Quite a number of commentators have suggested that the current UK election campaign is rather a dull affair. Apart from John Prescott's punch-up with a protester, not much has happened that has really got people talking. There's little excitement over the outcome, because the opinion polls have consistently suggested that the result is a foregone conclusion.

In fact, some might say that the election is about as exciting as watching paint dry - but, according to a recent experiment, they'd be wrong. A scientific study has suggested that such a statement would be unfair to the paint.

In an experiment carried out for the UK's 'Channel 5 News', six subjects had their pulse rate and blood pressure monitored while they looked at wet paint on a wall. The same tests were then carried out as the subjects listened to party election broadcasts and speeches, and joined the audience for a Liberal Democrat party press conference.

Riken Patel, the medical student from University College, London who carried out the tests, commented afterwards:
'The pulse and blood pressure machine is highly accurate, and showed that under controlled circumstances people were more stimulated by the wall of paint than by exposure to electoral issues.'

In fact, it was all too much for one of the subjects, even though he comes from a profession noted for offering unsolicited comment on political issues. Minicab driver Sean McCrudden said after the Liberal Democrat press conference:
'That was one of the most depressing experiences of my life. I was bored out of my mind after five minutes, but they made me sit through half an hour. I don't know how much people get paid to go to these things, but you wouldn't get me in there again for a million pounds.'

All of which is amusing - but also, I think, a little disturbing. Call me old-fashioned, but I think that we should be interested in how we're going to be governed, and that the lazy old line about how 'they're all as bad as each other' just isn't good enough. It is true that Britain's major parties are closer together than ever before, and that the UK's choice is essentially between rival blends of free-market capitalism, but within that limited range there are significant differences. The election will do much to define Britain's future relationship with mainland Europe. It'll decide whether there are to be any further constitutional reforms to follow the changes already made to the House of Lords, and the creation of the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly. It'll decide whether public services or tax cuts are seen as a greater priority. These things matter.

It's rather telling that both the two biggest parties have attacked apathy in their advertising. The Conservatives have used the slogan 'Not all parties are the same' on broadcasts and billboards. Labour have now launched a bizarre but striking billboard ad featuring a photomontage of Conservative leader William Hague with Margaret Thatcher's hair, and the words: 'Get out and vote. Or they get in.'

Both parties are right to be concerned. People died to win us the right to vote, so it seems singularly ungrateful not to use it; and those who can't be bothered to vote have little justification in complaining when they then get a government they don't like.

Many of my best on-line friends are Americans, and I hope that neither they or any of their compatriots will take offence at this: but the fact is that it's not that long since most of us on this side of the pond were convinced that either you lot or the Russians were going to kill us all. Back in the early and mid-Eighties when there was still more than one superpower on the planet, a Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament badge was a vital fashion item for any young person who wanted to look aware and thoughtful. I even went on marches, although looking back it is rather embarrassing to think that we were ever foolish enough to believe that the Pentagon was likely to be influenced by some bunch of hippies and punks going for weekend strolls and shouting slogans in some little European island.

The threat of annihilation was, in many ways, rather convenient. It provided a great excuse for the irresponsibility and recklessness that is the birthright of youth. Why, we could ask, should we work hard, settle down and plan for the future when it looked as though the Presidents Reagan and Gorbachev might vaporise us all at a moment's notice. The apparently imminent threat of nuclear extinction inspired some great black comedy and some great music. Remember Frankie Goes To Hollywood's 'Two Tribes', with its video featuring wrestling presidential lookalikes?

Of course, back then 'Russia' meant the old Soviet Union, rather than the much smaller and less territorially ambitious nation of today. Even so, it seemed very strange to read this week that America was thinking of buying a new defence system from Russia. White House officials have confirmed that the Bush administration is prepared to purchase from Russia 'components, sub-components and systems' suitable for missile defence. They added that some of Russia's equipment 'might be of significant value in deploying a missile-defence system.'

Just one snag, though. It seems that there are strings attached to the deal. For it to go through, America would require Russia to agree to scrap a peace treaty signed back in Cold War days, since the 1972 Antiballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty would prevent the missiles from being deployed. It doesn't sound as though the Russians are likely to go for that. According to one press report, Russian Defence Minister Sergei Ivanov has '...quickly dismissed the talk of a US package in exchange for scrapping the ABM.
'If such proposals come - we have not yet received them - I am sure that they will not solve the ABM issue.'

Ivanov has apparently said.

So there's deadlock between America and Russia over weapons systems; and just to make the nostalgic picture complete, there's a hapless right-winger of no discernible intellect in the White House. Ah, that takes me back. Now where did I put those old Frankie singles...

However, one story this week made me envy Americans the protection they get from something whick we in the UK seem to think we can do without: a written constitution. The Supreme Court has rejected an appeal by city officials from Elkhart, Indiana, who've fought a bitter legal battle over a granite monument that has been on display outside their city hall.

The stone has proved controversial because it is engraved with the biblical Ten Commandements. It has been in place outside the city hall since 1958, but two Elkhart residents recently took exception to it. Backed by the American Civil Liberties Union, they sued the city authority and successfully argued in court that the monument was an illegal promotion of religion by the city authority, violating the constitutionally-guaranteed separation between church and state. A federal judge will now decide what is to be done with the stone at a further hearing.

Now, all this may seem like a lot of fuss to make over a rock with some words on it, but the case does have considerable symbolic importance. The Supreme Court judges clearly realised this, which was probably why three of the court's most conservative judges (Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas) openly disagreed with the decision, publishing a minority opinion - unusual when the matter under consideration is one of whether the court should hear an appeal. But Justice John Paul Stevens spoke for the majority when he drily observed that the line 'I am the Lord thy God,' in the first line of the monument's inscription
'is rather hard to square with the proposition that the monument expresses no particular religious preference.'

It's ironic that such a decision should come from the same US Supreme Court that ushered President Bush, that great hero of America's religious right, into office. But I still wish that we had similar protection from state-backed religious propaganda in Britain. Instead, we have an unwritten consitution giving us an unelected Head of State, the Queen, who is also the head of the Church of England. We're also lumbered with the ludicrous House of Lords, complete with unelected church representatives who can and do block legislation when it clashes with their dogma. Depending on the election result, we may or may not get some constitutional reform during the next Parliament.

I'd say that it was sorely needed.

Finally, just imagine for a moment that by some extraordinary fluke of fate, William Hague does not become Britain's Prime Minister next week. (It's difficult, I know, but please try). What should he do then?

Well, Corals the bookmakers have been considering the question. They offer odds of 16 to one against Mr Hague becoming the next Conservative Prime Minister. But, remembering his affinity for beer and his boasts of having once consumed 14 pints a day, they offer only 10 to one against him becoming a pub landlord.

Coral spokesman David Stevens has said:
'We thought that becoming Prime Minister was actually not the most likely career move for Mr Hague. After all, any man that has the appetite for beer that Hague possesses would make an ideal publican.'

Coral's are also offering 100 to 1 against judo enthusiast Hague winning an Olympic judo medal, and 250-1 against him becoming a professional stand-up comedian.

People laughing at William Hague? I can't imagine that, can you?

Ormondroyd

31.05.01. Front Page

Back Issue Page