You are so wise. 
Not quite. I’ve never in my life seen an ad for a party, only for individual candidates. We take an “entrepreneurial” approach to politics – every candidate runs his/her own campaign, with little or no involvement by party officials, and every candidate has to come up with his/her own campaign funds, with little or no contribution from the party. Presidential campaigns are a bit different – once a party nominates its presidential candidate it unites behind, and is identified with, that candidate; and a sitting president is traditionally considered his party’s leader, automatically. But, in general, the non-presidential party leadership (e.g., Howard Dean, the new Democratic National Chair) is entirely separate from the party’s elected officials in Congress and has absolutely no influence over their votes. Our political parties are hardly “parties” at all in the European sense, they’re more in the nature of brand labels.
Just watched all three ads on the Internet. Impressions:
The Labour ad is kind of vague and low-key. We get the party’s basic principles – opportunity for “the many, not the few” – but the ad says little about the party’s accomplishments while in office (other than raising the minimum wage, and reduce unemployment through methods not specified), and nothing at all what it would do with another term in government. There was no mention of the UK’s relationship to the EU or whether they should replace the pound with the euro. And they didn’t even mention Iraq. How can they not mention Iraq?
The Conservative ad at least gives us a clear agenda:
Lower taxes
Cleaner hospitals
School discipline
Controlled immigration
More police
“Cleaner hospitals”? Is there a cleanliness problem in British hospitals? I thought you guys were so neat and tidy. The party leader (Michael Howard) talks about how the government can’t spend more than it takes in – and the logical conclusion would be that he wants to raise taxes and cut spending, that’s basic fiscal conservatism. But no, he wants to lower taxes and put more police on the streets. Makes no sense. (Then again, neither did Ronald Reagan’s fiscal policies and he still won twice.) And why is school discipline even a national political issue? (In the U.S., such things are the concern of local school boards.) As for immigration – no comment, we’ve got our own problems with that. But, again, there’s no discussion of the EU or the euro. (Don’t the Tories favor the UK withdrawing from the EU entirely?) And, again, no mention of Iraq! What’s the Tory policy on Iraq, anyway?
The Liberal Democrats’ ad tells me why some people are discontented with Labour (the Conservatives’ record apparently does not even merit discussion), but almost nothing about what the LibDems would do if they ran the government. I just hear that they’re more “in touch with the people” than Labour is. Again, no mention of the EU. Iraq is mentioned, once, but only as a point of discontentment with the Blair government. Would a LibDem government pull British troops out of Iraq? Who knows?
Not that I would claim American political ads are any more informative.
BrainGlutton “There was no mention of the UK’s relationship to the EU or whether they should replace the pound with the euro. And they didn’t even mention Iraq. How can they not mention Iraq?”
No-one dares mention Europe, i think they are convinced that talking about Europe can only lose you votes, not gain them. As for Iraq - why do you think they dont mention it ! It is a pr disaster for both Lab and Tory ( who supported it ) LibDems are the only ones who opposed the war - so they mentioned it.
I think you basically had it correct:
Labour: vague ( there are two leaders to vote for !)
Tory: makes no sence ( waves immigration card )
LibDem: Who knows. ( “at least we arnt the other two”)
Sin