NationStates Jolt Archive

hey. i remember last year when everyone here in the uk had so much fun pointing and laughing at your election, basking in the dramatic suspence of whether you'd chose the right candidate. some of you listened to what the world had to say about your election, so now i find myself actually caring about what you think about ours.

we even had that 'tell an american how to vote' thing, which i thought was pretty good but it offended some of you guys, so think of this as a 'tell a briton how to vote' thread, or if you don't care that much just pass a coment on how the whole thing looks from across the pond.

http://www.labour.org.uk/home
http://www.conservatives.com/
http://www.libdems.org.uk/
are the three main parties, and some crazy fringe parties pour notre amusement:
http://bubl.ac.uk/uk/parties.htm

I wouldn't tell you how to vote.

So, are the members of one of your parties going to move to Canada if they lose?

I hope you Brits get a deluge of those obnoxious Jesusland/United States of Canada (United Kingdom of France?) maps just for spite.

There was another 'crazy fringe party' called the 'Don't vote for us party' and it got 128 votes.

I'd tell you how to vote if I kknew anything about yoru elections. I know I could follow those links but it woudl take time and effort and stuff. I'm American after all.

Um... just vote for the guy who isn't goign to skrew your country over. Millions in the US tried that and it didn't work but perhaps you will have a better go.

I hope I would never be so presumptious and arrogant as to try to tell anyone in any democracy other than my own how to vote. It really is none of my business.

So, are the members of one of your parties going to move to Canada if they lose?

I hope you Brits get a deluge of those obnoxious Jesusland/United States of Canada (United Kingdom of France?) maps just for spite.

Thanks America. Now my damn town being so close to the Windsor border is filled with Illigal Immigrants
I find Americans for the most just like normal people. Many are jerks, and many are fine. And many are cry babies who move to other countries when they move.
And others are great.
It all evens out.

Damm Brits, the Irish would rule the world i tells ya...if we didn't drink! hic

So...many... parties...

What I find fascinating is the regular criticism that we Americans receive on this forum for not having a real Left (which I will admit). But one look at Tony Blair, and you wonder why they call the party Labour.

He's about as right wing as George Bush, without the Southern Baptist mixed in.

Well he is a Roman Catholic who i believe is a member of Opus Dei (i think thats how you spell it), Mel Gibson is a fellow member.

Yes but he never lets his religion interfear with his politics.

and tony blair may be right as hell, but the rest of the labour party sure as hell isunt, thats why theres probably going to be a power strugle between him and brown some time soon.

Labour's supposed to be leftish of middle. It's currently rightish. We do have a left, just have no chance in 10yrs of getting in.
Let's vote...Monster Raving Looney!

Anyone else heard the Monty Python 'Silly party vs not-so-silly party election' sketch?

Hey Brits,

Big fan! How's this for entertainment? I watch the Wednesday session of Prime Minister's Questions (don't know proper name of the meeting). I wish our presidents would have to face the same scrutinity before Congress.

They are more Conservative than the Labour Party but members of the Conservative Party are centerists at best.

Hey Brits,

Big fan! How's this for entertainment? I watch the Wednesday session of Prime Minister's Questions (don't know proper name of the meeting). I wish our presidents would have to face the same scrutinity before Congress.

They are more Conservative than the Labour Party but members of the Conservative Party are centerists at best.

not when i am head of the tory party :D

I watch the Wednesday session of Prime Minister's Questions (don't know proper name of the meeting). I wish our presidents would have to face the same scrutinity before Congress.

That's an awesome show - quite entertaining even though I don't know what they are talkign about most of the time. I also wish our leaders were held up to such public scrutiny and had to defend themselves unscripted like that. I admire Blair for that at least. Our Govt. is mostly hidden and it seems completely unnacountable for their actions.

We have CSPAN to help us keep an eye on our legislative branch. Our government is accountable to the people through voting.

Although I disagree with PM Blair on almost every socio/economic issue I have a tremendous respect for his ability to smoothly communicate his arguements (weak or strong) with eloquence.

i'm 17, so i can't vote this time round anyway, but thanks for not encroaching on the right i don't yet have.

as for the united states of canada/jesusland maps, i can't wait. i'm a big fan of dissentive cartography (http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Russian_Ocean something i did), so if i don't start seeing them after the election i may make one myself.

and i can't believe i'm saying this but... *bump*

Well, if any British political party (obviously none of the main three) adheres to a classically liberal/moderate-progressive/libertarian or some sort of singularitarian/transhuman agenda, it'd be the first I hear of it.

Fix that, then we talk.

We have CSPAN to help us keep an eye on our legislative branch. Our government is accountable to the people through voting.

Although I disagree with PM Blair on almost every socio/economic issue I have a tremendous respect for his ability to smoothly communicate his arguements (weak or strong) with eloquence.


I think you know what I meant, if not, re-read and think about it for a second. And have you watched CSPAN? *snore* Okay have you thought about it for a second? If not I will lay it out for you. I want to see Bush defending his policies impromtu from a barrage of attacks from dissenting voices on a weekly basis on TV. If he can't d it then he doesn't have the mental capacity I woudl liek to see in a President.

And yeah voting does a lot of good when they rig the results by keeping 10's of thousands of blacks from voting in a certain state because then they would have lost. Who knows how much vote rigging goes on? It's a bunch of BS. WE are as free to vote for our choice of Presidents as the Iraqis were under Saddam.

the labour party did some vote rigging in my home town. none of this subtle american (two words not often associated) stuff in florida but actually stealing peoples' postal ballots and filling them out in the middle of the night in an abandoned warehouse.

i saw the opening procedures for the trial, the judge really gave them what for and the people responsible have three-year prison sentences. still, it's not comforting to know that that goes on.

Any Brits want to give a rundown of the parties on the major issues? Economy, civil liberties, etc.

And yeah voting does a lot of good when they rig the results by keeping 10's of thousands of blacks from voting in a certain state because then they would have lost. Who knows how much vote rigging goes on? It's a bunch of BS. WE are as free to vote for our choice of Presidents as the Iraqis were under Saddam.


I call bullshit on that statement-the allegation is unproven, though it does make for nice Hyperbole.

I call bullshit on that statement-the allegation is unproven, though it does make for nice Hyperbole.

Got an extra set of blinders for me? I'd love to see it your way.

As a USian I feel it is none of my business to tell you how to vote and would expect you to vote the opposite of any of my suggestions if I did become so arrogant as to butt in.
One of the biggest reasons Bush is prez is because so much of the world beat so many drums against him. Got our backs up, got us riled.

