tony Blair’s addition to the labour party was a new life line. The perception and linkage of people between labour party and trade unions was slowly melting away once Blair joined the party. He was seen as the young leader with new ideas and a modern outlook. This made Tony Blair and the labour party a very attractive proposition to the middle income group in UK. This finally proved to be an important link and reason for the success in the 1997 elections which the labour party won. It was more the middle class people in England who took a shine to the labour party in wake of new leadership, the working class were still hard to define and change views. The price for the lack of awareness and keenness on part of the working class was seen by the lack of appearance during the elections, most people from the working class who were ardent supporters chose to stay home.

The Media – role of press, television and papers

As we have discussed before the media has an important role to play in elections and any other form of communication with the masses. The role of the press in elections is a unique process and a very interesting maze of ups and downs. In the year 1992, the sun claimed that it was the sun who won it since the conservatives had a very strong backing from the newspaper. Yet in the year 1997 the sun changed its view and supported the Labour party instead. Would it be fair to say that a newspaper can influence the elections? They can and they cannot. The sun readers would be very influenced by what the paper has to say about the parties as they have all the inside information about the workings and dealings of the leaders and their intentions or so they proclaim. At the same time the strategy could very well be that the paper simply started supporting what they thought the public was already doing and adapting to. Since there was already a growing interest in the labour party in 1997, the sun could have simply decided to change direction and root for the labour party and their new leader – Tony Blair. This is a strategy which could have worked; to say that it influenced the elections and created a new leader is just talk. Also after the year 1992, a lot of [papers which were pro conservative all this while suddenly changed tactic and started reporting a lot more news which was critical of the way the party was moving forward. All the readers who had so far read news which was very positive in its outlook towards conservative party were now presenting disparaging facts, this also helped change opinion. The media and newspapers did have an effect here, sometime they choose a strategy and move forward accordingly and sometimes they just support what the public and masses want to hear and see.

The loyalties changed during this time period about the view they had on conservatives. In a direct contrast to the change in support of the conservative party, 1987 to 1992 was pro and in favour of where as the period between 1992 and 1997 changed the stance people had about the parties. The media and newspaper coverage is critical to maintain and keep the support ongoing for the conservative party. But the tides had changed after the year 1992 and pro conservative readers were now in favour of the labour party. It was also a matter of time that these people switched on to some other party, if it’s was not the labour then would have been someone else. The parties also make an effort to strengthen their ties with newspapers like the Sun and the Daily mail, so did the labour party worth these two papers but it was the already in favour of labour party Mirror readers who made a stark difference.

Also in this fight to win voters, the pro conservative and the pro labour could have easily cancelled each other out with the change in denominations. Although a lot of readers are influenced by what the newspapers print, it would be fair to say that they do not influence the elections and the results. It’s important to remember that not all people who vote read the papers and also that not all newspaper readers actually vote. [http://www.crest.ox.ac.uk/beps9297.htm]

British Social Attitudes It has been a bit difficult to really compare and contrast the British and American way of living, social, economic and political cultures. So the writer has instead tried to carve out and define each country’s social standing and various attitudes which are so individual to each one. And from there one can start picking on the differences and see what makes the two so different yet alike when their political leaders are such close allies. The social strata have been used to uncover the attitudes on various issues ranging from religion, racism and drugs. Even in the space of each topic there have been changes over the years, the views of the public regarding religion are changing given the terrorist attacks which are primarily coming from the Muslim community. [http://www.natcen.ac.uk/natcen/pages/or_socialattitudes.htm]

The following are some of the results of the survey undertaken by crest in its quest to gain more information about the British public and their views on the government and elections.

• “British public attitudes towards the role of government are considerably closer to those in EU countries than they are to those in the USA, Canada or Australia
• Despite the many differences between the USA and Britain, their respective political parties appear to be equally effective in representing the views of their voters
• The affluence of post-war Europe does not seem to have produced in its citizens any major shift towards 'post materialist' values
• Britain is among the most 'agnostic' nations in the world, though less so than Holland; the USA and Northern Ireland are among the most 'religious'”

[http://www.crest.ox.ac.uk/intro.htm]

American Value system and Image –

America has been the super power for a decade and more now, all other nations in the world are influenced by America and its policies, the influence does not stop at this, the culture and their products have also occupied an important place in the hearts and cultures of a lot of nations. This might be prohibited by the government and ruling parties but the young are adapting, globalization has made the world a smaller place, television has brought the culture and community much closer. At such close proximity it’s hard for people especially the younger lot not to adapt the American style and way of life, their products, movies, music and culture. Yet interestingly the opinion of the American way of life and their policies are complicated and difficult to understand. Although the people are happily adopting everything which is American they would still like to oppose the US influence on their societies. It’s ironical to see the results, the youth is ready to adopt and move forward but the older generation is content to stay the same. At the same time in places even the younger generation is dead against the American way of living. America’s war on terrorism is the probably the biggest issue in their policy which has strong support from all nations other than the Muslim countries which have condemned the American public, the government and the army for interfering and killing innocent people in the name of terrorism.

