Political quiz

[Hauldren Collider]

86% UKIP

Results:
86% UKIP
81% Tory
51% LibDem
43% Plaid Cymru
33% Scottish Nationals
30% British Nationals
30% Greens
27% Labor

[Hauldren Collider]

Also, I'm not really getting where this supposed super far left conservative party in britain meme is coming from. I basically agree with (almost) their whole platform, except I'd go whole hog and privatize the NHS, but since the Republican party here is (mostly) too cowardly to do anything about Medicare, I don't see this as terribly different from Republicans.

UKIP seems pretty chill. They seem to me like a party that's willing to admit that politics is nothing more than a perpetual clown-fight.

The BNP is nothing like the Republican party by the way. There are Republicans who have nasty opinions like the BNP, but they aren't present as any sort of power bloc in Congress. Most Republican politicians are too pro-business to give more than lip service things like protecting culture or whatever.

EDIT: US test results:
97% Republican
66% Libertarian
17% Democrat
5% Green
3% Socialist

[kentonio]

Also, I'm not really getting where this supposed super far left conservative party in britain meme is coming from. I basically agree with (almost) their whole platform, except I'd go whole hog and privatize the NHS, but since the Republican party here is (mostly) too cowardly to do anything about Medicare, I don't see this as terribly different from Republicans.

The Conservative party has supported the principle of universal healthcare since 1945. They aren't going to privatize it, and if they tried they'd end up with their heads on spikes along the Thames. Next election I'm not voting for them for the first time in 20 years, largely because of what I see as their mismanagement of NHS reform (well that and a distateful attempt by some tories to bring religion into politics).

Despite this however, I think you'd be surprised by quite how many of their policies you would not agree with. They are the most business friendly UK party, but there are minimum expectations here about social welfare that no party with aspirations for government can step outside of. Universal healthcare is just the most obvious.

UKIP seems pretty chill. They seem to me like a party that's willing to admit that politics is nothing more than a perpetual clown-fight.

Well I've certainly never heard UKIP called chill before..

They're actually a pretty unpleasant bunch of little Englanders who build their vote on mistrust of foreigners and fears of immigrants stealing our jobs and the EU controlling our country via the backdoor. Nigel Farage does quite well at drawing people to the party because he does a great 'normal bloke' act, he's often shown having a pint down the pub and smoking a ***.

I do wonder sometimes if UKIP existing might actually be a good thing however, as the mainstream parties have been drifting further and further away from the working class/lower middle class voters. Perhaps their existence will force Labour and the Tories to start concentrating on how representative they actually are to the wider country. Unfortunately at the moment there's a rather unpleasant public school vibe all across government, and normal people really struggle to see how the people in power actually speak for them.

The BNP is nothing like the Republican party by the way. There are Republicans who have nasty opinions like the BNP, but they aren't present as any sort of power bloc in Congress. Most Republican politicians are too pro-business to give more than lip service things like protecting culture or whatever.

It's not that the BNP is like the Republican party, just that those extreme right wingers are able to form a part of the GOP because you don't have internal controls on your parties. Here if a mainstream party finds a candidate is extremist they can just ban them from the party and given that most people vote on party allegiance rather than for individuals, that tends to keep them out of power.

[C0ckney]

Despite this however, I think you'd be surprised by quite how many of their policies you would not agree with. They are the most business friendly UK party, but there are minimum expectations here about social welfare that no party with aspirations for government can step outside of. Universal healthcare is just the most obvious.

i'm not sure this is true. social protections, for the unemployed and the disabled have been curtailed in recent years, and not just under this government. this has been helped by a demonisation campaign by certain sections of the media.

They're actually a pretty unpleasant bunch of little Englanders who build their vote on mistrust of foreigners and fears of immigrants stealing our jobs and the EU controlling our country via the backdoor. Nigel Farage does quite well at drawing people to the party because he does a great 'normal bloke' act, he's often shown having a pint down the pub and smoking a ***.

