Explaining the British General Election to Americans

Related: The New Wave: Labour

This article originally appeared on VICE UK.

My American friend John and I like nothing more than to teach each other about our respective countries' ways. I've explained British TV and real football to him, he's explained US politics, fake football, and guns to me. What's normal to him seems amazing to me and vice versa. We're basically those really funny, profound people you hear in pubs loudly bonding over different meanings of the word "pants."

With the UK election campaign swinging into its last week, John got in touch to say that even though America was basically not paying attention to it, he wouldn't mind finding out a bit more about British politics in order to impress the Joes down at the local Sports Bar with his effortless command of words like "parliament."

THE REQUEST

Dear Oscar,

Can you help me make sense of that election over there? I feel like a meeting of minds between the Mother of All Parliaments and the World's Greatest Democracy could be mutually beneficial.

1. The Zeitgeist

Yankee John says: Here's what I know about England lately. In 2011, riots around London, flames, and overturned double decker buses, voices crying out in the night but not being very specific. Then like a year later, the Olympics happen and everyone is happy and Spice Girls are in cars singing "Our House in the Middle of the Street." Then Scotland tries to break up, but you win her back. So, my question: What's the mood there now? What's been happening, old friend? We've fallen a bit out of touch. Fill me in.

Limey Oscar Replies: All the things you've mentioned are relevant, except perhaps for the Olympic unity, which now seems like an odd moment of mass hysteria akin to the weeks after Princess Diana's death, except with cheering, Mo Farah, and flag waving instead of crying, Elton John, and flag waving.

In some ways, everyone seems to be completely bored with and disaffected by politics. Those voices that were crying out during the riots are still crying out and their lack of specificity is sort of the point—there's a rage at the financial and political establishment that most parties are trying to tap into but none fully can. Russell Brand gained a huge following of angry young people by making vlogs saying that politicians are crap-weasels who don't listen, before slightly weirdly saying that you should vote Labour because their leader will listen.

Westminster, previously simply the location of the Houses of Parliament (where our politicians work / bellow at each other in a gothic chamber), has become a swear word. This has fueled the rise of UKIP (the United Kingdom Independence Party) who hate the European Union and immigrants, and have gained popularity by not sounding like British politicians. This disgust also has fueled hopes for positive change in Scotland. The Scottish National Party (SNP) may have lost the independence vote but they are on course to win basically every seat in their nation because they've captured the hearts and minds of disillusioned voters.

2. The System

Yankee John says: A US Presidential Election is an 18-month process in which billions of dollars are spent to inevitably elect Hillary Clinton. There are a thousand debates wherein nothing is discussed and endless, hyperbolic obsession over trivial details meant to distinguish similar people. At one point, everyone pretends Iowa is important. It is a tiresome reality TV show comprising a gaggle of histrionic braggarts who are weekly whittled to a final pair, from which we select the millionaire that best represents our worldview. It's a drag. What's your system? It's better, right? More British, more sensibly discussing issues in even tones whilst drinking tea, I presume?

Limey Oscar replies: Replace "sensibly discussing issues" with "saying buzzwords" and "drinking tea" with "drinking pints" and you've got it. Our system is basically a downtrodden version of yours with more political parties, less time, and less money. Politicians traverse the country for about a month, speaking to audiences made up of heavily vetted party supporters who will make them look normal while they stand on an upturned box in a desolate factory talking about jobs.

Our First Past the Post electoral system divides the country into 650 constituencies, which can sometimes be won campaigning on local issues like the state of the nearby hospital, the out-of-control grey squirrel population, or that weird smell coming from the canal. Most are already sewn up before a baby has been kissed in anger because of tribal loyalties to either of the two main parties—Labour and Conservative, one of which has formed every government since the war. Just a few marginal seats (like a swing state, but smaller) decide the election, meaning our politicians spend a large amount of time trying not to enrage a small number of voters. But the fact that this two party system is crumbling—with smaller parties gaining popularity—is what makes this election arguably more interesting than normal.

3. The Candidates

Yankee John says: I see you got three white gentlemen on the ballot. Are you satisfied with the quality of these candidates? I must admit I had to Wikipedia it to see who was running. I haven't been following things much, but that's most Americans. We have a lot of good TV shows to watch and things get busy. So, who are these guys? Compare each one to a fictional character I would know. Do politicians in the UK bend over backwards to appear "relatable" like in the US—firing guns and bowling and eating apple pie? If so, what are the common Englishman things they have to do?

Limey Oscar replies: Some of our smaller parties are being headed up by women, but save for the SNP, they won't win. Generally, British democracy is dominated by white gentlemen, just as American democracy is.

The two main rutting stags of the contest are Cameron of the Conservatives and Ed Miliband of Labour. Cameron is a sort of cypher, a Bret Easton Ellis character with a posh, English accent. He's famously "chilled" and has spent most of the campaign trying to appear statesmanlike. In the last few days, he's decided that wasn't working and that it is "time to throw caution to the winds, let it rip, and tell people what you really think." This means he now makes speeches in which he shouts, "that pumps me up," which, as an American, I'm sure you can relate to.

