The End of Britain as We Know It

The End of Britain as We Know It

Dick Morris
July 13, 2010

The United Kingdom, the mother of all democracies, is about to change its political system in fundamental ways -- changes that will spell disaster for the nation and for its politics. For those who love Britain, the news of these impending alterations can only cause angst and distress.

As a result of the inability of either the Conservatives or Labor to win a majority in Parliament in the recent elections, both parties had to bid for support from the Liberal/Social Democratic Party. The price the Conservatives ultimately paid was to agree to some of these changes and to refer others to the electorate for a referendum.

The changes that the parties have agreed to will transform the British government from a decisive decision-making machine into a morass of compromise, half-measures and deadlock. Gridlock will be exported across the ocean to the United Kingdom.

Right now, the prime minister can dissolve Parliament anytime he wants, forcing new elections. He is also obliged to order new elections if he loses a vote of confidence. This power holds the members of his parliamentary majority in check and restrains them from turning on their leaders since, should they succeed in a vote of no confidence, it would plunge them into the uncertainty of a new election, which would imperil their own seats.

The new rules would bar the prime minister from dissolving Parliament during its five-year term and vest that right in a two-thirds majority of parliament. In other words, Parliament would have to vote itself out of office -- something likely never to happen.

So, under the new rules, if a government loses a vote over a major legislative item -- or fails to survive a no-confidence motion -- it must resign, but there need not be new elections. Instead, Parliament can refuse to order new elections and just re-form a new government out of the old Parliament.

The effect of this rule change is likely to be that governments will rise and fall all the time since they may do so without forcing members to face new elections. Like in Italy, the new governments will just be formed by reshuffling the current parliamentary deck into new combinations and coalitions.

Whereas now, if a government falls, there is an election to decide the issue, under the new procedure, the deadlock could just go on and on without resolution.

More dangerous is the proposed new voting system that must be approved by a popular referendum. Rather than vote for one candidate for Parliament in each district, voters will be obliged to rank the candidates in their order of preference. If nobody gets a majority of first-place rankings, the candidate with the least votes drops off and his second place votes are distributed among the other remaining candidates. The Liberal/Social Democrats are pushing this change in the hopes that there may never again be a parliamentary majority for the Conservatives or Labor and that they will always hold the balance of power in a hung parliament.

And they are likely to achieve their objective if the new voting system passes. Most districts in the United Kingdom, as in the U.S., tend either to the left or to the right.

In a leftist district, for example, the Labor Party usually finishes first, the Liberal/Social Democrats second and the Conservatives third. If the Labor candidate did not win a majority of first place votes on Election Day -- and they frequently don't -- the Conservative candidate will drop off and his second-place votes will determine the winner. But what Conservative voter is going to name Labor as his second choice in the polarized politics of the U.K.? Most will name the Liberal/Social Dems as their second choice, and that candidate will win the seat. In right-wing districts, the same process will happen in reverse, again to the benefit of the Liberal/Social Dems.

That means more hung parliaments, less decisive election results and more mush compromise. Together, these changes will tend to paralyze the British government, substituting muddled, mushy compromise for decisive and bold action. We will miss the old United Kingdom.

Dick Morris is a former political adviser to President Bill Clinton

Posted for a reaction from Matt. It's rare that Morris writes about foreign policy.

TexasBlue wrote:The End of Britain as We Know It

Dick Morris
July 13, 2010

The United Kingdom, the mother of all democracies, is about to change its political system in fundamental ways -- changes that will spell disaster for the nation and for its politics. For those who love Britain, the news of these impending alterations can only cause angst and distress.

When the hell was the UK ever the mother of all democracies? I've heard ancient Rome and Greece referred to the mother of Democracy, but never the UK....

TexasBlue wrote:

As a result of the inability of either the Conservatives or Labor to win a majority in Parliament in the recent elections, both parties had to bid for support from the Liberal/Social Democratic Party. The price the Conservatives ultimately paid was to agree to some of these changes and to refer others to the electorate for a referendum.

The changes that the parties have agreed to will transform the British government from a decisive decision-making machine into a morass of compromise, half-measures and deadlock. Gridlock will be exported across the ocean to the United Kingdom.

