The US and the UK have always been closely tied politically, socially and economically. The first presidential election that was important to the UK was the 1788 election, though it might not have seemed so at the time, since there was essentially only one candidate (General Washington). The 1860 election was certainly important, since the Civil War that followed had a big effect on the UK, and the 1916 election was too, because it helped determine how the US would participate in the Great War and its aftermath – events that were very important in the UK.
The last monarch to withhold assent was Queen Anne, way back in 1708. Should it happen today it would likely cause a major constitutional crisis.
Define “the BBC”.
There’s a whole lot to the Beeb’s news and current affairs outlets:
BBC “terrestrial” TV
BBC News 24
BBC World (radio)
BBC Radio 4
To name the major outlets, though there are others.
All of the above contain many programs dedicated to news and politics. Most of them dedicate a large amount of time to discussing domestic UK politics - definitely the majority of political discourse on the channels, in my observation.
I agree that there’s a lot about the US election. From a low-hanging-fruit persepctive, the theatre of the US election campaign is guaranteed. But also, the outcome is important to us. The less bellicose the US president, the less likelihood there is of whichever PM is in charge putting his nose up the new president’s ringpiece and sending British troops into Damn Fool Wars. The less protectionist, the better trade will be. And your economy is something of an engine for the rest of us.
Despite all this, the US election certainly doesn’t trump the amount of time dedicated to national and local issues across all of the BBC’s current affairs output, and in particular “the disaster that is Gordon Brown” as Quartz puts it (which puts me in the unedifying position of agreeing with him).
As others have stated, UK general elections are swift and often unexpected. They are called at a date not known in advance to people outside the Cabinet, then there is a few weeks of campaigning, with similar - if slightly more subdued and definitely underbudgeted - hysteria to US campaigning, then we vote, then the results are announced, and on we go.
The “PMship” in the current case was decided according to party and parliamentary rules, as we’re a Parliamentary democracy, and some of us aren’t too happy about the result or the methodology. But he’s in now, so the news outlets are commenting on his (awful) performance in power, not his campaigning for office.
I don’t know much about the beeb, but in this European country the American election is getting alot of coverage, more than ever.
And why shouldn’t it? Not only is European news coverage generally rather internationally oriented, but also there’s not much going on in domestic politics; and what’s going on in USA right now is extremely interesting. This election is at the end of the eight year term of self proclaimed war president and decider, a disastrous period to world politics and international relationships, and above that the candidates are - or could be, might’ve been - black, women, and really old Vietnam veterans (with a little of that good ol’ Bill on the side!)
It is very interesting times, and all very media friendly - wether you like world politics or just plain ol’ gossip. Moreover, at least from the land of the ice and snow, many of the best journalists are covering it for us.
I have no trouble with the coverage it gets, quite the opposite. As much as one hates to admit it, it is an very important election for the whole world, USA being the warmongering equivalent of the Zulus in Civ.
The Queen does indeed rubber stamp the enactments of our elected government but if our elected government decided to stay on in power after an unfavourable election,or decided to enact a law of fundamental change that had not been annouced in their electoral manifesto(As in Nuking Iran for example or nationalising the banks),or declaring a state of emergency that was not actually required then the Leader of the opposition would petition the Queen who would in her turn consult with her constitutional lawyers and then if she decided that there was merit in their case order a general election.
Until a new government had been elected the Queen would not(and all of her life has not)sign any acts of Parliament to make them law.
As such the Police ,the Armed services and the Government Civil Service would not start any new military strategies,enforce any new laws or collect any new taxes and WOULD NOT AS A GROUP OR INDIVIDUALLY BE PUNISHED for this.
Because all political parties in the U.K. know this and as such would lack any merit if they tried to seize power they dont even bother.
The Americans pride themselves on their revolt against us but us Brits have had many Civil Wars and have done an excellent job of butchering ourselves.
We no doubt set a precedent for total war at the Battle of Towton Moor,just one of many battles during the Wars of the Roses,25,000 dead and all prisoners executed during a 12 hour fight.
After there was a clear majority from the electorate a new government would be announced and then they could put into practice the policies that hitherto had been protested against by the opposition.
The only people who ever bring up the “Rubber stamp"tripe” or the "Living off of the Taxpayer "bullshit tend to be univited immigrants from republics(Sorry guys YOU chose to come to out Monarchy we’re not going to change to suit you) or uninvited immigrants whos parents have spent a few years over here from a former colony and spend the rest of their lives telling impressionable Americans that they are actually British.
