Is the Separation of Powers BROKEN in the USA?
In a true democracy there should be a separation of powers between the Juridical, Executive and Legislature. No democracy is perfect, but how imperfect is the American democracy?
While browsing the web in relation to a question on the Separation of Powers in the USA (in another forum) I stumbled across this video below, which is how America is perceived by many from across the pond.
Although the video reflects the perception of America, as generally seen by many from the other side of the pond; obviously I don’t have an insider’s (American) view on what’s said in the video, so I would be interested in your feedback and opinions on what the video says:
The Separation of Powers is BROKEN in the USA: https://youtu.be/1FIzoxAm2IUIt is not surprising to me that you, and a great many from "across the pond" agree with this video but I am not in agreement.
While it is true that there is at least some merging, some violation, of the separation of power in the US it is not nearly as bad as is portrayed in the video.
But that is not surprising, for the video was not as much about separation of power as it was negative reasons the US does not follow Europe down the road of Socialism. That our system is set up and designed to prevent the greed of a majority (whether for money or power) to take over a minority and simply shunt those needs and wants aside is abhorrent to the speaker. That the US refutes the "obvious" good of socialism means the whole system is faulty; that socialism is more difficult to attain here means the system needs to change until it is easier. When our "powers" (House, Senate, SCOTUS, President) all work together (seldom) to follow the Constitution it is seen as a faulty action rather than a recognition of what we are and what we wish to be.
So, no...there is no major fault in our separation of powers, we just don't want the socialism of Europe. Our system is designed to prevent, or at least slow, the progression towards the "equality" of socialism and that's just fine.Thanks for your thoughts wilderness: Putting politics aside per se, I don’t see it as your “system is designed to prevent, or at least slow, the progression towards the "equality" of socialism”; I see it as a system that is designed to keep a ‘two party’ system to the exclusion of other political parties – which to me seems undemocratic e.g. stifles the ‘will of the people’ if the ‘will of the people’ is for a greater inclusion of ‘socialism’.
The UK could have been in a similar situation today if it wasn’t for the broadminded view of one Conservative Politician (named Lord Salisbury) in the House of Lords back in 1948.
In 1945 the people voted into power a socialist government for the first time in the UK; on a landslide victory. At that time the House of Lords (an unelected upper chamber) was predominately Conservatives; and the Leader of the House of Lords was Lord Salisbury (Conservative).
So in 1948, when it came for the newly elected socialist government to push their socialist polices (which they had been elected on) through Parliament to become law - Lord Salisbury reasoned with his fellow unelected Conservative politicians in the House of Lords that “as they were unelected politicians it would be undemocratic to go against ‘the will of the people’ and block the socialist policies in the socialist government’s ‘election manifesto’ that the people had democratically elected into power:
This became known as the ‘Salisbury Convention’, and in 1949 become part of the ‘British unwritten Constitution’ e.g. that the House of Lords should not block any legislation that is in the Government’s Election Manifesto; but, as part of the ‘checks and balances’ of power in Parliament, the House of Lords are free to block any of the Government’s legislation if it was not in the Government’s Election Manifesto.
The Salisbury Convention: https://youtu.be/AGhgq1t8gpE
Surely you don't accept that video as an honest presentation? I made it through 5:30 before enough was enough. That was a really unbalanced and biased presentation of a perspective.
While it is true that the Founders clearly feared, and designed our constitution against, pure democracy, the video's slant misrepresents their reasoning.
The same bias was used in all of the points that I watched. If that is the way you guys see it you need to look deeper. On our 'side of the pond' tyranny of the majority is not a good thing.
Try this: Switch chairs, don a protagonist mantle and search for info to debunk the video. You will find plenty and much of it will be as biased as the linked video, but, you will also find good info to consider.
As a 'for instance', the video's presentation of the Supreme Court going against the will of the majority. Given the examples provided, that is not a truthful perspective. The Court rules on the constitutionality of issues, not whether the issue is right or wrong or the will of the people.
The Court did not rule for or against abortion, it ruled on the constitutionality of the original Roe decision. Constitutional scholars have studied and debated this new ruling. When you check those out I think you will find that most (tempted to say 'all') of the dissenting views are based on the ideology of choice as determined by the majority American opinion. That's wrong because the Court isn't supposed to be influenced by ideological reasoning, its job is solely to interpret the constitutionality of laws and their application in the public arena of 'justice'.
The president's climate and student loans efforts presentations stated their bias in the headlines with adjectives like; very moderate' and "extremely moderate." But, even that is an unimportant detail. The Court did not rule on whether the act was moderate or extreme, it ruled on the constitutional power of the president to arbitrarily bypass constitutional restraints.
This side of the pond thinks that's the way it should be. Using party affiliation percentages, the majority of Americans agree on the Court's purpose.
The rest of the examples I saw fit the same mold. Take that challenge. It probably won't change your mind, but it will inform you about the majority view on the issues I spoke to.
Plus, the Court points are safer from political rationalizations. The politics can easily be agreed upon and set aside because an even larger majority of Americans believe our SCOTUS Justices selection process has become too politicized. One less point to argue.
I did understand that you were just describing a perspective represented by the video, I'm simply saying you should challenge the video before you accept it (even if you do agree with it) because I think the SCOTUS premises I mentioned can be shown as purposeful misrepresentations.
It's not a good thing that you see the video as a common European perspective.
Then again, maybe something changed in the other 8 minutes and my comments are really off base. I'll risk it. *shrug* ;-)
GAThat was a mild version of the perceptions and beliefs the vast majority of Progressives (aka Democrats) have of America.
Funny enough, everything that was accused in the video, regarding property owner's and their rights may have been fairly accurate, just expressed in the worst light possible.
Considering the reality of that time and the inability of most people the world over to own property and have the rights provided in the Constitution and Bill of Rights... one has to be ignorant of history of course to jive with the messaging of that video.
Which of course is why so much effort today is put on CRT, DEI, founding fathers bad slave owning evil people, etc. rewrite or denigrate history and people will cheer as you take away their rights and freedoms.
Clearly, it will become a lot easier to erase both the Constitution and Bill of Rights in the near future, replacing it with a Corporate-Communist government that defers to International authorities, much like we see coming into existence under the current Administration.I think I picked the wrong door. I was expecting a different direction than that of your and Cred's responses. I'll stick with the video examples - if that direction survives.
The video examples that I saw are so easily shown to be misrepresentations that it's a wonder informed folks (e.g. Arthur) accept it as support for their perspectives. The point isn't about holding 'that' perspective, it's about how it is supported.
GaNot really, not when you understand Arthur's political beliefs.
Or Credence's for that matter.And what is wrong with taking a stand against authoritarianism and creeping despotism from the Right, on that point, Arthur and I agree.
You believe you are fighting against injustices brought on decades, centuries ago... ensuring they do not return.
In this fight, you are merely allowing another form of tyranny to take hold, one that will strip all Americans, black and white, of the freedoms and opportunity America had come to offer to all people, post 1960s.
The deliberations of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were held in strict secrecy. Consequently, anxious citizens gathered outside Independence Hall when the proceedings ended in order to learn what had been produced behind closed doors. The answer was provided immediately. A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, "Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, "A republic, if you can keep it."
This exchange was recorded by Constitution signer James McHenry in a diary entry that was later reproduced in the 1906 American Historical Review.
The difference between a democracy and a republic is not merely a question of semantics but is fundamental. The word "republic" comes from the Latin res publica — which means simply "the public thing(s)," or more simply "the law(s)." "Democracy," on the other hand, is derived from the Greek words demos and kratein, which translates to "the people to rule." Democracy, therefore, has always been synonymous with majority rule.
The Founding Fathers supported the view that (in the words of the Declaration of Independence) "Men ... are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." They recognized that such rights should not be violated by an unrestrained majority any more than they should be violated by an unrestrained king or monarch.
They recognized that majority rule would quickly degenerate into mobocracy and then into tyranny. This is the linchpin point where America sits today, the degeneration of civil obedience, law, order, and our national economic wellbeing... so that the mob-majority will beg for a tyrannical government (the one that created the distress) to save them.
The Founding Fathers had studied the history of both the Greek democracies and the Roman republic. They had a clear understanding of the relative freedom and stability that had characterized the latter, and of the strife and turmoil — quickly followed by despotism — that had characterized the former.
In drafting the Constitution, they created a government of law and not of men, a republic and not a democracy.
Consider the words of the Founding Fathers themselves, who — one after another — condemned democracy.
• Samuel Adams, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, championed the new Constitution in his state precisely because it would not create a democracy. "Democracy never lasts long," he noted. "It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself." He insisted, "There was never a democracy that 'did not commit suicide.'"
• New York's Alexander Hamilton, in a June 21, 1788 speech urging ratification of the Constitution in his state, thundered: "It has been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity."
Earlier, at the Constitutional Convention, Hamilton stated: "We are a Republican Government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy."
• James Madison, who is rightly known as the "Father of the Constitution," wrote in The Federalist, No. 10: "... democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they are violent in their deaths."
• George Washington, who had presided over the Constitutional Convention and later accepted the honor of being chosen as the first President of the United States under its new Constitution, indicated during his inaugural address on April 30, 1789, that he would dedicate himself to "the preservation ... of the republican model of government."
• Fisher Ames served in the U.S. Congress during the eight years of George Washington's presidency. He termed democracy "a government by the passions of the multitude, or, no less correctly, according to the vices and ambitions of their leaders."
On another occasion, he labeled democracy's majority rule one of "the intermediate stages towards ... tyranny." He later opined: "Democracy, in its best state, is but the politics of Bedlam; while kept chained, its thoughts are frantic, but when it breaks loose, it kills the keeper, fires the building, and perishes."
And in an essay entitled The Mire of Democracy, he wrote that the framers of the Constitution "intended our government should be a republic, which differs more widely from a democracy than a democracy from a despotism."
In light of the Founders' view on the subject of republics and democracies, it is not surprising that the Constitution does not contain the word "democracy," but does mandate: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government."
These principles were once widely understood. In the 19th century, many of the great leaders, both in America and abroad, stood in agreement with the Founding Fathers.
John Marshall, chief justice of the Supreme Court from 1801 to 1835 echoed the sentiments of Fisher Ames. "Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos," he wrote.
American poet James Russell Lowell warned that "democracy gives every man the right to be his own oppressor." Lowell was joined in his disdain for democracy by Ralph Waldo Emerson, who remarked that "democracy becomes a government of bullies tempered by editors."
Across the Atlantic, British statesman Thomas Babington Macauly agreed with the Americans. "I have long been convinced," he said, "that institutions purely democratic must, sooner or later, destroy liberty or civilization, or both."
Britons Benjamin Disraeli and Herbert Spencer would certainly agree with their countryman, Lord Acton, who wrote: "The one prevailing evil of democracy is the tyranny of the majority, or rather that party, not always the majority, that succeeds, by force or fraud, in carrying elections."
This is exactly where we are today, and exactly how the Democrats took power in 2020, where 'Mail in Ballots' that were unverifiable as to their legitimacy decided several key swing states... any State that sends out millions of ballots to their voters is no longer a State holding legitimate elections, it's outcome will ALWAYS be decided by those that control the ballot counting.
Joseph Stalin: 'The people who cast the votes don't decide an election, the people who count the votes do.'
The falsehoods that democracy was the epitome of good government and that the Founding Fathers had established just such a government for the United States has become increasingly widespread.
This misinformation was fueled by President Woodrow Wilson's famous 1916 appeal that our nation enter World War I "to make the world safe for democracy" — and by President Franklin Roosevelt's 1940 exhortation that America "must be the great arsenal of democracy" by rushing to England's aid during WWII.
One indicator of the radical transformation that took place is the contrast between the War Department's 1928 "Training Manual No. 2000-25," which was intended for use in citizenship training, and what followed. The 1928 U.S. government document correctly defined democracy as:
A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of "direct expression." Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic — negating property rights. Attitude of the law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.
This manual also accurately stated that the framers of the Constitution "made a very marked distinction between a republic and a democracy ... and said repeatedly and emphatically that they had formed a republic."
But by 1932, pressure against its use caused it to be withdrawn. In 1936, Senator Homer Truett Bone (D-WA) took to the floor of the Senate to call for the document's complete repudiation.
Decades later, in an article appearing in the October 1973 issue of Military Review, Lieutenant Colonel Paul B. Parham explained that the Army ceased using the manual because of letters of protest "from private citizens." Interestingly, Parham also noted that the word democracy "appears on one hand to be of key importance to, and holds some peculiar significance for, the Communists."
By 1952 the U.S. Army was singing the praises of democracy, instead of warning against it, in Field Manual 21-13, entitled The Soldier's Guide. This new manual incorrectly stated: "Because the United States is a democracy, the majority of the people decide how our Government will be organized and run...." (Emphasis in original.)
In 1939, historians Charles and Mary Beard added their strong voices in favor of historical accuracy "At no time, at no place, in solemn convention assembled, through no chosen agents, had the American people officially proclaimed the United States to be a democracy. The Constitution did not contain the word or any word lending countenance to it, except possibly the mention of 'We, the People,' in the preamble.... When the Constitution was framed no respectable person called himself or herself a democrat."
During the 1950s, Clarence Manion, the dean of Notre Dame Law School, echoed and amplified what the Beards had so correctly stated. He summarized: "The honest and serious student of American history will recall that our Founding Fathers managed to write both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution without using the term 'democracy' even once. No part of any of the existing state Constitutions contains any reference to the word. [The men] who were most influential in the institution and formulation of our government refer to 'democracy' only to distinguish it sharply from the republican form of our American Constitutional system."
The Founding Fathers had established a republic and had condemned democracy, but powerful forces are at work to convert the American republic into a democracy, in order to bring about dictatorship.
Democracy is not an end in itself but a means to an end.
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury.
From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.
As British writer G.K. Chesterton put it in the 20th century: "You can never have a revolution in order to establish a democracy. You must have a democracy in order to have a revolution."
Communist revolutionary Karl Marx understood this principle all too well.
In The Communist Manifesto, this enemy of freedom stated that "the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class, to win the battle of democracy." For what purpose?
To "abolish private property"; to "wrest, by degrees, capital from the bourgeoisie"; to "centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the State"; etc.
The truth is, the power will never reside with the people, their freedoms, rights, and ability to own private property will be stripped from them, so that the elites, the oligarchs, the Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Larry Fink of the world control who eats and who dies.
Another champion of democracy was Communist Mao Tse-tung, who proclaimed in 1939 (a decade before consolidating control on the Chinese mainland): "Taken as a whole, the Chinese revolutionary movement led by the Communist Party embraces the two stages, i.e., the democratic and the socialist revolutions, which are essentially different revolutionary processes, and the second process can be carried through only after the first has been completed. The democratic revolution is the necessary preparation for the socialist revolution, and the socialist revolution is the inevitable sequel to the democratic revolution. The ultimate aim for which all communists strive is to bring about a socialist and communist society."
