Brits: How would opposition act? re: Bush, SOTU

[Sava]

I'm not familiar with British politics or how things work in the UK, but it is my understanding, that British politicians are more open with their opposition during political events.

This is in reference to Bush's dopey State of the Union speech. While the Repukes made themselves look like cheerleaders wanting to mount the high school football star with the incessant standing ovations, the Democrats sometimes clapped with a somewhat disapproving look on their faces. How would the SOTU have been different if it were in Britain? Would Dubya have been heckled by opponents?

I've seen UK parliament on C-Span before. It's quite entertaining, what with the yelling and all. The way we Americans handle political events seems awfully silly. It's like the Dem's have to clap even though most of them want to get up and smack Bushy in the mouth.

[Shi Huangdi]

"While the Repukes made themselves look like cheerleaders wanting to mount the high school football star with the incessant standing ovations, the Democrats sometimes clapped with a somewhat disapproving look on their faces. "

Did you ever see any of Clinton's speeches?If you watch one of the old SOTU speeches the roles are reversed.

It's just that we're more subtle about it, I'd think. The chief way of getting your point across seems to be clapping at times you are not supposed to "The Patriot Act will expire this year"

[JohnT]

Sava, it's been that way ever since I remember. (in re: to the opposition being silent during the SOTU).

[Sava]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
Did you ever see any of Clinton's speeches?If you watch one of the old SOTU speeches the roles are reversed.

to be honest, no... but I can believe it. The Dem's often worship CLinton worse than Repukes do with Reagan. While Clinton was a good prez, he wasn't GREAT. Sure, the economy and job market was good; but there was a lot of bad stuff going on and Clinton didn't clean up Wall Street. The SEC, IMO, failed us during the CLinton years.

It's just that we're more subtle about it, I'd think. The chief way of getting your point across seems to be clapping at times you are not supposed to "The Patriot Act will expire this year"

I didn't see the Clinton ass-licking, so I have no frame of reference. But if you say teh Repukes are more subtle about the inane clapping, I'm scared to see what Clinton SOTU's were like.

But still, my question remains. How would the Brits have acted?

[Sava]

Originally posted by JohnT
Sava, it's been that way ever since I remember. (in re: to the opposition being silent during the SOTU).

yes I know... that's not my question FOOLIO!

[TheStinger]

The UK system is so totaly different that we don't have anything like this.

Having said that if the PM did a speach like this to parliament his own party would cheer the opposition would jeer and the house of lord would fall asleep.

[Shi Huangdi]

"I didn't see the Clinton ass-licking, so I have no frame of reference. But if you say teh Repukes are more subtle about the inane clapping, I'm scared to see what Clinton SOTU's were like.

I meant "we" as in the USA with clapping at uninteded points as opposed to Britain, not the USA compared to Britain.

[MikeH]

If the PM gave that speech the opposition would cheer and his own party would boo.

[Drogue]

Re: Brits: How would opposition act? re: Bush, SOTU

Originally posted by Sava
How would the SOTU have been different if it were in Britain? Would Dubya have been heckled by opponents?

Even an ordinary speech would be heckled by the opposition. However swearing, insults and calls of "hypocrite" are usually repremanded (in a sense, they are usually askedto be withdrawn). But it gets silly at times. The Opposition will heckle the PM, the Labour benches will then heckle the hecklers. Quite entertaining, but probably not that condusive to decent debate.

The main difference is that right after the SotU, if it were in the UK, the opposition would be given a speech to respond but the opposition leader (Aren't responses individual questions in the SotU?)

But basically, it wouldn't happen. We have the Budget and Pre-Budget Report that give us the economic situation, and party conference speeches seem to be for putting forward ideology and policies. Everything else is just done in day to day speeches.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
"I didn't see the Clinton ass-licking, so I have no frame of reference. But if you say teh Repukes are more subtle about the inane clapping, I'm scared to see what Clinton SOTU's were like.

I meant "we" as in the USA with clapping at uninteded points as opposed to Britain, not the USA compared to Britain.

now you are just confusing me...

oh and shi, could you please start to use the quote functions because it is hard for my feeble mind to seperate text like that.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by MikeH
If the PM gave that speech the opposition would cheer and his own party would boo.

I dunno, quite recently everyone's been booing, but they bills have still been passing.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi

I meant "we" as in the USA with clapping at uninteded points as opposed to Britain, not the USA compared to Britain.

That sounds like a great moment, when the dems. did that

There is a difference that matters- the Prime minister is the head of government, but NOT the head of state. The president is both, and you treat the Head of State with more respect. You never see people heckle the Queen when she speaks to parliment- you don't heckle the Head of State.

[Sava]

you don't heckle the Head of State.

I would

[TheStinger]

But of course if our head of state had any power then she would be heckled by those opposed to her policies.

[MikeH]

I would too, if he was talking sh1t.