Current Events > The UK's blue and red parties arnt so different from each other, unlike the USA

(+) Yeah! (+)

The UK's blue (Conservative) and red (Labour) parties arnt so different from each other, unlike the USA's blue and red party, The Democrats and The Republicans. Ive certainly observed that the 2 main parties in the USA are very different from each other, in their ideologies.

But that's not the case with the UK's ones. Once upon a time Conservative and Labour were rather different from each other, but as the decades have past, they have become less different from each other. Now i just think they are 2 sides of the same coin. To think that Labour would have been our countries saviours as far as the cost of living crisis goes, would have been misplaced faith and trust. Its a shame that Conservative and Labour always lead by a landslide over the other parties in the GE's, as i would love The Liberal Democrats to have a go at running the country for a change, instead of the changing of the guard always being between Conservative and Labour.

When's the last time there was a labour PM

You should look at what the Lib Dems did last time they had a seat at the table.

Doe posted...

When's the last time there was a labour PM

Wasnt that in the 00s? So a long time ago.

Doe posted...

When's the last time there was a labour PM

Gordon Brown was the last Labour PM, which wasnt a very long reign, before him was Tony Blair, who ran for over 2 terms. After Gordon Brown was David Cameron, a Conservative.

ai123 posted...

You should look at what the Lib Dems did last time they had a seat at the table.

The Lib Dems havent ran our country since the 1910s, otherwise the only time they've gotten their foot in the door since then is when Conservative win by a hung Parliament, and Conservative and Labour will never go into coalition with each other.

Katanablade posted...

The Lib Dems havent ran our country since the 1910s, otherwise the only time they've gotten their foot in the door since then is when Conservative win by a hung Parliament, and Conservative and Labour will never go into coalition with each other.

And what did they do in the coalition?

Abandoned all their policies and rubberstamped Cameron.

Even modern Labour under Starmer is further from the Tories than the Dems are from the GOP...

ai123 posted...

And what did they do in the coalition?

Abandoned all their policies and rubberstamped Cameron.

Of course your going to suck up to some degree to the party that won the hung Parliament election, if you ever wanna be the party selected for coalition again, as thats the only way Lib Dems are ever gonna get their foot in the door at all.

User since: Jun 2023
Karma: 65

Katanablade posted...

Of course your going to suck up to some degree to the party that won the hung Parliament election, if you ever wanna be the party selected for coalition again, as thats the only way Lib Dems are ever gonna get their foot in the door at all.

To some degree?

They abandoned everything that made people vote for them. The end result was that they got absolutely decimated in the next election, and are only recovering now.

What's the point of coalition if you're just going to be a compliant pet? They'd have got more of their agenda aligning with Labour, or forcing another election. And look at Corporate Clegg now.

TC is right on this. The gaps between labour and conservatives have lessened more and more over the years.

This is primarily down to Labour moving right rather than any move left from the Conservatives. Recently the spectre of Jeremy Corbyn threatening to bring Labour back to socialism sent the British political establishment wild-eyed with fear and rage resulting in them backing Keir Starmer waging a war of annihilation on the remaining left-wing elements in Labour. After he's finished the reward will be Britain's most spineless and least charismatic party leader being granted some time in Number 10. I for one wish him the worst of luck in his hopefully short term in office.

Nah it's the same damn thing in the US. The only difference between them is what the two parties use to distract people from the fact that they're all looking to enact the same exact kinda legislation, ie whatever the fuck their corporate benefactors tell them to enact.

Sure, if you look at what they say they look like two completely different parties, but if you look at what they do it becomes clear the US is a one-party state. The rich people party. Everyone else is unrepresented.

nexigrams posted...

Nah it's the same damn thing in the US. The only difference between them is what the two parties use to distract people from the fact that they're all looking to enact the same exact kinda legislation, ie whatever the fuck their corporate benefactors tell them to enact.

Sure, if you look at what they say they look like two completely different parties, but if you look at what they do it becomes clear the US is a one-party state. The rich people party. Everyone else is unrepresented.

If this was true it wouldn't be exclusively pushed by people who want the fascist party to win.

ai123 posted...

And what did they do in the coalition?

Abandoned all their policies and rubberstamped Cameron.

I thought that at the time, but Id argue that the shit show that has been the Tory party since would strongly imply that perhaps the Lib Dems were acting as more of a barrier than they appeared to.

Lillymon posted...

This is primarily down to Labour moving right rather than any move left from the Conservatives.

Not sure id fully agree with that. I agree with the part of Labour moving more right, but to say that the Torries have not moved left at all?.