So although the attitude towards America is most negative in the Middle East and other Muslim nations, the democratic style of governing and business practices are highly praised and adapted. Interestingly most multinational companies are none other than American and they are the root cause for a major employment percentage in other nations. Yet the Iraq war has created a divide in the opinion about the Americans. The anti-American and anti American company sentiments are strong every where. The Iraq war is a new reason for a growing resentment towards America. Although the interesting fact remains that a nation like Iraq and their policies are seen as a threat to global peace and regional stability, still the American interference it seems does not solely stem from this cause. A lot of allied nations feel that this might be the American way to control oil in Iraq.

The big problem called Iraq A large number of European nations have been opposed to America’s use of force to end the Saddam Hussein rule in the country. The British interestingly have been equally split up on this decision. In America this is supported widely with 60% people in favour of the war to end the iron regime and give back people democracy where they can choose their political leaders. Iraq is considered a big threat to the Middle East nations, their stability and growth. Another factor in agreement with the public is that most people agree with the complete removal of Saddam Hussein from power and not just disarm him since that would still lead to another war. Yet the constant strife between the Palestinians and Israelis is also viewed as a cause of more instability and fight for power by nations like Russia, France and Germany. The question being that there are more facts which can harm the global stability, nations like North Korea and Iran can also cause a lot of damage. Should America interfere in all these issues and try and find a resolve or would this create a bigger Anti-American wave? These are some of the reasons which also make people re think America’s reasons for being so forceful about their interference in Iraq only – could it be the oil fields which beckon the American government to take charge and fight another nation’s war. [http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=165]

A large percentage of people in each of these countries are of the view that America’s war is primarily to control the Iraqi oil. “In Russia 76% subscribe to a war-for-oil view; so too do 75% of the French, 54% of Germans, and 44% of the British. In sharp contrast, just 22% of Americans see U.S. policy toward Iraq driven by oil interests. Two-thirds think the United States is motivated by a concern about the security threat posed by Saddam Hussein.”

[http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=165]

On a more positive note the American people and the country are also well recognized for their technological achievements and like one mentioned before the American television, movies and music are extremely popular across the globe. At the same time there is discontent with the American way of living, customs and ideals.

The American public holds a strong view about America’s contribution to other nations, its role in the global economy and advancement. A majority of the American people feel that the Americans and their government consider the interest of other nations also while drafting policies which have an international impact. It could be said that 8 out of 10 Americans think the wide spread adoption of the US ideas and customs is a good phenomenon. The USA has been a major contributor in shifting and changing gaps between the rich and the poor nations across the world, this is not something the Americans feel for since they think that a large proportion of their incomes and taxes are actually going to provide for this change in international economics. [http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=165]

Differences between USA and UK- Social, Cultural, Political and Electoral

An interesting factor which differentiates the people in USA and UK is also the growing apathy in UK among the younger generation. It is not wonder then that in the 2001 elections only 59% people voted. There are reasons which have led to this change and complete loss of interest in elections. The younger generations in UK are not interested in and find elections and politics unimportant. This generation is very disillusioned with what politics and political parties actually do against the real problems facing the society. This has led to a complete lack of interest and these people don’t want to vote as it encourages politicians who are only working towards increasing their office terns and being in power. This explanation shows how elections are now under threat and so are politicians who might not be able to establish a democratic government in place due to the less and less people using their r9ight to vote. This is what classifies that mainly all parties as are bad as the next one and the issues that they promise to address are very trivial and do not help change the problems plaguing the younger lot and their families or societies. These reasons keep them away from voting and elections. Another important factor to these elections was that these people were frustrated from the information being provided by the media as it only threw out the information which the parties and the leaders wanted the publics to hear. So in this case it was not so much lack of interest but anger at what was being shown to them through news channels, media, campaign news and public appearances. The coverage as well as the campaign ere very lack luster and did not bring home the issues which mattered the most. The leaders always need to be in sync with what the public wants, this was very well displayed by Tony Blair in 2001 when Princess Diana passed away in the Paris car crash. He took it upon himself despite the general lack of interest from the royal family and other leaders, this is when he was in sync with what the public wanted and needed. His support at this time won him a lot of positive support and sympathy from the public.

The 2001 elections in UK against showed the importance of the media and broadcasting while campaigns and elections are going on. Another strong social view on elections shows the following results:

• “Social class persists as a key influence on the way people vote
• By no means all voting behaviour is governed by self interest, and vot