Almost. Our right is still on par with or left of your (assuming you’re USian) left and our moderate left is probably what you’d call raving Socialist. And this side of the pond, blue is conservative and red is socialist/social democratic.
It’s the color thing that really confuses me when I read about US politics. I have a fundamental problem associating “red” with “raving right-wing”.
There’s no real vintage on that even over here. Before the 2000 election, the networks traded off red and blue as convenient markers in their on-air maps between the Democrats and Republicans, depending on which party was incumbent in power. By historical accident, the Republicans were red and the Democrats were blue in 2000, and that’s where they got stuck when the electoral shenanigans of that year were being fought out.
Well indeed, why would America want to change a political system that works so very well for it, and is so effective at keeping a minority of theocratic ratbags from fucking everything up.:rolleyes:
What sorts of issues was he supposed to show more balls on?
I’m sorry, I’ll need a Venn diagram, flowchart, PowerPoint slides and some stiff drinks to figure out your right from my left, etc…
I’m on board with legalized Segways especially for ripping through libraries.
Well, I’ll try to explain what it looks like to us.
This is our system:
We have some parties who are on the left side of the spectrum. These generally like immigrants, emphasize the welfare state, want most of the important things regulated by the government (like schools, health-care and what you can and cannot do to employees and the elderly) and mostly favor some level of taking care of the environment. Equality for women, LGBT people, special needs folks and minorities needs to be put on the agenda, and a more egalitarian society worked toward. Economic issues focus on “everyman”, so cheap housing for young families and public transit tend to be hobby-horses. Think social issues are the most important. Have splintering problems, as people tend to get hung up on trivial disagreements about issues everyone actually wants to solve.
We have moderates, who sort of favor continuing as we are, with minor changes here and there for inflation and social trends.
We have other parties on the right side of the spectrum. These are generally more wary of immigrants, particularly refugees. Favor higher bars to clear for citizenship, and lower refugee quotas. Indifferent to hostile when it comes to the environment. Have a more hands-off approach to equality issues, and feel that most of these things will work themselves out, so gender inequality and minorities need not be put on the agenda (although active discrimination is almost never the case, with the exception of The Christian Nutter Party towards the LGBT). Want most things privatized, especially schools and hospitals. Economic issues focus on business, so easier rules for starting a small business, and tax cuts for employers tend to be hobby-horses. Favor greater freedoms for the average individual, so try to achieve fewer rules in general. Think economic issues are the most important. Have an amazing ability to cooperate in spite of major differences.
This is the american system (as we see it):
Everyone is so right wing it’s hopeless trying to tell them apart.
As long as they’re required to conspicuously advertise that they will not carry out abortions, they’ll just lose business and pay a price for their own stupidity, no?
Point is, for a person in Denmark the closure of an abortion clinic is a minor inconvenience, it’s a small country and so presumably other Danish clinics would be reasonably close. And even if they’re not, other European countries that DO provide abortions are reasonably close. Whereas in Norway, things are more Montana-like … closing down an abortion clinic in the nearest hospital could leave a woman without options. Certianly, with considerably fewer options
Speaking as an American progressive, yes, you’ve got it right. I live in Georgia, a southern red state. My choices on election days of late have been between Genghis Khan and Attila the Hun, figuratively speaking.
At least Genghis Khan and Attila the Hun had coherent foreign policy.
Not a problem. It gave me the opportunity to once again note Norwegian women are gorgeous. I can think of worse things to be famous for…
Yes, no one could call them isolationists!
A couple of points worth mentioning:
Just a reiteration. The abortion issue regards giving primary physicians the right to refuse to give a referal for medical procedures they concier morally problematic. You get to chose your primary physician freely (as long as the doctor doesn’t have a full patient list), but if you live in rural Norway you don’t have much choice and even otherwise it’s not an issue most women would even think about researching until to late.
Thus far we’ve had primary negotiations with the four confusingly named parties Right (conservative), Left (center), Christian People’s party (Center, except when it comes to anything to do with messing with the main stream Norwegian Christianity of fifteen years ago), Progress party (we’re not populists, we’re not, we’re not, you’re all persecuting us! - cheaper booze and sigarettes for everyone, lower taxes, more money to the elderly and the hospitals casinos on every streetcorner - why are you dragging out the populism card again?) These negotiations ended with the Left and CPP saying they wouldn’t be part of the government, but would support the general agreement that includes the CPP-wet dreams mentioned.
Then we’ve had secondary negotiations between Right and Progress to hammer out a detailed government platform. They’ve kept a tight lid on things, and we won’t really known until this evening, unless they postpone the announcement, what they’ve agreed on.
And then we have to wait for them to actually do any governing and for the parliament to aquiesce to this minority coallition governing, to see what they actually get to do.
I’m more worried about the conservative knee-jerk “the government shouldn’t own things” drive to sell our natural resources than anything else they might get up to.
Can I ask a question re: the blue party thing? Because, in the UK, blue = right wing/conservative and red = left/labour, whereas it’s obviously arse about face in the US, which never fails to confuse me.
So, are ‘blue’ parties typically to the right, politically, in Norway? Or is the colour just coincidence?
(Should probably add, we only have one political party that uses blue in their branding, but then they are called the ‘Conservative Party’, clue being in the name and all that).
I think you missed the part about “being the only doctor for several hundred miles”.
In Spain the colors are generally the same as in Norway and the UK: red is left (except when it’s green, or yellow and red, or…) and blue is right (except when it’s white). There was some controversy one time because the pictures of Socialist Party candidates had been given light-blue backgrounds, a color normally associated with PP (I guess you could call them Christian Democrats, but the only time the “[del]Christian[/del] Catholic” bit comes up in anything resembling a serious way is when Abortion Laws get reviewed).
Really? You got any reliable citations for women in Norway being left without options, or are you just making stuff up?
If a country as wealthy and “socially progressive” as Norway, with a state-paid healthcare system can’t make a simple workaround instead of forcing people to do things they don’t want, then theproblem is the government, not the doctors.
If there is only one doctor in Olafsberg-on-the-Arctic-circle and she doens’t want to refer for abortions, then there are very few options, however, a no-abortion doctor is better than no doctor.
It looks like another case of “I’m very tolerant… of things I like or not care much.”
Cold comfort for the girl dealing with an unplanned pregnancy.
Warmer than no doctor for anything.
Are we talking about Somalia or something?