Labour's Miliband is the frog his supporters were hoping would turn into a prince. He's a backroom policy guy thrust into the limelight. Think Albert Brooks's character in Broadcast News or anyone except Martin Sheen in the West Wing. The public thought he was "weird" for a long time but that perception has shifted a bit during a strong campaign for Miliband—he's still weird, but in a kind of likable way. The frog hasn't become a prince but he's at least a better-looking, intelligent frog with some decent thoughts on how to make the country less terrible. His personal approval ratings are still lower than Cameron's, though. He's started saying "ain't" a lot to appear to have a common touch, which hasn't really worked.

On the other hand, Nigel Farage, leader of the right wing UKIP, is the king of doing "relatable" things. Over here, that means drinking pints and smoking cigarettes.

Scotland is in love with the SNP's Nicola Sturgeon, who is the kind of smart woman a middle-aged American would fall in love with in a Hollywood film about a man who's mid-life crisis leads him to go in search of the Loch Ness monster (But what he found was love).

Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat leader and current Deputy Prime Minister, lied about making students pay for university and is thus viewed as being Grima Wormtongue in a suit.

4. The Issues

Yankee John says: To an outsider, it seems like England has figured out many of the tricky bits of governance already, what with your quality healthcare, low prison population, and policemen that only occasionally murder innocent people. What is there to discuss? I hope you realize how lucky you are with the NHS; the US will be arguing about its terrible health system for the next half century. How about gay marriage? Weed? We're now pro both, hooray. We're still pretty anti-immigrant though.

Limey Oscar replies: Have you heard of the deficit, John? It is the gap between what the government spends and what it gets in income. Even if nobody is quite sure what it is, politicians continue to shout at each other about it. The Conservatives blame Labour for spending too much on welfare and other state services when they were in government. Everyone else says the Conservatives have been cutting this stuff so hard and fast that it's been a disaster. For instance, there are horrifying examples of very ill people who have dropped down dead, shortly after being declared fit for work, and therefore ineligible for out-of-work benefits.

More or less every political party is very clear about the NHS being the greatest thing humanity has ever accomplished while also being very clear that it is about to be destroyed forever by their opponents. Politicians tell misty-eyed stories about being born in the NHS. About dying in the NHS. About taking an hour every day to hug the NHS and tell it that they will never leave it.

Brother, we've already got gay marriage. Possessing weed is still illegal and Labour and the Conservatives are happy to keep it that way.

Parties are also promising less immigration, more housing that poor people can afford to live in, and are saying various things about tax—generally making the poor pay less and stopping big corporations from avoiding to pay it altogether. And politicians south of the border are freaking out that Scotland might try and leave again.

5. The Parties

Yankee John says: Do people vote for the leader they like regardless of the party, or do people vote for their party regardless of its leader? I find it handy that the group that represents the working man is called Labour. If the Tories represent the interests of Capital, then what in the hell is a Liberal Democrat? Coming from a country where every election is a dichotomy, it's nice to consider there's a system where minority voices can have a say in government. If I am a socially liberal but economically conservative, is there a party for me? In the US that would make me a Libertarian, but those people tend to be a little nuts.

Limey Oscar replies: Traditionally, Labour's core support came from the working classes and the Conservatives' core support came from the middle and upper classes. A Liberal Democrat was someone between the two. You basically supported your party's leader, whoever he was.

Political support is now more atomized. Even though the Prime Minister will either be David Cameron or Ed Miliband, the smaller parties will pick up plenty of votes. Some left-wing voters are now more enamored with the Green Party, while UKIP has picked up support from disaffected working class voters who feel Labour has betrayed them by becoming a bunch of metropolitan elitists.

In a way, both Labour and the Tories could be described as socially liberal and economically conservative. A Tory-led government has made gay marriage legal, while Labour's abandonment of traditional socialism means that, even though Miliband talks about taxing bankers and injecting greater responsibility into the financial services industry, the party is economically conservative in the sense that it at least buys into capitalism.

The website Political Compass has plotted where the parties sit on the left / right, authoritarian / libertarian scale.

Related: Coalition: When Alan Met Joe

6. The Stakes

Yankee John says: In the end, what difference will this election make, really? Will the result change your life in any tangible way? When Obama was elected, we felt part of something meaningful and ecstatic, as though something really important was happening and everything fated to change. We were wrong, but it was fun at the time. Does this election feel like a moment of any consequence to you or just some typical, superfluous bullshit?

Limey Oscar replies: While it may end up being judged as superfluous bullshit, it really doesn't feel like that. Even if the grand ideological battles of yesteryear are no longer being fought, there are clear points of difference between the parties and a clear sense that they have different conceptions of what our society should be. As Britain moves from an era of two-party dominance to multi-party squabbling, there will be no "Yes we can" moment. Instead, it will be messy and it will be angry in a politely British way. In spite of the apathy, we are in a battle for the soul of the country.

Follow Oscar on Twitter.

Follow John on Twitter.