According to Lenin, socialism and democracy are indivisible.... The essence of perestroika lies in the fact that it unites socialism with democracy and revives the Leninist concept.... We want more socialism and, therefore, more democracy.
This socialist revolution has been underway in America for generations. Of course, most who support this goal do not comprehend the totalitarian consequences of constantly transferring more power to Washington. But this lack of understanding is what makes revolution by the Mail-In ballots possible.
The push for democracy has only been possible because the Constitution is being ignored, violated, and circumvented.
The Constitution defines and limits the powers of the federal government. Those powers, all of which are enumerated, do not include agricultural subsidy programs, housing programs, education assistance programs, food stamps, etc.
Under the Constitution, Congress is not authorized to pass any law it chooses; it is only authorized to pass laws that are constitutional.
Anybody who doubts the intent of the Founders to restrict federal powers, and thereby protect the rights of the individual, should review the language in the Bill of Rights, including the opening phrase of the First Amendment ("Congress shall make no law...").
This article, heavily revised, originally appeared in the November 6, 2000 issue of The New American. "A Republic, if You Can Keep It" Written by John F. McManusWell damn, that was an on-point and informative read. I was going to give you credit for penning it.
GAThank you, Ken, obviously a great deal of effort went into your reply.
"You believe you are fighting against injustices brought on decades, centuries ago... ensuring they do not return."
--------
It is a struggle with which I am familiar but has reaped benefits even if slowly. Why am I going to take a chance with this man who speaks of tyrannical ideas and is a racist and misogynist, can I really expect to fare any better? Reading his Agenda 2025, Trumps proposals are far worse than anything we have today. He clearly states plans to weaponise federal institutions in his seeking "retribution" such a man is not fit for the Presidency.
Republic refers to the idea that we are nation of laws not of men, that's fine as a way to protect dissent and minority opinion from being overwhelmed. But within that constraint Democracy must prevail, the rule of the people.
"Men ... are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." They recognized that such rights should not be violated by an unrestrained majority any more than they should be violated by an unrestrained king or monarch."
------
I will add to that the inordinate influence of corporate capitalists, taking advantage.
"They recognized that majority rule would quickly degenerate into mobocracy and then into tyranny. This is the linchpin point where America sits today, the degeneration of civil obedience, law, order, and our national economic wellbeing... so that the mob-majority will beg for a tyrannical government (the one that created the distress) to save them."
------
We have a representative democracy, those elected to office are to express the will of the preponderance of the people in the district they serve. No crazed mobs and all that are necessary. But I expect legislators voted in by the people to reflect their will and not that of a minority opinion or set of values. The stuff you speak of has been spoken of in the past as the "end". I lived during the sixties and seventies hearing much of the same ominous warnings, but the sky had never fallen.
"Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy."
--------
I don't see extreme democracy as a problem, but encroaching despotism is.
"On another occasion, he labeled democracy's majority rule one of "the intermediate stages towards ... tyranny." He later opined: "Democracy, in its best state, is but the politics of Bedlam; while kept chained, its thoughts are frantic, but when it breaks loose, it kills the keeper, fires the building, and perishes."
------
It seems that we continue to take this road and the sky has not fallen, we have been working at it and its refinement for almost 250 years, I will take my chances with the status quo.
This is exactly where we are today, and exactly how the Democrats took power in 2020, where 'Mail in Ballots' that were unverifiable as to their legitimacy decided several key swing states... any State that sends out millions of ballots to their voters is no longer a State holding legitimate elections, it's outcome will ALWAYS be decided by those that control the ballot counting.
------
Just like Republicans took power in 2016 when Clinton had the most popular votes. Like I said, if there is not proof of voter fraud, it remains just idle banter in my opinion. You don't say that all Presidential ballot counts have been corrupt since ballots were counted or are you parroting Trumps eternal lie?
In this so called mobocracy, how is it that the rich, our corporate aristocracy continue to get richer?
"From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship."
-----
Somehow again the rich still get richer and you had better be grateful that much of legislation of the New Deal and Great Society took hold or you would speaking about a society that would torn down by its roots, the people will drag the fat cats down from their celestial perches to be held to account.
The proletariat, as the majority should be the ultimate ruling class. The bourgeoisie can by oppressive in of themselves. Is their rule any better?
It is erroneous to use the experiences of Communist China and Russia as a model for America.
Socialism and Democracy seems to work in much of Europe and in many ways their societies are better than ours.
Was the Constitution ignores when slavery was abolished or when women were allowed to vote? Your vision of the Constitution seems to prefer that some are more equal than others.
"The Constitution defines and limits the powers of the federal government. Those powers, all of which are enumerated, do not include agricultural subsidy programs, housing programs, education assistance programs, food stamps, etc."
-------
What about Social Security, Medicare are they under the same derision you seem to assign all of the other social programs? Where did the Constitution speak of this?
Let's put you on the spot, Ken. Democracy has it problems, but is despotism and tyranny better? What is it you are really raising hay about do you want democracy in America abolished? What would you replace it with, and be specific.....In order for even your best, most well meaning Progressive Socialist Democracy to uplift, support and better its citizens and society...
The Pendulum must swing.
America's success, such as it is, was attained because no one party, no one power, maintained control.
There were always corrections in the direction the country was sailing toward. Change needs to progress slowly, with corrections made when overreach occurs.
If this is not allowed to continue, then tyranny is right around the corner... it is currently your Party that has the Nation so near to that precipice, the threat you harp on regarding Trump is a mirage, a fabrication of those trying to undermine the Republic and usher in the One Party despotism that America has avoided for decades now.
This is some 30 years in the making, with many of the same players in the game... the Clintons, Biden & Pelosi... they have been in the mix for roughly 40 years. The Obamas for the past 20 and clearly the more popular out of them all.
Trump would be nothing more than what he was in 2016... a delay in the deconstruction of America, a delay in its demise as a Republic for a few years more.
A Trump Administration will get no closer to being a Tyranny than it did the last time he was in office, with the majority of those in DC working to undermine him and hinder his every effort.
The nation needs a desperate breather from the Biden Administration and all those within it and behind it. The world needs a desperate breather from the total incompetence of this Administration's efforts that seems to be so determined to bring about WWIII.We have avoided one party government since the early 19th century, I am satisfied that we have attained that much. One party rule? Who is in charge of the House of Reps and is not the SC over run with Right wing toadies? No one party retains control, now.
"What is it you are really raising hay about do you want democracy in America abolished? What would you replace it with, and be specific....."
Can I get an answer to this, Ken?
"Corporate-communist" is an oxymoron. I hardly see how that can happen
No I don’t accept the video as an honest presentation; it is obviously heavily biased towards socialism – and normally I don’t take much notice of any article or video that’s heavily biased, in either direction: But nevertheless, from my perspective from across the pond, I do see a lot of truth in the video which is worthy of debate.
Where you say in your 2nd paragraph: “On our 'side of the pond' tyranny of the majority is not a good thing.” – That sounds to me that you are saying that ‘the will of the people’ should be stifled, if the ‘will of the people’ means an element of socialism?
Yes you are right in much of what you say e.g. “Courts must decide a case by determining the facts and applying the applicable law subject to precedent. So public opinion surrounding a particular case is irrelevant.”
However, it does seem to me that although it’s not public opinion that sways the Supreme Court, its politics – because in the USA there is not a true separation of powers between the Juridical and the Executive. And even in “determining the facts and applying the applicable law subject to precedent” political slant can make a fundamental difference in the decision made by the Supreme Court. In this respect how did the Democrat Supreme Court Judges and the Republican Supreme Court Judges vote in the recent Roe v Wade decision e.g. if all the Democratic judges voted one way and all the Republican judges voted the other way then it is clearly ‘political’?I better watch the rest of your link to see what truths you think are there. As mentioned in a subsequent comment, after some thought I had to agree that the video was right—our SCOTUS is intentionally undemocratic (in the sense of not weighing the public's majority sentiment), but the bias of the reasoning used to support that charge was so wrong. Maybe the other points deserve a look.
"Tyranny of the majority" wasn't intended as a synonym for socialism. A socialist form of government isn't the same as socialist practices. One is forced and one is adopted.
The most simplistic example is the 'Who's for dinner?' trope:
"5 wolves and 3 sheep are deciding who gets eaten for dinner. Each get one vote. That's a tyranny of the majority.
That concept extrapolates throughout a society's development. Consider our early 'Wild West' history as another step up. Dodge (an early Wild West town) decides to clean up their act. They hired a sheriff, made some rules, and decided to become a society of laws.
The first lynch mob was a tyranny of the majority. Then jump to our early twentieth century—our part in WWII. A majority of citizens were for a strict isolationist policy. I say history proves that had they prevailed it would have been a tyranny of the majority.
By the same token, a 5 - 4 SCOTUS ruling could technically also be seen as a tyranny of the majority—by the minority. But, that tyranny has been mitigated and refined by all the steps involved before it reached the Courts.
Consider an unrefined example: the raw one-vote-each voice of the people. The majority, votes for a universal basic income that costs more than the government revenue can support—even with new confiscatory taxes. That tyranny would bankrupt the nation. But, as that voice of the majority passes through the process of its collective representatives, and through the various legislative steps, and minority challenges it becomes refined to a consensus of a UBI, but without the bankrupting number because the rules say you can't do that.
There will always be a danger in majority rule at any level so it is a concept that must have rules. It is only when the majority violates the rules that a majority decision becomes a tyranny.
Our rules are our constitution and our representative form of government provides the refining process that makes the final decisions the consensus of the majority rather than the demands of a majority. Consensus rather than tyranny.
Your points about increasing politicization of the Court aren't off base. The political corruption of the selection process has inserted an ideological test that should not be there. But that doesn't mean the concept and original design are wrong, the separation is still there—in the rules, it simply means our politics and politicians are breaking our own rules.
GAIn your 2nd paragraph, where you say: “A socialist form of government isn't the same as socialist practices. One is forced and one is adopted.” If a socialist government is democratically elected (as is highly likely to happen in the UK later this year), how is that forced?
The bulk of your post quite rightly criticises ‘direct democracy’ e.g. referendums; in my view referendums (direct democracy) should only be used for constitutional changes – as is the case across Europe, including the UK; with the exception of Switzerland.
Switzerland has been a ‘direct democracy’ since 1848, and although I don’t support ‘direct democracy’ that system of democracy hasn’t harmed Switzerland – as per video below:-
How good are Swiss referendums really? https://youtu.be/vECRjAJVzHc
Like you, I support Representative democracy e.g. politicians elected by ‘the people’ to represent ‘the people’. However, the American electoral system reinforces a ‘two party’ system to the exclusion of other political parties ever being able to share power at the Federal Government level – which to me (living in a multiparty political system) is less democratic.
Yes, I understand the importance of a constitution, but the American constitution seems to be set in stone e.g. prevents it from change to keep up with the times; unlike the British ‘unwritten’ constitution that evolves over time to keep pace with changing times e.g. the ‘Salisbury Convention’ that became part of the British Constitution in 1949.
The Salisbury Convention: https://youtu.be/AGhgq1t8gpEThat sentence did give me some pause, it used the same word to mean different descriptions. My bad. Maybe I can make it worse.
My thought is that socialism has no 'private' anything. Everything is communal. There is no private gain, all gain is for the community. There is no private profit, all profit is for the community. The mechanics of that system are socialist activities.
You may have elected socialist leaders and have some socialistic institutions (NHS, trains(?), welfare, etc.), but you still have private stuff, socialism isn't your form of government. The U.S. also has socialistic institutions; police, fire dept. et al, but socialism isn't our form of government either. Do you think Brits would ever give up their property and productivity rights voluntarily?
I share your criticisms of our two-party system. Our problem — as I see it — is the 'winner takes all' components (non-proportional judgment) of our system. It perpetuates the worst of a two-party system. As a note, the constructs of a two-party system are not part of our constitution.
I view our Constitution as an instruction manual, not an unchangeable edict. Its concepts are (rightly so) comparable to being "written in stone" because proper basics seldom radically change, but it is stone with mechanisms for change. Our Constitution is malleable and can be changed. The citizens have the power to change it. It just takes a lot of them to agree to do so (again, rightly so). Factions should never have the power to change it (as could be the case in the "changing times" rationalizations), it should always take a mass effort of the majority to do so.
However, the idea of it changing for changing times is a different argument for another discussion.
As for the concept of your Salisbury Convention, we had a similar type of change in the early 1900s when our senators became popularly elected positions rather than legislative appointments.
So, speaking of 'written in stone,' our stone has been changed 27 times already.
GAYes you have made it worse e.g. using “the same word to mean different descriptions.”
You made the same mistake that many, many Americans make e.g. in thinking that Socialism and Communism is synonymous; whereas in reality they are two completely different political systems; one evolved out of the other.
Interestingly, the origin of Democratic Socialism was in Britain in the 19th century (so blame us for everything): “The origins of democratic socialism can be traced back to 19th-century utopian socialist thinkers and the Chartist movement in Great Britain”; and from Britain it quickly spread across the rest of Europe - and shortly afterwards got corrupted into Communism in Russia.
Communism in Russia and China etc. grew out of the socialist movement in 19th-century Europe.
The two charts below graphically show the basic differences between Socialism and Communism.
Yep, I screwed the pooch on that one. There is so much nuance and context between my simplistic view, as stated, and the graph's presentation, that I had to do a look-around to see how wrong I was, or to find support that I wasn't completely wrong.
In an effort for perspective, I'm not ready to plant my flag on what follows as the real truth. It's just some points that seem to fit my description.
Where I spoke to private property it was from an American understanding—private property is what you own, from real property to intellectual property to the clothes on your back. It seems private property in socialism means a couple of things: Public/Private property and Personal property. With all production and resources related to basic societal needs—essentially the entire Primary market, being public/private ownership. Those properties are also collectively controlled.
Personal property (stuff an individual can own) seems to be stuff such as commodities you buy: the VCR, the shirt on your back, furniture, etc.). It seems more modernized interpretations allow more open entrepreneurial and property ownership rules in the Secondary market: small non-basic needs productions and products, cafes, etc. That would also be the only area (market) where personal profit would be condoned.
If those basic descriptions aren't basically wrong, (as in, at least arguable), and if my "Private" property and profit is equated to your "Personal" property & profit, then my original statement doesn't seem far off.
"My thought is that socialism has no 'private' anything. Everything is communal. There is no private gain, all gain is for the community. There is no private profit, all profit is for the community. The mechanics of that system are socialist activities.
"
Yes, my "everything" and "anything" were too broad and encompassing as a generalization, but, when the point where it is wrong is only in a smaller non-essential secondary market it seems the context is more right than wrong.
Leaving room for one more error, For me, Collective and State are nearly synonymous. Not technically and not exactly, but . . . close enough.
GAI’ve read your post, thought about it, slept on it, read it, had a coffee break, and read it again: I’m not sure if we are speaking the same language or not? It’s one of those situations where if we had a social chat over a couple of pints of beer in a pub we would iron out any misunderstandings and come to a common understanding – me thinks!