When Labour were in power around 2007, they created a scheme where under 18 teenage girls who got pregnant, were to be given money to help them get stability with it all (like a roof over their head on Daddy government ect), and guess what?, Conservatives just continued it on.

And would you say that putting all these illegal immigrants into 4 star hotels as much as we are at the moment is all that right wing?, or all that conservative?.

KI_Simpson posted...

If this was true it wouldn't be exclusively pushed by people who want the fascist party to win.

It was true up until Obama got elected and broke the minds of racist assholes. Then Trump managed to win a nomination (and then election) that he had absolutely no fucking business winning by appealing to angry white men and women, and the Republican Party has made it their entire platform ever since.

The Conservative party as it stands have gone off the deep end. The only people left in the party after a) Brexit's chaotic implementation that fucked us and b) Boris Johnson's corrupt premiership are the absolute dregs of the party. The kind of morons who only existed in the party because they would rubberstamp any policy the party wanted, they were there as votes and parachuted into safe seats. Except now they've got power, and are tanking everything they touch as expected.

And Labour, in that classic moderate-left strategy, are trying to appeal to the right wing by shifting policy decision right in the hopes they can grab some of the disgruntled tory voters. While also shanking their left-wing supporters in the ribs because "well who else are you gonna vote for?". They're taking voters for granted, and have paid the price in Scotland with Scottish Labour being a complete non-entity.

tl;dr: the current tory party are right-wing nutjobs, and Starmer is trying to settle into the "sensible tory" position in the hopes of taking the opposition's vote share (they won't, tory voters won't tick next to a Labour name no matter what).

reincarnator07 posted...

Even modern Labour under Starmer is further from the Tories than the Dems are from the GOP...

I'm sorry, what?

One party is a Christian Nationalist movement that talks about oppressing and reversing rights for minorities (and already has done so through their Christo-fascist control of the Supreme Court as well at the state level) while the other talks about expanding and securing rights. Other than there are Dems beholden to corporate interests and that there's necons in both parties there's no similarities.

Your parties can at least agree that the people should be covered by healthcare, for us it's a fraction of one party.

Labour often seems to be what Tories 'should' be and the Tories themselves are styling themselves off the GOP without the religious fanaticism.

Kradek posted...

I'm sorry, what?

One party is a Christian Nationalist movement that talks about oppressing and reversing rights for minorities (and already has done so through their Christo-fascist control of the Supreme Court as well at the state level) while the other talks about expanding and securing rights. Other than there are Dems beholden to corporate interests and that there's necons in both parties there's no similarities.

Your parties can at least agree that the people should be covered by healthcare, for us it's a fraction of one party.

A disturbingly large portion of the Democrats are quite close to the GOP on economic policy. However, I should have specified that in my previous post, that was lazy of me. On social issues, there are irreconcilable issues between the two parties, mostly because the GOP can't even admit that minorities are human too.

The UK parties do not agree on healthcare. The Tories have been trying to dismantle the NHS for well over a decade now. They know it's far too popular to actually say the quiet part out loud, but that is absolutely their long term goal.

The only reason Democrats and Republicans aren't similar now is because Trump took the party in a far-right isolationist culture warrior direction. Before they sounded very similar on foreign policy, trade, corporate policies, etc.

The republicans have pushed US politics so far right that Democrats are basically just old fashioned real republicans at this point, but to say they are not different is insane. One party is literally going full facism and actively trying to destroy democracy.

reincarnator07 posted...

A disturbingly large portion of the Democrats are quite close to the GOP on economic policy. However, I should have specified that in my previous post, that was lazy of me. On social issues, there are irreconcilable issues between the two parties, mostly because the GOP can't even admit that minorities are human too.

The UK parties do not agree on healthcare. The Tories have been trying to dismantle the NHS for well over a decade now. They know it's far too popular to actually say the quiet part out loud, but that is absolutely their long term goal.

Hmm, wasn't aware of that in regards to the Tories. I appreciate you elaborating on both your point and mine.

One question ive got about The Democrats and The Republicans is, how come both of them changed to the mirror opposite of what they were say, right towards the end of the 19th century?. Afterall, it was the Republicans that abolished slavery, not the Democrats.

I recently saw Roots The Next Generation, and it was The Republicans that black people voted for. Apparently Theodore Roosevelt, who was a Republican president right at the beginning of the 20th century created a scheme where black cotton farm farmers who worked on franchised farms, could earn more of the money they made, which those rich franchise owners did not want. But now fast forward to 2023, and its the Democrats that ethnic minorities mainly vote for.