Right now, the prime minister can dissolve Parliament anytime he wants, forcing new elections. He is also obliged to order new elections if he loses a vote of confidence. This power holds the members of his parliamentary majority in check and restrains them from turning on their leaders since, should they succeed in a vote of no confidence, it would plunge them into the uncertainty of a new election, which would imperil their own seats.

The new rules would bar the prime minister from dissolving Parliament during its five-year term and vest that right in a two-thirds majority of parliament. In other words, Parliament would have to vote itself out of office -- something likely never to happen.

So, under the new rules, if a government loses a vote over a major legislative item -- or fails to survive a no-confidence motion -- it must resign, but there need not be new elections. Instead, Parliament can refuse to order new elections and just re-form a new government out of the old Parliament.

The effect of this rule change is likely to be that governments will rise and fall all the time since they may do so without forcing members to face new elections. Like in Italy, the new governments will just be formed by reshuffling the current parliamentary deck into new combinations and coalitions.

Whereas now, if a government falls, there is an election to decide the issue, under the new procedure, the deadlock could just go on and on without resolution.

More dangerous is the proposed new voting system that must be approved by a popular referendum. Rather than vote for one candidate for Parliament in each district, voters will be obliged to rank the candidates in their order of preference. If nobody gets a majority of first-place rankings, the candidate with the least votes drops off and his second place votes are distributed among the other remaining candidates. The Liberal/Social Democrats are pushing this change in the hopes that there may never again be a parliamentary majority for the Conservatives or Labor and that they will always hold the balance of power in a hung parliament.

And they are likely to achieve their objective if the new voting system passes. Most districts in the United Kingdom, as in the U.S., tend either to the left or to the right.

In a leftist district, for example, the Labor Party usually finishes first, the Liberal/Social Democrats second and the Conservatives third. If the Labor candidate did not win a majority of first place votes on Election Day -- and they frequently don't -- the Conservative candidate will drop off and his second-place votes will determine the winner. But what Conservative voter is going to name Labor as his second choice in the polarized politics of the U.K.? Most will name the Liberal/Social Dems as their second choice, and that candidate will win the seat. In right-wing districts, the same process will happen in reverse, again to the benefit of the Liberal/Social Dems.

That means more hung parliaments, less decisive election results and more mush compromise. Together, these changes will tend to paralyze the British government, substituting muddled, mushy compromise for decisive and bold action. We will miss the old United Kingdom.

Dick Morris is a former political adviser to President Bill Clinton

I fail to see the harm in a coalition between 3 Parties, seeing that it has worked in other places. Coalitions are what brings politics to the center, especially when it's between a left leaning party and a right leaning party, since they HAVE to come towards each other and come to an agreement.

Don't mind me, I just popped in to see what the husband was typing so furiously about.

The United Kingdom, the mother of all democracies,

Really, I thought we were a monarchy? Still, more accurate than calling the ancient Athens the cradle of democracy - bunch of slave owning, misogynistic, xenophobic fascists

is about to change its political system in fundamental ways -- changes

Hooray! Time to end the political stagnation and laziness/malaise of the electorate.

that will spell disaster for the nation and for its politics.

Piffle.

For those who love Britain,

Me me me!

the news of these impending alterations can only cause angst and distress.

Umm...really? I thought we were all quite excited...

As a result of the inability of either the Conservatives or Labor to win a majority in Parliament in the recent elections, both parties had to bid for support from the Liberal/Social Democratic Party.

Well, he got that bit right...apart from calling them the Liberal/Social Democratic Party. They are the 'Liberal Democrats.' End of.

The price the Conservatives ultimately paid was to agree to some of these changes and to refer others to the electorate for a referendum.

Well, the way they spin it is that they discovered some of their policies weren't really THAT different - and the Lib Dems had to make lots of concessions too. And they both have a blanket to fall back on - we can't fulfil on what we promised in our campaign because Labour lied about how much of a state they'd left the finances in.

I am biased though. The coalition was a dream come true for me - I thought it was the best possible outcome.

The changes that the parties have agreed to will transform the British government from a decisive decision-making machine into a morass of compromise, half-measures and deadlock. Gridlock will be exported across the ocean to the United Kingdom.

Pardon? Decisive-decision-making machine? THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT? Is he being funny? I think he's being funny. And everything seems to be going pretty well so far, thank you Mr. Doomsayer.