So, as a social drink in a pub isn’t an option, I’ll try a different tact: Firstly, Russia is more of the ‘text-book’ description of communion that you would read on the web than China is. Secondly, I’m not so au fait with Russia as I am with China e.g. a close family friend and neighbours, is a Chinese couple who live two doors up from us, they immigrated from China specifically so that they could have two children. They holiday (vacation) to China most years to see family and friends, and occasionally the husbands brother (who we’ve met) takes a holiday (vacation) from China to see his brother in Britain: So from them I do have a good insider’s perspective of China.
Also, a few years ago my son asked me to research and source some equipment for his profession (using my skills that I was trained to do in the civil service). After a lot of research I narrowed the choice down to just two manufacturers, one in the West and one in China – we opted for the China product because it was a far better design, and a far better quality build.
NOW ONTO THE TOPIC MATTER:
Firstly, there is a clear distinction between Communism (as in China), and Socialism (as in Britain); so I’m wondering whether it would be better to focus on what democratic socialism is (relevant to Europe and Britain), rather than try to define communism (relevant to Russia and China).
Yep, even the two charts I posted previously is too simplistic; so for those who don’t have democratic socialism in their country, and therefore don’t have first-hand experience of democratic socialism e.g. (the USA), trying to read too much into the charts, without more detailed knowledge could be misleading. For example, where the charts say ‘no private ownership’ and ‘no free markets’ under communism, it doesn’t mean at the personal level, and (in China at least) it doesn’t prevent ‘private enterprise’ e.g. the product I mentioned above, that we bought from China, was manufactured by a private/commercial Chinese Company.
And in China, personal property, such as clothes, DVD players, TV’s, mobile phones, and even cars are owned by the individual, bought using their own hard earned cash. Personal wealth is not outlawed in China, according to ‘Forbes’ there are currently 406 billionaires in China (compared to 813 in the USA, and 55 in the UK). And in the UK we get a lot of Chinese tourist spending money over here while on their holiday (vacation).
Finally, referring to your last paragraph: Living in a country where we have ‘socialism’ I know the difference between ‘Collective (communism) and State (Socialism)’, because I live in a country where many things are ‘State owned’ or ‘State Controlled’; but putting it into words to explain in simple terms to someone who hasn’t experienced ‘socialism’ eludes me at the moment – so time for another coffee break to think.Ok, I’ve had my coffee break and a think; and the best analogy I can think of to distinguish the difference between ‘Collective’ (communism, as in Russia and China) and ‘State’ (Socialism, as in Europe and Britain) is the UK’s Co-op.
The Co-op was founded in England in 1844, it’s a private business that’s owned and run by ‘the people’ e.g. not shareholders, and not government. In the UK today, the Co-op has businesses in Retail, Wholesale, Legal, Funerals, Insurance, and Social Enterprise.
In the UK the Co-op:-
• Founded in England in 1844
• Has 3,160 branches across Britain
• Annual Revenue = $14 billion
• Annual Net Profit = $4 million
• Employs 56,465 people
• Has over 5 million active members (owners), which is about 12.5% of the UK adult population who are active members of the Co-op e.g. who own the Co-op.
In the UK a typical funeral, if you go to a private Funeral Director, costs around $4,000; whereas, if you go to the Co-op it typically costs around $2,000.
This short 2 minute video explains the Co-op in the UK: https://youtu.be/PIbW8b5ssKs
The Co-op in the UK operates more like the ‘Collective’ businesses in communist countries.
In Contrast, ‘State’ (socialism, as Europe and Britain) is where the central Government owns, and sometime controls, the Industry e.g. Public Transport, Electricity, Water, and Sewage etc. E.g. the coal industry in Britain was State owned until the Conservative Government decided to close it down for political reasons; and until the 1980s many heavy industry, including steel, car manufacturer and the aeroplane industry were all State owned in Britain.
Today, with the Conservatives privatising most State owned Industries in the 1980s, there are relative few State owned business remaining in the UK; the most recently renationalised industries (State owned), bought back under Government ownership and control by the Conservative Government in the last couple of years is the National Grid and Trains; and of course the BBC and Channel 4 TV are also State owned in the UK: But unlike America the State (Government) does heavily Regulate Private Industry in the UK.
The complete list of what Industries still remain under State ownership in the UK is:
• British Business Bank
• Civil Aviation Authority
• Railways and Trains (and in London, all public transport)
• National Physical Laboratory
• Pension Protection Fund
• NHS
• National Grid (for electricity and natural gas)
• Steel industry
• Forestry
• BBC & Channel 4 TVYou are a wealth of knowledge with all things associated with the UK.
There are things in the UK I don't understand and make no sense to me. My friend from Wales once told me that it's the history that makes a country. America's history is nothing like Wales, England or the UK. Don't expect us to see things the same.
Do you agree history plays a pivotal role in how people run their country?Well yeah, living in the UK I do have a good background knowledge of the UK; apart from which most of the detailed information is in the public domain and relatively easy to find, if you know what you are looking for and know where to look – which I was trained to do as a civil servant.
Likewise, “there are things in the” USA “I don't understand and make no sense to me.” – which is why I participate in these forums, to try to get a better understanding of American ‘social’ and ‘political’ ideology.
Yep, absolutely – I fully agree that “history plays a pivotal role in how people run their country”.
Before moving to the State vs. Collective thing . . .
I am reading your responses as addressing the degrees of socialism (socialistic policies) in mixed economies rather than the foundational aspects of my initial statement. Which was about a comment that Britain was electing more and more socialist representatives and was perhaps on the road to voters supporting a socialist government endorsing socialism as an economic model.
The tenets I spoke to are, in their most stark and open nature, illustrated by our generalized perceptions of the socialism of Marx and Lenin. The differences you note are simply differences in degrees of those basic tenets. I would say that the socialism you endorse is a hybrid that amounts to generations of evolutionary thinking based on the experiences of past realities. But, it still retains the same basic foundational tenets in modified form. Lenin or Marx might say any production or resource that society needs or values will be owned and controlled by the Collective/State. Everything else is a Black market economy. You offer a short list of the ones agreeably owned. Everything else is an open market. Simply a lesser degree of belief.
The China example seems the same, relative to personal profit. Lenin and Marx might say any production profit (including the profit of labor) belongs to the State. China's socialism (within its communist structure) still controls/owns its society's primary production and distribution market, yet allows billionaires. Again, simply a lesser degree of belief in the basic tenet.
Hopefully, as a basic description, that all makes sense relative to the context of my entry point.
I'm not up to venturing into the comparisons and differences in the different schools of thought on what socialism is—in detail, with specificity. I was simply (lazily(?)) addressing the basics of the concept, and the odds, that Britain will ever adopt socialism as its governing economic model.
GABack to square one: You’re still making the same mistake that many, many Americans make e.g. in thinking that Socialism and Communism are synonymous; whereas in reality they are two completely different social & political systems.
The socialism of Marx and Lenin is communism; not to be confused with ‘democratic socialism’, which is NOT communism.
Where you say: “The differences you note are simply differences in degrees of those basic tenets” – You seem to be suggesting that ‘democratic socialism’ is just a watered down version of communism; whereas in actual fact the two are two different ideologies, with critical fundamental differences, as explained in this short video:
Communism vs. Socialism: https://youtu.be/ZG08EnotJXE
Namely:-
• Generally speaking, socialism is a more flexible ideology which aims to reduce the worst outcomes of capitalism.
• Communism, on the other hand, seeks to overthrow capitalism through a violent revolution of the working classes.
Perhaps, this over simplified Socialism Family Tree below (in conjunction with the video above) will help to clarify that Democratic Socialism is a different social and political philosophy to communism.
FYI: In the family tree below:
• The ‘First International’, mentioned in the tree below, is Karl Mark, Friedrich Engels and Mikhail Bukunin’s formation of the ‘Workingmen’s Association’ in London.
• The ‘Second International’, mentioned in the tree below, is the creation of the Labour Party by the Trade Unions in 1899, and the co-ordinated formation of other socialist political Parties in 20 countries across Europe – This time the meeting place for this umbrella organisation was Paris, France.
• The ‘Third International’ was Russia’s attempt to make Communism worldwide.
Sometimes the line between confidence and obstinance isn't always stark and bold. I'm a bit worried I'm crossing it because of confidence in my point.
However, I did give it a morning of looking around and pondering. I'm not trying to be obstinant. But . . .
. . . and in the context of my initial entry, not of the pros and cons and definitions of the different ideologies, I think my point is still correct, and the statement is still valid.
I don't think I'm confusing communism with socialism. Socialism is the umbrella communism falls under—it is a subset* of socialism.
I don't take credit for the "subset" label, it was one found in many of the explanatory articles offered.
I also think I understand the differences between communism and socialism as being degrees and methods of control and implementation relative to the tenets of socialism. Those differences would primarily be the degrees of a mixed economy and its control. Such as no mix for Marx and lots of mix for Democratic socialism.
However, as my previous response claimed, the stark difference doesn't negate the basics. Democratic socialism still wants public essentials to be under public control and benefit, and it still wants capitalism limited to non-essential (for public good and equity) markets.
Using the ballot box (Democratic socialists) instead of force (Marx) is simply a difference in method and degrees. Not in the sense of being watered down, but of being an evolution of the basic concept (also previously described).
If all of that is still off base then I really am back at square one and my obstinance is on full display. ;-)
GAOn carefully reading your comments, and giving what you say plenty of thought over a cup of coffee or two – I think in essence, we are more or less on the same page! So no, you are not off base, I think it’s just a question of trying to speak the same language, to clarify any misunderstandings.
Although I would just like to clarify some areas where there may still be some misunderstandings!
Where you say: “I don't think I'm confusing communism with socialism. Socialism is the umbrella communism falls under—it is a subset* of socialism.” – I think that is where the confusion and misunderstanding between Europeans and Americans lay e.g. the same word meaning different things on the two sides of the pond:-
• Europeans call ‘Communism’ – communism; and ‘Democratic Socialism’ – Socialism: So as to clearly distinguish between the two ideologies.
• Americans call ‘Communism’ – Socialism; and ‘Democratic Socialism’ – Socialism e.g. using the same word for two different social and political ideologies.
Can you see from the above where the confusion lays, and why Americans mistakenly believe that ‘Democratic Socialism and Communism’ are synonymous? E.g. it would cause a lot less confusion and misunderstanding if people used the subset* rather than the umbrella name when talking about democratic socialism or communism.
There is more than just a “simply a difference in method and degrees.” between democratic socialism and communism; although they share a lot of the same principles, there are nevertheless some fundamental differences that make the two social and political ideologies radically different from each other; specifically:-
1. Communism is a ‘single party’ system that suppresses political opposition; whereas democratic socialism fully believes in full and free democracy. The former leads to an authoritarian regime where there is no true democracy; the latter leads to a multiparty democracy.
2. Communism aims to supress capitalism; whereas democratic socialism doesn’t, it only wants to just “limit capitalism to non-essential (for public good and equity) markets.”, albeit heavily ‘Regulated’ e.g. no Laissez-faire in Britain.
Hopefully, we’ve now crossed the language barrier, to better understand each other?You know that satisfying feeling when you reach the destination of a trip. Like, maybe, your car vacations to the countryside when you pull up to the cottage . . . that's a good way to start a morning.
It seems the language thing, relative to communism, was the culprit. Your explanation makes sense to me. So does your idea of Democratic Socialism. However, as we ended up understanding, my responses weren't equating communism with socialism. They were addressing the similarities and differences.
There are a lot of areas of Democratic socialism I would argue against. Capitalism may be responsible for some great human inequities, but it has also lifted many nations of the world out of near-barbarism. Greed for profit has driven societal evolution to amazing levels that the communes of socialism never would have. Humans are greedier than they are altruistic. Even in your UK and Europe.
As a final friendly poke; you say communism aims to suppress capitalism and you guys only want to limit it, right? Isn't 'limiting' also a degree of suppression? Isn't that an illustration of the basics I have been arguing as simply degrees of difference between the two?
GAYep, Laissez-faire government is something many Americans seem to favour, whereas the vast majority of Europeans find Laissez-faire distasteful. This old YouGov Public Opinion Poll (which also includes data from Germany and the USA, as well as the UK might partly explain why?
https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/ … rably-capi
I totally agree with you “Capitalism…..has also lifted many nations of the world out of near-barbarism.”; The Industrial Revolution started in Britain, and quickly spread to the rest of the world, including the USA. Many of the worlds advancement have come from Britain, and even today the UK is still a world leader in many areas of R&D (Research & Development) e.g. wind power, green hydrogen technology just to mention two.
World's first hydrogen-powered seagoing ferries, world leader in (R&D) - innovation in Scotland: https://youtu.be/jsbObSYqVao
Also, China, Germany and the UK are the only countries in the world at the moment doing R&D (Research and Development) of Green Hydrogen Trains; Germany and China are already operating them, and the UK should follow shortly. And the Green Hydrogen Train is not being developed by private industry in the UK; it’s being developed by Birmingham University in partnership with a UK train company:
UK hydrogen train ventures out onto the main line (2021): https://youtu.be/OddzzRZGsLU
And even the NHS, although State owned has and does make major advances in medicine e.g. the world’s first ‘Test Tube Baby’ was done by the NHS.
Which brings us onto your final point, where you say: “communism aims to suppress capitalism and you guys only want to limit it, right? Isn't 'limiting' also a degree of suppression?” –
Capitalism isn’t supressed in the UK, it’s encouraged; but heavily ‘Regulated’, especially to ensure ‘a good standard of pay and working conditions, and high Standards of Health & Safety at work and in the product or service produced etc. And within those rules, Private Enterprise does flourish in Britain e.g. you only need to look at British entrepreneurs like Lord Alan Sugar and Sir Richard Branson so see how private businesses can and do flourish in Britain.
So it’s not all as ‘black and white’ as you might think e.g. Innovations in the NHS which is State owned, and State financed, is just one example that shows that it’s not just private enterprise that ‘innovates’:
NHS innovations: past, present and future: https://youtu.be/V8WGUS4fhh8"Capitalism isn’t supressed in the UK, it’s encouraged; but heavily ‘Regulated’, especially to ensure ‘a good standard of pay and working conditions, and high Standards of Health & Safety at work and in the product or service produced etc. And within those rules, Private Enterprise does flourish in Britain e.g. you only need to look at British entrepreneurs like Lord Alan Sugar and Sir Richard Branson so see how private businesses can and do flourish in Britain."
I like that a great deal and that is the way that it should be .And yet, the US economy is almost twice the size of the UK's.
Our budget revenues are almost two times as much as that of the UK.
https://www.nationmaster.com/country-in … es/Economy
Not even China with it's billion people don't have as large of an economy a the US.
There is just something about capitalism that creates wealth.I don't see anything wrong with Arthur's paragraph.
Does acknowledging how great capitalism is include its ruthlessness and abusive nature? Saw much of that in late 19th and early 20th centuries, check out photos by Jacob Riis. The practioners are not necessarily any better today, only restrained.