Pretty similar here in NZ between National (blue, center-right) and Labour (red, center-left). Most of the meaningful stuff happens because of the coalition partners they have to rely on to form a government, ACT and Greens respectively. Both are further in their respective directions, though at worst bordering on (rather than well into) nutty territory.

The country would be better off with a proportional voting system but both the Conservatives and Labour massively benefit from using FPTP so they'd never go for it, except in recent years this has been hurting Labour due to splitting the left wing vote while there's only really one viable right wing party.

Green: Left
SNP: Left (Scotland only)
Plaid Cymru: Left (Wales only)
Sinn Fein: Left (NI only)

Labour and Co-operative Party: Centre-left to left
Liberal Democrats: Centre to centre-left
Alliance: Centre to centre-left (NI only)
SDLP: Centre to centre-left (NI only)

Conservative and Unionist Party: Centre-right to right
Ulster Unionist Party: Centre-right (NI only)
DUP: Right to Far Right (NI only)
Alba: Right (Scotland only)
Reform UK: Right to far right

Labour would never endorse tactical voting and partnering with other parties even though that would be the way to get a winning majority.

Katanablade posted...

Ive certainly observed that the 2 main parties in the USA are very different from each other, in their ideologies.

Yeah one is the wheel and the other is the ratchet. Such different. Very shape

Tony Blair seemed like a neocon

DeadBankerDream posted...

Tony Blair seemed like a neocon

That's where his instincts lead him in the end.

We have labour and labour Jr

Katanablade posted...

One question ive got about The Democrats and The Republicans is, how come both of them changed to the mirror opposite of what they were say, right towards the end of the 19th century?. Afterall, it was the Republicans that abolished slavery, not the Democrats.

I recently saw Roots The Next Generation, and it was The Republicans that black people voted for. Apparently Theodore Roosevelt, who was a Republican president right at the beginning of the 20th century created a scheme where black cotton farm farmers who worked on franchised farms, could earn more of the money they made, which those rich franchise owners did not want. But now fast forward to 2023, and its the Democrats that ethnic minorities mainly vote for.

Look up the Southern strategy. The Democrats used to have a very liberal wing and a very conservative wing (Dixiecrats). The Dixiecrats were mad at the Democrat establishment that they passed the Civil Rights Act, while Nixon had an idea of appealing to disgruntled Dixiecrats for gotes, landing him a landslide victory and more conservative influence within the GOP, which eventually drove out the liberal Republicans and took over the party by Reagan's time.

Trumble posted...

Pretty similar here in NZ between National (blue, center-right) and Labour (red, center-left). Most of the meaningful stuff happens because of the coalition partners they have to rely on to form a government, ACT and Greens respectively. Both are further in their respective directions, though at worst bordering on (rather than well into) nutty territory.

Same in Australia. The Liberals had been going on a right wing trajectory since Tony Abbott and Scott Morrison, two religious ideologues that lack the more pragmatic politics of the previous Liberal leaders. Morrison himself is considered to be an embarrassment on the international stage by pissing off Australia's partners and secretly making himself the head of several ministries. They lost big in the 2022 election due to many Liberals defecting to stand as independents.

The current Labor PM Anthony Albanese meanwhile pretty much campaigned on a premise that he's not as bad as Scott Morrison, and he too lacks the charisma and pragmatism of previous Labor leaders. The Australian Greens are the biggest minor party that actually won in a numerous of traditionally conservative country seats due to their environmental policies.

Kradek posted...

Hmm, wasn't aware of that in regards to the Tories. I appreciate you elaborating on both your point and mine.

No worries, I should certainly be more specific on nuanced issues. It also doesn't help that the NHS does have some genuine issues that would need to be resolved even if the Tories weren't trying to kill it off, which has provided an excellent cover for them.

The parties are broadly the same with social issues and civil rights, with the BIG exception of immigration. Most of the conservative political energy is focused on fearmongering over illegal immigrants and asylum seekers.

Fenriswolf posted...

Look up the Southern strategy. The Democrats used to have a very liberal wing and a very conservative wing (Dixiecrats). The Dixiecrats were mad at the Democrat establishment that they passed the Civil Rights Act, while Nixon had an idea of appealing to disgruntled Dixiecrats for gotes, landing him a landslide victory and more conservative influence within the GOP, which eventually drove out the liberal Republicans and took over the party by Reagan's time.

Yep. It's amazing how right-wingers seriously try to pass off "southern strategy doesn't exist!" when like literally all the Confederate states except VA and now GA are Republican strongholds, and even those 2 for a good while were as well. The map literally flipped in color and they just go "durrr liberal rewriting of history! Demonrat Confederacy!"