I do wonder sometimes if UKIP existing might actually be a good thing however, as the mainstream parties have been drifting further and further away from the working class/lower middle class voters. Perhaps their existence will force Labour and the Tories to start concentrating on how representative they actually are to the wider country. Unfortunately at the moment there's a rather unpleasant public school vibe all across government, and normal people really struggle to see how the people in power actually speak for them.

there's some truth in this. as you say, farage is effective at playing an 'ordinary bloke'. although of course, people should be able to see that a privately educated former commodities broker has little in common with them or their interests; regrettably many don't. the wider point is about the disengagement of mainstream parties from large sections of the electorate. there are many factors involved, some europe wide, some local. the increasingly unpopular EU, which all 'mainstream' parties are committed to, is an example of the first. an example of the second is the UK electoral system which means that the main parties concentrate on marginal seats and focus on this 'middle ground' and at best paying lip service to everyone else. this means that all the main parties have more or less the same policies, which is unsurprising as they are chasing the same small number of voters. this turns many people off politics altogether, as they feel unrepresented and this is compounded by the difficulty (caused by the electoral system) for new parties to emerge on the national scene. another contributing factor is the lack of working class politicians in politics today.

whether one thinks UKIP are a good thing or not probably comes to down whether you believe that they are a genuine popular movement against the establishment or merely a ginger group for ubercapitalist, anti-immigration and anti-welfare state policies.

It's not that the BNP is like the Republican party, just that those extreme right wingers are able to form a part of the GOP because you don't have internal controls on your parties. Here if a mainstream party finds a candidate is extremist they can just ban them from the party and given that most people vote on party allegiance rather than for individuals, that tends to keep them out of power.

two completely different animals. the BNP are a fascist party with a classic fascist programme: nationalist, populist economics, anti-immigrant, xenophobic, essentially working/lower middle class in character and support. the republicans in the US are a broad based party, whose policies are pro-capitalist, religious and conservative. there are plenty of racists and xenophobes of course, but the main support is from pro-(big) business people and religious conservatives.

[kentonio]

i'm not sure this is true. social protections, for the unemployed and the disabled have been curtailed in recent years, and not just under this government. this has been helped by a demonisation campaign by certain sections of the media.

Depends on your perspective. Would you for instance accept that an awful lot of people have at various times been receiving welfare payments that they didn't have any genuine need for?

there's some truth in this. as you say, farage is effective at playing an 'ordinary bloke'. although of course, people should be able to see that a privately educated former commodities broker has little in common with them or their interests; regrettably many don't.

Why would they, when their points of comparison are David Cameron, Ed Milliband and Nick Clegg? Which of those come across as representative to a miner in Bassetlaw or a dock worker in Newcastle?

the wider point is about the disengagement of mainstream parties from large sections of the electorate. there are many factors involved, some europe wide, some local. the increasingly unpopular EU, which all 'mainstream' parties are committed to, is an example of the first.

The EU is a strawman that's used to distract people in the same way that immigrant scaremongering is. Don't get me wrong there are real concerns about electoral accountability, but the idea that the UK could just leave the EU without devastating our economy is farcical, yet is frequently floated as something that should be considered an option. Funny how that 'option' always then disappears off the table if it might have to be put the the British people to vote on.

an example of the second is the UK electoral system which means that the main parties concentrate on marginal seats and focus on this 'middle ground' and at best paying lip service to everyone else. this means that all the main parties have more or less the same policies, which is unsurprising as they are chasing the same small number of voters. this turns many people off politics altogether, as they feel unrepresented and this is compounded by the difficulty (caused by the electoral system) for new parties to emerge on the national scene.

I disagree with you about electoral system thing, but then again I've always preferred FPTP. It shouldn't matter what the national parties want to focus on, we're a parliamentary democracy, we vote for local representatives not for national leaders or parties.

another contributing factor is the lack of working class politicians in politics today.

Very true. I wonder how much of this is down the the decline in the relevance of the unions. They provided a route into politics for working people, that I don't really see much now.

whether one thinks UKIP are a good thing or not probably comes to down whether you believe that they are a genuine popular movement against the establishment or merely a ginger group for ubercapitalist, anti-immigration and anti-welfare state policies.

I think they're the latter, but I believe most of their voters believe the former.

two completely different animals. the BNP are a fascist party with a classic fascist programme: nationalist, populist economics, anti-immigrant, xenophobic, essentially working/lower middle class in character and support. the republicans in the US are a broad based party, whose policies are pro-capitalist, religious and conservative. there are plenty of racists and xenophobes of course, but the main support is from pro-(big) business people and religious conservatives.