You can have your precious Capitalism, but I like "regulated".I bet almost everyone would agree that capitalism in a society will always need some regulation, it's the degree and purpose that are the argument.
Britain's level of regulation doesn't seem to be a problem for their folks.
GAMany conservatives I don't believe share that responsible sentiment...
That is your personal problem, Cred, for I do not know a single person that thinks otherwise and have never heard of one. Your hatred of anything even bordering on conservative blinds you to reality.
And you embrace and are evenminded about concerns of the left? Hardly.
Conservatives allow a cad like Donald Trump credibility in his lies about election outcome
Conservatives, and a large portion of Republicans embrace Tucker Carlson racist "Great Replacement Theory" which is an attack and making people of color an affront and threat in the mind of hidebound white conservatives and Republicans generally, looking to identify an enemy. So with attitudes like that, they are not buddies and we are not pals.
There are statistics to support this unless you want to counter statistical data with "what you have seen"
There are a lot of things that YOU don't see or hear, Wilderness. No man is an oracle and perhaps things do take place that you either ignore or just as soon not see.....
I would venture that they do, it is the degrees of regulation we argue. At least that is the impression I have.
GA
Unfortunately, the more regulated it is the less it tends to produce for all.
It is a fine line that must be walked, and liberals have no intention of even trying.While the trend is that conservatives want to erase that "fine line" to the greatest extent possible, they are certainly no better.
No compete contracts, anti collective bargaining, reintroducing child labor. We just as well return to the sweat shops of the most notorious 19 century period, when laissez faire capitalism was all the rage
The less regulation the more exploitive the nature.
Yet the UK (as small as it is) is the 6th wealthiest country in the world.
Absolutely: and it not just people Like Sir Richard Branson and Lord Alan Sugar:
Octopus Energy was only launched in 2015 as private industry flagship enterprise in the UK that puts ‘people and the environment before profit’.
And yet, in just a few short years they’ve become the UK’s 2nd largest energy supplier to domestic homes (utility company) because they offer the cheapest electricity, are fully fledged to ‘Renewable Energy’ and their customer service is 2nd to none.
Octopus Energy Mission (2 minute video): https://youtu.be/a0ESc7GSang
Now you're on a comparative track: as in UK vs ???. That's a track I don't want to be on. The UK's system seems to be doing fine for the people of the UK. That it is not "fine" for me is almost entirely a subjective determination. In short, an opinion, and a naturally culturally biased one at that.
Your Sir Branson mention prompts a hypothetical. What if his airline was an intra-nation regional carrier, is it inconceivable that the government could nationalize it for reasons similar to the ones that prompted nationalization of the railroads?
As improbable as that seems, the railroads' example shows that it would not be an unprecedented (or unthinkable) decision.
GAI’ve been in these forums long enough to understand that the British social and political culture isn’t to the liking of many Americans; so I fully understand your sentiments.
Your scenario isn’t as far-fetched as you might think, in that it has happened before e.g. British Airways (founded in 1919) was Nationalised (became State owned) in 1939 by Labour; and then Privatised in 1987 by the Conservatives.
I can see where you are going with that line of thought: But what might surprise you is that British billionaires like Sir Richard Branson and Lord Alan Sugar (self-made billionaires); although capitalists, don’t have the same view towards capitalism as atypical American view capitalism – their views are far more in-line with the British view of ‘people before profit’.
SIR RICHARD BRANSON
Sir Richard Branson is the 330th wealthiest person in the world
But he firmly believes in putting ‘people before profit’, as this short video highlights:
Sir Richard Branson’s view on a new work culture: https://youtu.be/V67nDvfNQV0
LORD ALAN SUGAR
Lord Alan Sugar is the 177th wealthiest person in the world.
Lord Alan Sugar was the host in the British Version of ‘The Apprentice’ TV Series; in plenty of TV interviews on British television, he shows his distaste of Trump:
Lord Alan Sugar Slams Donald Trump: https://youtu.be/rBy18DRzBu4
Given that Lord Alan Sugar is a self-made billionaire and capitalist, the biggest surprise to you might be that he was active member of the Labour Party from 1997 to 2015, and one of Labour’s biggest donators. He was a Labour peer (unelected politician in the House of Lords), and until 2015 Labour’s Business Advisor.
Lord Sugar's speech in the House of Lords (as a Labour politician) re: Women in business (2011): https://youtu.be/1L67dXSt71g
OTHERS
It’s not just people Like Sir Richard Branson and Lord Alan Sugar; Octopus Energy (launched in 2015) is another private industry flagship enterprise in the UK that puts ‘people before profit’; consequently in just a few short years they’ve become the UK’s 2nd largest energy supply to domestic homes (utility company) because they offer the cheapest electricity and their customer service is 2nd to none.
Introducing Octopus Energy by the CEO and founder of Octopus Energy: https://youtu.be/AaejnbrejvYOh lordy, lordy . . . I thought I was in a Trump-free zone. First Cred and now you.
[ADDED]
Your examples are high-profile laudable ones, and I would speculate there are many similar common-man examples in your society. I would say we (U.S.) have similar 'good guys' examples, but our societal views are too different to be fairly compared. Any comparison could only be an apples vs. oranges one, and they're just arguments.
GAIt wasn't intentional, but businesswise Lord Alan Sugar is the UK's counterpart to Trump; so when you start talking about Lord Alan Sugar, it's difficult to avoid Lord Alan's Sugar's loathing of Trump - as in this short 2 minute video: https://youtu.be/nE1tbcHYrok
Oops, I added an edit since you replied.
I see the connection. At least you had one, Cred doesn't bother. ;-)
GAI never promised anyone that I would deliberately avoid mentioning Trump's name, who happens to be the focal point of so many issues and problems right now. So, I really don't need ONE....
It wasn't the point of deliberately avoiding, it was of deliberately inserting.
You're beginning to remind me of my wife. We could be talking about a cloud in the sky or a neighbor's dog pooping in our yard and somehow I will be brought in and some part of it will be my fault.
With you it's Trump. It could be a thread about toenail fungus and somehow you will find a way to bring in Trump.
GAGA, that how it see it, I see it as otherwise. And if there is are issues surrounding toenail fungus, Trump's probably responsible for that as well.
Yep, that's my wife alright . . . somehow, someway, most likely, it probably is my fault.
GAYou appear to be white... you appear to be male.
Of course it is.Yep to both. Plus, I'm a Boomer, so I'm automatically wrong.
However, I learned some survival skills early on: never tell an angry women to calm down, and when being right or wrong isn't important I pull out the "Yes dear, you're right, I'm wrong, I'm sorry." Works every time. ;-)
GASometimes, GA, you have to put your foot down and stand up for yourself.
You missed the qualifier: "when being right or wrong isn't important."
Surely you've been married long enough to know that.
GAI know that, but she knows as all income for our retirements come from me, that I am king of the castle and lord of the manor. As the leader, I put her interests ahead of my own, so she knows that there is no disadvantage to her in following my lead. That is how it works. In spite of her keen intuition and uncanny sixth sense about things, the world is primarily linear in nature and that is my realm, structure and discipline, dollars and cents. When determining a course of action, the right way verses the wrong way is important.
Yet,I see your point, I will concede to what she wants depending upon the issue and circumstance. I avoid being anal and sweating the small stuff. It has worked for almost 20 years.You raise some interesting points e.g. your family income, and your family decision making process.
In retirement I do currently get a larger share of income than my wife; partly because my works pension is significantly larger because my wife stayed at home when our son was in primary school (so her works pension is smaller), and partly because she doesn’t start getting her State pension until next year - But nevertheless, her current income is still quite substantial because she gets ‘disability allowance’ (non means tested) due to her bad back affecting her mobility.
But when she gets her State Pension next year, that along with her works pension, and her ‘disability allowance’, will bring her income in-line with mine.
In our family ‘my wife wears the trousers’; but as a family unit (including our son), we always discuss and debate all major issues and arrive at a majority consensus on any decisions we make e.g. where to go on holidays (vacations), home improvement project (albeit I leave the colour scheme to my wife), how to vote, and deciding and agreeing on any major purchases etc.Thanks for your reply, Arthur, my and her personalities mesh in this Mother Day tribute to her. When I think that the video hails from the Early 90s, who would have believed that so much time has passed?
https://hubpages.com/hub/Its-a-Fact-Opp … ct?hubviewWow – that was an interesting read; thanks for sharing:-
I find it interesting that we were both civil servants, and both our wives worked in health (yours as a nurse and mine as an Admin worker in the NHS).
I’ve always been a cat lover and before we met Helen (my wife) a dog lover; but since we’ve been married we’ve always had cats.
My wife is a bit like yours in that she is good at multitasking, whereas I prefer to focus on one thing at a time; and she has a better colour sense when it comes to décor – but I have spatial perception, which she doesn’t, and I’m better at designing because I can superimpose what’s in my ‘mind’s eye’ into the room (like a projector).
So there are (obviously) difference between me and my wife; but generally we’re ‘two peas in a pod’ e.g. almost like identical twins in many ways – So in that respect, our relationship is the opposite of yours e.g. in our case ‘Like attracts Like’.
Being so much alike, it makes it easy for us to discuss and agree on things, like where to go for holidays (vacations), choosing furniture, agreeing on design and décor of any major makeover in the home etc. albeit, we do have different tastes on TV programmes. In fact it can be quite amusing at times, when we both say the same thing at the same time or a bit freaky when I sometimes choose to cook an evening meal that I’ve been fancying all afternoon, only to discover when I serve it up that my wife had fancying the same evening meal all day (almost like telepathy).
One comment in your article that caught my eye was where you said “I have taken the role of ‘keeper of the wallet’.”
In contrast, in our relationship we’ve divided the financial responsibility between us as follows:-
IN OUR HOUSEHOLD – I’M FINANCIALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR:-
• Domestic Household Bills e.g. utility bills (gas, electricity, water, sewage), house insurance, Rates, Multimedia (telephone, Internet and TV subscriptions).
• All DIY costs
• Home Improvement and House maintenance costs etc.
• All Gardening Costs
IN OUR HOUSEHOLD – MY WIFE IS FINANCIALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR:-
• The Car
• Holidays (vacations)
• Clothes
• Food
• White Goods
• Electrical Equipment e.g. new TV etc.
That division of financial responsibility can sometime lead to some amusing situations; for example I pay the electricity bill, but my wife buys the lightbulbs – so when not too many years ago the UK Government was phasing out the old high energy lightbulbs (to cut carbon emissions), my wife would buy the old high energy bulbs because they were cheaper to buy (saving on her budget); but that meant that I was paying higher electricity bills (on my budget) than I would have been if she’d bought the low energy light bulbs.
One thing I couldn’t find in your article is how you both met; in my case it was a mutual friend who played cupid, and it was ‘love at first sight’ (a whirlwind romance) – as explained in this short article: https://www.nathanville.uk/meeting-wifeArthur, it was about the turn of century, 2001, where we stumbled upon each other on a dating site. I was living in Denver suburb called Lakewood. She, living in Hawaii at the time, was also a contemporary of mine having lived in Denver and attended Denver public schools back in the day. She was unique that I knew few women that were keen on classical music. Farms in Hawaii? Wasn't the image of luau and hula and Waikiki beach that I associated with Hawaii. Plus having lived in the Cayman Islands, and a few years on islands in the Caribbean she had this lovely English accent, so it was bonnets and nappies, instead of hoods and diapers. After writing me for almost two years, I told her that I would call on her, and visit. Her persistence was in itself attractive and she lacked the focus on materialism and status seeking of so many of her American counterparts. Being mesmerized by her smile upon introduction, I guess we just hit it off. But, She is an impulsive spender who is not good within the concept of a budget. But as flinty as I am we probably would not have any furniture if it were not for her. Someone has to do this kind of stuff, as I tend to be averse to ornamentation and the superfluous. She likes to watch cooking shows, I like crime dramas and documentaries.
After reading your account, we both stumbled upon our significant others from different paths.
I enjoy speaking with you learning more about your people and it's Government. I am impressed that fairness seems to be a focal point there, while the grasp for power and unjustified advantage using power for its own sake justified or not, is the rule here. I appreciate the Maginot Line you allow me retreat to when we want to find common interests, beyond politics. Nothing wrong with getting acquainted?
You have been the superb ambassador for the English manner and the way of seeing and doing things, which speaks more about cooperation rather than confrontation and bullying. I, unfortunately, am caught up in the negatives aspects of all of this. But, I look for ways to engage others without having to concede to their political points of view as the price. I would say that this forum could well be a microcosm to explain the broader differences between the United States and Britain.Credence and Arthur, I enjoyed reading both your stories. You both have some interesting histories. Now I'm going to have to go back and read Arthur's article about meeting his wife. Thank you both for sharing in this forum.
Absolutely, “nothing wrong with getting acquainted” – I think it’s a good way to gain a more rounded (fleshier) insight into the cultural and social aspect of each other’s nations – which as you said “this forum could well be a microcosm to explain the broader differences between the United States and Britain.”
Both my wife and I are quite frugal e.g. I love to recycle, upcycle and repurpose, which plays heavily into my DIY Project e.g. hardly ever need to buy wood as most of what I use is reclaimed wood from old furniture that friends are going to throw away, which they donate to me and I make something new from it. A prime example is a close family friend (a Catholic Priest) had a solid oak, life size, cross that he no longer wanted, so he gave it to me to recycle the wood – and from that wood I made a solid oak cupboard with drawer (as per photo below) to closely match the solid oak TV cupboard. I also grow all our own vegetables, which saves about $400 a year on food. Then of course, all the DIY I do saves a small fortune in not hiring tradespeople to do the work e.g. back in 2015 I built our own Conservatory from scratch, rather than buying one.
Likewise my wife not only buys the cheapest brands of food, but also buys in bulk when items are on offer, which also saves us about $400 a year on food; and when searching for holiday (vacation) accommodation my wife always manages to find a suburb holiday accommodation that’s often half the going price for the area.
But with all the money we save from being frugal, we can then splash out on top quality products for the Home e.g. when we bought our new TV (55 inch) QLED, it was over $1,000 because it was the best on the market at the time – whereas most people would get cheaper models for just $500 or less. And we’ve now re-carpeted our living room and the bedrooms with Axminster Carpets – Axminster Carpets being the best quality, most expensive carpets you can buy in the UK. Axminster carpets founded in Axminster, Devon, England in 1755 are made in a similar manor to the Turkish carpets of the time.
With TV – My wife likes watching crime drama, and medical dramas etc., whereas I like watching Sci-fi and horrors. But we both like watching old British comedies, documentaries and DIY programmes together, so there is plenty of common ground.
And of course as a family, in the evenings (family quality time), our son, my wife, and I, each take it in turns to choose which family film we watch – one film a night e.g. last year a friend of mine recommend the American film ‘Don’t Look Up’, so when it was my turn to choose, we all watched that as a family film.
