But then, the USA would be very different without the North East and West Coast. Rural and small town America overall is as solidly Red as the South.
England on its own is not much different from the USA, politically. England minus London and Core Cities is much like Red State USA.
We're definitely closer to the USA in my eyes than continental Europe, though closer still to Australia and Canada.
I don't think so. I have spent a lot of time in the States, including 5 years of school. It is when I am there that I realise how European we are. Attitudes are very different there, as demonstrated by the Republican race. None of the candidates would have a chance here, which I think is where the conversation started.
Some of the candidates would stand a chance here, Obama certainly would, as would Bill Clinton in the 90s and others. Even George W Bush was himself elected as a "compassionate conservative" in the same way that Cameron later was, with education reform his number one early priority. After 9/11 he changed focus and invaded Iraq but so too did Tony Blair and we re-elected him too!
But the idea that some would not be elected could be said about some of the Socialist candidates in France. Hollande was elected President of France but the notion of someone like him becoming PM is absurd. Yes I know I'm writing off Corbyn as absurd.
EDIT: In fact going back decades I can't think of any US President that would be unimaginable in the UK. Whereas I can for French Presidents.
Trump is the type of insurgent candidate who'd have no difficulty winning 20-30% of the vote in many European States.
Absolutely but he will almost certainly not become US President and his type doesn't become British PM. Italian President on the other hand ...
But then, the USA would be very different without the North East and West Coast. Rural and small town America overall is as solidly Red as the South.
England on its own is not much different from the USA, politically. England minus London and Core Cities is much like Red State USA.
We're definitely closer to the USA in my eyes than continental Europe, though closer still to Australia and Canada.
I don't think so. I have spent a lot of time in the States, including 5 years of school. It is when I am there that I realise how European we are. Attitudes are very different there, as demonstrated by the Republican race. None of the candidates would have a chance here, which I think is where the conversation started.
How many French or Italian candidates would have a chance here?
Political cultures are just very different.
I could see Merkel as PM here. Tsipras is Corbyn and Hollande is not much different. Wilders would do a better job as leader of the kippers than Nigel.
But would Britain elect Trump? Or Carson or any of the Republicans (I accept that the Democratic candidates are not completely beyond the pale)
America hasn't elected Trump. The UK hasn't elected Corbyn.
France has elected Hollande. Italy has elected Berlusconi. Greece has elected Tsipiras.
Yes - it is an individual perspective and it is interesting to hear your and MrTimT's perspectives. As someone whose mother tongue is not English, who spent most of my first two decades outside England, I don't feel as if I belong here - fully - and some aspects of English life are still very odd to me. It was an American ambassador to Britain who said that if you are Catholic you never fully belong in England and there is a grain of truth in that.
Britain - an idea of Britain, maybe - was much admired by my Italian family: an idea of freedom, much influenced by WW2 of course, a clean public service, a state which could be trusted, which did not interfere, was not malicious etc. Naive, maybe - but something I have to some extent inherited and which I still believe in. I hate, really hate Britain not living up to the best of what it can be, what it has been..
The US is different in very many ways but I do still feel that we have lost touch with some of our common historical roots. Some of what I admire about the US was British in origin and we ought to reclaim our own radical liberal free traditions. There is much to admire in Europe but political organisation is not really one of them. Too much of Continental European tradition is still "L'etat, c'est moi", certainly for my liking.
I'm not a Top Down person. More a Burkean, bottom up, the "little platoons"' the radicals, the unions, the Methodists, those who educated themselves and wanted to help those around them, an Orwell sort of person. It saddens me that Labour seems to have abandoned its own best decent traditions for ignorant Marxist worship of thugs claptrap.
Anyway, the bolognese calls......
Returning the idle chat: my Russian-born mother felt just like your family - they left Russia because it was too dangerous for largely apolitical people with Menshevik connections (her grandfather was Kerensky's legal adviser), she grew up in Danzig and saw the rise of the Nazis, was totally fed up with fanaticism and totalitarianism of any kind, came to Britain and thought it was utterly wonderful. She voted Conservative as the non-politics party of sound government until Thatcher, who she felt was suspiciously political. My father, from a conservative Sussex family back to the year dot, felt Britain was too narrow-minded and fell in love with France. The grass is always greener, etc.
But I think politics in most North European countries is more mature than ours. Germany is particular fosters serious debate - it is, as JEO says, a bit stuffy, but in politics that's a good thing: most people (maybe not the Bild readers) just don't skim the blaring headlines, they sit down and read the details and then slowly make up their minds. I'm fond of Britain and feel at home here, even if I don't always give that impression, but our politics is raucously uninformative and our media are largely a joke.
But then, the USA would be very different without the North East and West Coast. Rural and small town America overall is as solidly Red as the South.
