Understanding the UK

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
1

These were the results of the most recent UK elections:

The Conservatives got a 36.9% share of the UK national vote; Labour 30.4%; UKIP 12.6%; the Lib Dems 7.9%; the SNP 4.7%; the Green Party 3.8%; and Plaid Cymru 0.6%.

I get the impression that the terms “Conservative”, “Labour” and “Liberal Democrat” have a different “meaning” in the UK when compared to the U.S.

Or do they?

Does anyone on PWI have a “feel” for what the names mean, in terms of Political Philosophy, when compared to the same names in the U.S.?

Thanks.

Mufasa

2

The conservatives are hardly conservative anymore. David Cameron is an Alinskyite. The only reason why they might shift a little to the right is the pressure they are now feeling from UKIP. But I wouldn’t bet on it.

Labour long ago abandoned the working class. It is a plaything for wealthy champagne socialists who think the working class are beneath them.

UKIP I would love to see them move the country in a better direction, but I have suspicions of their true character.

Thankfully the Liberal Democrats got slaughtered. Maybe they will go extinct the next time around.

What is kind of fucked up is the SNP got 56 MP’s with only 4.7% and UKIP only got one MP on 12.6%. I’m afraid they are going to use that as an argument to change the voting rules to proportional representation.

3

I am not British, but this is how I understand the british political spectrum:

The Conservative party: Center-right. ( similar to moderate republicans( Rhinos ) and Blue-dog democrats )

Liberal-democrats: Centrist. ( Originally a alliance between social-democrats and liberals, ergo have both members who are center-right, centrist and center-left ). Similar to the American democratic party.

Labour: Centrist to center-left. ( As with the Liberal-democrats, it is a divirse party consisting of centrist, center-left and leftist people. Tony Blair is an example of the rightwing of the party, while someone like Tony Benn( RIP ) represents the leftwing of the party ).

Thats my 2 cents.

4

[quote]florelius wrote:
I am not British, but this is how I understand the british political spectrum:

The Conservative party: Center-right. ( similar to moderate republicans( Rhinos ) and Blue-dog democrats )

Liberal-democrats: Centrist. ( Originally a alliance between social-democrats and liberals, ergo have both members who are center-right, centrist and center-left ). Similar to the American democratic party.

Labour: Centrist to center-left. ( As with the Liberal-democrats, it is a divirse party consisting of centrist, center-left and leftist people. Tony Blair is an example of the rightwing of the party, while someone like Tony Benn( RIP ) represents the leftwing of the party ).

Thats my 2 cents.

[/quote]

Using the terms left, right or centrist is somewhat confusing because the political center over there is far to the left of where it is in the US. That is why they are much more willing, eager even, to be very submissive to the government.

Back in the seventies BT, with politicians like Wedgewood Benn, the Labour party was practically a communist party. They used to refer to each other as comrade. Milliband wanted to take the country back to that era.

5

Our conservatives are quite a lot to the left of the democrats. Labour and further left than them but by european standards are centre and centre right compared to the Libs, green party, SNP etc.
People are pretty sick of politics in general and I think a lot of older voters actually voted and their lean was to the right, the usual labour and lib voters either were pessimistic or wanted to punish the lib deems. Also in Scotland the SNP sunk both of them.

UKIP only got one seat but their small percentage did go up. Farage resigned.

The big thing now is that both another Scottish referendum looks like it is looming despite it’s “once in a lifetime” claim and the referendum on Europe needs to be delivered on by Cameron. A lot only voted for the cons because they wanted to address the Europe issue but felt UKIP were racist. The conservatives know if they tail to deliver on it they are going to be out for the coming decade.

All I can say is thank fuck labour did not win. Ed Miliband was going to criminalise “Islamophobia”. So basically non Muslims would be forced to abide by blasphemy laws. Fucking piece of scum. He did it for the Muslim vote but even that backfired.

I am hoping to see the Republican movement gain momentum but they have zero appeal to the majority of voters as they come off as well off white guys from private schools who have nothing in common with the rest of us. I have not seen any ads by them in recent years though so they are either defunct or changed their image and name.