Below, the solid oak cupboard I made from a wooden cross is the cupboard on the right; old photo taken in 2016 showing our old 50 inch TV with the old surround sound system.
If there were a classical definition for frugal, I may well not fit it. I am just that when compared with a impulsive type, as she is.
You are better at it than I, we could not live without local supermarkets. We look for sales and bargains. That is as far as it gets, I am all thumbs and the missus is not physically able to properly attend to a garden.
My time is taken up just making sure that the place can run without expensive and necessary repairs, knock on wood....
On our public television in Colorado, there were two popular British comedies. "Are you being served" and another one dealing with a tavern in wartime France, and a nasty NAZI, Gestapo fellow named Frick? I was acquainted with an elderly German gentleman who was in the Wehrmacht as a soldier during the last years of WWII, and we watched together and loved the programs.
I am fixated on Sci-Fi with themes of Space or Time travel. She likes the "Seal Team" contemporary stuff, while I liked those rough Westerns like "The Wild Bunch", or the Classic "The Great Escape" one of the finest war films ever made.
We do share certain programs, we follow the FBI series on CBS and the NBC "Chicago" series dramas. But mostly in this age of so much video content, we watch our own preferencesThanks for the infill…
We also watch "Are you being served", along with ‘The Good Life’, ‘Dad’s Army’, ‘On the Buses’, Only Fools and Horses’, ‘Vicar of Dibley’, and so on………
The comedy series “in a tavern in wartime France” is 'Allo 'Allo!
I haven’t acutely watched ‘The Wild Bunch’ – but as a family we do like watching films like "The Great Escape", ‘Kelly’s Heroes’ and ‘The Magnificent Seven’ etc.
I too love “Sci-Fi with themes of Space or Time travel”, the obvious being the ‘Star War’ films and the ‘Star Trek’, along with the original ‘V’ series (not so keen on the remake), just to name a few; and a couple of my favourites Sci-fi series are ‘Red Dwarf’ and ‘Firefly’.
I’m also a fan of the ‘Buffy the Vampire Slayer’ and ‘Angel’ TV Series by Joss Whedon.
My wife also loves FBI & NCIS etc. so it sounds as if my wife has similar tastes in TV as your wife.
My son and I also love off-beat films, but my wife doesn’t – so my son and I tend to watch them together late at night, after my wife has gone to bed. The most weird off-beat films I’ve seen so far is “The Bed Sitting Room’ (1969 British black comedy film), and more recently ‘Everything Everywhere All at Once’ (2022 American absurdist comedy-drama film).
The Bed Sitting Room (1969) – Trailer https://youtu.be/eABgavnUf9w
Another favourite of ours (which we watched as a family) is ‘The Boat that Rocked’ (2009 British comedy film) – True Story (not fiction, but closely based on true facts of pirate radio in Britain in the 1960s); 2 hours 20 mins in the UK version. It was heavily censored for the American market (cutting out about 18 minutes of sex) and renamed for the American release as ‘Pirate Radio’.
The Boat that Rocked – Trailer https://youtu.be/pyXu0mC38SE
Footnote: The ship featured in the film is authentic to the original ship used for 'pirate radio' in Britain in the 1906s (the last of its kind); and is now docked in Harwich, Essex, England as a museum to 'pirate radio' - we had the good fortune of visiting it while on holiday in Harwich a couple of years ago.The original V appeared during the 1980s and was pretty good. The Wild Bunch may not qualify as a "family film".
Just how much American TV shows do you folks receive? Sounds like you just as well be here.
Thanks for the clips, there is a distinct difference between American and British humor. I was a fan of the late Benny Hill. I remember pirate broadcasts beyond the 20 mile limit off the coast Southern California. The FCC Federal Communications Commission was pretty strict about licensing and content. The underground FM Rock was highly uncensored.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=58z8pM80hrc&noapp=1
Trailer from one of my favorite comedies.In answer to your question/comment: “Just how much American TV shows do you folks receive? Sounds like you just as well be here.”
• The bulk (the vast majority) of TV programs on British TV is British, but American TV Series, such as ‘crime drama’ that appeal to the British audience are broadcast over here – while those TV Series, such as ‘American Comedy’ that doesn’t appeal to the British taste isn’t.
• And my understanding is that the BBC Dr.Who Series is quite popular in America.
As you quite rightly point out “there is a distinct difference between American and British humor”.
The ‘Comedy’ genre is a good example of where it’s common practice (on both sides of the pond) for American TV Channels to pay British TV Channels the ‘rights’ to re-make a British TV Comedy to American taste for the American audience; and vice versa. Examples of that are the American remakes of British Comedy Series like ‘Ghost’, ‘The Office’ and ‘The Inbetweeners’ etc.
Below a couple of examples such ‘American remakes vs the British originals’, highlighting the differences in humour:
The Office UK vs The Office USA: https://youtu.be/UnKJr_z-JcI
The Inbetweeners UK vs The Inbetweeners USA: https://youtu.be/XY3-D4R8Oxc
FILMS
Yep, ‘Plaines, Trains, and Automobiles’, a great film; American films made by the big film studies are ‘universal’ (universal appeal worldwide); and I do love the Steve Martin films.
The bulk of films seen in Britain are American (our film industry isn’t on the same scale); but there some classic British films, such as the ‘James Bond’ films.
PIRATE RADIO
I’m surprised that you had pirate radio in South California, when back in the 1960s (and probably long before that), private radio in America was common place.
It was a different picture in the UK at that time – Back in the 1960s private radio in the UK was illegal; we only had the BBC Radio (State owned), and the BBC viewed modern music ‘Rock & Roll’ etc. as immoral (hippy era) and therefore banned it (State Censorship).
Added relevant info: Prior to radar, the British coast was littered with ‘lighthouses’, to warn shipping of dangerous rocks on the coasts; and lighthouse ships were also common place because they were cheaper to build and maintain than lighthouses. But with the introduction of radar after the 2nd world war, lighthouse ships became largely redundant; so during the 1960s decommissioned ones could be bought relatively cheaply.
Because modern music (Rock music) was banned in the UK in the 1960s, enthusiasts clubbed together to buy decommissioned lighthouse ships; fitted powerful transmitters to them (so as to be able to broadcast across the whole of the UK) and anchored them at sea just outside British jurisdiction – The birth of Pirate Radio in the UK.
The UK Government (Labour) tried in vain for years to shut the pirate ships down; but eventually, with the consent of France (because the pirate ships were anchored in international waters) the UK Government passed a law making it legal for British Authorities to go into international waters to seize the pirate ships – And that was the end of ‘Pirate Radio’.
But an ‘ironic twist’, is that after the UK Government closed down all the pirate ships, the BBC hired most of the Pirate Radio DJs (Disk Jockeys) and gave them free range to play whatever they wanted to on BBC Radio – So although Pirate Radio was dead, Rock & Roll lived on.
My favourite music has always been the music from the 1970s (when I was a teenager); by the 1980s and 1990s there were few private radio still regularly playing the music from the 1970s, and by this decade – none.
So in 2021, during the pandemic lockdown (when people could only work from home), the original Pirate Radio DJs, who have long since retired from the BBC, clubbed together to launch Boom Radio (A radio station run by Baby Boomers, for Baby Boomers) – The big difference between Boom Radio, and any other radio station, is that instead of broadcasting from a radio studio – using modern technology the Boom Radio DJs broadcast from their own homes – This short video explains:
Boom Radio (Run by Baby Boomers for Baby Boomers) – Intro: https://youtu.be/dxqz93_2jno
Boom Radio is the only Radio station I listen to these days.
Yep, absolutely, American social, cultural and political society is quite starkly different to British cultural, social and political society; so as you said, your “societal views are too different to be fairly compared.”
Yep, there are “many similar common-man examples in my society” to the “high-profile examples” I gave e.g. many ‘non-profit’ (not for profit) private organisations and business (small scale, and high-profile) and charities competing with, and working in partnership with, ‘profit making’ businesses across all economic sectors in Britain e.g. the Co-op as mentioned in a previous post competing with private businesses across a number of economic sectors - https://youtu.be/PIbW8b5ssKs
Excluding charities, there are 76,335 Non Profit Making ‘Social Enterprises’ in the UK, including Universities e.g. although universities in the UK are ‘Independent Private Bodies’, unlike the USA, universities in the UK get 75% of their funding from the Government, and 25% from ‘student fees’, and (unlike the USA) in the UK universities are not permitted to make a profit – any profits they make must be ploughed back into R&D (Research and Development) etc. Also unlike the USA, the Government caps (limits) how much universities can charge in ‘student fees’.
In the UK (and I’m sure it’s similar in America) universities work in close partnership with other public and private Organisation and Businesses, including the NHS and Private Profit Making Companies: This short 3 minute video is an overview of Bristol University working in Partnership with Private Companies, such as Rolls-Royce (car industry), and the NHS (medical) etc.
Working in Partnership with University of Bristol: https://youtu.be/fHQjcMj_xRI
Breaking News Today in the UK: With the General Election looming in the UK later this year; another 'blow' to the Conservative Government as another Conservative MP (the third since 2019) defects to Labour:
Dan Poulter MP quits Conservative Party and joins Labour in huge blow for Rishi Sunak (Conservative Prime Minister) ahead of the General Elections: https://youtu.be/osxkrWEE7xUOur Republican House is having a similar problem. Representatives are retiring instead of running for reelection because of differences with the direction of the Party. The House Majority leader is down to a one-vote majority.
BOMBSHELL: House Republicans get the news they’ve been dreading
For balance, the Democrats are also facing a large number of retirements: numbers at 1:50 mark
GOP House majority slims further as McCarthy announces retirement
Your MP's switch (the video) ties in with your original thought that the British are leaning to more socialist selections. The mentioned NHS and welfare services underfunding complaints almost certainly require big funding increases — meaning significant tax increases.
I don't recall any big news about Brits being upset about their taxes, so you guys must be okay with it.
GAThanks for the two videos; very enlightening:
A couple of points:-
Firstly: If I understood the first video correctly, it seems that Republicans are retiring mid-term? That doesn’t happen in the UK. In the UK there have been a small handful of politicians who, having been suspended by Parliament from the House of Commons for more than two weeks have either been sacked by their own voters (in their own constituency/seat) e.g. if an MP is suspended from the House of Commons by Parliament for more than two weeks, then it only requires 10% of voters in his/her seat to sign a petition to sack their MP; or the MP has resigned because they don’t want to face the embarrassment of being sacked by their own voters.
In the UK, if a politician becomes disillusioned with his/her own political party, then it’s not uncommon for them to either defect to another political party, or stay on in the House of Commons as an Independent MP; or sometimes, where a group of MPs defect from their own political party en-mass, they’ll form their own new political party, as happened to Labour in 1981 and to the Conservatives in 2019.
Normally, in the UK, if a politician decides to retire, they step down at the next General Election e.g. (not seeking re-election). I note from the videos that 40 Republicans are ‘Not seeking re-election’ this year: In the UK there is a total of 101 MPs have announced that they will not stand again at the next general election, of which 63 are Conservative MPs.
Secondly – and I think it’s an important point: I note from the video that the ‘Speaker of the House’ in the USA is political? In the UK, the politician who is elected by Parliament to become speaker (under the British Constitution) has to become ‘apolitical’ when he/she takes up the post of speaker – And another quirk in UK politics, is that whoever happens to be ‘Speaker’ at the time of a General Election, is automatically ‘elected unopposed’ as an MP in his/her own constituency (seat), even though as Speaker he/she has to remain apolitical e.g. all the other political parties have a gentleman’s agreement to not put up candidates to stand against the speaker in a General Election:
This short video explains in more detail: https://youtu.be/C3KkbZADCiM
GOVERNMENT SPENDING vs TAX CUTS
Firstly, yep – We Brits are far less concerned about taxes than Americans, so it’s not a major issue (big news) in General Elections. In fact in the UK (YouGov Opinion Poll – 3rd March 2024); only 13% of British voters consider tax as a major issue:
• 13% of Conservative voters
• 11% of Labour of Labour voters, and
• 9% of Liberal Democrat voters
As regards the question of ‘cutting taxes’ vs ‘increasing spending’ on public services:
The recent 3rd March 2024 YouGov opinion poll of UK voters, was as follows (compiled from the YouGov raw data):-
As regards your penultimate paragraph:
What many people who don’t have an education in economics often fail to recognise is that It’s not a simple linear equation between taxes and spending; you have to add economic performance into the mix – thus:
1. Economic Growth means more people in employment, earning wages, and paying tax – Thus an increase in Government Revenue without having to raise taxes, and
2. Economic Growth means fewer people unemployed, getting unemployment benefits – Thus an increase in Government Revenue without having to raise taxes.
Notwithstanding the above - ever since 1945:
• Whenever Labour has been in power, they have always raised tax for the top 5% of earners by 2% to pay for social funding, and
• Whenever the Conservatives have been in power, they have always reduced tax for the top 5% of earners by 2% to cut social funding.
The Liberal Democrats policy is to raise tax by 1% for everyone, so as to increase social funding.
Hi Arthur, have a look at the video "You have been warned" to get an idea of what Trump and his henchmen are up to.
Thanks for your video, I agree with it in its totality.
Conservatism, at least the American variety of it, has always at its roots been undemocratic. From the Founding Fathers ultimate goal of maintaining their wealth and prominence and keeping human beings as property, while plying the masses with their flowery oratory about the "rights of man" and such, conservatism has defined itself from the very beginning. It took over a century before people were allowed to vote directly for their Senators 17th Amendment, 1913. Before, state legislators were allowed to appoint them and the interests of well heeled state legislators often ran contrary to the those of the masses.
The closer and more accountable the Government is to the masses that it is to serve, the better, in my view. I don't like "undemocratic".
Until the Voting Rights Act of 1965, that conservatives, even today are trying to water down, there was still no real democracy relatively recently in America except for a chosen segment of society.
Yes, today, with the Right Wing Tribunal that passes as the Supreme Court, when you double down on Conservatism, you double down on authoritarianism and tyranny. And with the rise and popularity of so crass a man as Donald Trump and his lemming like followers that really believe that he capable of anything else beyond sheer mayhem, therein lies the danger.
We struggle against a system built to promote Anglo, male corporate dominance and those who unwittingly believe that that have something to gain by supporting it. And while it may not yield immediate results, we cannot relent in the goal to speak truth to power regardless of the costs. With enough blows of the sledgehammer, we might begin to crack the edifice.
Conservatives would love to play the victim, when they are instigators of our problems....
Just my opinion....
Thanks for asking so pertinent a question, Arthur.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/mehdi-ha … 337658db1cI think we have seen how our Bread and Circuses, let everyone vote regardless of ID or if they are living has been working out for our "Democracy".
If you consider how our government IGNORES the people, starts wars, opens borders and pays for non-citizens, allows companies to increase costs 100% on its citizens in one year's time on services required by law that they have (IE Car, Home, Health Insurance), etc. etc.
I would say your version of 'Democracy' is fast tracking the entire nation into destitution and destruction... time for the Red Revolution, right Comrade?But I say your version of Democracy is driving us into tyranny and despotism.... when can I say Sieg Heil ?