Right now, the prime minister can dissolve Parliament anytime he wants, forcing new elections. This power holds the members of his parliamentary majority in check and restrains them from turning on their leaders since, should they succeed in a vote of no confidence, it would plunge them into the uncertainty of a new election, which would imperil their own seats.

All correct.

The new rules would bar the prime minister from dissolving Parliament during its five-year term and vest that right in a two-thirds majority of parliament. In other words, Parliament would have to vote itself out of office -- something likely never to happen.

*sigh* It's surprising how many people don't get this. The PM introduced the inability to dissolve Parliament as a trade off measure when changing the required majority to 55 % when dissolving parliament. This is LOWER than in many other European countries - such as Germany. And her Maj can still dissolve parliament.

So, under the new rules, if a government loses a vote over a major legislative item -- or fails to survive a no-confidence motion -- it must resign, but there need not be new elections. Instead, Parliament can refuse to order new elections and just re-form a new government out of the old Parliament.

Sure in theory they COULD but with the way British Politics works - they won't, nor would parliament even be able to function if they tried to. If they can't control a large enough majority - then it's time to have an election to try and win more seats, OR to try and establish another coalition.

The effect of this rule change is likely to be that governments will rise and fall all the time since they may do so without forcing members to face new elections. Like in Italy, the new governments will just be formed by reshuffling the current parliamentary deck into new combinations and coalitions.

This guy was a political adviser? Really?! I don't know so much about Italian politics (and if it has any resemblance to their judicial system, I don't want to) but there are plenty of countries in Europe which don't have a two party system and their governments function perfectly well - like Germany. There's no reason to assume that it WON'T work in Britain and so far, it's been doing ok - and I'm optimistic.

Whereas now, if a government falls, there is an election to decide the issue, under the new procedure, the deadlock could just go on and on without resolution.

This is just nonsense. If the government can't govern, then they will HAVE to step down.

More dangerous is the proposed new voting system that must be approved by a popular referendum.

Hardly as dangerous as being stuck with the same two stagnating parties year in, year out.

Rather than vote for one candidate for Parliament in each district, voters will be obliged to rank the candidates in their order of preference.

Fantastic idea! I can't wait to try it out! Now we ALL get a vote, but it isn't a ridiculously UNBritish system where we would lack the representation of MPs as we would with the PR system. This, IMHO, contains the best of both worlds. EVERYONE gets an equal vote and we keep our MPs.

If nobody gets a majority of first-place rankings, the candidate with the least votes drops off and his second place votes are distributed among the other remaining candidates. The Liberal/Social Democrats are pushing this change in the hopes that there may never again be a parliamentary majority for the Conservatives or Labor and that they will always hold the balance of power in a hung parliament.

The Lib Dems always wanted PR - now they will settle for a referendum on AV - a REFERENDUM - the public gets to decide.

And they are likely to achieve their objective if the new voting system passes. Most districts in the United Kingdom, as in the U.S., tend either to the left or to the right.

Rubbish. You can't divide British politics along American lines. Labour are just left of centre. The Tories are just right of centre. The Lib Dems are probably a bit more left than Labour these days.

In a leftist district, for example, the Labor Party usually finishes first, the Liberal/Social Democrats second and the Conservatives third. If the Labor candidate did not win a majority of first place votes on Election Day -- and they frequently don't -- the Conservative candidate will drop off and his second-place votes will determine the winner. But what Conservative voter is going to name Labor as his second choice in the polarized politics of the U.K.? Most will name the Liberal/Social Dems as their second choice, and that candidate will win the seat. In right-wing districts, the same process will happen in reverse, again to the benefit of the Liberal/Social Dems.

And this is a problem because...? Yes, the Lib Dems will hold the balance of power - but they are NOT the tail that wags the dog, nor can they be in this system. Dick is also failing to take into account that many may choose Independent Candidates, The Green Party, the English Democrats, Veritas, UKiP and (help us all) the BNP - among others. These parties/individuals will also pick up votes in this system.

That means more hung parliaments, less decisive election results and more mush compromise. Together, these changes will tend to paralyze the British government, substituting muddled, mushy compromise for decisive and bold action.

This is Britain. We don't do bold and decisive. We happen to like compromise. One of our 2 leading parties is called the CONSERVATIVES - there's a reason for that.

We will miss the old United Kingdom.

No. We won't.

TexasBlue wrote:The United Kingdom, the mother of all democracies,

News to me and here I was, stuck in 1689 thinking we still had a Constitutional Monarchy.

