U.S. v European politics

[amanset]

@illuminatiprimus

but just assumed qin knew what he was talking about :smack:

schoolboy error.

[Illuminatiprimus]

@amanset

schoolboy error.

Hence the smack-face.

[Malden_Capell]

Without consuming my afternoon in addressing each point, I think I just want to say I actually think the House of Lords does a very good job in the UK, and doesn’t have much of a bearing either way on the democratic nature of our Parliament. It’s got flaws but I think election is the last thing we want to do to it.

[Illuminatiprimus]

@Malden_Capell

Without consuming my afternoon in addressing each point, I think I just want to say I actually think the House of Lords does a very good job in the UK, and doesn’t have much of a bearing either way on the democratic nature of our Parliament. It’s got flaws but I think election is the last thing we want to do to it.

Actually I don’t disagree at all - the House of Lord considers a huge amount of legislation and, through the appointment of life peers with experience of particular sectors, has within it a vast range of experience and knowledge. I don’t think that making it democratically elected would automatically make it better. Preferably I would like the ability for the political parties to appoint seemingly unlimited numbers of life peers halted, in fact I’d like peers to be appointed for set periods of time like 10 years or so. You can get rid of the Bishops whilst you’re at it, or at the very least reduce it to one so that the voice of the church is represented.

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

@foolsguinea

Right, but that’s perhaps less about extremism and more about the US’s two-party culture. In the USA, the radical racists and conspiracy theorists tend to run under the Democratic or Republican banners rather than their own parties, so they can co-opt non-extremist votes.

And those type of people generally don’t win seats.

@Nava

Wouldn’t “taking care of people’s mental health” be socialism, by American definitions? Now it’s a right-wing thing? Is the right-wing part the “making sure that a woman who gets an abortion wants it and is not being forced to get one”? Is requiring counseling for people voluntarily giving up children, or for people whose custody has been taken away by the courts, also a right-wing thing? Is providing counseling to people who’ve lost a child to accident or illness also right-wing now?

I don’t think checking the mental health of citizens in order for such legal matters as custody is “liberal” or “conservative”. And if we are going to have legalized abortion at the least one can show the consequences of such thing.

[QUOTE]

@Illuminatiprimus

You can cite three countries in Europe out of 27 countries that have restrictions around abortion and you’re claiming that the US is more “libertine” (loaded word if I ever heard one) on the issue? How about the whole of Scandinavia, the Netherlands, UK and Spain which all have extremely relaxed laws around abortion and make it as easy as possible for someone to get one without having to demonstrate they have a sound reason? Want an abortion? Are you an adult? Sign here and we’ll bring out the pills. Interestingly enough availability of abortion has been theorised by a number of different sources to have an impact on crime levels in society. So, if you can look past any personal feelings you have about someone having an abortion because you don’t approve of it, the facts seem to demonstrate that it’s good for society that people can.

First of all I wasn’t making a judgement on abortion in this thread, I was just noting its differences in policy.

As for your chart “proving” corporation tax is lower - my interpretation of the date puts the US’s corporation tax rate at around 38% (Tax rates.cc confirms that in 2011 the corporate tax rate was 35%), so that means you’ve essentially demonstrated that you’re wrong with your own cite as every country bar Japan has a lower corporate tax rate than the US. Regardless, corporate tax rates don’t correlate to economic strength. Greece and Ireland in that chart have lower corporate tax rates than Germany but the latter is by far and away the stronger economy.

Eh? I went to the site and as an example checked Canada which stated the maximum possible corporate tax rate for that country was 34%. The UK’s was 28%.

Greece and Ireland have “boomed” only fairly lately as opposed to the ultra-developed economies such as the US, Britain, or Germany.

The BNP has two seats in the British parliament out of a total of 550, giving it a vote share of around 0.36%. If you want to argue that’s a sign that the UK, or indeed anywhere in the EU, is more right leaning in its politics than the US, good luck.

Not generally but it does mean while mainstream economically liberal type of conservatives are not as popular as here, the authoritarian/nationalist right is quite popular.

My whole point was that Europe and America cannot be absolutely compared to as being more “right” or “left” and that there are some areas where one is more conservative and others where the latter is more conservative. And the fact that you say that some countries have just as liberal abortion policies as here, proves that point-Europe includes countries like Poland and Ireland along with the Netherlands or Sweden.

[Norse]

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

My whole point was that Europe and America cannot be absolutely compared to as being more “right” or “left” and that there are some areas where one is more conservative and others where the latter is more conservative.

Ask almost any Western European where the two US political parties would land on a European left/right scale, and they’d put the Dems more or less besides their own Conservatives and the Republicans quite far to the right from that. You can nitpick all you want, but still the overall picture is that US politics is more conservative than (Western) European politics.

ETA: I don’t know how well versed you are in European politics, but I’ve been living here for all of my life. Except for one year in the US. And given the sheer size and power of USA, US politics is very well covered in media on our side. So I guess I have a fairly realistic impression of the politics on both sides of the pond. At least if I limit my description of “European” to Western Europe.

[Malden_Capell]

@Illuminatiprimus

Actually I don’t disagree at all - the House of Lord considers a huge amount of legislation and, through the appointment of life peers with experience of particular sectors, has within it a vast range of experience and knowledge. I don’t think that making it democratically elected would automatically make it better. Preferably I would like the ability for the political parties to appoint seemingly unlimited numbers of life peers halted, in fact I’d like peers to be appointed for set periods of time like 10 years or so. You can get rid of the Bishops whilst you’re at it, or at the very least reduce it to one so that the voice of the church is represented.

Glad to hear it! And yes, your proposals are sound to me. My preferences would be:-

• removal of the remaining hereditaries;
• removal of the Bishops;
• retention of peers for life, but place all appointments under the aegis of the House of Lords Appointments Commission, accountable to Parliament for its actions;
• allow a maximum of ten peerages per Parliament (perhaps) for the PM to make on his own choice, if he needs to.
• cap the number of peers at 600.

[Illuminatiprimus]

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

Eh? I went to the site and as an example checked Canada which stated the maximum possible corporate tax rate for that country was 34%. The UK’s was 28%.

I’ve just gone back and re-read your post and realised you’d said that the US’s rates of corporate tax were high, so I see what you’re talking about now.

But I disagree on pretty much everything else you said.

[Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus]

@BeaMyra

This is something even Americans and Mr Obama didn’t get or lied about. The US President is pretty weak on his own. So is the Congress and so is the US Supreme Court. The whole idea was to have a system of checks. This leads to gridlock. Of course it does prevent one branch from running over the rest.

No, I think most of us “get” that the President isn’t a dictator, or at least I hope so. But since he’s still the leader of the government regardless, any President tends to become the target of complaint and criticism. At the same time, I think it’s safe to say that most of us are at least slightly in awe of whoever happens to occupy the Oval Office, so the incumbent garners a great deal of respect as well. It may seem a little odd to those living in countries where the political and symbolic leadership roles are separated, e.g. prime minister and monarch, or chancellor and president.

Regarding the checks and balances, we’ve always had those, but the system didn’t use to seem as gridlocked as it is now.