Got an extra set of blinders for me? I'd love to see it your way.

The allegation is unproven-actually, it's unproven in multiple ways. First, you have to have a registered voter attatched to that disposed ballot-no voter, the ballot's probably false. Second, you have to prove that the ballots were disposed of/not counted for political reasons, as opposed to things like being unsigned, turned in late, or "Found in the bottom of the machine a month after ballots were collected."

these are unlikely events in a state where, at the local level (where Ballots are counted) the dominant party population is Democratic, as opposed to Republican (indeed, the Ballots in 2000 were designed/approved by a SecState who was a confirmed liberal dem.)
having an elections-board turn against the party most of them are a member of to push their worst nightmare into office is somewhat unreasonable-especially with the level of National Press nosing about in Florida during the recounts-if anything hinky WERE going on, it would more likely be in the other direction-in favour of Gore, than Bush (regardless of Jeb and George being related, the levers in Florida to accomplish what has been alledged were in the wrong set of hands for that outcome.)

Just because you don't know about the facts don't make them untrue (http://gregpalast.com/columns.cfm?subject_id=1&subject_name=Theft%20of%20Presidency)

I just hope you guys get someone who gives you back your right to self-defense.

Just because you don't know about the facts don't make them untrue (http://gregpalast.com/columns.cfm?subject_id=1&subject_name=Theft%20of%20Presidency)

Using Greg Palast and his buddies as a source is about like relying on Rush Limbaugh, or Linda Moulton-Howell as a source.

Note: Liam Scheff writes a nice tinfoil hat conspiracy theory, except that Kate Harris is a Democrat (and was at the time), and he can't provide links or backing of the NAACP's lawsuit.

(Further note: Felony Convictions in MOST states eliminate one's right to vote...)

Actually he's an investigative journalist, not a talk show host. He is non-partisian also. He goes after the trash no matter what side of the line they are on.

Dismissing someones facts about somethign because of their name is pretty silly but its easier to do that than refute the claims I guess.

Most of the people on that blacklist were not felons - thats the problem. 70,000 of them just happened to be democrats and have dark skin. hmm imagine that. The list comes from a Republican company that got the job for 2 mill despite having competitors who would do teh job for a fraction of teh cost. It's all there if you care to read it. Or not. Blinders seem much nicer anyway, but I can't seem to figure out hwo to put them on.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A female police officer arrests a man for drunk driving.
The female officer tells the man, "Sir, you have the right to remain silent.
Anything you say can and will be held against you..."


The drunk replies; "Tits."

Lib Dems at least there telling you there going to raise taxes.

Also i'm excited about this election i was involved at home and now i'm in London for the UK elctions.

http://www.labour.org.uk/home
http://www.conservatives.com/
http://www.libdems.org.uk/
are the three main parties, and some crazy fringe parties pour notre amusement:
http://bubl.ac.uk/uk/parties.htm

Not knowing the issues but taking a quick look at their web sites here are my impressions.

Conservatives - seem to be quite a bit like our Republican party. I like some of the things they are supposedly pushing for, like immigration controls and discipline in schools.

The Libdems - seem like our Democratic party. Give this, give that, give my tax dollars away on social spending.

Labor - appears to be middle of the road. Not like the Libertarians but more like Ross Perot's party. What was that? The American Party?

I like Blair, but if I were voting in the UK, I think I'd vote conservative.

Just dont vote for Tony Blair please...





Oh, and you could get rid of monarchy anytime soon so here in Canada we could stop using your queen face on are money, it would be cool. I dont wanna see Charles's face on my penny. Pleeaaase

National Front

And yeah voting does a lot of good when they rig the results by keeping 10's of thousands of blacks from voting in a certain state because then they would have lost. Who knows how much vote rigging goes on?

That is a load of crap and you know it.

Why arent you americans allowed to vote yourselves? Why do you have to have an electoral college to vote for you? And your votes didnt really count anyway, because the presidential election was decided on Kerry's withdrawal. Also, people are mainly restricted to voting for one of two parties - why?

because we don't have a population center for a third party and because wide scale recounts would be hell in every election.

Lib Dems seem to be more to the left than Labour now

Oh, and you could get rid of monarchy anytime soon so here in Canada we could stop using your queen face on are money, it would be cool. I dont wanna see Charles's face on my penny. Pleeaaase

As an american, you have my sympathy.

ok quick if vaguely biased low-down

conservatives (or tories)
- the party of divides. some like europe, some don't.
- they want to cut taxes and increases spending (how??)
- they have a useless leader Micheal Howard who claims he would ignore human rights to get gypsies cleared off land they have every right to park on.

labour (yes there's a 'u')
- "we rock! yeah! love us! yeah!! down with tories - yeah!! what's that? policies? ah..."
- led by their most right wing member
- like constitutional change - eg scot parliamnt, welsh assembly, house of lords reform etc
- know america but don't use their influence to sort things like kyoto

liberal democrats
- see communist manifesto

voting system
- 659 areas or 'constituencies' containing similar numbers of people
- UK is divided into these 659 constituencies based on population rather than size
- at a general election each constituency chooses a representative called their local Member of Parliament (MP)
- even the prime minister has his own constituency where he has to get voted in
- these MPs then sit in The House of Commons at westminster palace
- the party with the most MPs forms the government

structure
- the PM tends to be far less important than a president, they have to be voted for from their party and locally and then they have to consult their 'cabinet' comprised of MPs of their choice
- all laws they pass have to go through the house of commons and then throught the house of lords then finally signed by the monarch. this means there is triple scrutiny


hope that explains some of it!!

Oh, and you could get rid of monarchy anytime soon so here in Canada we could stop using your queen face on are money, it would be cool. I dont wanna see Charles's face on my penny. Pleeaaase
feel free to leave the commonwealth anytime! get rid of the monarchy?? then who would we spend our rainy days laughing at? they are hilarious and i enjoy hearing absolutely nothing interesting about them.

ah yes you lot - stop being so coy and not commenting!! we wouldn't ask if we weren't interested! I wanna know how things look at your end! please say! and don't worry - i'm sure nobody thinks you're intruding.

As an american, you have my sympathy.
well done, you got rid of us - if you really want to canada - just ask nicely! (and pass the tea)

Thanks for the links. They were really interesting. I was struck by the fact that it would be easy to choose Labour based on what they say, but it would also be easy to pick the U.S.'s Republican Party on the same basis. That would be a mistake since they are lying bastards. Whis of the tree big parties would you say acts most consistently with their claims?