TexasBlue wrote:is about to change its political system in fundamental ways

And no, it isn't necessarily going to change because the change is dependent on a referrendum (or several).

TexasBlue wrote:For those who love Britain, the news of these impending alterations can only cause angst and distress.

Most people here seem to want it but we will know for certain next May. If we vote against it, it won't happen.

TexasBlue wrote:As a result of the inability of either the Conservatives or Labor to win a majority in Parliament in the recent elections, both parties had to bid for support from the Liberal/Social Democratic Party.

The Liberal Democrats Party.

TexasBlue wrote:The price the Conservatives ultimately paid was to agree to some of these changes and to refer others to the electorate for a referendum.

In a coalition, compromise is necessary for a stable government. No offence Tex, but until the US has a major third party with the ability to take a substantial number of seats and thereby cause a coalition, I'm not sure you (Americans collectively) will understand it.

TexasBlue wrote:The changes that the parties have agreed to will transform the British government from a decisive decision-making machine into a morass of compromise, half-measures and deadlock.

I fail to see how he perceives it that way. The Tories will campaign against reform, as is their right. They can call a referrendum but they don't have to support it. I'm looking forward to hearing why they think it is a bad decision even though I am leaning toward voting for change at the moment.

TexasBlue wrote:Gridlock will be exported across the ocean to the United Kingdom.

lol, The End is Nigh!

TexasBlue wrote:Right now, the prime minister can dissolve Parliament anytime he wants, forcing new elections.

That is always the case whether there is a majority government or not.

TexasBlue wrote:He is also obliged to order new elections if he loses a vote of confidence.

No he isn't. He could, if he chose, ask Nick Clegg to form a government on his terms. He could resign himself and call a leadership election for his party. He could also surrender power to Labour (technically) but he would be more likely to call an election and remain head of the party himself. Neither party wants that and for the Lib-Dem, they are unlikely to rock the boat because they are in government and would be likely to lose seats if they are perceived to be poisoning the wells.

TexasBlue wrote:In other words, Parliament would have to vote itself out of office -- something likely never to happen.

Well, we would still not be allowed to exceed 5 years. The key factor he is missing is that under the new system, as the current system, the balancing act is the multi party system itself. They WOULD vote for it because the government party have the possibility of increasing their majority. The opposition have a chance of taking power, the third party has the chance to take seats from both parties. Smaller parties can only hope to gain an extra seat or two, or even gain a seat when they didn't before. There is also the danger that a year or two later (when the five years are up) the governing party would be in a worse position than they were before. This has been the dilemma of any Prime Minister since our modern Parliamentary system was established. Changing the system will not add anything new.

TexasBlue wrote:So, under the new rules, if a government loses a vote over a major legislative item -- or fails to survive a no-confidence motion -- it must resign, but there need not be new elections.

That doesn't make any sense, unless he is talking about coalitions specifically? If so, that was always the case. If not then there isn't a problem because the party would have a leadership contest, the winner would choose his or her cabinet afterward. I don't have a problem with this, we vote for a party, not a personality as in a Presidential contest.

TexasBlue wrote: Instead, Parliament can refuse to order new elections and just re-form a new government out of the old Parliament.

Explained above.

TexasBlue wrote: The effect of this rule change is likely to be that governments will rise and fall all the time since they may do so without forcing members to face new elections. Like in Italy, the new governments will just be formed by reshuffling the current parliamentary deck into new combinations and coalitions.

I can't see that happening because our system is not built on coalitons. They are rare here.

TexasBlue wrote: Whereas now, if a government falls, there is an election to decide the issue, under the new procedure, the deadlock could just go on and on without resolution.

I really can't see it happening like that. We don't have the two party system like you, but we also do not have six or seven parties capable of taking power, as is the case in many European countries. I cannot see a satisfactory future with our current system, nor do I see the potential problems that this writer is warning about. It simply won't happen.

TexasBlue wrote: The Liberal/Social Democrats are pushing this change in the hopes that there may never again be a parliamentary majority for the Conservatives or Labor and that they will always hold the balance of power in a hung parliament.

