UK political parties and their US counterparts

JRM for PM.
Apples and oranges with the religious stuff.
There's economic policy, and social legislature.
Compare with economic policy because they are two completely different social systems.
But Labour and Democrats are just Lefty-Loonies tbh, completely identical, no disparagement.

Reply 2

Davij038

We are far more to the left, the Tories are basically the democrat establishment (with a few oddballs who like trump) whilst the Labour Party is more like the Democrat party grass roots. Andrea Leadsom supppsedky the right wing tory leadership contender endorsed. Hilary Clinton. The Liberal Democrat’s are also basically the democrat party.

UKIP/ Dup is the republican equivalent.

Reply 3

The main parties are not really comparable to the US ones. We're a lot more progressive and centrist across the board.

US is held back by the lowest common denominator, of uneducated religious folk. Some of them in the Democrat ranks, though they get a lot less attention than the more progressive wing of Obama-Clinton.

EDIT: It would be great if TSR worked out how to get ****ing spellcheck back on. Have it on the edit box but not the original post box.

(edited 5 years ago)

Reply 4

bzzzzzt

Original post by Notoriety

The main parties are not really comprable to the US ones. We're a lot more progressive and centrist across the board.

US is held back by the lowest common demonitator, of uneducated religious folk. Some of them in the Democrat ranks, though they get a lot less attention than the more progressive wing of Obama-Clinton.

Gosh, you must be a condescending ****. x

Reply 5

Original post by bzzzzzt

Gosh, you must be a condescending ****. x

It is the real answer: the US populace is a lot different to the UK populace. I am not going to sugar coat it by talking about who goes on Colbert more often or enjoys eating hot dogs. Nor do I even think being a hick is a bad thing; it is a way of life chosen by those people, with free choice and election; I think a more nationalist UK would be a lot less divided and more interesting.

Also, look at the wholly different attitudes to nationalism and immigration in Aus/NZ. The liberal parties, if you just went by immigration policy alone, would seem positively BNP and racist were they in the UK. (Not that BNP were judged on their other policies.)

(edited 5 years ago)

Reply 6

bzzzzzt

US is held back by the lowest common demonitator, of uneducated religious folk. Some of them in the Democrat ranks, though they get a lot less attention than the more progressive wing of Obama-Clinton.
You're just ignant, the nerve to suggest that The USA, a democracy, is being held back by 'the lowest common denominator of uneducated religious folk', is to suggest that the majority of Americans, or at least a very, large and therefore controlling minority of Americans are inherently inferior and "uneducated", at least partly due to the fact that they are more religious across the pond.
It's ignant.
You're ignant.

Reply 7

Original post by bzzzzzt

US is held back by the lowest common demonitator, of uneducated religious folk. Some of them in the Democrat ranks, though they get a lot less attention than the more progressive wing of Obama-Clinton.
You're just ignant, the nerve to suggest that The USA, a democracy, is being held back by 'the lowest common denominator of uneducated religious folk', is to suggest that the majority of Americans, or at least a very, large and therefore controlling minority of Americans are inherently inferior and "uneducated", at least partly due to the fact that they are more religious across the pond.
It's ignant.
You're ignant.

I said they were uneducated, not that they couldn't spell.

Reply 8

Davij038

Original post by bzzzzzt

Gosh, you must be a condescending ****. x

Yeah, those dumb red necks who think mass migration might not be a great thing or that people should believe in traditional values not meaningless consumerist drivel.

Liberal atheists are perhaps academically cleverer than ‘trailer trash’ but outside of their bubble are utterly clueless

Reply 9

Original post by Davij038

Yeah, those dumb red necks who think mass migration might not be a great thing or that people should believe in traditional values not meaningless consumerist drivel.

Liberal atheists are perhaps academically cleverer than ‘trailer trash’ but outside of their bubble are utterly clueless

I never said being a red neck is a bad thing. Just that those people must be pleased before you can have passable policies. Which means that the generic US policy is a lot different to the generic UK policy.

Importantly, you'll find this answers OP's question. It is only a bonus that it offended you in the process.

(edited 5 years ago)

Reply 10

username1799249

19

I find it interesting that we try to compare ourselves to the Americans. In reality despite common ancestry, alliances and language, we are a million miles away in terms of attitude to life and living. We are closer to our European allies politically than the US. The overriding theme of American psyche is the American Dream. The idea that if you work hard, you can achieve your goals. I can' think of anything like that in the UK although perhaps we have a concept of fair play, stiff upper lip and common sense.

Reply 11

Well, the terms are at odds. Hicks live in isolated rural communities and chavs live in urban areas. Hicks might be in work, be opposed to socialised welfare and be positively religious/traditional. Chavs might not be in work, in receipt of socialised welfare and tend to be atheistic. The nationalism of the Hick is more "sophisticated", as in formed over decades -- e.g. ties to military/veterans and traditional American big ideas (rights to arms). There is no deep or sophisticated belief system of the chav, other than to be disengaged from mainstream society.

Hick was illustrative; really it goes much wider than the rural types.

Reply 12

Davij038