Why is your Trump alternative better? Why should I believe that?
We got issues with conservatives trying to impede voting rights of bonefide American citizens who would more than likely vote against them. Do you think that I am not aware of that?The Mailing out of ballots to millions of voters is not even 3rd world laughable, most 3rd world nations don't have elections as unverifiable as America's national elections are today.
Our elections are a disgrace, it has never been easier for those who are corrupt and willing to sell out the interests of Americans and America to steal elections.
That they have practically made it illegal for anyone to publicly mention how obviously corrupt our elections are is surely the clearest sign that they are fraudulent to a degree never before seen in any 'Democratic' nation.I not think that they were corrupt at all, Republicans are just sore losers. You people have always got excuses. Now every time a Republican loses, it is fraud? Has it occurred to you that a lot of people don't care for Republicans and vote accordingly?
Because one demented man said that 2020 elections were fraud which he couldn't prove after 60 court contrary decisions, we are all to take his word as gospel, now? I don't care what his opinion is.
I don't want anyone like this in charge, period.
Like the late George Carlin said, "its bullsh*t and its bad for you".
"Totality" is too broad for me, but you did prompt a second thought about the first(?) Supreme Court segment. Maybe it is fair to say it was designed to be undemocratic and that its rulings are often undemocratic. Maybe what was intended as a slanderous truth was contrarily affirming the legitimacy of the Court and its original design.
Surely you don't disagree that the purpose of the Court was to be the arbiter of questions of law, not public sentiment (the democracy of the majority), right?
GAWith jest, maybe, as to 'original design' gun powder 'originally' was meant to be an elixir to prolong life. Look what happen to it.
Yep, it is a cute first thought, but it doesn't hold up, the analogy isn't comparable. The original design wasn't corrupted, a different use was a redefinition of the original.
So far the original SCOTUS design has held up. Even as one aspect of the design—the Justice selection process, has become politically corrupted, the basis of its purpose has held.
GAI 'could' go along with the last paragraph, but the first is pure poppycock. As 'you' like to say a lot, "You're wrong".
Disclaimer: The following most certainly is not gospel, thus is arguable, yet it will take a lot to persuade me otherwise.
The essence of the Supreme Court 'today', as you eloquently put in the last paragraph, "has become politically corrupted". (Period!!) Corruption is homogeneous. It mixes thoroughly with integrity, evenly throughout the body.
Perhaps, procedure and protocol has held up, but I most definitely question the justices integrity (at least some, today and in the past, on both sides of the dastardly political fence of impartiality, justice, and fairness), faithfulness to the Constitution as written along with laws of precedence, and executing responsibility to justice and fairness.
There are two oaths of office for a Justice of the Supreme Court. they are:
The first:
"I, ________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
The second:
"I, _________, do solemnly swear or affirm that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________, according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."
Notice there is an 'out' with the second oath. That is, "according to the best of my abilities and understanding."
Although I don't disagree with the Dobbs decision, Alito reached beyond the Constitution and present laws to 'Justify' his position. I repeat, "without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion." But, he had an out, "according to the best of my abilities and understanding."
Let me, now, remind you of the disclaimer.
Speculatively, I would say the Court in at least 70% of the cases is not political charged. Maybe? I question the remaining 30% wholeheartedly.So you think I'm wrong? Well, maybe. It happened once before, back in 78'. I thought I was wrong, but I was mistaken. ;-)
As for your Dobb's and 70%, thought-line, I have a defense, but not an argument. I trust the consensus of the Court, even when I disagree.
There are no perfect humans, but, if someone has reached the stature to even be considered for a justice seat my view is that their resume is proof of their credentials and integrity. For me, Alito and Ginsberg are good opposing examples. I liked that Alito was an originalist (a textualist?), it fits my view of how the Court should rule. I also liked Ginsberg, even though I felt she allowed ideology to influence her rulings. I trusted her to make decisions "to the best of her ability" because she had the demonstrated credentials and integrity to hold her seat.
You might be right about the Court's political corruption, our politics have gotten a lot worse since the time of her appointment. However, I'm not sure it's as bad as you think. I don't recall any recent appointments that were unqualified or too politically motivated—even the ones I disagree with.
GAI, too, have admiration, respect, and possibly a 'presumed' trust in their credentials, professionally, when nominated.
However, that doesn't speak to character, integrity, honesty, nor humility. Case in point, Kavanaugh. I am 'forced' to accept what the Senate proclaimed with their 50-48 vote. Though, I accept the result as a 'good' citizen, as person with individual liberty I reject it wholeheartedly. I will keep a sharp shooter's eye on him!
Trusting the courts decisions has nothing to do with faith in the court's decisions. Belief is dependent on the interaction of faith and trust. If one diminishes the belief diminishes.
Personally, my 'Belief' in the Court as being representative of the ideals I was taught and accepted 'today' fall short. I definitely do not have full trust in it nor do I have full faith in it. Done deal!!!I think you are being too cynical. I also think "belief" and "faith" work well as descriptors if the connotations are defined for the issue, as in not as applied in religious faiths. Maybe I'll try to offer you some faith another time. ;-)
I do have a belief in the institution because I believe in its purpose and structure. I also place an initial faith in the appointed justices. Their credentials earn that respect. A bad apple can certainly lose that faith, and an admitted ideological coalition can also lose it. But those failures don't taint the concept. The concept is what I have faith in.
The current political corruption in the selection process challenges that faith a little, but there hasn't yet been an example, in modern times, that shakes it.
GAWith all due respect and a degree of admiration, I got a good chuckle that I am 'too' cynical. What is an acceptable measure? Who determines that? Is it gospel, the law, and infallible?
I very well could comment on cynicism in America's politics in its totality, today, yet it would be close to a book. I have not the time.
EDIT: Faith, Trust, and Belief are abstract nouns. An abstract noun is "a noun denoting an idea, quality, or state rather than a concrete object" An example, each of those three have, according to Worldometer, 8,104, 753, 102 (and counting) meanings. I can respect that. Can you?
Most likely, in dialogue. meaning for an abstract noun is through inference. With the concept for belief, an abstract noun, I offered it is dependent on the interaction of trust and faith. Those two are also abstract nouns. Reliance of meaning in the context they were presented was solely on the reader's interpretation for them. I inferred nothing other than the concept.
Note: I did not bring up a religious connotation with faith, you did.
"The concept is what I have faith in."
I, as well, have a 'measure' of faith in the concept of the SC as written in the Constitution and the separation of powers too. However, they are not sacrosanct in 'my' eyes other than that of being an office as written in the Constitution.Having fun now aren't you. It's almost worth a look to see what some of those 8 billion meanings are. In my world, they might be used with 8 billion different applications but the meanings of the words seem singular, and most frequently used with religion or spirituality.
Degrees of cynicism are determined by the speaker, they are subjective—not law, not gospel, simply opinion.
Yep, you did offer belief and faith as concepts. Since I picked up on them as good word choices for the issue, and since my experience has been that their most common association is with religion and spirituality, I wanted to be sure they weren't confused with blind faith or unsupported belief. I think there is empirical support for my belief and faith in the concept and design of SCOTUS.
As for your book on cynicism relative to American politics, I could write the foreword for you. Maybe even offer a few chapter ideas. ;-)
Nothing is sacrosanct for all. I'm comfortable with faith and belief being in a SCOTUS discussion, but sacrosanct is too rigid to work for me.
GA
I think Americans are seeing what is becoming the norm in our Democratic led states... it will be interesting to see what people want come Nov 2024.
An increase in what we have been seeing the past 3.5 years...
Or an alternative that promises a return to Law, Order, Borders, and Americans put first.
LA
San Fran
NY
That's disingenuous.
Is it the Federal Goverment?
Your photos
First photo - 2019
Second photo - 2017
Third photo -2023
Fourth photo - Riot 1992
Or the states?
Florida 2020
Texas 2019
That's an all colors problem.Didn't say it wasn't.
Did say it is a sign of systemic failure, your additional photos only re-affirm that.
Sorry about the 1992 photo... considering there are hundreds of others from the common occurrence of flash mob robberies and daily shop lifting thefts you would think that when I searched for a photo it would have presented one from the last few years... guess the Search Engine filters didn't scrub that far back, that was why it was one of the first photos to pop up.
Search Engines are getting increasingly better at hiding articles and photos that they don't want you finding, it is becoming an art form being able to find particular information on the internet these days.
GA, I don't know that we want undemocratic. What once passed as the Aristocracy in the 18th Century and replaced with corporate capitalists today, acting as arbiter? We are all supposed to believe that they are benevolent overseers of the "system". I did not trust their motives in the 18th century no more than I do their 21st century counterparts. They are going to move things in their advantage and against that of masses, why wouldn't they? Right now, the franchise is the only protection society has to keep this group under some control. Does the court really impartially interpret the law, specifically conservatives, or are they protecting the "system" and its economic, social and political hierarchies?
I don't know, it seems that even the Roe vs Wade recission was not a good idea. As it was said in the 19th Century, the country cannot remain being half slave and half free. Regardless of what conservatives always say about states rights and such, there is such a thing as bodily autonomy, everyone's most personal affairs should not be subject to the whims of state legislators. Conservatives always evade this issue, where is the line drawn, do I have to invite state legislators into our bedrooms every night? The decision the Court made is just going to have women frantically moving from one state to another to acquire abortion rights. There is a big picture, I can bring up to 4th amendment, which basically says that people have a certain right to be left alone, as was once explained by SC Justice. That is my point of view.
Yes, I agree that the Court was to be the arbiter of questions of law not public sentiment, but their rulings are not as Constitutionally flawless as we are asked to believe. They have and can continue to make mistakes, and who can realistically shut their eyes to the world around them today, as opposed to the world of knee breeches and powdered wigs? I would always prefer democracy of the majority than to have the interests of an aristocratic few take precedence. From the beginning that has been a primary struggle of this nation since its founding."Yes, I agree that the Court was to be the arbiter of questions of law not public sentiment..."
Are you sure? Do you really agree with the purpose of the Court? Because your entire second paragraph is one long complaint that the people do not like the decision, that the people want bodily autonomy (meaning the right to murder), etc. Nothing there even begins to address the law of the country; only what you think people want.
So do you actually agree that the Court is not there to make law but to interpret what Congress (and the people in some cases) have decided?It is possible for the SC to get it wrong as they did with the Plessy ruling back in 1896. There is alway a subjective factor in the act of interpretation. It's only conservatives that believe that rulings from their perspective reflects the correct bonefide interpretation of the Constitution. I wonder about that.
Yes, the people did not like the decision, but I can question the wisdom of the decision based on Constitutional ideals. Look how fast the court "interpreted" the constitution regarding whether Trump could be excluded from state ballots. They deviated from the letter and verse of what was clearly stated therein. They came to their conclusions based on impeding anarchy if states could exclude candidates they believed as defined in the Constitution were a part of insurrection.
Interpretation is subjective, no matter how it is done,
Thanks for the article link – it makes for a chilling read.
In the UK it took many centuries for our political system to slowly evolve from the medieval feudal system introduced in Britain in 1066 to our present democratic system; but we got here.
One major disappointment in recent times was when the UK Conservative Government (as part of a coalition agreement with the Liberal Democrats) did a referendum on ‘proportional representation’ in 2012 (which would have meant ‘Proportional Representation’ rather than the existing ‘First Past the Post’ system – 67.9% of the voting public voted against Proportional Representation (Fools).
Anyway, it does amaze me on how divided the American people are; especially considering that from a European perspective Democrats and Republicans are political close together ideologically compared to the wide political spectrum we have in Europe and the UK on this side of the pond e.g. ideologically there is a much bigger gulf between the Labour Party (Socialism) and the Conservative Party (Capitalism) in the UK than there are between Republicans (Capitalism) and the Democrats (Mixed economy); the Democrats being middle of the road (in the centre between left and right) from a European perspective.
In spite of the wide ideological gulf between Labour and Conservatives in the UK; both sides can and often do find common ground to work together in Parliament – Something we don’t seem to see much of in the USA these days between Republican and Democrats.
Although the UK House of Commons (Parliament) does have its amusing moments of chaos (3 minute video): https://youtu.be/1zC3BwQBRMk"One major disappointment in recent times was when the UK Conservative Government (as part of a coalition agreement with the Liberal Democrats) did a referendum on ‘proportional representation’ in 2012 (which would have meant ‘Proportional Representation’ rather than the existing ‘First Past the Post’ system – 67.9% of the voting public voted against Proportional Representation (Fools)."
I am lost on this example, assume that I know little if anything about the English Parlimentary system. What was the significance of this?
With your parlimentary system and parties across the ideological spectrum, the Democrats and Republicans here could probably seen as skewed toward the Right.
Do you have an equivalent of our Republican Party in British politics (extreme right)?
Yes, Arthur, the parties here are so polarized that I fear that common ground may well be an elusive goal.
I consider myself 2 standard deviations toward the left, in this environment. With most democrats somewhat left of center, that could be defined by the current administration in power. I am a magnitude beyond them. The next magnitude beyond me and that are the anarchists. I have not reached that point of desperation with this society as of yet and still hold out hope. I am not a socialist, while those in the next magnitude probably are. I believe that all able bodied people should work and not exist from the public dole. In a full employment economy, I support Capitalism while more concerned about reining in abuses. Everybody should have an equal opportunity to compete and succeed, with the appropriate merit bestowed associated with differences in income be attainable by anyone with the desire to get there. Grinding poverty and homelessness is not the Capitalism I envision. I believe in a reasonable safety net for people who through no fault of their own fall upon hard times. But that safety net should not be hammock. The constant struggle between have and have not needs to be balanced and moderated as one does not take advantage of the other. I have no issue with Government assisting in that role.
Which party do you believe that I would be most comfortable with in Britain?
I leave you with a quote from John Adams at the Founding of this Republic
Most of his words reflects my sentiments.
"The same political parties which now agitate the U.S. have existed thro' all time. Whether the power of the people, or that of the aristoi should prevail, were questions which kept the states of Greece and Rome in eternal convulsions…. To me it appears that there have been party differences from the first establishment of governments, to the present day…. Everyone takes his side in favor of the many or the few."I’ll answer you post in two parts, to keep the posts shorter. The first part is in answer to your first question: “What was the significance of this?”
Keeping it simple:
In the UK there are 650 seats; therefore in a General Election a political party needs to win 326 seats (an overall majority) to be able to form Government.
The UK is divided into 650 regions based on population size (called constituencies) with each constituency containing approximately 70,000 voters.
In the 2010 General the different political parties won the following number of seats:
• Conservatives = 306 seats
• Labour = 258 seats
• Liberal Democrats = 57 seats
• Other Political Parties = 29 seats
Therefore, in order to form a Government the Conservatives had no choice other than to form a Coalition Government with the Liberal Democrats – And the Liberal Democrats would ONLY support the Conservatives on the condition that the Conservatives held a referendum for ‘Proportional Representation’ – which they did in 2012.