Even more telling that the "party of Lincoln" cries bloody murder and "muh heritage!" when you say Confederate iconography shouldn't be displayed on public lands.

reincarnator07 posted...

No worries, I should certainly be more specific on nuanced issues. It also doesn't help that the NHS does have some genuine issues that would need to be resolved even if the Tories weren't trying to kill it off, which has provided an excellent cover for them.

I'm curious, what are these genuine issues?

reincarnator07 posted...

The parties are broadly the same with social issues and civil rights, with the BIG exception of immigration. Most of the conservative political energy is focused on fearmongering over illegal immigrants and asylum seekers.

In that regards both your right-wingers and ours are very similar. In fact, that just seems like a right-wing position in general looking at Sweden, Italy, and France as well.

It's curious how right-wing ideology always seemed to be paired with hatred and bigotry, yet so many right-wingers will vehemently deny the dick of truth slapping them in the face because then they'd have admit they've been supporting monsters and may even be monsters themselves.

Kradek posted...

I'm curious, what are these genuine issues?

So right off the bat, there is some wasted spending on the NHS. Millions are spend prescribing stuff like Paracetamol and Ibuprofen which is available for literal pennies over the country. There's also plenty of people who go to the GPs for stuff that can absolutely be treated at home, which ties up resources. The solution to this would be getting better at informing people of more common issues and how to treat them. Obviously I wouldn't want to prevent people going to the doctors, as something like a headache can be caused by staring at a screen too long, a brain tumour or pretty much anything in between.

There are significant staffing issues, exacerbated by Brexit. If I was a doctor and didn't have ties to the UK, I'd absolutely move to another country. Nurses are criminally underpaid for the conditions they are forced to work in. A lack of GPs directly contributes to one of the issues mentioned above. I know that the ideal is that these workers do what they do because it's the right thing to do, but they gotta eat yo. It's just not an attractive career path.

A lot of stuff outside of hospitals and GPs also has an impact. For example, there are thousands of people who are taking up hospital beds that are ready to be discharged but need some form of at home care. This means they're taking up beds and staff through no fault of their own. Expanding social care would help to address this. Just as an example, my mother has had both of her hips replaced. She was fine to go home after a couple of days each time, but there were quite a few things that she couldn't do for a few weeks, such as cooking, using stairs, shopping, even just making a cup of coffee. I live close so it wasn't an issue to help out, but not everyone is so fortunate.

Finally, people are living longer, which by its very nature means more pressure on healthcare. Old people have more complex and severe needs. I'm not saying kill off the boomers, but the NHS must adapt to this changing reality. Funding has gone down over time, but business as normal wouldn't have been enough anyway.

In that regards both your right-wingers and ours are very similar. In fact, that just seems like a right-wing position in general looking at Sweden, Italy, and France as well.

It's curious how right-wing ideology always seemed to be paired with hatred and bigotry, yet so many right-wingers will vehemently deny the dick of truth slapping them in the face because then they'd have admit they've been supporting monsters and may even be monsters themselves.

Conservatism needs an "other" out group to fear. Immigrants and trans people are the current targets, but the LGBT community as a whole, black people, Muslims and even other Europeans have all served as targets just within my life. The thing that generally broke down these barriers imo was just getting to interact with people in those groups and realising that they're just normal people. Most people personally know people of racial minorities, gay people, immigrants etc. Not everyone knows trans people or former asylum seekers. Therefore, they're much easier to other.

Katanablade posted...

One question ive got about The Democrats and The Republicans is, how come both of them changed to the mirror opposite of what they were say, right towards the end of the 19th century?. Afterall, it was the Republicans that abolished slavery, not the Democrats.

I recently saw Roots The Next Generation, and it was The Republicans that black people voted for. Apparently Theodore Roosevelt, who was a Republican president right at the beginning of the 20th century created a scheme where black cotton farm farmers who worked on franchised farms, could earn more of the money they made, which those rich franchise owners did not want. But now fast forward to 2023, and its the Democrats that ethnic minorities mainly vote for.

The switch started around the 1930s, but it basically made things regional instead of the parties exchanging positions fully. In conservative states both Democrats and Republicans acted conservative, and same for liberal states. The switch was completed in the 1960s, the southern Democrat Lyndon Johnson signed a massive civil rights bill that had its discussion most focused on race. Conservatives saw this as a massive betrayal and Republican Richard Nixon pounced on it by aligning himself and by extension the entire Republican party with conservativism. The switch was completed at that point.

ai123 posted...

You should look at what the Lib Dems did last time they had a seat at the table.

Sure, they were not what Republicans are doing now.

It's not a "same thing both sides" situation.