England on its own is not much different from the USA, politically. England minus London and Core Cities is much like Red State USA.
We're definitely closer to the USA in my eyes than continental Europe, though closer still to Australia and Canada.
I don't think so. I have spent a lot of time in the States, including 5 years of school. It is when I am there that I realise how European we are. Attitudes are very different there, as demonstrated by the Republican race. None of the candidates would have a chance here, which I think is where the conversation started.
How many French or Italian candidates would have a chance here?
Political cultures are just very different.
I could see Merkel as PM here. Tsipras is Corbyn and Hollande is not much different. Wilders would do a better job as leader of the kippers than Nigel.
But would Britain elect Trump? Or Carson or any of the Republicans (I accept that the Democratic candidates are not completely beyond the pale).
I do not think that Britain would have elected a Dubya, Reagan or Carter. Possibly Obama, Clinton or Bush Sr though.
Completely ridiculous to suggest Wilders would make a better leader. His rhetoric would have a limited appeal and the relentless media attacks would hinder the party. The UK is a far more tolerant country than many in Europe.
But then, the USA would be very different without the North East and West Coast. Rural and small town America overall is as solidly Red as the South.
England on its own is not much different from the USA, politically. England minus London and Core Cities is much like Red State USA.
We're definitely closer to the USA in my eyes than continental Europe, though closer still to Australia and Canada.
I don't think so. I have spent a lot of time in the States, including 5 years of school. It is when I am there that I realise how European we are. Attitudes are very different there, as demonstrated by the Republican race. None of the candidates would have a chance here, which I think is where the conversation started.
How many French or Italian candidates would have a chance here?
Political cultures are just very different.
I could see Merkel as PM here. Tsipras is Corbyn and Hollande is not much different. Wilders would do a better job as leader of the kippers than Nigel.
But would Britain elect Trump? Or Carson or any of the Republicans (I accept that the Democratic candidates are not completely beyond the pale)
America hasn't elected Trump. The UK hasn't elected Corbyn.
France has elected Hollande. Italy has elected Berlusconi. Greece has elected Tsipiras.
Obviously!
It is a fairly pointless discussion. Hollande would be a different person if he were British and ditto for Trump.
For that matter I don't think any British PM of the last century would have got near the White house either.
Yes - it is an individual perspective and it is interesting to hear your and MrTimT's perspectives. As someone whose mother tongue is not English, who spent most of my first two decades outside England, I don't feel as if I belong here - fully - and some aspects of English life are still very odd to me. It was an American ambassador to Britain who said that if you are Catholic you never fully belong in England and there is a grain of truth in that.
Britain - an idea of Britain, maybe - was much admired by my Italian family: an idea of freedom, much influenced by WW2 of course, a clean public service, a state which could be trusted, which did not interfere, was not malicious etc. Naive, maybe - but something I have to some extent inherited and which I still believe in. I hate, really hate Britain not living up to the best of what it can be, what it has been..
The US is different in very many ways but I do still feel that we have lost touch with some of our common historical roots. Some of what I admire about the US was British in origin and we ought to reclaim our own radical liberal free traditions. There is much to admire in Europe but political organisation is not really one of them. Too much of Continental European tradition is still "L'etat, c'est moi", certainly for my liking.
I'm not a Top Down person. More a Burkean, bottom up, the "little platoons"' the radicals, the unions, the Methodists, those who educated themselves and wanted to help those around them, an Orwell sort of person. It saddens me that Labour seems to have abandoned its own best decent traditions for ignorant Marxist worship of thugs claptrap.
Anyway, the bolognese calls......
our politics is raucously uninformative and our media are largely a joke.
If you want an example of how European politics is so utterly beyond British understanding, you don't really need to look further than those Captain Euro comics. Who on Earth would think some stupid cartoon super hero mocking and patronising David Cameron into saying the word "federalism" would be a good advert for the European Union?
The EU has gone off the deep end in so many ways. It needs fundamental reform.
If the UK had joined at the start and really shaped it, both it and we would be in a much better place.
Macmillan tried but De Gaulle vetoed our entry
Even Macmillan was too late. Britain had immense moral authority after WW2 - and should have used it to shape a Europe more in its own best traditions. We could have been leaders. But the opportunity was lost. For all sorts of reasons, not all of them bad, but which would require an essay rather than a post.
And now I really must be off. Pasta must be al dente. Not al mush.
We helped post war Germany etc but Dr Gaulle felt we were an island trading nation too tied to the Commonwealth who would be an American 'trojan horse'
De Gaulle was out of power for much of the post-war period until the late 1950's. His view was in part shaped by UK reaction to the Suez disaster and the US pressure on sterling. Both France and the UK were humiliated but each reacted to that very differently.
