The British Parliament is holding elections on Thursday, with perennial majority Labour looking certain to lose 10 Downing St. to the Tories, or perhaps the Liberal Democrats. Today, Tottenham Hotspur and Manchester City — the English football teams supported by Ghost of Hemingway’s Gun and Estes, respectively, square off in Manchester to potentially decide who finishes fourth in the English Premier League, reaping the financial windfall (and prestige bump) of appearing in the Champions League, in which neither has appeared for at least a decade. Estes and I are here to guide you through both of these major happenings in Dear Ole Blighty. The first part deals with the elections; then we get angry with each other and say things we’ll regret.
In short, the following is about as long-form yet informal as you can get:
Ghost: Two things before we start:
1. My hometown is now (hopefully) famous since it’s where Faisal Shahzad was living! Although, as a friend of mine said, “He’s not really from there. The only thing we blow up is a party.”
2. Hope your kin are doing okay with the flooding.
Estes: (a) weird and (b) they are.
Ghost: Cool.
Ghost: So, I guess first thing’s first here: what’s you’re feeling for Thursday? (I know the match comes first in time, but the election has priority, obvs.)
Estes: I’m planning on doing a full length before and after, with thoughts interspersed throughout the evening as my w-fi connection allows. Hazel wants to watch it with the Cambridge DC Alumni (Tories, the lot of them, I’d imagine) And I’ll be taking my ipod touch which will allow me to write things if i have a connection.
Ghost: So, quick and dirty: Is Clegg really the new Obama? Or, I guess, Huckabee? Someone nobody thought could win but might actually do just enough to ruin everything. Perot?
Estes: None of the above. Clegg is, perhaps, Gary Hart (minus the infidelity) He is cool, collected, but not as inspiring as Obama, not as crazy as Perot and not as ideologically flimsy as the Huckster.
Ghost: Is it even useful to compare the elections/politics of the two countries? Like, other than Iron Maggie and St. Reagan, have there ever been true analogues across the pond? It always seemed like the Blair/Clinton twinsies were never quite as aligned as we thought. Sure they both got their parties back in power by taming their left flank, but Tony never had the charisma that Clinton did, and never moved quite as far right. Or am I wrong on this?
Ghost: Or: I think the Brits saw Major as a failure and Blair came through at the right time. If not for Perot, Poppy Bush might have been re-elected.
Estes: You’re right, and I think the lack of conviction (or, arguably, depth of conviction) Blair showed in the run-up to the Iraq War is a perfect example of his malleable nature. That said, useful analogies exist, just not perfect analogies. Maggie and Ronnie were great because they both captured the era. Brown and Bush work, despite political differences, because everybody hates them. I guess I feel like it serves as a way of easily understanding the situation from outside.
Ghost: Brown and Bush only seem comparable to me because they seem to blunder consistently — in policy and publicity—, making it their defining characteristic. But Brown, I think you’ll agree (I think!) actually did quite well guiding the UK through the crisis, whereas Bush … well, not letting the Fed talk to Congress as Lehman broke is a fantastically stupid decision
Estes: Totally true. It is a strictly political analogy. Despite some policy differences, Brown kept Britain out of a massive, Greek-style, failure. Bush led the world toward a Herbert Hoover vortex. Also Brown is an intellectual trapped in a PR man’s game, while Bush was a fraternity member in a world he had no place.
Ghost: So, who’s done the best for themselves in this campaign? It seems like this should be a slam-dunk for Clegg and the Lib-Dems.
Estes: They have, but the underlying reasons are up for grabs. Would this bounce happened in 1997, 2001 or 2005 had they participated in the debates or obtained this much media coverage? Probably. It stands to reason that they were the third party simply because they seemed unelectable. Their policies are in line with much of the country and despite, the Daily Mail’s rhetoric, not out of the mainstream (outside of, perhaps, Burnley) at all.
Estes: My constant question is what, if any ramifications does this election have for America. If the Lib-Dems get 30% (roughly) and 10-12% of Britons favor their policies over the other two parties,does it hold that a third party could do the same here. It is often said that our system is not set up for multiple parties, but neither is the British system.
Ghost: I hadn’t considered the electoral impact over here. I wonder if that’s one of the reasons Howard Dean is so bullish on Clegg. That said, at this point, it seems to me that going with a centrist 3rd party, which for all intents and purposes the Lib-Dems are, might work, given that Republicans are — at this point — beholden to some folks that a good portion of the country can’t stomach.
Estes: American Democrats are, politically, essentially Labour and the Lib-Dems, and frankly Tory rhetoric as well. Republicans are UKIP (and I’m being generous).
Ghost: There’s no denying that our right is further right than anyone else. But, Lib-Dems exist in a space between Labour and the Tories, which I think is odd. Most American third parties have been splinters from the left of the left or right of the right. It’s why I made the Perot-Clegg comparison. Is that not where they’re coming from after all? Your favored “radical center (centre?)”?
Ghost: (Also, this is totally the photo I’m going with for Reagan and Thatcher: [see above])
Estes: Between, but distinctly different. I think Perot used more fear-based tactics and played to an inwardly focused audience, while GHW Bush and Clinton were more international in outlook, whereas Clegg is an overt internationalist (which is, frankly awesome in my mind, but sadly the only thing keeping him from garnering 40%+ on Thursday.) But specifics aside, there is some statistical similarity in support, but socially and politically, they are distinct movements.