The Liberal Democrats. I don't think that is true at all. The current system is unfair because it is possible for a party with fewer actual votes to win more actual constituencies. I have no problem with three major players in our political system and if this writer is convinced there is a conspiracy afoot, then it is a shame that he doesn't acknowledge that Labour and Conservatives do and will benefit most from the system how it is. Smaller parties and independents, while having the ability to win many votes, cannot turn it into seats. I do not like Proportional Representation, but I think AV might just work for us.

TexasBlue wrote: And they are likely to achieve their objective if the new voting system passes. Most districts in the United Kingdom, as in the U.S., tend either to the left or to the right.

Not as severe as it is in the US. I think his fundamental mistake is to constantly be comparing your system to ours. There are so many differences.

TexasBlue wrote:In a leftist district, for example, the Labor Party usually finishes first, the Liberal/Social Democrats second and the Conservatives third.

"Labour". This isn't a case of US v UK English, it is their actual title.

But anyway. Labour tend to win more seats in the north, the industrial heartlands and inner cities. The Tories tend to do better in affluent rural areas and the better off urban areas (where there is "old money") whereas the Lib-Dems tend to do better in the west country, the not so well off rural areas where there are high house prices but few jobs. But those divisions are by no means clear cut.

TexasBlue wrote:If the Labor candidate did not win a majority of first place votes on Election Day -- and they frequently don't -- the Conservative candidate will drop off and his second-place votes will determine the winner. But what Conservative voter is going to name Labor as his second choice in the polarized politics of the U.K.?

Why would he if he has 7 or 8 parties - including independents - to choose from?

TexasBlue wrote:Most will name the Liberal/Social Dems as their second choice, and that candidate will win the seat. In right-wing districts, the same process will happen in reverse, again to the benefit of the Liberal/Social Dems.

Not true simply because of the volume of candidates we can vote for. He is either unaware or ignoring that we do not have a choice of 3 or 4. My ballot paper for this last election had - I think - about 9 candidates. I voted Green. My second choice if it were under the new system would probably have been Tory. Lib-Dem third or fourth, then all of the independents. The only dilemma I would have had was whether to make "Labour" or "The Christian Party - Proclaiming Christ's Lordship" my bottom choice :p

In that system, most Labour voters *might* vote Lib Dem, but that is never a foregone conclusion. I suspect that he or she is likely to vote for smaller parties that more closely match their views than they are to vote for the major third party and that is the point of this election reform.

TexasBlue wrote:That means more hung parliaments, less decisive election results and more mush compromise.

No it doesn't for the reasons I stated above.

TexasBlue wrote:Together, these changes will tend to paralyze the British government, substituting muddled, mushy compromise for decisive and bold action. We will miss the old United Kingdom.

I really, really do not see that happening.

TexasBlue wrote:It's rare that Morris writes about foreign policy.

I can see why.

BecMacFeegle wrote:Hooray! Time to end the political stagnation and laziness/malaise of the electorate.

It really did, didn't it? I think that this election had one of the highest turnouts in history and perhaps the most dramatic outcome. It can only be a positive thing in the long run.

BecMacFeegle wrote:Umm...really? I thought we were all quite excited...

I have personally never met anybody who is "angst" ridden over this or "distressed" at the outcome. I think that there will be a lot of goodwill for a long time to come simply because of the apparent honest nature of how it has worked so far. I haven't met anybody yet who really thought that David Laws ought to have resigned either.

BecMacFeegle wrote:Well, the way they spin it is that they discovered some of their policies weren't really THAT different - and the Lib Dems had to make lots of concessions too. And they both have a blanket to fall back on - we can't fulfil on what we promised in our campaign because Labour lied about how much of a state they'd left the finances in.

And as convenient as that excuse might appear, it happens to be absolutely true.

BecMacFeegle wrote:This is just nonsense. If the government can't govern, then they will HAVE to step down.

Yes, the five year limit is not solid set in stone. I can't see that being allowed to happen.

BecMacFeegle wrote:Hardly as dangerous as being stuck with the same two stagnating parties year in, year out.

I'm sure that Tex can see the problem with that, as a paid up member of The Libertarian Party on his side of the pond.

BecMacFeegle wrote:The Lib Dems always wanted PR - now they will settle for a referendum on AV - a REFERENDUM - the public gets to decide.

That is a pretty big compromise from both sides.

BecMacFeegle wrote:And this is a problem because...? Yes, the Lib Dems will hold the balance of power - but they are NOT the tail that wags the dog, nor can they be in this system. Dick is also failing to take into account that many may choose Independent Candidates, The Green Party, the English Democrats, Veritas, UKiP and (help us all) the BNP - among others. These parties/individuals will also pick up votes in this system.