Does a certain person from Florida who is woefully ignorant about all things British recognise himself here?
Have a nice day do you hear?
I’m from Somerset, you [expletive deleted due to Forum Rules].
So why are you,how can I put it ?so incredibly uninformed about all things British?
People who even use WIKI as a source of information seem to have a better knowledge of things English.
I honestly swear on my dead mums soul that you seem totally clueless not only about things over here as they are but even our own history.
I SWORE on my dead Mums soul so I’m not trying to score points here.
A couple of years in a foreign country doesn’t make you one of them,personally I’m not Irish,an Arab,African or Russian,I’m a Brit.
You want to lecture us on how our government should operate then leave your Floridian Motel and live back here,otherwise do the other thing.
Your own knowledge of “all things British” doesn’t appear to extend to more than a rudimentary grasp of the language. I’m not calling you un-British, though.
You open your self up every time you touch the keyboard,if I were the most stupid,illiterrate and untutored moron on this Earth my language would STILL be British,Estuarine English if you wish to be fussy(To you Yanks I would sound Cockney but I’m not)because I’m British!
I couldn’t even if I wished to UN British myself,thats what I am and thats what I’ll die as.
It really confuses me.
Why aren’t you proud of your genuine background?
And why aren’t you more proud of your new citizenship?
America is a pretty damned good country with a hell of a lot to be proud of .
But I really wish that you’d stop coming out with the “I 'm British B/S”
In your dreams maybe .
If there was an asteroid strike .
For about twenty minutes.
If we let you.
And a bit of a wally.
Back off and take a warm bath.
And, relax.
Because I don’t have new citizenship, possibly.
Well, I for one certainly hope we get an Ikhanda in Baghdad by '09. Those maintenance costs are a killer…
<what? is this thing on?>
leaving aside the squabbling above, it does get disproportionate coverage these days. I think it dates from when satellite links became cheap enough for correspondents to deliver long reports in real time. That goes for foreign news generally; when film had to be flown back it was often out of date by the time it was edited so it couldn’t beat the immediacy of cables or phoned reports.
July & August is the slack time for British politics; most opinion formers and top politicians are away on vacation, domestic politics will not recommence until the party conferences start in mid-September and there’s not much happening. There’s no real reason why they should cover the RNC (or the DNC, come to that) at all; the outcome was no surprise to anyone.
Ever since Princess Diana died, and the latest hearings ended.
<d&r>
Speaking of which, one generally places a space after a comma.
In Britain, when did it become more important who the US President was than the PM?
Since we got nukes, and showed we weren’t afraid to use them? 
We’re still trying to figure that part out ourselves. Back in the day, presidential campaigning was confined to election years. Over time, it’s grown like a malignant tumor, and now the candidates start jockeying for support the day after the last election ends.
Which one?
In Britain, when did it become more important who the US President was than the PM?
I don’t know that it’s really a factor of importance.
It’s just that we didn’t get to elect our current Prime Minister, so we’re just wistfully watching the process. 
Am I the only American here who’s puzzled by the allegations that RNATB* is ignorant of everything British? AFAIK he’s offered a good deal more useful information about the UK than others who shall remain nameless. I imagine if you trapped me on the wrong subject (ice hockey for example), you would find that I’m woefully ignorant of things American.
One factor about presidential election I haven’t seen mentioned is this: The determination of President matters more to us, than the determination of the PM to you. The President, in one single person, represents a whole branch of government, and obviously has tremendous power and influence. Bills approved by both houses of Congress can be vetoed; vetoes can be overridden on a revote, but this almost never happens because a supermajority is required. In the area of legislation, the President can’t for the most part, write laws and pass them, but can formulate policies and draft laws for proposal (so can others). OTOH, isn’t the PM really just the leader of the party in power? So the concept of a veto wouldn’t be possible in the first place.
I think the paliamentary system has one major advantage: if the PM proves himself to be a total nimrod, you can remove him with a vote of no confidence. We can’t; we’re stuck with the results of an election for years. Dammit!
RNATB I have to say I’ve always liked your Doper name. It takes a great sense of humor, and unique combination of self-deprecation and self confidence, to choose that handle.