I like the Conservitives or Labor, but I don't understand what the labor parties about. I just really hate liberals. Damn liberal faggots.

well done, you got rid of us - if you really want to canada - just ask nicely! (and pass the tea)
Hey, I like tea, exspecially iced tea. And sure we'll take cannada, but we don't want Quebec, no one wants Quebec.

I like Blair, but if I were voting in the UK, I think I'd vote conservative.
Seriously? You would actually vote for Michael Howard?

feel free to leave the commonwealth anytime! get rid of the monarchy?? then who would we spend our rainy days laughing at? they are hilarious and i enjoy hearing absolutely nothing interesting about them.
Wow, you're like the first Brit I like. Any way the rest of America can all burn in hell for all I care, as long as good old Tejas remains the same. But I do have to agree you need rich celebs to laugh at.

I like the Conservitives or Labor, but I don't understand what the labor parties about. I just really hate liberals. Damn liberal faggots.

Why do you hate liberals so much?

Hey, I like tea, exspecially iced tea. And sure we'll take cannada, but we don't want Quebec, no one wants Quebec.

Quebec's a nice place but they just bitch and bitch and bitch... the Bloc does at least.

Quiz: How many Americans can name all 3 of our parties? The ones with seats anyway.

IIRC the UK was the land of tiny majorities; until Thatcher. So in the good old days, a back bench rebellion meant something. Unlike now. Possible I am wrong.

Nevertheless; a British relative of mine told me that the problem with the labouir party is not that is going to win the next election, but that it knows it.

Make of it what you will.

Edit: And the major parties don't even appear in northern Ireland, which may go a long way to explaining some of the trouble there,

Well he is a Roman Catholic

No he isn't. He hasn't been baptised or confirmed into the faith. It is true that he sympathises with Catholicism though (Cherie is Catholic and the children are being brought up in the faith).

who i believe is a member of Opus Dei (i think thats how you spell it),

Yes that is how you spell it, but I think you are thinking of the Secretary of State for Education (who's name escapes me for the moment)* how is Catholic and a member of Opus Dei.


*It is Ruth Kelly. (Credit goes to NBG, see post below)



Big fan! How's this for entertainment? I watch the Wednesday session of Prime Minister's Questions (don't know proper name of the meeting). I wish our presidents would have to face the same scrutinity before Congress.

You got it right. It is Prime Minister's Questions (commonly abbreviated to PMQs) :)


Any Brits want to give a rundown of the parties on the major issues? Economy, civil liberties, etc.

A good, quick overview of the three main parties:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/vote2005/issues/html/grid.stm?s1=CON_UK&s2=LAB_UK&s3=LD_UK&x=9&y=11


I like the Conservitives or Labor, but I don't understand what the labor parties about. I just really hate liberals. Damn liberal faggots.

Liberal doesn't have quite the same definition over here.

Well he is a Roman Catholic who i believe is a member of Opus Dei (i think thats how you spell it), Mel Gibson is a fellow member.

Tony Blair isnt a member of Opus Dei. However the Education Secretary, Ruth Kelly, is.

IIRC the UK was the land of tiny majorities; until Thatcher. So in the good old days, a back bench rebellion meant something. Unlike now. Possible I am wrong.

http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/publications/statistics/genelecs.htm

Some large majorities, some small (even a hung parliament, when the winning party doesn't have an outright majority).

Though your right, just look at Labours 2001 majority, Blair was able to shrug off the largest back bench rebellion in British parliamentary history (AFAIK).

Nevertheless; a British relative of mine told me that the problem with the labouir party is not that is going to win the next election, but that it knows it.

Make of it what you will.

I think it rings true to a certain extent.

Edit: And the major parties don't even appear in northern Ireland, which may go a long way to explaining some of the trouble there,

I think the Conservatives contest a few seats (but you should ask one of the NI posters), but they don't stand since they don't have a chance of winning, really.

I forgot to say that I live in Canada... sorry.

Quiz: How many Americans can name all 3 of our parties? The ones with seats anyway.

Aren't they the Democrats, Republicans and the Veterans' Party of America?
(In the House, Vermont)

I think you know what I meant, if not, re-read and think about it for a second. And have you watched CSPAN? *snore* Okay have you thought about it for a second? If not I will lay it out for you. I want to see Bush defending his policies impromtu from a barrage of attacks from dissenting voices on a weekly basis on TV. If he can't d it then he doesn't have the mental capacity I woudl liek to see in a President.

And yeah voting does a lot of good when they rig the results by keeping 10's of thousands of blacks from voting in a certain state because then they would have lost. Who knows how much vote rigging goes on? It's a bunch of BS. WE are as free to vote for our choice of Presidents as the Iraqis were under Saddam.


Funny how people seem to leave out the fact that those districts that claim to have 10's of 1000's of Blacks unable to vote are controlled by Democrats. Meaning the election commission in said county is ran by the Democrat Party. So you are saying your own party is screwing you over by rigging their own ballot boxes to elect a Republican. Sounds about right to me coming from a mind numb robot.

vote for whichever party is most likely to unseat tony blair

How a thread on the UK general election may decend into a slagging match over Florida 2000 I'll never know. :rolleyes:

vote for whichever party is most likely to unseat tony blair

Conservatives need a national swing of something rediculous, like 21%, to get a one seat majority. And since they are the second largest party, I think it is a cert that Labour will win.

The only people able to unseat Blair are the voters of his constituency or Blair himself.

http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/publications/statistics/genelecs.htm

Some large majorities, some small (even a hung parliament, when the winning party doesn't have an outright majority).

Though your right, just look at Labours 2001 majority, Blair was able to shrug off the largest back bench rebellion in British parliamentary history (AFAIK).



I think it rings true to a certain extent.



I think the Conservatives contest a few seats (but you should ask one of the NI posters), but they don't stand since they don't have a chance of winning, really.


Yah, looking at your numbers, it's not that clear.

What I am talking about is that AFAIK, there was more consensus on the back benchs of both parties, and less 'executive' power. That changed with the Thatcher era.

In other words, british politics has changed since then.