Yes, this really is the fundamental difference between us and the US. Over there, because there is no major third party and only a handful of independents, the balance of power seems to be held in the 1-3% swing seats (as we would call them) and not by tht totality of the Lib Dems and smaller parties and independents.

BecMacFeegle wrote:Don't mind me, I just popped in to see what the husband was typing so furiously about.

BecMacFeegle wrote:This guy was a political adviser? Really?!

Yes, for 13 yrs as adviser to Clinton when he was a governor of Arkansas and 4 yrs as adviser to him as a president.

Yep, there are major differences between our govt's, some good, some not so good. But the understanding of one anothers system is lacking on both sides of the pond. Morris is a brilliant political mind but obviously doesn't quite get the UK system. But then again, i'd like to hear what a right wing Brit has to say in regards to Morris' article.

I posted this to see what you're responses would be. Morris is pretty right on about many things left and right but probably not quite so here.

What I've noticed about "opinion" articles like this written by Americans, it almost always has something to do with their own political beliefs and how to justify them. I remember the article about Italy and about the high gas taxes and the small cars and how that somehow makes Italy less free than the US. Articles like that like to point out the negative things that go on overseas, but don't really point out the positives. I remember how evil the British and Canadian Health Care systems were portrayed here when the HC debate was in full swing.... people pulled out isolated horror stories and blew them out of proportion, never mentioning that almost everybody is satisfied with their health care in those countries and how it gives HC to everybody, not just a certain amount of its citizens.

BubbleBliss wrote:
What I've noticed about "opinion" articles like this written by Americans, it almost always has something to do with their own political beliefs and how to justify them. I remember the article about Italy and about the high gas taxes and the small cars and how that somehow makes Italy less free than the US. Articles like that like to point out the negative things that go on overseas, but don't really point out the positives. I remember how evil the British and Canadian Health Care systems were portrayed here when the HC debate was in full swing.... people pulled out isolated horror stories and blew them out of proportion, never mentioning that almost everybody is satisfied with their health care in those countries and how it gives HC to everybody, not just a certain amount of its citizens.

An American friend of mine once said "A lot of Americans have the attitude that everybody is crazy but us."

I have very much noticed that attitude here as well.

BubbleBliss wrote:What I've noticed about "opinion" articles like this written by Americans, it almost always has something to do with their own political beliefs and how to justify them.

That applies to folks on the other side of the pond also. But hey, America bashing is the in thing these days.

BubbleBliss wrote:
I have very much noticed that attitude here as well.

But the way you talk, we're a bunch of backwards hicks that don't don't know shit about shinolah. We apparently need to be more like Europe, huh?

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:What I've noticed about "opinion" articles like this written by Americans, it almost always has something to do with their own political beliefs and how to justify them.

That applies to folks on the other side of the pond also. But hey, America bashing is the in thing these days.

For example?
Sure, if you want to call pointing out an obvious malfunction "bashing".

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:
I have very much noticed that attitude here as well.

But the way you talk, we're a bunch of backwards hicks that don't don't know shit about shinolah. We apparently need to be more like Europe, huh?

Where exactly have I said that? Or even made that implication?
If you want to start comparing statistics and facts, it would do the US well to be a bit more like Europe and the rest of the developed world.

BubbleBliss wrote:For example?
Sure, if you want to call pointing out an obvious malfunction "bashing".

You do a fair job of that right here. You don't see it because you're not a native of this country. I've watched as Matt gets defensive about commentary of his country. I expect it since he's British. If i was to criticize Germany all the time, you'd be pretty defensive about it and tell me to get the fuck out if i didn't like it.

BubbleBliss wrote:Where exactly have I said that? Or even made that implication?
If you want to start comparing statistics and facts, it would do the US well to be a bit more like Europe and the rest of the developed world.

HAHAHA!!! I read posts here and in the other SP about how fucked up it is in KY.

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:For example?
Sure, if you want to call pointing out an obvious malfunction "bashing".

You do a fair job of that right here. You don't see it because you're not a native of this country.

Which means that I see things you don't sometimes. Sometimes you need another set of eyes to solve the problem.

TexasBlue wrote:

I've watched as Matt gets defensive about commentary of his country. I expect it since he's British.

