One of the immutable laws of politics is that ruling parties get taken to the cleaners at interim elections. The task of government being, by and large, an unpopular one, voters quite naturally remove their gloves when it comes to round two. And where predictability reigns, apathy gains - so when it comes to the UK's 'midterm' local elections, we turn over the TV to watch whichever repeat seems least repetitive.
But things are entirely different when it comes to the 2006 US midterms. Mark "does he ever sleep" Lawson makes the interesting point in today's Guardian that the prominence of the American elections in our newspapers and national TV schedules dwarfs the coverage given to our own, as if "the identity of the second senator from Missouri really is a bigger deal than the councillor in Grimsby".
But is it a bigger deal? While we're all used to finding our neighbour's problems to be more of interest than our own, surely it's the part of the public service remit of our national broadcasters to make our own affairs more exciting and convince us of their genuine relevance to our everyday lives.
What do you think? Should our TVs be better tuned in the next time our own midterm blues come around, or would we be better served by a complete West Wing re-run?