(And personally, I would note that I am a confirmed tory, but I have mixed feelings about new labour. I am not entirely sure - given the current opposition - that they shouldn't get another term. There: I said it. I still hate tony though).

hey. i remember last year when everyone here in the uk had so much fun pointing and laughing at your election, basking in the dramatic suspence of whether you'd chose the right candidate. some of you listened to what the world had to say about your election, so now i find myself actually caring about what you think about ours.

we even had that 'tell an american how to vote' thing, which i thought was pretty good but it offended some of you guys, so think of this as a 'tell a briton how to vote' thread, or if you don't care that much just pass a coment on how the whole thing looks from across the pond.

http://www.labour.org.uk/home
http://www.conservatives.com/
http://www.libdems.org.uk/
are the three main parties, and some crazy fringe parties pour notre amusement:
http://bubl.ac.uk/uk/parties.htm


Hmmm... I think I like the UKIP's position. It makes more sense to me (over here) for the British to run Britain, than the Franco-German Economic Hegemony (EU) to run Britain...

Seriously? You would actually vote for Michael Howard?

I don't know that much about UK politics. I briefly scanned the three web sites provided. From that brief scan it looked like this party was most in line with my political views. If I knew more about the issues and stances, perhaps I would vote otherwise.

Hmmm... I think I like the UKIP's position. It makes more sense to me (over here) for the British to run Britain, than the Franco-German Economic Hegemony (EU) to run Britain...

I agree. I don't even know how France and Germany are allowed to run economic policy. Their economies have been in the tank for decades. The British economy trounces theirs in every aspect, and unemployment is 1/2 of theirs, even less than the US's!

It's your right to decide how, for whom and what you want to vote for. Not mine.

I agree. I don't even know how France and Germany are allowed to run economic policy. Their economies have been in the tank for decades. The British economy trounces theirs in every aspect, and unemployment is 1/2 of theirs, even less than the US's!
Hrmmm... maybe because, like some areas of the U.S., there are those in power in the U.K. who deeply admire the French as a 'Cultural Beacon', and the Germans just tend to be good negotiators on the political front???

I know that in 1946, the French and the West Germans signed a treaty that tied their steel industries together-maybe that's part of it also: a longer history of collaborative economic measures.

It's your right to decide how, for whom and what you want to vote for. Not mine.

It's also your right to say who you support. (Or by the same token, to remain silent.)

Hrmmm... maybe because, like some areas of the U.S., there are those in power in the U.K. who deeply admire the French as a 'Cultural Beacon', and the Germans just tend to be good negotiators on the political front???

I don't know why though. Culture and negotiating are worthless when 1 out of every 8 working age people are unemployed and those who have them are willing to work for "subminimum" (Germany has no set minimum wage) wages of 2 or 3 Euros/Hour.

Hrmmm... maybe because, like some areas of the U.S., there are those in power in the U.K. who deeply admire the French as a 'Cultural Beacon', and the Germans just tend to be good negotiators on the political front???

I think it has something to do with the fact that France and Germany have always been keen supporters of the EU (under its various guises) with Britain typically being very hesitant. Britain didn't originally join, with effectively handed the EEC (?) over to France. Even after it was let in it was always very half hearted.

I know that in 1946, the French and the West Germans signed a treaty that tied their steel industries together-maybe that's part of it also: a longer history of collaborative economic measures.

And the Benelux countries too. iirc

I don't know why though. Culture and negotiating are worthless when 1 out of every 8 working age people are unemployed and those who have them are willing to work for "subminimum" (Germany has no set minimum wage) wages of 2 or 3 Euros/Hour.

Got me-I don't know why there are so many people in the upper-crust of America that think the sun rises and sets on the open-sewer-by-the-seine, but they do, and some of them are in policy-making positions even now.

I suspect, in this case, that the 'American Bogeyman' is part of why the EU enjoys so much official support in London, which is kind of sad, really, Historically, Britain has been 'Great' and powerful in spite of the rest of Europe, and I think the odds are there that Britain could tell the EU to piss off, and it would hurt the Europeans in the EU more than it would the British.

It's also your right to say who you support. (Or by the same token, to remain silent.)
I'd prefer either Blair and Labour or the Conservative guy (Howard's his name, right?) I know the BNP are a bunch of kooks, and the ueber-left party is, well...ueber-left. But, once again, Britons are the one's who make the choice in this one. I have a preference, but it's not that huge.

UKIP are a bunch of racists who use controversy to gain publicity, from which they hope to gain votes. Their anti-immigration policy is based entirely on xenophobia, which would be harmful not only to the immigrants but to Britain as well.

I'm not fooled for a moment by Howard. His policies are laughable - 5000 more police officers, increased Matron powers in hospitals (Read also; increased responsibilities and thus, increased pay.), 24 hour security at all ports, and yet a cut in taxation. Hah, at least the Lib Dems are honest, even if they are just a more palatable face of the Communist Party.

No, I think I will be voting Labour. I admire Blair for standing beside Bush despite the huge opposition, and although I dislike many of their policies they do seem to be doing some of them at least half-well (Which is about as good as it gets here in Britain.).

Oh, and you Americans can feel free to say who you'd vote for. Big difference between that and saying "OMG Votes for teh Howardz0rz!"; we just want to see whatcha think.

UKIP are a bunch of racists who use controversy to gain publicity, from which they hope to gain votes. Their anti-immigration policy is based entirely on xenophobia, which would be harmful not only to the immigrants but to Britain as well.

I'm not fooled for a moment by Howard. His policies are laughable - 5000 more police officers, increased Matron powers in hospitals (Read also; increased responsibilities and thus, increased pay.), 24 hour security at all ports, and yet a cut in taxation. Hah, at least the Lib Dems are honest, even if they are just a more palatable face of the Communist Party.

No, I think I will be voting Labour. I admire Blair for standing beside Bush despite the huge opposition, and although I dislike many of their policies they do seem to be doing some of them at least half-well (Which is about as good as it gets here in Britain.).

Oh, and you Americans can feel free to say who you'd vote for. Big difference between that and saying "OMG Votes for teh Howardz0rz!"; we just want to see whatcha think.


Now, see? when someone in a foreign country has little actual contact, they don't know these things!;)

My impression of UKIP comes from their Website (obtainable through the nice links on page one of this thread), which probably doesn't include the Warts, defects, and tumourous cold-sores that may or may not be part of the Party's REAL structure.

Aren't they the Democrats, Republicans and the Veterans' Party of America?
(In the House, Vermont)

Ummm.... no... I think you're thinking of the states. It was actually a trick question. There are four parties in the canadian house of commons with seats. NDP (left wing), Bloc Quebecois (bitchy seperatists), Conservatives (right-wing) , and Liberals (centrist).