Currently in British elections a candidate wins the seat on the ‘1st past the post’ system; which for a two party system works fine, but for a multiparty system is undemocratic.
As a not untypical example in British Politics, under the ‘1st past the post system’ in a multiparty system:
• Labour = gets 35% of the votes
• Conservatives = gets 34% of the votes
• Liberal Democrats = gets 21% of the votes
• Green Party = gets 8% of the votes
• Other political parties = gets 2% of the votes.
In the above example Labour would win the seat even though two thirds of the voting electric did not vote Labour – which is undemocratic.
Whereas under a Proportional Representation system a candidate can only win the seat if more than 50% of the voters vote for that candidate.
There are various forms of Proportional Representation; the simplest is the ‘transferable vote’ e.g. each voter votes for three candidates in order of preference e.g. on the ballot paper you might mark Labour as your 1st choice, The Green Party as your 2nd choice and the Liberal Democrats as your 3rd choice.
Another type of Proportional Representation (used in many counties across Europe) is more complex, but democratic e.g. each political party gets a number of seats based on the percentage of votes they get – so that if a political party gets 5% of the votes the get allocated 5% of the seats.
Although we don’t have Proportional Representation for local and general elections, we do have Proportional Representation for Mayoral Elections, as demonstrated in this short video: https://youtu.be/ChY4nooWgGs
The significance of all this is as follows:-
In the 2015 General Election – under the current 1st past the post system:
• Conservatives won 50.8% of the seats on just 36.8% of the votes.
• Labour won 35.7% of the seats on 30.4% of the votes.
• Liberal Democrats won 1.2% of the seats on 7.9% of the votes.
Under a Proportion Representation system the numbers of seats would roughly equate to the percentage of votes each party gets. Therefore if the British Public had voted in favour of Proportional Representation in the 2012 Referendum, then in 2015 rather than the Conservatives winner just over 50% of the seats on just 36.8% of the votes – the General Election results would have been more like this below: Remembering that 326 seats are required to form a Government:-
• Conservatives = 239 seats
• Labour = 197 seats
• UKIP = 82 seats
• Liberal Democrats = 51 seats
• Scottish National Party = 31 seats
• DUP (Northern Ireland hard right-wing) = 8
• Other political parties = 42 seats
So if the 2015 General Election had been done under Proportional representation the Conservatives would probably have formed a coalition government with UKIP and DUP (the only other two right wing parties in that general election) – and that would have only given them a 3 seat majority, so although UKIP was single issue party (Brexit) and DUP was strongly in favour of Brexit) – with just a slim majority of just 3 seat coalition government, the Conservatives would have struggled to get Brexit through Parliament at that point – and history would have been different e.g. at the time there was a large handful of Conservative MPs that were pro EU.Thanks for the video, it laid out some of the numbers. Everyone was so well mannered, totally English.
Sounds like the 1st past the post system assigned used in a district seem like the plurality gets to take it all, as the other 65 percent is split between other parties.
What would happen in your atypical example under a proportionate representative system if no one party received 50 percent of the vote?
Obviously, the proportional representative system was preferred by the British electorate. Was it the Conservatives that resisted the idea and compromised only as a condition of liberal support?
So, I can presume that which party gets to 326 gets to select it choice as Prime Minister?Yep, that’s the big flaw in the ‘1st past the post’ in a multiparty system “the plurality gets to take it all, as the other 65 percent is split between other parties” e.g. opposition vote is split.
Proportional Representation is designed in such a way as to ensure that all elected candidates are elected by the majority. Proportional Representation comes in many forms; the one in the video was the simplest form of Proportional Representation.
The Proportional Representation system used in Northern Ireland to elect the Northern Ireland local and national Governments is one of the more complex forms of Proportional Representation, as explained in this short (4 minute) video: https://youtu.be/lwh0mdtBSZU
I think I might have confused things by referencing both Mayoral elections and General/Local election in the UK, as they have two completely different voting systems e.g. the Mayoral elections currently is done by Proportional Representation (introduced in the UK by Labour in 2000); while General & Local Elections still use the old ‘1st past the post’ system.
Yes, you are right in that the Conservatives had to run a referendum on ‘Proportional Representation’ in 2012, as a condition for Liberal support; but unfortunately the proportional representation system was NOT preferred by the British electorate e.g. 67.9% of the British electorate voted against proportional representation in that referendum. But it’s only a matter of time e.g. another time will come when either Labour or the Conservatives will need the support of the Liberal Democrats to form a coalition government – and when that time comes the Liberal Democrats will have that as a non-negotiable condition – and most likely, next time, the British electorate will vote in favour of it.
Yep, you presume right – “whichever party gets to 326 gets to select it choice as Prime Minister” e.g. the leader of that party.Thanks for the video, it seems like in proportional representation to get to the quota (over 50%) several rounds of casting ballots are necessary to eliminate other candidates eventually arriving a majority for a single candidate?
Like you said, the winner takes all can work with only two candidates which is what we have hear, but over several candidates a plurality is not the majority of voters, and can explain the difference in overall vote count for each party when everything is compared in 1st past the post vs proportional representation, I would prefer the latter.
Why would the English people oppose the idea initially?Just as a note, Our Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) systems—the movement and the municipalities (states?) that use them, are similar to the video's Proportional vote system. And as Nathanville noted about Ireland, RCV seems a lot less complicated.
Here's a pro-RCV explanation:
What is Ranked Choice Voting?
And an anti-RCV:
Heritage Foundation: Ranked Choice Voting EXPLAINED: Confusing, Chaotic Election “Reform”
GAThanks for the videos and info. I do recall the Alaskan experiment, that left Sarah Palin angry at the outcome. If we are serious about reforming the two party system, ranked choice voting is a vehicle to get us there. Plurality wins are not democratic, a candidate with over 50 percent of the electorate based on choices of the voters is the only fair winner.
I understand the concept, but I don't know any more of the details or experiences than the first how-to video explained.
It might be that RCV is probably the only way we ever get a chance at a legitimate 3rd party effort.
GA
Thanks for sharing the ‘For’ and ‘Against’ RCV videos: I get the impression that the ‘Against’ RCV video is perhaps deliberating promoting ‘misinformation’ to get their point across e.g. across Europe and in Australia, where RCV is used; there is NO requirement for voters to rank ‘all’ the candidates – In Europe and Australia voters can rank as many or as few of the candidates they wish.
Also, although any form of Proportional Representation is more complex than the simple ‘1st past the post’, we don’t get any of the complications and confusions that were highlighted in the video. No doubt, sometimes mistakes are made in such a complex voting system, but it’s insignificant; and when you balance the complexity (with a small risk of counting mistakes that could affect the outcome) against the greater democracy that Proportional Representation delivers in a multiparty system – The Good by far outweighs the Bad.Yep, the anti-RCV presentation did come across, to me, as unworthy fearmongering.
I have no experience with the concept and no deep understanding of its details, but it makes sense to me. And so does the partisan condemnation. It would be a huge hit on the controlling power of the two-party system.
ga
It’s not several rounds of casting ballots, its several rounds of counting the ballots – a complex counting process; but the system, as complex as it is, is as close to true democracy that you can get in a multiparty system: Proportional representation is done in every country in Europe except Britain – Even Australia does Proportional representation.
Yep, I too would prefer proportional representation.
In answer to your question “Why would the English people oppose the idea initially?” It’s one of the sad facts that people all too often do ‘initially’ vote the wrong way’ in ‘referendums’. A couple of Prime Examples being Scotland’s and Wales Devolution Referendums:
SCOTLAND:-
1979: The 1st referendum failed to get a sufficient majority from the Scottish voters, to vote in favour of Scotland having its own ‘National Government’.
1997: However, a 2nd referendum held in 1997 did receive the required majority, when 74.29% of the voters voted in favour of Scotland having its own ‘national government’ (Scottish Parliament). And since 2007 Scotland has been ruled by the SNP (Scottish National Party), the SNP being a socialist government.
WALES:-
1979: Only 20.26% of the Welsh voted in favour of Wales having its own ‘national government’.
1997: Only 50.3% of the Welsh voted in favour of Wales having its own ‘national government’, so instead they had just a Welsh Assembly, which gave Wales some autonomy, but Wales was still largely under the rule of the UK Government.
2011: A third referendum on devolution in Wales was held in 2011; and this time the Welsh voted 63.49% in favour of having their own ‘national government’; so Wales got there in the end: But unlike Scotland the Welsh National Party (Plaid Cymru) (socialist party) don’t yet have a majority in the Welsh Government – at the moment it’s a coalition government with both Labour and Plaid Cymru sharing power.
The Welsh National Government (Welsh Parliament) has 60 seats (31 seats required to form a government), as follow:-
• Labour = 30 seats
• Conservatives = 16 seats
• Plaid Cymru = 12 seats
• Liberal Democrats = 1 seat
• Independent = 1 seat
Part 2:
Yep, from a European perspective “the Democrats and Republicans in the USA are seen as skewed toward the Right.”
Excluding Northern Ireland, currently we have two right-wing political parties in Britain, namely:
1. Conservative Party (capitalist party), and
2. Reform UK Party (hard-right – further right than the Conservatives) e.g. the Reform UK Party is more like your Republican Party than the Conservatives.
With the UK General Election due this year, the latest voting intention opinion poll results (17th April) puts the main political parties as follows:-
• Labour (left-wing) = 44% of the votes
• Conservatives (right-wing) = 21% of the votes
• Reform UK (right-wing) = 14%
• Liberal Democrats (politically in the middle between left and right) = 8%
• The Green Party (left-wing) = 8%
So currently, only 35% (about a third) of British voters are intending to vote for right-wing parties in this years General Election.
Reading your “I consider myself…” paragraph, I can see a lot of common ground in our political views; but obviously I am far more left-wing than you – covering each point that you raise, in more detail:-
• Where you say: “I believe that all able bodied people should work and not exist from the public dole.” Yeah, all political parties in the UK support that.
• Where you say: “In a full employment economy, I support Capitalism while more concerned about reining in abuses.” Yeah, even the Labour Party (socialists) recognise the importance of Capitalism as an essential part of the economy; but where we may differ is that Labour will heavily Regulate Private businesses, while the Conservatives prefer to deregulate; and Labour believes that ‘essential services’, such as the Utility Companies and Public Transport, should be State owned, and State run e.g. nationalisation.
• Where you say “Everybody should have an equal opportunity to compete and succeed, with the appropriate merit bestowed associated with differences in income be attainable by anyone with the desire to get there.” Yep, all the political parties in the UK would support that sentiment.
• Where you say “Grinding poverty and homelessness is not the Capitalism I envision.”: In the UK the Conservatives are less keen on tackling poverty, but have proven to be far more generous in government handouts (not just to the poor, but to everyone) during the ‘cost of living crisis’ than the Federal Government in the USA. Also, Labour is far more committed to tackling homelessness than the Conservatives.
• Where you say: “I believe in a reasonable safety net for people who through no fault of their own fall upon hard times. But that safety net should not be hammock.” That’s where the UK (and Europe) differs from the USA quite fundamentally. In the UK, not all government benefits are just for the poor or those in most need e.g. ‘means tested benefits’, but even the Conservative Government supports a broader social benefits system e.g. non means tested benefits that everyone are entitled to regardless to their social class or income – such as child benefit, disability benefits etc. So that it’s not just the poor and working classes that benefit, but also the middle classes. But obviously, those in most need do get the most benefits.
• Where you say: “The constant struggle between have and have not needs to be balanced and moderated as one does not take advantage of the other. I have no issue with Government assisting in that role.” Yep, all political parties in the UK support that concept; albeit Labour are more inclined to tax the wealthiest 5% slightly more, so as to redistribute some of that wealth to the rest of society, especially those in most need e.g. whenever Labour come to power they always raise the income tax on the 5% highest earners by 2%, and whenever the Conservatives come to power they always reduce the income tax on the 5% highest earners by 2%.
In answer to your question “Which party do you believe that I would be most comfortable with in Britain?” Most defiantly the Liberal Democrats. In that respect, you might find the Liberal Democrat’s 2019 Election Manifesto of interest (10 minute video): - https://youtu.be/Or-Ftl4GVskI could not help to notice that in your examples, the Conservative (Capitalist) party seems to be doing quite well.
Wow, you have to go so far to the right that their is virtually nothing left to find the equivalent to the American GOP. Now that's scary.
While I don't want to regulate American business to death, but the need for regulation is crucial to prevent abuse of labor, the environment, etc. I lean toward more regulation rather than less. While utility services (Gas-Electric) are not socialized they are required to go to a public board to justify any rate increases. I am satisfied that there is oversight to prevent price gouging on essential services.
You can see in the photos as part of this thread how many shantytowns appear in American cities. Capitalism in America is the lingua Franca for both parties as it is accepted, but the Republicans are just more crass about it, always speaking in terms of laissez faire.
In regards to the paragraph speaking of safety nets. As flinty as American politics and culture has become, the idea of a universal income can never take hold here. Only the most extreme of the Democratic left would dare propose it and it lies well within the 3rd deviation left of the middle of which I am not a part.
Taxation is always an issue on either side of the pond. Conservatives Republicans resist imposing taxes on the wealthy, while Democrats believe that they don't pay their fair share under a progressive income tax system, which offers so many loopholes. I would be surprised if any of them paid anything. I can expect a certain amount of blow back over this comment.
I am a liberal Democrat, so I am home, thanks for the video. I will check it out and see how much we are on the same page.Yep, over the past 14 years “the Conservative (Capitalist) party have done quite well.” But that will end in this year’s General Election:
In the 2019 General Election the Conservatives won 365 of the 650 seats; but current prediction is that in this year’s General Election they will struggle to win just 150 of the 650 seats – which will be a humiliating defeat for them. Also, in the Local Elections, due to take place on 2nd May, it is expected that the Conservatives will lose half their seats e.g. lose about 500 of their existing 1,000 seats in local governments that’s due for election this year –
Again this will be a humiliating defeat for the Conservatives; so much so that it is expected that the Conservative MPs will revolt against their leader (Prime Minister), forcing him into an early snap General Election in July: We shall know within a couple of weeks.
Yep, I agree, there is need for Regulation of businesses “to prevent abuse of labour, the environment, etc.”; and that is certainly the case in the UK.
As regards our utility services in the UK, water was nationalised (State owned, and State run) in 1884; electricity and sewage were nationalised (State owned and run) in 1947 by Labour: Unfortunately privatised ‘all’ utility services in the 1980s: However, as a means to an end e.g. for the UK Government to be able to have better control over its legal requirement to meet the ‘carbon net zero’ by 2050, the Conservatives re-nationalised the National Grid (electricity and natural gas) this year – although utility companies who sell electricity and gas from the national grid to the domestic home will remain in private hands.