As I already said to HC, I'm not making out as if the two parties were the same, I don't know how much clearer I need to be about this. The Americans don't have the same mechanisms we do for keeping nutters out of their mainstream parties, so they tend to end up there rather than being forced out into minor extremist parties.

[Ben Kenobi]

97% Republican
66% Libertarian
17% Democrat
5% Green
3% Socialist

Those are Kenobian-like numbers. Wow.

[C0ckney]

Depends on your perspective. Would you for instance accept that an awful lot of people have at various times been receiving welfare payments that they didn't have any genuine need for?

this is exactly the kind of thinking that i was talking about. the image, created by certain sections of the media, and encouraged by politicians is of those on unemployment benefits too lazy to get a job and those on sickness benefits being fakers. in fact, according to the DWP just 0.5% of all claims are fraudulent, and in money terms this is just a tiny fraction of the amount of unclaimed benefits, that is money that people are entitled to
but don't claim.

the social safety net has been weakened, the explosion in the number and usage of foodbanks is clear evidence of this.

Why would they, when their points of comparison are David Cameron, Ed Milliband and Nick Clegg? Which of those come across as representative to a miner in Bassetlaw or a dock worker in Newcastle?

perhaps because it's an act, and fairly transparent one at that. of course UKIP are also benefiting from the 'sod the lot of them' vote, and it's hard to disentangle this part of their support from other factors.

The EU is a strawman that's used to distract people in the same way that immigrant scaremongering is. Don't get me wrong there are real concerns about electoral accountability, but the idea that the UK could just leave the EU without devastating our economy is farcical, yet is frequently floated as something that should be considered an option. Funny how that 'option' always then disappears off the table if it might have to be put the the British people to vote on.

there are many problems with the EU, besides the lack of accountability. however, the issue of the EU itself is becoming more important for people across europe and as all the mainstream parties are deeply committed to it, the increasing number of people unhappy with the EU are shifting their support to parties who want out, or want fundamental changes.

i'm not sure i understand the last two sentences. EU membership isn't put to a vote because the mainstream political parties are petrified that the public would vote the 'wrong' way, as well they might be. this is true across europe. the europen constitution was rejected by voters in several countries, the solution, change the name to the lisbon treaty and don't give people a vote on that! the irish were made to vote twice in two years because they got it 'wrong' the first time.

I disagree with you about electoral system thing, but then again I've always preferred FPTP. It shouldn't matter what the national parties want to focus on, we're a parliamentary democracy, we vote for local representatives not for national leaders or parties.

we've had this debate before and we're not going to agree, but i will just say that most of the advantages of first past the post have been reduced to the status of fiction, while the disadvantages are as real as ever.

Very true. I wonder how much of this is down the the decline in the relevance of the unions. They provided a route into politics for working people, that I don't really see much now.

there is certainly a link, although the problem goes much deeper than that. most working class people are very apathetic about politics, and given the situation in which they find themselves, one can hardly blame them.

As I already said to HC, I'm not making out as if the two parties were the same, I don't know how much clearer I need to be about this. The Americans don't have the same mechanisms we do for keeping nutters out of their mainstream parties, so they tend to end up there rather than being forced out into minor extremist parties.

fair enough. i don't really agree with your analysis there, but it's not important enough to split hairs over.

[AAAAAAAAH!]

Those are Kenobian-like numbers. Wow.

Yep, looks like you've finally found someone who shares your mental illness!

[Ben Kenobi]

Yep, looks like you've finally found someone who shares your mental illness!

And it's the same guy who made the Herman Cain, DL.

[kentonio]

this is exactly the kind of thinking that i was talking about. the image, created by certain sections of the media, and encouraged by politicians is of those on unemployment benefits too lazy to get a job and those on sickness benefits being fakers. in fact, according to the DWP just 0.5% of all claims are fraudulent, and in money terms this is just a tiny fraction of the amount of unclaimed benefits, that is money that people are entitled to but don't claim.