I would love to see a libertarian movement or some form of minimalist model run but being anti-monarchy basically loses you the elderly vote and being anti mass immigration ruins the young vote. So really unless you are a mc’party and devoid of any actual stances you don’t have much of a chance.

6

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
I am not British, but this is how I understand the british political spectrum:

The Conservative party: Center-right. ( similar to moderate republicans( Rhinos ) and Blue-dog democrats )

Liberal-democrats: Centrist. ( Originally a alliance between social-democrats and liberals, ergo have both members who are center-right, centrist and center-left ). Similar to the American democratic party.

Labour: Centrist to center-left. ( As with the Liberal-democrats, it is a divirse party consisting of centrist, center-left and leftist people. Tony Blair is an example of the rightwing of the party, while someone like Tony Benn( RIP ) represents the leftwing of the party ).

Thats my 2 cents.

[/quote]

Using the terms left, right or centrist is somewhat confusing because the political center over there is far to the left of where it is in the US. That is why they are much more willing, eager even, to be very submissive to the government.

Back in the seventies BT, with politicians like Wedgewood Benn, the Labour party was practically a communist party. They used to refer to each other as comrade. Milliband wanted to take the country back to that era. [/quote]

Miliband was nothing like old labour, that is an asinine comparison. Miliband is exactly the same as the new labour crowd like Blair. Old labour have re-emerged under the socialist banner and have a few parties claiming the mantle.
Miliband is hated by old labourites. Not similar at all. Miliband is not his father that is for sure.

Funnily enough though the old labour Trotskyists are using entryism via the respect party lead by George Galloway who was famously expelled from old labour for encouraging Iraqi civilians and militias to kill British invaders. It is a hilarious situation, you have a bunch of Jihadists and Islamists and a bunch of trotskyists both trying to use entryist tactics in one party, both of whom hate one another. George galloway is such a silly dickhead.

I remember him being so angry at Christopher Hitchens that when he died and was asked about him he said : “He was the only known example of a butterfly turning into a slug” Ha ha ha.

7

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
These were the results of the most recent UK elections:

The Conservatives got a 36.9% share of the UK national vote; Labour 30.4%; UKIP 12.6%; the Lib Dems 7.9%; the SNP 4.7%; the Green Party 3.8%; and Plaid Cymru 0.6%.

I get the impression that the terms “Conservative”, “Labour” and “Liberal Democrat” have a different “meaning” in the UK when compared to the U.S.

Or do they?

Does anyone on PWI have a “feel” for what the names mean, in terms of Political Philosophy, when compared to the same names in the U.S.?

Thanks.

Mufasa [/quote]

All parties are pro universal healthcare, pro welfare, high to medium high taxation. This is basically the same across almost all of Europe. Movements after the second world war by the working class were basically issue these reforms or we will overthrow you. Governments had no choice the vast majority were demanding reform and workplace and union militancy were extremely high. A result of the war and the price regular people paid for it.

The main differences are stances on the European Union, immigration, slight deviation in tax brackets.

All support gay marriage and the social issues that are different party lines in the U.S. I think the main reason our parties are so close is because there is a pretty obvious consensus when it comes to social attitudes over here. No one gives a fuck about religion, we think gays should be able to marry, we believe in universal healthcare, we believe in taxing corporations so the demand for different party stances simply isn’t there.

Europe and immigration are the only real issues the parties separate on. That and the extent to which we have welfare etc.

8

@sexmachine :

Would these guys lure you back to the UK someday ?

http://libertygb.org.uk/v1/index.php/about-libertygb/ideology

9

Thanks, guys…keep it coming…this is VERY helpful.

Question for YD-92…do the parties vary much in their support and attitude toward the U.S.?

It seems like when it comes to War at least…the UK seems to always get right in the fray with us…

Mufasa

10

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Thanks, guys…keep it coming…this is VERY helpful.

Question for YD-92…do the parties vary much in their support and attitude toward the U.S.?

It seems like when it comes to War at least…the UK seems to always get right in the fray with us…

Mufasa[/quote]

The only ones who are not are the fringe parties like RESPECT and the socialist alternative parties. Also the fringe right like the BNP are isolationists and wouldn’t send soldiers abroad with the U.S.
Despite us being far for left wing than you guys and the nationalist snobbery every country has in regards to the other there is indeed a general respect and feeling of closeness to the U.S.