Britain should have been a "Trojan horse" for British liberal values. French democracy collapsed in the 1930's and 1940's and was pretty dysfunctional in the post-war period. The idea that De Gaulle should have been condescendingly criticising British democracy should have been laughable and would have been if Britain had had more faith and pride in itself.
But then, the USA would be very different without the North East and West Coast. Rural and small town America overall is as solidly Red as the South.
England on its own is not much different from the USA, politically. England minus London and Core Cities is much like Red State USA.
We're definitely closer to the USA in my eyes than continental Europe, though closer still to Australia and Canada.
I don't think so. I have spent a lot of time in the States, including 5 years of school. It is when I am there that I realise how European we are. Attitudes are very different there, as demonstrated by the Republican race. None of the candidates would have a chance here, which I think is where the conversation started.
How many French or Italian candidates would have a chance here?
Political cultures are just very different.
I could see Merkel as PM here. Tsipras is Corbyn and Hollande is not much different. Wilders would do a better job as leader of the kippers than Nigel.
But would Britain elect Trump? Or Carson or any of the Republicans (I accept that the Democratic candidates are not completely beyond the pale).
I do not think that Britain would have elected a Dubya, Reagan or Carter. Possibly Obama, Clinton or Bush Sr though.
Completely ridiculous to suggest Wilders would make a better leader. His rhetoric would have a limited appeal and the relentless media attacks would hinder the party. The UK is a far more tolerant country than many in Europe.
Wilders is Wilders because he is Dutch! He has an interesting appeal to two different strands of Dutch politics: the verkrampt mind of the Reformed Church and the in your face liberalism of Amsterdam. I quite like him!
Rubio has been backed with the books in the winners market,in to 7-2 2nd fav.Clinton remains 4-5 fav but Ladbrokes have the Dems winning at 8-11,in from 4-5,so,just in case of the good people across the Atlantic start to feel the Bern,the 8-11 contains a bit of insurance.It still looks big to me
Gosh, just catching up and there have been some really good and interesting posts this evening - Mrs. Free leading the charge as usual.
There have also been on or two posts that have fallen below that high standard. In that regard it is with great regret that I have to include this comment from the normally excellent Dr. Sox,
"Britain and Russia are the bookends of Europe. Neither of us feel we entirely belong, and there is both a suspicion and a degree of jelousy about the countries in the middle."
There is no suspicion about France, there is stone-cold hard fact backed by 900 years of evidence. As for jealousy, I fear the good Doctor may have of drink taken and to excess. What, with the possible exception of the German education system, is there to be jealous of in Europe.
The jealousy runs the other way which is of course why most of the continent have been trying to shaft us for the last couple of centuries. The only honourable exceptions being the Portuguese, with whom we are BFF and have been since 1373, and the Cloggies with whom we should be BFF but our politicians are too stupid to capitalise on the great friendship the two peoples have for each other.
Comments
The UK hasn't elected Corbyn.
France has elected Hollande.
Italy has elected Berlusconi.
Greece has elected Tsipiras.
But I think politics in most North European countries is more mature than ours. Germany is particular fosters serious debate - it is, as JEO says, a bit stuffy, but in politics that's a good thing: most people (maybe not the Bild readers) just don't skim the blaring headlines, they sit down and read the details and then slowly make up their minds. I'm fond of Britain and feel at home here, even if I don't always give that impression, but our politics is raucously uninformative and our media are largely a joke.
It is a fairly pointless discussion. Hollande would be a different person if he were British and ditto for Trump.
For that matter I don't think any British PM of the last century would have got near the White house either.
Thanks
And what sort of election data?
Britain should have been a "Trojan horse" for British liberal values. French democracy collapsed in the 1930's and 1940's and was pretty dysfunctional in the post-war period. The idea that De Gaulle should have been condescendingly criticising British democracy should have been laughable and would have been if Britain had had more faith and pride in itself.
For anything after 1931, Richard Kimber's Political Science Resources website
For anything before, the reference books of FWS Craig
There have also been on or two posts that have fallen below that high standard. In that regard it is with great regret that I have to include this comment from the normally excellent Dr. Sox,
"Britain and Russia are the bookends of Europe. Neither of us feel we entirely belong, and there is both a suspicion and a degree of jelousy about the countries in the middle."
There is no suspicion about France, there is stone-cold hard fact backed by 900 years of evidence. As for jealousy, I fear the good Doctor may have of drink taken and to excess. What, with the possible exception of the German education system, is there to be jealous of in Europe.
The jealousy runs the other way which is of course why most of the continent have been trying to shaft us for the last couple of centuries. The only honourable exceptions being the Portuguese, with whom we are BFF and have been since 1373, and the Cloggies with whom we should be BFF but our politicians are too stupid to capitalise on the great friendship the two peoples have for each other.