Our system of regulating the price of gas and electricity in the UK is slightly different to how it’s done in the USA. Instead of the utility companies going to a public board to justify any rate increase, an Independent Government body, called Ofgem (Office of Gas and Electricity Markets) sets a price cap every three months e.g. Ofgem dictates what the maximum price is – Ofgem got it horribly wrong a couple of years ago resulting in a staggering 40 of the 55 utility companies in the UK going bankrupt: So last year the Government stepped in and bailed out any utility company that was struggling to make a profit because of the price cap imposed by Ofgem.
Yep, I’ve seen plenty of photos and videos of the shantytowns in American cities – fortunately something we don’t have in the UK.
UNIVERSAL INCOME
You raised an interesting topic; we don’t have ‘universal income’ as such in the UK – although during the energy crisis a couple of years ago (due to the war in Ukraine) the Conservative Government gave every single household a $500 handout to help pay the rising cost of electricity and gas at that time. Since then the cost of electricity and gas has fallen back significantly so the ‘universal income’ was just a ‘one year wonder’.
However, I did stumble across a scheme where ‘Universal Basic Income’ is currently being trialled, as part of a two year trial, in two places England (which might make for interesting reading): https://www.theguardian.com/society/202 … in-england
Yes, “Taxation is always an issue on either side of the pond.” But I don’t think it’s such an important voting issue in the UK as in the USA. Currently (16th April Opinion Poll) only 12% of British voters see tax as an important issue. Looking at the data more closely, it’s around 12% regardless to gender, politics, region or social class – where there is a stark difference is in age e.g. those under the age of 50 are far more concerned about taxes than those over the age of 50; 16% of those under 50 see tax as an issue, whereas only 8% of those over 50 see tax as an issue.Need to take a brief hiatus, Arthur, we will pick this up tomorrow...
So, the tide has turned against the Conservatives as of late, what has got the people to change course?
Republicans will tear across protected lands and habitats, whose importance was recognized as long ago by Theodore Roosevelt. Trump talks about "drill baby drill", he remains an Anachronism in a world where the best and brightest appreciate the finite nature of natural resources and the planet's delicate balance in maintaining habitability.
It is the American aristocracy, corporate capitalists that are the most put upon by any mention of increased taxes..Yep, I was horrified during the 2016 Presidential Campaign of Trump’s staunch support for fossil fuels, and how anti-renewable energy he his.
In answer to your question: “So, the tide has turned against the Conservatives as of late, what has got the people to change course?”
The rot set in (sharp decline in support of the Conservatives) with ‘Liz Trust’ as being Prime Minster in the autumn of 2022:
Prior to the summer of 2022 the Conservative was riding high in the opinion polls because of Boris Johnsons (the Prime Minister) popularity with the voting public over his handling of the pandemic. Over 80% of the voting public supported Boris Johnson’s handling of the pandemic.
However, in the summer of 2022 the Conservative Party deposed Boris Johnson as Prime Minister because of his constant lying to Parliament – and not long afterwards Parliament suspend Boris Johnson from the House of Commons for 90 days, for the same crime of lying to Parliament. At this point Boris Johnson took the decision to resign as a politician, rather than face the embarrassment of being sacked by his Constituency (voters) e.g. under rules bought in by the Conservative Government in 2015 any MP (Politician) who is suspended from the House of Commons for more than two weeks can be sacked by his own Constituency if more than just 10% of voters in that constituency (seat) sign a petition to sack him/her.
The Conservative Party then elected Liz Trust to be Prime Minister: She became Prime Minister on 6th September 2022 – but within days of being Prime Minister she spectacularly trashed the ‘British Economy’, an economic downturn that still haunts the Conservative Government to this day.
Needless to say, just six weeks later (on the 20th Oct 2022) the Conservative Party kicked Liz Truss out of Office, and replaced her with our current Prime Minister (Rishi Sunak) (a Hindu Indian).
After Liz Truss spectacularly trashing the British economy in just days, we’ve had the economic downturn (cost of living crisis and fuel crisis) caused by the Ukrainian war – So the Conservatives just haven’t had a chance to recover from the damage that Liz Truss (as Prime Minister) did to the economy: So ever since then the Conservatives popularity has stayed very low in the opinion polls, regardless to any attempts to appease the voting public e.g. in March this year (about six weeks ago) the Conservative Government reduced income tax (NI) by 2% for everyone, as a way to try to buy votes – but it’s made no difference whatsoever in the opinion polls.
A Timeline of Liz Truss’s 45 Days as U.K. Prime Minister: https://youtu.be/6GiJ8iqycLgArthur, capitalism is by its very nature greedy and selfish. The petroleum industry is not concerned about the environment over more profits. So, drill, baby, drill!!
The problem is that these kinds of interests have an inordinate influence in how the government operates in my opinion. Trump is only int rested in the needs of big money folks. Such is the foundation of the rule the plutocrat, a basic tenet of capitalism.
At least within your system, you can get rid of the bad apples.
Conservatives make a mess here too, and blame the left for the carnage they leave behind.
Thanks for the video.If only it was as easy to get rid of bad apples in the USA as it is in the UK – The world would be a better place without Trump.
There is mounting pressure for the Conservatives to turn against their ‘leader’ (Prime Minister), and try to depose him after next week’s Local Elections; if that happens then the Prime Minister is likely to call an early General Election in July rather than be forced to resign by his own Party – which would be good for the nation (UK). Whether that happens or not is explained in detail in this short video:
Could Rishi Sunak (Prime Minister) be toppled by Conservative MPs (elected politicians) before this year’s General Election? https://youtu.be/f3klaCTaEdA
This short (2 minute) video adds some backbone to the above video:
N.B. to save confusion - when watching the video below - remember that the political colours in Europe are reversed to the political colours in the USA e.g. in Europe 'red' = socialism, and blue = Conservatives (royalty).
Is it all over for Rishi Sunak (Prime Minister) and the Conservative Party? https://youtu.be/1sNN27NvEE0
I started watching the video and stopped.
This is the viewpoint of the left.
NO, President Donald Trump did not "stack" the Supreme Court. He filled vacancies on the court following the rules of the US Constitution. For those of you who don't know, (and this includes many on the left). Stacking the Supreme Court would involves CREATING more positions on the Supreme Court and filling them with justices of a particular view point. This was not done. I stopped watching the video there.
The Supreme Court are not made up of elected officials. Their job is not to follow a particular political view point but to interpret the constitution.
Why did the Court reverse Roe v Wade? It was based on faulty law. It was decided to give the decision back to the individual states and have individuals elected by the people decide on the question of abortion.
What the video refers to the student loan and climate decisions were denied because they don't fall in place with the standards of the US Constitution. Most people believe students who take out loans should be responsible to pay them back. The climate case was a bit ridiculous. The United States is not as gullible as those in Europe when it comes to the climate issue.The problem is clear... you cannot have true separation of powers when you are trying to usher in a corporate-communist regime.
In order to have a One Party system, in reality if not in practice, every part of your government must follow the same ideology.
What they want, is for all of America to be like New York, you see how NY uses the Courts to prosecute political opponents. Laws aren't made for Justice in a One Party system, they are meant only to be used against enemies of the State and/or Party.You are absolutely correct.
When there was a USSR, and you visited there, there was a game the police played with people new to a city.
A wallet would be placed on a sidewalk. If you picked it up, a man would come out and scream how you had stolen his wallet, the police would arrive and you would have to pay them a "fine" or go to jail and pay a fine. It was not only something the government didn't address, they encouraged it.
It's the same with democrats. They will scream about illegalities and gaslight the political world to get what they want. This is not discouraged by the democrat party, but openly encouraged by it.
democrat party = USSRComplete with Oligarchs, Czars (Obama had more czars than the Romanovs), and the MIC acting as a corporate and more civil version of the State Military.
As I said to GA, I recognise that the video is heavily biased towards socialism – and normally I don’t take much notice of any article or video that’s heavily biased, in either direction: But nevertheless, from my perspective from across the pond, I do see a lot of truth in the video which is worthy of debate.
I’m not talking about Trump ‘stacking’ the Supreme Court by creating more position; I’m talking about the fact that vacancies on the Supreme Court (the Juridical) are appointed on the basis of their politics by the President (the Executive) e.g. Republican Presidents will appoint Republican Judges and Democrat Presidents will appoint Democrat Judges – and hence the risk of the Executive gaining political influence over the Juridical; unlike the UK where candidates are selected by an Independent Committee, and not the Executive – ensuring a true separation of powers between Juridical and Executive.
How do I know whether the Court Reversal of Roe vs Wade, the Student Loans, or the Climate Case, were not politically motivated? One thing that would give me some assurance would be knowing how the Judges voted in the Court Reversal of Roe vs Wade e.g. if all the Republican Judges voted to reverse Roe vs Wade and all the Democrat Judges voted not to reverse Roe vs Wade then it would (in my mind) clearly demonstrate that there is not a ‘Separation’ of ‘Powers’ between the Executive and the Juridical in the USA – which would be a dangerous thing, and a threat to democracy in America.
What Would Happen Without Checks and Balances? https://youtu.be/4zYY0m_BHtc
I can't get it to connect. I really would like to view it. Right now it seems to me that the U.S. Supreme Court and our Congress is working in cahoots with each other. The court has become political and, therefore, is little or no separation of powers between it and the Republicans in Congress. We are being taken over by a group of people who want our civil rights to go back to the 19th Century. I never thought I'd live to see this day. The hypocrisy of this is that anyone who doesn't agree with the Republican Party is called "a communist", but it isn't the Democrats and Biden who are sidling up to the leaders of the communist countries. It isn't the Democrats and liberal leaning people who are in favor of this self-proclaimed wannabe dictator. I know that the reputation of the U.S.A. is tarnished in the European world, but I also see that some of the Americans in the forum are saying that this video has got it all wrong. I would like to see for myself, since most of them are Republicans.
Try this link - a different link format to the same video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FIzoxAm2IU
Firstly I would like to thank everyone for their thoughts; makes for an interesting read.
I apologise for not responding to any of the posts yet; but this month has suddenly become hectic (extremely busy), so I haven’t got much time to use the computer, and therefore for the next few weeks I’ll only be able to respond in dribs and drabs when I get a spare moment.
In the meantime; another aspect of the American Juridical system that always baffles me is (as with the current Trump court case), the American jury selection process - in that in the UK it’s the court who selects the 12 jurors at ‘random’, and neither the defendant nor prosecutor has a say in it.In my VERY modest opinion, both sides presented here are idealizing your respective ideologies, excluding one most prominent thing -- the reality of the human factor, which is known to screw up anything that's so nicely planned on any paper.
So, how about the crude reality of corruption, lobbyism, loopholes in laws, and a sheer tendency in politics to lie and to manipulate?
What I am reading here is a two-fold story of "how things SHOULD look according to this or that plan", and you are arguing over some opposing ideals -- leaving the reality out of it.
And the reality is that politics in the United States -- and possibly in UK and elsewhere -- is a sheer joke, and my simple proof for that is that it OBVIOUSLY isn't working, considering the national debt, a rotten foreign politics with intimidation, coercion, non-defensive wars, all out of an ambition for a global hegemony, and the national divide that is on a brink of a civil war.
Discussion I am seeing here reminds of a hypothetical debate between believers of two different religions about which one is closer to God -- while there is a religious war going on which has nothing to do with any religious basic tenets advertising love, tolerance, and harmony.
Likewise, you are both lost in the abstractions of the desirables, not seeing the reality in which the corrupted human nature is making a joke of all of it.
We might as well discuss about a due loyalty between spouses, while ignoring the statistics of divorces.
So much from my side. Now, feel free to ignore this comment and continue with your fancy idealizing routine.Talk about a perfect landing spot for this doozy:
Judicial Ethics Enforcement Act ensures Inspector General for SCOTUS
https://omar.house.gov/media/press-rele … bility-new
Amazing that the most corrupt and criminal branch wants to ensure it can handicap the least corrupt and biased branch, to gain leverage and control over it.
Brought by Reps Omar, Raskin, and Stansbury.You are right about the perfect opening for your link.
The direction should be less political involvement, not more. It says the office would be within the judiciary — implying non-partisan — yet gives the office no autonomy. It's not independent, it's a political legislative tool that is not only a bad idea, it is also double-edged.
GA
Nathanville: "I’m talking about the fact that vacancies on the Supreme Court (the Juridical) are appointed on the basis of their politics by the President (the Executive) e.g. Republican Presidents will appoint Republican Judges and Democrat Presidents will appoint Democrat Judges – and hence the risk of the Executive gaining political influence over the Juridical; unlike the UK where candidates are selected by an Independent Committee, and not the Executive – ensuring a true separation of powers between Juridical and Executive."
Oh, God! Why didn't we model our process by yours? How much damage would be avoided!!! The business of filling a SC vacancy by whatever president happens to be in office when a justice dies (or is bought off like Kennedy was*) is nothing more than political Russian Roulette with the highest court in the land at stake.
*The New York Times reports, the 81-year-old’s announcement was the culmination of a carefully orchestrated 17-month campaign by the Trump administration to remake the Supreme Court before the 2018 midterms, when there is an outside chance that Republicans could lose their majority." Vanity FairrYep, I remember the shenanigans of what you say at the time, from the New on British TV, as the events played out of Trump wrangling to ensure the Supreme Court has a Republican majority – viewed as being very undemocratic from this side of the pond.
Related Discussions
- 76
"A Republic, if You Can Keep It"
by Poppa Blues 14 years ago
America is NOT a democracy! To understand the difference between a democracy and a REPUBLIC, read on, and you'll realize why the health care bill is unconstitutional!"A Republic, if You Can Keep It" Written by John F. McManus Monday, 06 November 2000 11:31 The...
- 31
Convention of States to amend the U.S. Constitution
by tbHistorian 10 years ago
The Georgia state legislature passed a measure calling for a Convention of States to amend the U.S. Constitution. This would establish a Continental Congress composed of citizens that would work to achieve solidarity for amendments to the Constitution to restore the power to the people. ...
- 428
The Disatorous Ramifications of the Deadly Reversal of Roe vs Wade.
by Scott Belford 23 hours ago
The Conservatives on the Supreme Court stuck a knife in the back of all Americans with their decision to ignore stare decises and overturn Roe. Besides stripping women of a fundemental right to control their own body (now, in some states, a 13-year old rape victim with be FORCED to carry the...
- 327
Donald Trump Supporters/Voters Disenfranchised in Colorado, Who's Next
by Angie B Williams 3 months ago
Which State will be next to decide that their leaders and their State's Supreme Court are more mighty, more powerful than the U.S. Constitution and the Power, which, by design and by LAW, belongs with the American people? That's what this is.....right? A power trip? Let's be the one to outdo all...
- 52
Why do Conservatives prefer “Republic” over “Democracy”?
by Credence2 4 months ago
On this eve of the 82nd anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor, I now have my own cache to deliver.Because of the dishonesty, cowardice and treachery of certain forum participants and they know who they are, I will only direct my comments to those that in my experience do not behave in this...
- 127
Role of Government
by ErictheGator 13 years ago
What should the role of government be in helping the 8.5 million Americans out of work?