The DWP couldn't find their ass with both hands. I come from an underprivileged area that was full of perfectly capable people who simply decided it was easier to sit on the dole than it was to work. They would never have flagged as 'fraudulent' because it used to be incredibly easy to blag your way through the bi-weekly job center appointment and to convince a bored adviser (who didn't really care anyway) that you were actively seeking a job. It's been tightened up in recent years, and recently there have been reports of job centers deliberately trying to sanction people (which is despicable) but the idea that fraud was never a real problem is simply wrong.

the social safety net has been weakened, the explosion in the number and usage of foodbanks is clear evidence of this.

Completely agree. Instead of bringing in the changes that were needed, they went overboard and brought in sweeping changes that hurt people in genuine need.

perhaps because it's an act, and fairly transparent one at that. of course UKIP are also benefiting from the 'sod the lot of them' vote, and it's hard to disentangle this part of their support from other factors.

When you're talking about people who don't engage with politics and don't care about politics, it doesn't need to be that convincing an act to work.

there are many problems with the EU, besides the lack of accountability. however, the issue of the EU itself is becoming more important for people across europe and as all the mainstream parties are deeply committed to it, the increasing number of people unhappy with the EU are shifting their support to parties who want out, or want fundamental changes.

Of course the major parties are deeply committed to it, it's hugely beneficial to our trade and way of life. If people actually knew what pulling out of the EU would entail, it'd get less votes than the BNP do.

i'm not sure i understand the last two sentences. EU membership isn't put to a vote because the mainstream political parties are petrified that the public would vote the 'wrong' way, as well they might be. this is true across europe. the europen constitution was rejected by voters in several countries, the solution, change the name to the lisbon treaty and don't give people a vote on that! the irish were made to vote twice in two years because they got it 'wrong' the first time.

Yes exactly. When it comes to votes about further integration it's despicably undemocratic, but a vote on actually pulling out is a huge problem for the politicians. They've spent so many years (since Heath in fact) blatantly lying to the public about Europe, and then using Europe as a convenient scapegoat any time it suited, that a straight up vote would definitely now result in a 'Leave' result. Except the politicians know that leaving would result in our economy self destructing, and who the hell wants that to happen on their watch?

we've had this debate before and we're not going to agree, but i will just say that most of the advantages of first past the post have been reduced to the status of fiction, while the disadvantages are as real as ever.

You would say that of course. Your version of the type of democracy you want is very different to mine. I'd call yours far less accountable and far more centralised.

there is certainly a link, although the problem goes much deeper than that. most working class people are very apathetic about politics, and given the situation in which they find themselves, one can hardly blame them.

Very true. My fear is that it becomes like America, where you only get elected if you have money backing you.

fair enough. i don't really agree with your analysis there, but it's not important enough to split hairs over.

I don't see how it's even a debate considering the amount of evidence of extremism in the far right of the GOP, but fair enough.

[regexcellent]

Also, I'm not really getting where this supposed super far left conservative party in britain meme is coming from. I basically agree with (almost) their whole platform, except I'd go whole hog and privatize the NHS, but since the Republican party here is (mostly) too cowardly to do anything about Medicare, I don't see this as terribly different from Republicans.

It comes from Kentonio wanting to believe he is a conservative when he is not.

[kentonio]

It comes from Kentonio wanting to believe he is a conservative when he is not.

Ok, so you and HC are firmly in favour of..

Gay Marriage
Increasing spending on the NHS (Universal Healthcare)
Increasing environmental taxes

Three things the Tories have supported in the last 5 years.

Incidentally I find it hilarious how you and your brother are so determined to try and prove I don't actually support the party I've voted for for 20 years, and further that the party sharing a name with your right wing somehow means they have to be the same.

If it makes it any easier for your tiny brain to understand: No I'm not a conservative in any sense that you would be familiar with. Now I hope that means you don't have to trouble your puzzled little head any more, and you can go back to throwing rocks at poor people.

[Felch]

No I'm not a conservative in any sense that you would be familiar with. Now I hope that means you don't have to trouble your puzzled little head any more, and you can go back to throwing rocks at poor people.

You're a conservative in the sense that I'm a liberal.

[DinoDoc]

UKIP: 80%
Tories: 78%
LibDem: 55%
Labour: 54%
BNP: 39%

I stopped caring about the parties after that.

[The Mad Monk]