Why arent you americans allowed to vote yourselves? Why do you have to have an electoral college to vote for you? And your votes didnt really count anyway, because the presidential election was decided on Kerry's withdrawal. Also, people are mainly restricted to voting for one of two parties - why?

This is a fascinating question and the truth is that most Americans question the electoral college only at election time. It started, and largely remains, as a theoretical check to prevent the people from electing a tyrannical demagogue (ref. Federalist Paper 47.) It has evolved over time according to the changing American political system. It does ensure a relatively smooth transition, even in a close election. In Florida for example, the voting irregularities were isolated to one state (you could also count New Mexico) and within that state, several counties. The financial cost and political instability would not have spread across the US and would have been a disaster (more so than what actually occured.)

To best understand the arguments for the electoral college, I'd suggest reading "Presidential Selection: Complex Problems and Simple Solutions" by Judith Best. I sense you wondering why there has been no reform especially after 2000. It is unlikely, however, as national reform would require a constitutional amendment which would be difficult due to the power smaller states have with the Electoral College. The best venue for reform is the state level where the states determine how they choose their electors.

As far as two parties, I personally would love another major party present in the national political arena. Third parties are influential in some regions and do impact presidential elections (recently Perot in 92 and 96 as well as Nader in 00.) It would certainly be a major accomplishment for a major third party to sustain itself nationally, especially considering the grip on power the two major parties have now.

Why do you hate liberals so much?
I'm conservitive and a Texan.

I'm conservitive and a Texan.

He's got you there, Spirit Crushing.

so you were trained to hate liberals?

hello

were is this pages time zone?

were is this pages time zone?
It is whatever you set it to be.

He's got you there, Spirit Crushing.

True... :p

Dump the labor; join the RESPECT organization.


By the way; not being British; what are the differences in the Communist Parties of Britain?

Is the Revolutionary Communist Party of Great Britain Marxist-Leninist-(Stalinist)-Maoist and the BCP Marxist Leninist?

Yeah, I know...Communist ideologies can get confusing....

Holy shat, you guys have ALOT of Leftist parties; I know the SWP is Trotskyist, but thats about it.

Revolutionary Communist Party of Great Britain
Socialist Equality Party
Socialist Labour Party
Socialist Party
Socialist Party of Great Britain
Socialist Workers Party
Irish Republican Socialist Party
Northern Ireland Unionist Party
Progressive Unionist Party
Social Democratic and Labour Party
Sinn Fein
Socialist Workers Party Ireland
Socialist Workers Party in Northern
Ulster Democratic Unionist Party
Ulster Unionist Party
Scottish Socialist Party
Communist Party of Britain

:eek:

I know we the radical left has had suffered from factionalism; but this is rediculous!

Just for kicks: "Official Monster Raving Loony Party"

Hmmm... I think I like the UKIP's position. It makes more sense to me (over here) for the British to run Britain, than the Franco-German Economic Hegemony (EU) to run Britain...
*cries*
sorry it's just that the UKIPs are just so backward to me. the EU can only move britain forward - it doesn't take power away - it unites the continent thus progressing trade and furthuring international relations. the EU does a lot of good stuff (eg. european charter for human rights) and it's time people realised it.

BRING ON THE EURO!! (although that seems to scare a lot of people :rolleyes: )

Edit: And the major parties don't even appear in northern Ireland, which may go a long way to explaining some of the trouble there,

*cough* US funding of IRA *cough*

the problem with NI is that the politics is completely polarized - parties are either unionist or nationalist - there's no happy medium. Ok so some are less extreme than others but the NI politicians hate each other so much they can never sit down together and talk about schools or whatever. devolution should've helped slightly but they had to suspend it. It's tough. Any of you have any NI viewpoints around? is there a northern irelander here?

It's your right to decide how, for whom and what you want to vote for. Not mine.
well yes, and that is a nice sentiment but we would like to hear other's viwes - it's just interesting

this is quite fun http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/vote2005/swingometer/html/labcon.stm each election Peter snow devises something and this is his Swingometer - good to play around with to see what swing is needed to get which of the 3 parties into power.

UKIP are a bunch of racists who use controversy to gain publicity, from which they hope to gain votes. Their anti-immigration policy is based entirely on xenophobia, which would be harmful not only to the immigrants but to Britain as well..

yep yep very true. It annoys me when people talk about immigrants stealing our benefits. between 2000 and 2003, 125000 immigrants came to the UK. Know how many of them got benefits? 20.

I'm not fooled for a moment by Howard. His policies are laughable - 5000 more police officers, increased Matron powers in hospitals (Read also; increased responsibilities and thus, increased pay.)I expect you too were amused by the "I will overrule the human rights act to get gypsies off the land. :rolleyes:

No, I think I will be voting Labour. I admire Blair for standing beside Bush despite the huge opposition, and although I dislike many of their policies they do seem to be doing some of them at least half-well (Which is about as good as it gets here in Britain.).
I don't mind him standing by bush except I wish he'd made bush support Kyoto in return for our support in just about everything else.

Wow, you're like the first Brit I like. Any way the rest of America can all burn in hell for all I care, as long as good old Tejas remains the same. But I do have to agree you need rich celebs to laugh at.
I'm conservitive and a Texan.
and you like me? hmm i don't know whether to be jubilant or terrified! thank you anyway lol
monarchy a bit backward but i think it's good to have something above the PM otherewise you get the situation of too powerful a leader. I believe in the US 'liberal' is an insult but this party's policies are quite different to the US definition. but even then I don't think you'd like em! :)

Just for kicks: "Official Monster Raving Loony Party"
or my personal favourite "nun of the above" (all puns intended)

and you like me? hmm i don't know whether to be jubilant or terrified! thank you anyway lol
monarchy a bit backward but i think it's good to have something above the PM otherewise you get the situation of too powerful a leader. I believe in the US 'liberal' is an insult but this party's policies are quite different to the US definition. but even then I don't think you'd like em! :)
Well I don't know what jubilant means, but I guess it means somethin like excited, well you're welcomed ... I guess.
PM? What are you using it for, don't use no uh ... damnit whats that word called, ah hell, any way what's it stand for?
Chance's you right, even then they don't want to keep contact with america, you know they askin for trouble. Personally I forsee an Alantic Confederation ... if you know what I mean? Well any way NA and SA and EU all workin together, know that ain't too bad soundin to me.