Estes: (THE HAIR)
Estes: (YIKES)
Ghost: Thinking of the Brits as insular is very strange for me, as someone who studied colonialism and empire. I still think of them as outward looking generally. Is this a response to the EU or a continuation of Thatcherism they can’t shake?
Estes: Thatcher was, compared to modern Tories, much more of an outward looking PM. (Europe-wise, to the rest of the world and domestically a travesty.) Immigration stemming from open EU borders is fanning the flames. Even while much of the immigration has slowed, or even reversed, the sentiment remains. I blame the Daily Mail and a bad economy looking for scape goats. But perhaps that is a bit simplistic.
Ghost: Speaking of scapegoats, I know Brown looks like the biggest loser in all of this, and perhaps from the beginning he is, but Cameron has absolutely blown this, right? I mean, this was supposed to be a skate a couple months ago. Please use as much British slang as possible in your response.
Estes: Aye, it is the worst cock up since ITV dropped Melvin Bragg’s art programme. Really, he did just blow it. Even prior to the Lib Dem rise, the Tories were dropping in the polls and a hung parliament was looking more and more likely. He emulated Blair, and didn’t do a good job of it.
Ghost: But wasn’t that half the story of Cameron’s initial success? That he was doing for the Tories what Blair did for Labour? I thought that his youth and his promises to basically not be Thatcher were his selling points.
Estes: Yeah, but his message lacked the substance of Blair’s and he was never able to fully move away from the narrative of the 1980’s. Also, he oozes educational and social elitism. This isn’t the worst quality, but it won’t endear you to middle England, they may tolerate you, but they’ll never love you.
Ghost: And finally a perfect segue to tomorrow. This is, it seems to me, a matchup between what I think of as two places that are quintessentially English: the industrial, working class Manchester City, still recovering from redundancies 30 years ago; and the immigrant-dominated Tottenham area of London. Let’s talk about those two spots as political blocs and then move on to the match.
Ghost: (Quintessentially contemporary English, obvs. Much to the consternation of the UKIP and BNP.)
Estes: Ha, indeed. Manchester, at the center of working class industrial England will most likely stay Labour’s heartland (south of the Scottish border , that is) while Tottenham will do the same for London. Interestingly, these two teams represent two of the areas one can safely say will be Labour on and after Thursday. Tottenham may have a slight shift to the Lib Dems, as they speak to their concerns, but I can’t see a big swing toward any major party in Central Manchester.
Ghost: So, both will be together (couldn’t use united because I thought you’d log-off) on Thursday, but today they’re at each other’s throats. And they’re fighting for the right to be fourth, which doesn’t even strike me as odd anymore.
Estes: Quite appropriate, really.
Ghost: Which, right. This election hinges on how well third place does. The areas in which the teams play are afterthoughts. Of course they’re fighting to be the last good team. And now the invective kind of flies. Which team deserves it? You all just basically bought your team in the last 10 months, whereas Spurs have brought this team along (for the most part) through their academy or through small transfers. I know where I stand.
Estes: I have little retort. City represents, in some ways, the worst aspects of the EPL. That said, isn’t that always the way it is. Your manager was awful last year, so you ponied up and got ‘Arry. Money and tactics are an ugly reality of the sport, but they are there. Are we going to judge that harshly on what scale?
Ghost: Spurs haven’t exactly been paupers by any stretch. We raided Leeds when they starting dropping, then Southampton when they caught shit, and we were first in line for Portsmouth’s players when they started having financial difficulty. It’s like Spurs are camped out at police auctions at this point. But, as a fan, does it seem to you like this is all rushed or unearned?
Estes: Yeah, a bit, but honestly, my memory is only 3 or 4 seasons, so I’m more liable to forget the past. I’m sure the old timers are loving it, but wishing it were different. I mean, I’d like to win the lottery, but I’d rather have a successful start-up. But either way, I’m buying an awesome rowhouse.
Me: Yeah. I don’t necessarily feel more pride at being in this position simply because Spurs have been sniffing around fourth for the last 6 years. I just want it to happen, even though I know we’ll crash out by October or something.
Estes: It’s a Phillies-Mets decision at this point. Winning would be awesome, but nobody expects it (not recent Phillies-Mets, of course) I mean to say, recently they expect winning, 90’s mentality.
Me: Okay. So, here we go. Predictions for tomorrow …
Estes: Well , Given is out and they’re tired from earlier in the week, so….I’m not feeling great. That said, I tend to believe they play better under fire.
Ghost: Well, Spurs looked really tense on Saturday against Stupid Fucking Bolton, which can’t bode well going to Eastlands against a team that actually play the game with something like skill. And Gomes tweaked his groin again at the end.
Estes. I say City 2-1. Tevez and Adebayor for City. Defoe for Spurs. You?
Ghost: I’m honestly scared about this whole thing. We’ve been this close before only to lose it thanks to a stomach bug on the last day. My heart says 3-2. Defoe with a brace and Modric conjuring something magic from nothing. Bellamy and Johnson for you guys.
Estes: Sounds plausible.
Ghost: So, I’m going to be hating you until at least 5pm and perhaps longer if they lose. Where are you watching it?
Estes: Lucky Bar. You?
Ghost: I’ll be at Lir. I managed to get off work early for this too.
Estes: Awesome, we’ll talk tomorrow (or the next day…if City wins)
Ghost: So, I think we just invited all 7 of our readers to join us.
Estes: Indeed. Do it.
Ghost: Oh, and COME ON YOU SPURS!
Estes: CITEH!
Ed. Note from 2025: Tottenham won 1-0.
Recent Comments