Friday 16 April 2010

Stuck inside of Mora with the Malmö Blues Again: Trapped in Sweden by an Icelandic volcano while trying to follow the first election debate

Posted by SPIRE: School of Politics, International Relations and Philosophy at Keele University at 12:14

Written by Dr. Jonathan Parker

I am writing from Östersund, where I came to teach some seminars on research methods in political science at Mittuniversitetet (Mid Sweden University). Mid Sweden is a geographically accurate though misleading description of the location, since we are close to Trondheim, Norway, and at a similar latitude to the southern tip of Iceland. The warm British Easter seems far away when surrounded snow and looking down on a frozen lake. Cross country skiers go by the window at regular intervals.

I was supposed to be home yesterday, but I’m not sure when I can get out, now. There is no certainty about when flights will resume, and I am rebooking the flights every day with a shrinking sense of optimism. It’s amazing how vulnerable the whole air industry is to these things. Wrong kind of dust? It doesn’t really help that the most affected areas are the two places I want to fly out of and get to.

There are certainly worse fates in the world than being trapped in Sweden for awhile. I was upset that I would miss the first British election debate (a big event for political scientists). However, the Swedes have thoughtfully provided me with wireless broadband, and the BBC streamed it live. Hooray for the BBC! I grumble about license fees (as an American it seems very odd to pay a tv tax) but what a service! Live access even from abroad

The debate was very interesting. The three candidates had obviously decided upon their respective roles beforehand and stayed in character very carefully. Again, as an American these debates aren’t new to me, and I didn’t expect serious missteps or clear victories – the stakes are too high and the candidates too well prepped to allow things like that to happen.

Even having a ménage-a-trois debate wasn’t new – it reminded me of the 1992 Presidential debate between Republican George Bush (the elder – who looks better every year in comparison to…well, you know), Democrat Bill Clinton, and third party candidate Ross Perot. Perot made the whole event less predictable (which is a good description of his whole candidacy) and more interesting, though he largely attacked the incumbent Republican president rather than the Democratic challenger. There are loads of clips on youtube, but here is a good starting place (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ffbFvKlWqE).

The whole 1992 election is an interesting parallel to the current election. The country was coming out of a recession. The economy was improving, but the incumbent was seen as the tired remnant of 12 years of Republican rule in the White House. People didn’t feel like they were so well off (though the economic figures, which came out after the election was over, say things were improving nicely), and they punished the incumbent. The third party phenomenon set a record, with Perot capturing 20% of the vote nationally, which would bode well for Nick Clegg if this election follows that example.

Clegg, in fact, seemed the only clear winner of the debate last night. This isn’t particularly scientific, and is being repeated by most of the press, but he seemed to exceed expectations in a way that neither major party candidate managed. Brown came across as more passionate (an advantage of driving down expectations?), but didn’t deliver any knockout blows. Cameron clearly saw himself as the front runner and didn’t want to make any mistakes or come across as ‘mean’. That made for a competent but uninspiring performance.

The big question now is how seriously people may treat Clegg and whether any bounce in the polls will translate into votes in the booth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ffbFvKlWqE

 

Labels: ,

3 Comments:

  1. Victoria said...
    18 April 2010 at 20:42  
    hey mr parker, hope u get home alright and will continue to blog regularly, not only when ur bored and stuck in an airport :O
    Keele 1st year said...
    21 April 2010 at 11:31  
    There is an interesting piece over on political betting about how the rise in support for Clegg was inevitable anyway...

    http://www6.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2010/04/20/is-a-myth-being-created-about-the-impact-of-the-debate/

    John, do you think there is a similar mythology around American debates? Do moments like 'there you go again...' really change campaigns?
    Jon P said...
    25 May 2010 at 15:31  
    Debates rarely land knockout blows because the candidates are so insanely prepped for them. Unless you really lose it, there is no serious damage. Mistakes can cause damage, but it depends on how that image fits with the general campaign themes. I remember with Clinton, Perot, and Bush that Clinton came and talked to people in the audience and looked very engaged. Bush was caught in profile looking at his watch - a clear image of a disengaged person which fit with the attacks made on him by the Clinton campaign.

    Did it matter in the end? I would refer you to the wise words of James Carville. It's the economy, stupid!

Post a Comment



Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)