Well I don't know what jubilant means, but I guess it means somethin like excited, well you're welcomed ... I guess.
PM? What are you using it for, don't use no uh ... damnit whats that word called, ah hell, any way what's it stand for?
Chance's you right, even then they don't want to keep contact with america, you know they askin for trouble. Personally I forsee an Alantic Confederation ... if you know what I mean? Well any way NA and SA and EU all workin together, know that ain't too bad soundin to me.
jubilant = happy excited ... prob a bit old fashioned
pm = prime minister (blair)
atlantic confederation? not in a uk being the 51st state kinda way I'm hopin!!
working together always good - less wars for a start :rolleyes:
ah well perfect world, easy life/politics not happening soon i guess

I hope I would never be so presumptious and arrogant as to try to tell anyone in any democracy other than my own how to vote. It really is none of my business.so...no more "regime change" in Venezuela or Iran. ???

so...no more "regime change" in Venezuela or Iran. ???
oh come on be fair - he did say no intervention in any other DEMOCRACY ... any where else is fine :sniper: :rolleyes:

jubilant = happy excited ... prob a bit old fashioned
pm = prime minister (blair)
atlantic confederation? not in a uk being the 51st state kinda way I'm hopin!!
working together always good - less wars for a start :rolleyes:
ah well perfect world, easy life/politics not happening soon i guess
No Mexico's #51 followed by #52 Perto Rico. But no think of it as more of ... one giant country, we'll intergrate the states, But the UK, SA, EU, and US as they are won't exist anymore it will only be the AC, and we'll have a President, not a Prime Minister, well we might have one for each of the country states, but at the top we'll have a President, oh and we won't recognize the queen or king on any of our money, sorry but we dont want their faces on our money.

This will be the new Heirarchy or the Alantic Confederation

President
Vice President
Leader of the House
Senior Congressman
Supreme Court Justices
Association of Govenors
State Represenitives

oh god... you've put rather too much thought into this! :eek:

Yes I tend to do that, the truth is we'd all be better off for it, American millitary might mixed with European economic force, and South American natural resources that must be conserved.

I hope you Brits get a deluge of those obnoxious Jesusland/United States of Canada (United Kingdom of France?) maps just for spite.

We already got those. They put all this crap like 'Wales' and 'Scotland' on our maps. :p

I hope I would never be so presumptious and arrogant as to try to tell anyone in any democracy other than my own how to vote. It really is none of my business.
As an American, it's your duty! ;)

What I find fascinating is the regular criticism that we Americans receive on this forum for not having a real Left (which I will admit). But one look at Tony Blair, and you wonder why they call the party Labour.

He's about as right wing as George Bush, without the Southern Baptist mixed in.
Indeed, the Labour Party is led by their most right-wing member. Up until the 1980s they were a real left-wing party. They moved towards the centre to get rid of the likes of Militant Tendency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militant_Tendency) and they moved to the right to change with the times. In the same way that Reagan shifted US politics to the right, Thatcher did the same in Britain, albeit less dramatically. The pre-Thatcher Conservative governments were to the left of today's Labour!

The Liberal Democrats have partially filled the left-wing gap left by Labour, though there is a minority free-market faction within that party. Many Labourites have defected to the Lib Dems, but there are still some lefties remaining in Labour. Probably not for long if Blair remains at the helm!

They are more Conservative than the Labour Party but members of the Conservative Party are centerists at best.
Wow, do think that the US Republicans are in the centre too?

Any Brits want to give a rundown of the parties on the major issues? Economy, civil liberties, etc.
Conservatives: mandatory privatisation of health, limited civil liberties, especially if you're not white

Labour: a government bigger than Jupiter, citizen bar-coding

Lib Dems: free beer for all!

The Libdems - seem like our Democratic party. Give this, give that, give my tax dollars away on social spending.

Why do you find taxes so objectionable while finding nothing objectionable at all about restrictions on social freedoms? Shouldn't it work both ways?


- even the prime minister has his own constituency where he has to get voted in
Wouldn't it be cool if Tony Blair was voted out of office!

I like the Conservitives or Labor, but I don't understand what the labor parties about. I just really hate liberals. Damn liberal faggots.
What, you hate liberals just for being gay (wtf?).

I'm conservitive and a Texan.
Look out for Keruvalia on this board. He's a proud Texan, military veteran, father - and a radical liberal.

I don't see how being conservative means you should *hate* liberals. Seems extreme to me.

Damm Brits, the Irish would rule the world i tells ya...if we didn't drink! hic

We already do.

Think about it - 40 MILLION Irish in America. An equivalent number of Chinese is 10 BILLION [Irish population is ~4 million].

We rule the world muahahahaha.....

I think you know what I meant, if not, re-read and think about it for a second. And have you watched CSPAN? *snore* Okay have you thought about it for a second? If not I will lay it out for you. I want to see Bush defending his policies impromtu from a barrage of attacks from dissenting voices on a weekly basis on TV. If he can't d it then he doesn't have the mental capacity I woudl liek to see in a President.


As an example, Blair was molested in an interview the other night on British TV. And no, I don't think that's an exaggeration - he was torn to shreds. Still managed to remain quite dignified and coherent.

About a year ago Bush was interviewed by an Irish reporter in a *much* more reserved manner - and it caused an international incident!

About a year ago Bush was interviewed by an Irish reporter in a *much* more reserved manner - and it caused an international incident!
Totally! Americans have such thin skins; as soon as it was clear that Carol Coleman wasn't going to deliver fellatio to GW Bush the White House staffers started to freak out!

Any Brits want to give a rundown of the parties on the major issues? Economy, civil liberties, etc.

Not a Brit, but here's a rough summary:

Lib Dems - on the left, and facing that direction.

Labour - on the left but looking straight ahead.

Conservative - mostly on the left [with some notable exceptions] but looking to the right. They'd probably *like* to be a right-wing party, but that just won't float.

In essence all of the parties follow what is, by American standards, a pretty much liberal left-leaning platform. Even the conservatives favour a large public services sector such as the National Health Service.

It is very much a shades-of-grey breakdown between the three main parties.

I just hope you guys get someone who gives you back your right to self-defense.


Eh? Brits haven't lost that right. If anything it has been strengthened by removing some of the ambiguity.

You are probably referring to the well publicised prosecution of some homeowners. The few cases that *do* result in prosecution involve *gross* acts against burglars etc.

One example is a case in which a person lay in wait for a burglar, beat them unconcsious, and set them on fire. That is not, by any reasonable standard, self defence. That is the sort of case that the law frowns upon.

Just dont vote for Tony Blair please...