Despite what Tnation readers might think (because of it being partially true) many of our citizens know the debt of gratitude we owe the United States. My grandfather was a ww2 vet identified as a democratic socialist and was deeply involved in union organising and he loved the United States. Even the people who feel the U.S is imperialist or whatever generally take that up with the U.S government not the U.S population or it’s culture. The only vocal umbrage he took with the U.S in front of me was “how they treated their black chaps” referring to the 40’s.

We love you guys. The only real resentment i ever felt amongst the population was when a number of our soldiers were killed by U.S friendly fire in Iraq. The mixture of hating the war and our tabloid newspapers whipping the public up lead to hostility for a couple months. I had a number of relatives serving and they said the public were fucking idiots and that the U.S air support was amazing. but the newspapers couldn’t sell that story. Too boring :smiley:

11

Thanks for that, YD-92.

This is a pic of a funeral of a soldier who died fighting in Afghanistan with U.S. soldiers…

Mufasa

12

One other question, YD-92.

Do the parties vary in how they view this Motley Crue?

IN GENERAL…it seems like in the U.S…the general Public Loves the Monarchy, and seems to follow their every move, wedding, birth and mishap. (Heck…little George could probably win a Political Office if he was a citizen and old enough!)

But seriously…how to the parties view the Monarchy?

Mufasa

13

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
One other question, YD-92.

Do the parties vary in how they view this Motley Crue?

IN GENERAL…it seems like in the U.S…the general Public Loves the Monarchy, and seems to follow their every move, wedding, birth and mishap. (Heck…little George could probably win a Political Office if he was a citizen and old enough!)

But seriously…how to the parties view the Monarchy?

Mufasa[/quote]

Lots of people love them, elderly people get very angry if you even question the morality of forking out 300 million a year to keep in power the descendants of the people who terrorised and oppressed our ancestors.
More and more young people are questioning it but people either support them or see it as not a big issue in the grand scheme of things. People are also told the monarchy generates more money than it costs the taxpayer to pay for them, but this is because the figure the government gives out does not include taxpayer costs for their security, transport etc.

It comes to around 300 million a year.

I personally find the whole idea of monarchy archaic and disgusting but republicanism and constitutionalist sentiment are not as popular as i would like.

There is a section of the new athiest crowd inspired by the likes of Chris Hitchens who would like to see us create a constitution and a republic. I would imagine it would be somewhat different to the yours. It would be tricky convincing British people that we should have the right to bare arms. I have never met a single person who thinks guns should be legal to own. I do and I am sure some republicans here do but it is hard to argue that our society is not much safer since we introduced gun control.

I would argue our freedom and rights to be armed in case of tyrannical government may outweigh the violence but the vast majority would say no. The main position would be I am more scared of some nutter killing my kids in a school than the non looming thread of a dictatorship. Plus because of gun criminalisation guns on the black market are extremely expensive. A semi automatic rifle on the black market here is tens of thousands of pounds. Which means even our gang members mostly don’t have access to guns and even the ones who do have pistols and the like and armed police have mp5’s.

It is the old security v liberty debate and honestly most British people are firmly on the security side.

14

Thanks again, YD.

Now…this may be wrong…but the first thought I had when you talked about gun control in the UK was that with more and more segments of the UK accepting Sharia Law…and more and more segments becoming more and more radicalized…maybe it’s NOT a bad idea to have some control over the flow of weapons.

(In the U.S.; as you alluded to; this thought would be absolute treason…)

Mufasa

15

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Thanks for that, YD-92.

This is a pic of a funeral of a soldier who died fighting in Afghanistan with U.S. soldiers…

Mufasa[/quote]

Yeah the anti American sentiment was dumb and nationalistic and wasn’t representative of everyone. It was similar to the freedom fries nonsense in the U.S against France. I imagine most sane Americans didn’t get caught up in the hysteria. Same over here with the friendly fire tabloid shit.

16

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Thanks again, YD.

