I agree with your answer . There were lots of colonial powers , of which the UK was one. Our commonwealth was an attempt to address the relationship between us and some of our former colonies.
Aussie here and I think much of the democratic world, including Britain and the USA would be well served by adopting our compulsory showing up to vote. I would object strenuously if we were somehow forced to make a valid vote but so long as you are able to write “none of the above” or draw a picture of a raised middle finger I think everyone needing to be crossed off a list at election time removes a hell of a lot of skullduggery. Pre polling and postal voting starts well before Election Day so as to make it easy for all to have their say.
Showing up one way or another every few years really isn’t too much to ask.
ETA the penalty for not voting without a valid excuse in a Federal Election is $20 so protesting this law is unlikely to break you if you believe it unjust.
I’m quite certain that people who say things like this have never done one iota of research on how much money the modern office of the president costs taxpayers.
Here’s a little hint.
I could agree with your closing comment should loss of dominance occur suddenly but with Britain, it developed over years. The Washington Post has a banner slogan, “Democracy Dies In Darkness”, in other words, when no one is paying attention and when the proverbial sun rises, it’s too late. Removing dominance from a nation, can occur slowly so as to keep the majority peaceful, unaware and calm. What’s to say our reaction in a divided nation would be different? I believe the emotion of tranquility would be replaced with one of regret.
Although I get the history, there are few countries where it is easier to join the army than buy a beer. This is a mixed blessing.
The US could teach how to create a Hollywood or a Silicon valley….or maybe they developed by accident
I don’t even know what this sentence means!
My apologies San Vito. I shall try to be more clear.
In the U.S. (where we drive on the right, it bears noting), it is perfectly legal to make a right turn on a red traffic light (after a full stop) unless signage indicates otherwise. Anywhere in the country, in all 50 states. I’ve learned that this confuses the hell out of Europeans.
I don’t know the situation in the UK however. And of course they/you drive on the left, so the discussion would center on making left turns on red lights, not right turns, but my point stands.
Probably best described as ‘a turn that does not cross oncoming traffic lanes’ (left turn in the UK, right turn in the USA).
It is not permitted to make this turn in the UK against a red light. In cases where a junction requires this sort of filtering, there is usually a separate left turn lane, and a separate light comprising a green arrow, indicating it’s OK for people in that lane to make the turn (and when that arrow is illuminated green, there will be no opposing flow of traffic as that will have been stopped by other red lights).
Ah, gotcha, I had this vision of Americans literally switching on red lights in their houses. But no, we don’t turn right (or left in our case) on red lights. Sometimes we have feeder lights, but these are indicated by a green arrow.
One thing that I would like the USA to learn is to dispose of provincialism. I’m sure most Americans aren’t beholden to it, but the minority that are, are quite outspoken on the internet.
Whenever I find myself ‘corrected’ by someone saying ‘ummm, actually it’s pronounced ‘zee-bruh’’ (no, it isn’t, not here) or ‘you forgot to mention the tax on your food shopping’ (there is no such thing here) or ‘WTF is a pound in money?’ (why not just google it?) or ‘actually it’s pronounced bayyy-sil’ (no, it’s not), it’s always someone from the USA - and not just because those specific things are differences, but because of an apparent notion that the whole world is, or should be, the same as wherever that person happens to be, in the USA.
It’s not even limited to statements about the US vs the rest of the world; on the tax on food shopping thing, I’ve seen Americans variously claim that:
- The whole of the USA has tax on food shopping
- Nowhere in the USA has tax on food shopping
(depending on what they were disagreeing with, but both are wrong).
I don’t think this is just a perspective thing that I’m noticing because I’m outside of the USA. I don’t see the same behaviours from people from other places, even from other English-speaking countries. There is just a tendency for people from the USA to regard their little bubble of the world as ‘normal and correct’, and anything else as ‘different, probably wrong’.
Please teach your children that the rest of the world exists.
Agreed, the provencialism has got to go. I think another way of putting it is that many USA’nians have “their head so far up their a** that their adam’s apple is their nose.” (Quote stolen from BoB)
I’ve had a Canadian friend visit some of his friends in Texas during Thanksgiving holiday. Where his (conservative) hosts made a point of lecturing to him (a PhD researcher) why the Canadian healthcare system is so bad. But…it wasn’t, and isn’t, in my friend’s opinion. Just…silly. Way silly, and un-called for. You’d expect his hosts to politely listen and maybe ask questions, not have their minds falsely made up in advance.
The cure for this is, obviously, more and better life experience for all USAnians. Especially, foreign travel and/or living abroad, with an open mind. It works wonders.
However, working against this is the tide of “American Exceptionalism” that in part suggests that America is already the greatest, most perfect nation on Earth, that everyone wants to live here and everyone wants to emulate us. Imagine their minds being blown as they learn gradually that this just isn’t so, at least, not this long after the Cold War ended. (Before then, this might have been a useful idea.)
I can’t find an exact quote for this so I’m paraphrasing.
Bill Bryson, an American writer who has lived in the UK for much of his life, once wrote something along the lines of:
a European looks at something and says “I don’t understand this. What’s wrong with me?” An American looks at something and says “I don’t understand this. What’s wrong with it?”
That feels pertinent to the thread.
While British policing is far from perfect, in general we have very few cases of police shooting people. There are a number of reasons for this, but a key one is that most officers don’t carry firearms. The ones that do are hand-picked, have extensive training and are subject to strict constraints on when they are allowed to use their weapons.
The other relevant factor is that police shootings are always subject to independent enquiry.
But there is also a broader difference of context, much more difficult to transfer: central government authority over local government; national standards and national institutions to inspect local police services, enforce change and investigate cases of misbehaviour; non-politicisation of local policing and judiciary, and so on.
The various civils liberties groups here are not keen on the police having weapons of any kind.
A friend from Kansas once told me “A pint’s a pound, the world around”.
No, it’s not! “A pint of pure water weighs a pound and a quarter”.
Yeah, exactly the problem 
Stuff like this is why people go metric. 
There are US and Imperial pints. A US pint is 473mL, and so a US pint of water weighs 1.0406 pounds. An imperial pint is 568mL. So a pint’s a pound, where Drumpfs are crowned, but not the world around, Zounds…