Oh, and you could get rid of monarchy anytime soon so here in Canada we could stop using your queen face on are money, it would be cool. I dont wanna see Charles's face on my penny. Pleeaaase


But its YOUR queen too y'know! :p :p

But then I notice you're in Quebec, so I guess if it was Chiracs face you wouldnt mind so much?

Eh? Brits haven't lost that right. If anything it has been strengthened by removing some of the ambiguity.

You are probably referring to the well publicised prosecution of some homeowners. The few cases that *do* result in prosecution involve *gross* acts against burglars etc.

One example is a case in which a person lay in wait for a burglar, beat them unconcsious, and set them on fire. That is not, by any reasonable standard, self defence. That is the sort of case that the law frowns upon.


When was that case? I didnt hear of that one?

We already got those. They put all this crap like 'Wales' and 'Scotland' on our maps. :p


:D :D :D :D :D :D :D

Did make me laugh!!

Not knowing the issues but taking a quick look at their web sites here are my impressions.

I like Blair, but if I were voting in the UK, I think I'd vote conservative.

The conservatives also favour a large public services sector - they plan to *increase* government spending on social services like health and welfare, just a little more slowly than labour.

Basically, using US standards, *all* of the UK parties are left of the GOP [the Conservatives do venture over that line on several issues, but on the whole the GOP are to their right].

Thanks for the links. They were really interesting. I was struck by the fact that it would be easy to choose Labour based on what they say, but it would also be easy to pick the U.S.'s Republican Party on the same basis. That would be a mistake since they are lying bastards. Whis of the tree big parties would you say acts most consistently with their claims?

The Lib Dems. That's slightly irrelevant though, at least until they get into a coalition government [being realistic they are never going to form a solo government, at least not in the forseeable future anyway]. They are the one party who have been consistent with regard to Iraq, for example.

One example is a case in which a person lay in wait for a burglar, beat them unconcsious, and set them on fire. That is not, by any reasonable standard, self defence. That is the sort of case that the law frowns upon.

What, then, by way of example, would be permissible?

Here's a scenario that would be perfectly legal here in Virginia.

You're a woman who was married to a man who beat you. You're now legally separated, and you've made your best attempt to stay well away from him. You've obtained a legal document, called a "protective order", which requires him by law to stay well away from you.

He is habitually violating the order, but the police will not arrest him unless they find him in your vicinity when they show up - if he's run away before they show up, they will NOT arrest him for violating the order.

In the meantime, he has made many threats against you, all while the police are not present.

You have a legally purchased pistol.

He shows up on your property, threatening to kill you. He is not armed with any weapon.

You call the police, and inform them of his presence, and the protective order.

You then shoot him dead on the front lawn.

In consideration that you can't receive a protective order unless you have proven that he's a potentially lethal threat, and that he is present posing such a threat, it's the equivalent of having a hunting license. You don't even have to warn him that you're about to shoot.

Would this be legal in the UK? Or does a woman have to submit to a lethal attack while waiting for the police to show up?

I like the Conservitives or Labor, but I don't understand what the labor parties about. I just really hate liberals. Damn liberal faggots.

Labour is a liberal party.

So too, at least by American standards, is the Conservative party.

Actually, come to think of it, everything out as far as UKIP and the BNP are liberal by American standards.

What, then, by way of example, would be permissible?

Beating him unconscious and then not setting him on fire?

What, then, by way of example, would be permissible?

Here's a scenario that would be perfectly legal here in Virginia.

You're a woman who was married to a man who beat you. You're now legally separated, and you've made your best attempt to stay well away from him. You've obtained a legal document, called a "protective order", which requires him by law to stay well away from you.

He is habitually violating the order, but the police will not arrest him unless they find him in your vicinity when they show up - if he's run away before they show up, they will NOT arrest him for violating the order.

In the meantime, he has made many threats against you, all while the police are not present.

You have a legally purchased pistol.

He shows up on your property, threatening to kill you. He is not armed with any weapon.

You call the police, and inform them of his presence, and the protective order.

You then shoot him dead on the front lawn.

In consideration that you can't receive a protective order unless you have proven that he's a potentially lethal threat, and that he is present posing such a threat, it's the equivalent of having a hunting license. You don't even have to warn him that you're about to shoot.

Would this be legal in the UK? Or does a woman have to submit to a lethal attack while waiting for the police to show up?


No. If he is unarmed it is illegal. If she has a gun specifically to shoot him, then she planned it, and it's murder.

Over here we'd expect her to maybe video/photograph him haging around outside, and then he'd be arrested for breaching the order.

Or issue an ASBO on his ass

All you crazy americans who think the Tory's are left live in a weird world.

By your logic the BNP would be centrist.

Maybe it's just the US is all right?

We already got those. They put all this crap like 'Wales' and 'Scotland' on our maps. :p


Well, in the case of Wales, they forget sometimes. :p

Totally! Americans have such thin skins; as soon as it was clear that Carol Coleman wasn't going to deliver fellatio to GW Bush the White House staffers started to freak out!

Yep. I keep meaning to get a copy of that interview.

I think that's a valid way to spend the rest of this afternoon actually......

It would be up to the discretion of the Crown Prosecution Service [well, assuming for the moment that handguns could be carried for protection], but I would stake rather a lot on them not taking any action. The woman clearly acted in self defence.

What may cause concern is what she did - obviously if she's carrying a heavy 9mm and shot him in the head from 50 feet away, there might be an issue [why not a round in the chest, put him down etc] but given the background, I don't think any action would be taken.

As for the front lawn bit - if he's leaving, he isn't an immediate threat and therefore self defence isn't applicable. If you were on the front lawn and he's approaching, that's different.

What, then, by way of example, would be permissible?

Here's a scenario that would be perfectly legal here in Virginia.

You're a woman who was married to a man who beat you. You're now legally separated, and you've made your best attempt to stay well away from him. You've obtained a legal document, called a "protective order", which requires him by law to stay well away from you.

He is habitually violating the order, but the police will not arrest him unless they find him in your vicinity when they show up - if he's run away before they show up, they will NOT arrest him for violating the order.

In the meantime, he has made many threats against you, all while the police are not present.

You have a legally purchased pistol.

He shows up on your property, threatening to kill you. He is not armed with any weapon.

You call the police, and inform them of his presence, and the protective order.

You then shoot him dead on the front lawn.

In consideration that you can't receive a protective order unless you have proven that he's a potentially lethal threat, and that he is present posing such a threat, it's the equivalent of having a hunting license. You don't even have to warn him that you're about to shoot.