Now…this may be wrong…but the first thought I had when you talked about gun control in the UK was that with more and more segments of the UK accepting Sharia Law…and more and more segments becoming more and more radicalized…maybe it’s NOT a bad idea to have some control over the flow of weapons.

(In the U.S.; as you alluded to; this thought would be absolute treason…)

Mufasa[/quote]

The muslims who are pushing Sharia are such a small minority even if they were armed we would smash them embarassingly quickly. I would be more worried about either far left or far right people getting their hands on guns. Both pro dictatorship, both not scared to use violence and and both possibly able to gain mass support in times of economic turbulence.

Then again hopefully enough rational people would have enough guns to do something about them :slight_smile:

17

[quote]YamatoDamashii92 wrote:
@sexmachine :

Would these guys lure you back to the UK someday ?

http://libertygb.org.uk/v1/index.php/about-libertygb/ideology[/quote]

No. For one they’re a tiny party. If any third party gains power it will be UKIP. But I’m Australian; born here and I’ll die here.

18

[quote]YamatoDamashii92 wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Thanks again, YD.

Now…this may be wrong…but the first thought I had when you talked about gun control in the UK was that with more and more segments of the UK accepting Sharia Law…and more and more segments becoming more and more radicalized…maybe it’s NOT a bad idea to have some control over the flow of weapons.

(In the U.S.; as you alluded to; this thought would be absolute treason…)

Mufasa[/quote]

The muslims who are pushing Sharia are such a small minority even if they were armed we would smash them embarassingly quickly. I would be more worried about either far left or far right people getting their hands on guns. Both pro dictatorship, both not scared to use violence and and both possibly able to gain mass support in times of economic turbulence.

Then again hopefully enough rational people would have enough guns to do something about them :slight_smile:
[/quote]

Touche…!

I guess I revealed a bias fueled by the media.

If you listen to the media; one gets the impression that the UK (London in particular) is becoming “Tehran West”.

Mufasa

19

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

[quote]YamatoDamashii92 wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Thanks again, YD.

Now…this may be wrong…but the first thought I had when you talked about gun control in the UK was that with more and more segments of the UK accepting Sharia Law…and more and more segments becoming more and more radicalized…maybe it’s NOT a bad idea to have some control over the flow of weapons.

(In the U.S.; as you alluded to; this thought would be absolute treason…)

Mufasa[/quote]

The muslims who are pushing Sharia are such a small minority even if they were armed we would smash them embarassingly quickly. I would be more worried about either far left or far right people getting their hands on guns. Both pro dictatorship, both not scared to use violence and and both possibly able to gain mass support in times of economic turbulence.

Then again hopefully enough rational people would have enough guns to do something about them :slight_smile:
[/quote]

Touche…!

I guess I revealed a bias fueled by the media.

If you listen to the media; one gets the impression that the UK (London in particular) is becoming “Tehran West”.

Mufasa
[/quote]

There are areas dominated by Muslim immigrants but the talk of no go zones etc is a fairytale, like that guy who claimed it on fox news then had to retract it and admit he was misinformed.
That said Muslim refusal to assimilate to our culture is worrying. The fact Rotherham council and police refused to investigate Muslim grooming gangs because they were worried about being called racist is also fucking terrifying.

The islamification of Britain scaremongering is ridiculous but there are truths to the overall prospering of islamism within our borders.

In the 80’s and 90’s openly racist skinheads etc would beat and harass the Muslim community and attacks and general racism against them turned them inwards, a community that in the 60’s and 70’s was all about working hard and making the best of yourself, assimilating by going to regular schools and adopting football teams changed to going to Muslim schools, going to Muslim businesses, only conversing with other Muslims.

I am currently reading a book called Radical by Maajid Nawaz and he explains this process very well. However with access to the internet and the dropping levels of racism I think we will see the assimilation of the Islamic community within the nest 2 decades.

20

[quote]YamatoDamashii92 wrote:
@sexmachine :

Would these guys lure you back to the UK someday ?

http://libertygb.org.uk/v1/index.php/about-libertygb/ideology[/quote]

What really separates these blokes from the BNP?

Subtlety?