Europeans Voters Turn Against Left

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Try reading subsequent posts before making them yourself. Would you like me to post my last response to Ned again in the hope that you might read it this time?

Over the last 10 years, the Liberals have headed slightly left. Over the same period the Tories have made a more substantial move in a rejection of Thatcherism. In other words, the parties that over 60% of the electorate voted for are moving left.

Labour have moved right, but that was a reaction against the polarisation of the early 80's where they held their most extreme left-wing stance. They rejected this and made for the middle ground of the existing spectrum- in other words (for the 3rd time of explanation) it's a return to post-war consensus politics.

Now try explaining how you think the political spectrum is shifting to the right.

[Ned]

Ron, It seems to me that the US and GB are virtually on the same page politically. I assume this is becuase both Blair and Bush have moved to the center of their respective nations politics.

But, Ron, my thesis was that the European center since WWII has generally been to the left of the US center. The reason for this, I believe, is that the extreme right was all but eliminated from European politics, while the extreme left was not.

I also beleive that the election of Thatcher and Reagan moved the centers of UK and US politics to the right.

Again, showing that there were both conservative and liberal governments in Europe does not mean that what I am saying here is incorrect. There are oscillations in politics, but the oscillation is about a center. It is my perception that the center of European politics has largely been to the left of the US center since WWII.

Also, you might want to comment on my point about the extreme politics of Europe in the first half of the last century. Nothing like that has every occured in the US.

[red_jon]

Originally posted by Ned
Ron, It seems to me that the US and GB are virtually on the same page politically. I assume this is becuase both Blair and Bush have moved to the center of their respective nations politics.

Actually Blair seems more like Clinton, who's reforming of the Democrat party in order to win the '92 election was later adopted by Blair and New Labour to win '97.

I would hardly say Bush is centrist.

[Vlad Antlerkov]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
That's explained by the fundamental voter apathy in the US. Even with two choices it's hard enough for them to make up their minds...

I know. Maybe we can't choose between two candidates because we don't have two brain cells to rub together. Most of us are lucky if we get one. (Pretty much everyone down in the US Capitol and the statehouses seems to be lacking in any brain cells.)

[KrazyHorse]

Don't be too hard on yourselves. I know you mean well...

[Roland]

Oh holy quadrupility, Ned.

"It seems to me that the US and GB are virtually on the same page politically."

Where do you get this bizarre idea ?

"I assume this is becuase both Blair and Bush have moved to the center of their respective nations politics."

Bush would be a member of the BNP or the Monster raving loony party in Britain. I'm not sure he's centrist enough for the nutty right wing fringe of the tories. Especially the religious crap would make him an outsider.

"But, Ron, my thesis was that the European center since WWII has generally been to the left of the US center."

No, your center is to the right of ours.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Roland
Apart from the different political spectrums, there's another difference between US and euro politics.

Every ten years or so, we kick out the ruling party as a matter of political hygiene. If both big parties try to glue themselves to power, we punish both of them until they quit (Austria's big coalition, France's cohabitation). While the US is permanently living in a big coalition ripe with corruption - it is absolutely puzzling that no opposition arises. The only recent exception was Perot, and he used ****loads of money....

You are making an error if you think the "divided government" that has been predominant in the U.S. for the past several decades is anything like a coalition in a parliementary style government. The largest immediate difference is that there is absolutely no need to agree on anything in order for the government to function, much less to agree to share power in a cooperative fashion. It also makes corruption a strange proposition. Only political elements with enough money / power to bribe both of the main parties with large sums of money have a hope of getting away with something. Everyone else is picked on by the party that is not receiving it's "share" of the juice. This system of government reduces the power of the legislative branch in favor of the executive, as the executive gets to do what it wants regardless, while the legislative branch is unable to do much of anything unless it is wildly popular, or there is a mother of a backroom deal made.

[Roland]

"The largest immediate difference is that there is absolutely no need to agree on anything in order for the government to function"

How is this different from a big coalition government ?

"Everyone else is picked on by the party that is not receiving it's "share" of the juice."

Accordingly both parties are being bribed with minor differences. And both recieve their share of the overall pie. One crow, and another crow....

"This system of government reduces the power of the legislative branch in favor of the executive"

Compared to a parliamentary system, it increases the power of the legislature.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Roland
"The largest immediate difference is that there is absolutely no need to agree on anything in order for the government to function"

How is this different from a big coalition government ?

They have to agree to a lot, starting with forming the coalition and running right on down the line on ministries and issues.

Originally posted by Roland
"Everyone else is picked on by the party that is not receiving it's "share" of the juice."

Accordingly both parties are being bribed with minor differences. And both recieve their share of the overall pie. One crow, and another crow....

True enough. The amazing thing to me is that the amount of money being used is nothing in comparison to the amount of money that can be made through bribery / campaign contributions. For many businesses there is no better investment than buying a congressman for $10,000.

Originally posted by Roland
"This system of government reduces the power of the legislative branch in favor of the executive"

Compared to a parliamentary system, it increases the power of the legislature.

I'm not sure I follow you here.

[Roland]

"They have to agree to a lot, starting with forming the coalition and running right on down the line on ministries and issues."

And that's it. I wouldn't say that's a lot. Our last big coalition managed to get virtually nothing useful done, which was why it got trashed in every election.

"The amazing thing to me is that the amount of money being used is nothing in comparison to the amount of money that can be made through bribery / campaign contributions."

Yes, the multiplier is enormous.... It's a quite expensive way to run a political system.

"I'm not sure I follow you here."

Polotically, the parliamentary majority is tied into the government - they're one block, effectively.