Would this be legal in the UK? Or does a woman have to submit to a lethal attack while waiting for the police to show up?

All you crazy americans who think the Tory's are left live in a weird world.

By your logic the BNP would be centrist.

Maybe it's just the US is all right?

I'll assume this is a reference to me. I'm Irish, and living in the UK.

I tend to use American distinctions when talking to Americans, or an American audience. By European standards, the Conservatives are distinctly to the right.

By US standards however - does the GOP, for example, support a massive and comprehensive publicly funded healthcare system for all? I think not [unless I missed something?].

The BNP would still be to the right - if I'm not mistaken one of their policies is compulsory ownership of assault weapons [or something similar]. Hardly centrist.

BNP economics is somewhat left-wing. I guess they're so far to the right they've come round full circle.

Seriously, the Lib Dems are not rampant lefties, communist manifesto adherents or anything like that. Centre-left, increasingly in favour of market solutions. If anything, they're moving away from the left.

And in response to someone from waaay back in the thread: yeah, there are a hell of a lot of leftist parties. Unfortunately for us, the left is in the following position: brewery =/= piss-up

BNP economics is somewhat left-wing. I guess they're so far to the right they've come round full circle.

Seriously, the Lib Dems are not rampant lefties, communist manifesto adherents or anything like that. Centre-left, increasingly in favour of market solutions. If anything, they're moving away from the left.

And in response to someone from waaay back in the thread: yeah, there are a hell of a lot of leftist parties. Unfortunately for us, the left is in the following position: brewery =/= piss-up

That's the problem with "traditional" notions of left and right. It seems no longer to apply very well in European contexts - it seems that whether "right" or "left", parties in this part of the world almost without exception favour socially responsible - and socially responsive - policies. There is a *massive* overlap, for example, between the policies of the 3 main British parties.

What is really needed is a much more multidimensional way to categorise things.

That's the problem with "traditional" notions of left and right. It seems no longer to apply very well in European contexts - it seems that whether "right" or "left", parties in this part of the world almost without exception favour socially responsible - and socially responsive - policies. There is a *massive* overlap, for example, between the policies of the 3 main British parties.

What is really needed is a much more multidimensional way to categorise things.
The 'social' argument has essentially been won by the liberals, with the exception of immigration and asylum. The 'economic' argument is also being won by the liberals (or, in US parlance, the non-liberals. sigh) in terms of privatisation and world trade.

Actually, the latter statement isn't true at all. Bad me. It's far more complex than that.

The 'social' argument has essentially been won by the liberals, with the exception of immigration and asylum. The 'economic' argument is also being won by the liberals (or, in US parlance, the non-liberals. sigh) in terms of privatisation and world trade.

Actually, the latter statement isn't true at all. Bad me. It's far more complex than that.

Yep, that's the problem with it - Americans appear often to define things solely in terms of social liberal/conservative. In Europe, even conservatives are socially liberal [more or less - but even Howard has "come out" and said that he was very wrong to support legislation stigmatising homosexuals, in contrast to Bush's attempts to amend the Constitution to ban same sex marriage].

Even economic descriptions of liberal/conservative don't work - labour and the LibDems, for example, advocate what I would refer to as social capitalism whereby the rich get richer, but the poor benefit from the overall largesse. The tories, on the other hand, advocate...more or less the same thing, with modifications.

Whatever choice the brits make will be the right choice for britain. The outside world should not play a role in a nations elections.

Whatever choice the brits make will be the right choice for britain. The outside world should not play a role in a nations elections.
Pah. Your input is welcome. Besides, internationalism is essential nowadays. I won't vote for anyone who refuses to acknowledge that the outside world does have a bearing on British politics. It's naive to think otherwise.

Actually, I also disagree with your comment about us making "the right choice". We're quite capable of screwing up, believe me.

Pah. Your input is welcome. Besides, internationalism is essential nowadays. I won't vote for anyone who refuses to acknowledge that the outside world does have a bearing on British politics. It's naive to think otherwise.

Exactly - one of the functions of democratic government is to serve as ambassadors to the wider world. I'd like to think my elected representatives are aware that the world is bigger than their homeland.

Pah. Your input is welcome. Besides, internationalism is essential nowadays. I won't vote for anyone who refuses to acknowledge that the outside world does have a bearing on British politics. It's naive to think otherwise.

Actually, I also disagree with your comment about us making "the right choice". We're quite capable of screwing up, believe me.
Perhaps I'm wording it wrong.

I'm saying the international affairs should influence elections, but foreigners have no right to come into someone else's country (or sit in their own home country and drivel away on the internet) and tell them how to vote. You get to decide your nations government. Not me, not the French, not the Germans, nobody but you. It's your duty and your right to decide your own government, just as it's my duty and my right to decide my own government.

Of course I'm not going to vote for an anti-internationalist paleo-con. I realize that the world is globalizing, but we need to respect the sovreignty of voters in every nation, and keep our hands off of their electoral processes.

Perhaps I'm wording it wrong.

I'm saying the international affairs should influence elections, but foreigners have no right to come into someone else's country (or sit in their own home country and drivel away on the internet) and tell them how to vote. You get to decide your nations government. Not me, not the French, not the Germans, nobody but you. It's your duty and your right to decide your own government, just as it's my duty and my right to decide my own government.

Of course I'm not going to vote for an anti-internationalist paleo-con. I realize that the world is globalizing, but we need to respect the sovreignty of voters in every nation, and keep our hands off of their electoral processes.

On the contrary, I think a view from people outside the bubble on who to vote for is essential.

On the contrary, I think a view from people outside the bubble on who to vote for is essential.
And I don't. England does not belong to America, France, Germany or any other country. It's an election for a national leader, not a world sovreign. Elections are a domestic affair.

And I don't. England does not belong to America, France, Germany or any other country. It's an election for a national leader, not a world sovreign. Elections are a domestic affair.

But without input from abroad we cannot objectively look at our political system, and then it will never get better.

And I don't. England does not belong to America, France, Germany or any other country. It's an election for a national leader, not a world sovreign. Elections are a domestic affair.

Too late! I've just installed you on the electoral roll, and if you fail to show up and vote come May, the SAS are going to track your ass down and nail you to a door!

And I don't. England does not belong to America, France, Germany or any other country. It's an election for a national leader, not a world sovreign. Elections are a domestic affair.

The United Kingdom please. England is there, but so are Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland