- Description
We look at the British Elections and who will rule the country. We talk with John Burns of 'The New York Times,' Matt Frei of BBC World News America, Simon Schama from Columbia University, Martin Wolf from the 'Financial Times' and Historian Timothy Garten Ash from Oxford.
In order to download Charlie Rose podcasts to iTunes for transfer to an iPod, you must have iTunes installed. If you do, please click the following link to download the podcast for this interview:
itpc://www.charlierose.com/view/itunes/10998
Otherwise, close this window to continue viewing.
Close
Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 1
robdverity 05/11/2010 03:53 PM Report
Astute observation Ugly. They indeed seem to excell in their (our) root language. [Like Ian Mcewan's book Solar attests.]
TheUglyAmerican 05/11/2010 05:00 AM Report
I thought that was an illuminating discussion. Maybe you could make this sort of British roundtable a monthly staple. Quite frankly, there was too little time offered for all your guests to fully express their views, especially Mr Ash who seemed to get rather the short end of the stick. Opening up the panel to their own sort of "debate" is perfect for the English since they are more classically trained in rhetoric than we poor Americans. Nicely done.
REMant 05/10/2010 12:59 PM Report
I suppose the Lib-Dems didn't show as well as in the past because of the closeness of the election. We have certainly seen that happen here. They will in any case be castigated by both Tories and Labour for being spoilers, tho, of course in the circumstance, under their breath. The Lib-Dems want electoral reform, because the UK does not have proportional representation, ie, some MPs represent 30,000 voters and some 80,000. Most ppl feel that if lines WERE redrawn proportionally they would be in power for the foreseeable future, which therefore is unlikely to happen until they win power outright. Some pundits think them closer to Labour, and that the Tories are afraid to be "locked out." However, IMHO the Conservatives are more Liberal than Tory these days and perhaps we will see a major change in party alignment. As was indicated here the Conservatives got fewer and fewer votes the further north you go, and many, esp Labourites, believe they would not survive for long as a minority govt, ie, with less than half the seats, so there is some motivation for concessions. Tho precedent is for the current prime minister to remain and given first go at a coalition, Brown has foregone this, but it is the queen who decides whom to ask to form a government, particularly if no consensus emerges from party bargaining, and it could be Clegg, despite holding the fewest seats, arguably because of his more universal approval. The debates worked against the traditional parties and I'm sure they regret agreeing to them. Cameron looked petrified in the first one, which probably cost him votes, and Brown appeared more prissy, pedantic and condescending than usual. Bad, however, as they may have been, they were nevertheless a lot better than any of ours. Our candidates have trouble even speaking English.