Yeah, with some of the articles you've posted here, I'd get defensive as well.

TexasBlue wrote:

If i was to criticize Germany all the time, you'd be pretty defensive about it and tell me to get the fuck out if i didn't like it.

If you were telling me about Germany's murder rate and how some German citizens don't have the same opportunities as other German citizens, I'd be more than happy to hear your stance on it and talk about it with you.

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:Where exactly have I said that? Or even made that implication?
If you want to start comparing statistics and facts, it would do the US well to be a bit more like Europe and the rest of the developed world.

HAHAHA!!! I read posts here and in the other SP about how fucked up it is in KY.

Like what? Like saying that I see some beat down cars driving around?

Which means that I see things you don't sometimes. Sometimes you need another set of eyes to solve the problem.

Another set of eyes is a good thing. Just don't expect people to see the same thing you do.

Yeah, with some of the articles you've posted here, I'd get defensive as well.

Because you disagree with it. If i posed pro-Democrat and pro-liberal stuff all day, there'd be nothing but back slapping and high fiving in here. Borrrring. Dissent is always a good thing. I don't care if it's yours or mine. If i did care, this forum wouldn't exist.

If you were telling me about Germany's murder rate and how some German citizens don't have the same opportunities as other German citizens, I'd be more than happy to hear your stance on it and talk about it with you.

If i sat and criticized your social democracy all day long, you'd have a fit. It doesn't matter if i was wrong or i was right. Any time someone bashes a persons country by always pointing out how bad things are and that the "other" party is always to blame, it gets old.

TexasBlue wrote:

Which means that I see things you don't sometimes. Sometimes you need another set of eyes to solve the problem.

Another set of eyes is a good thing. Just don't expect people to see the same thing you do.

Plenty of people do, Conservatives just tend not to.

TexasBlue wrote:

Yeah, with some of the articles you've posted here, I'd get defensive as well.

Because you disagree with it. If i posed pro-Democrat and pro-liberal stuff all day, there'd be nothing but back slapping and high fiving in here. Borrrring. Dissent is always a good thing. I don't care if it's yours or mine. If i did care, this forum wouldn't exist.

No, because it's false, that's why and because it paints a misguided picture of Europe.

TexasBlue wrote:

If you were telling me about Germany's murder rate and how some German citizens don't have the same opportunities as other German citizens, I'd be more than happy to hear your stance on it and talk about it with you.

If i sat and criticized your social democracy all day long, you'd have a fit. It doesn't matter if i was wrong or i was right. Any time someone bashes a persons country by always pointing out how bad things are and that the "other" party is always to blame, it gets old.

No, if you were to give me examples of how a 100% deregulated economy greatly affects your citizens in a positive way, I'd be rooting for that. There's always room for improvement.

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:
I have very much noticed that attitude here as well.

But the way you talk, we're a bunch of backwards hicks that don't don't know shit about shinolah. We apparently need to be more like Europe, huh?

Come on Tex, I'm sure he didn't mean that.

And it happens the other way too, pointing out how "Communist" Europe has no freedoms (after all, there is no difference between Communism, Socialism and Social Democracy). I seem to remember terms like "soft tyranny" being banded around quite a bit by the Rush Limbaughs of this world. It cuts both ways.

TexasBlue wrote:You do a fair job of that right here. You don't see it because you're not a native of this country. I've watched as Matt gets defensive about commentary of his country.

On here, I spend most of my time correcting factual errors more than anything else and in some ways it is a bit of a waste of time, the thread becomes about correcting factual errors rather than the content of the piece.

Besides, correcting factual errors is not "being defensive" by any stretch of the imagination. If somebody said "they don't have elections in Britain, the Queen chooses the government every four years. Thank God I'm American with our amazing freedoms that Europe doesn't have!" I wouldn't be offended but I would point out the stupidity of such a statement.

BubbleBliss wrote:

TexasBlue wrote:

Which means that I see things you don't sometimes. Sometimes you need another set of eyes to solve the problem.

Another set of eyes is a good thing. Just don't expect people to see the same thing you do.

Plenty of people do, Conservatives just tend not to.

That why the country as a whole is more conservative than liberal? The stats are there. Go look it up. You'll see when the Dems lose control of the House this fall.

TexasBlue wrote:

Yeah, with some of the articles you've posted here, I'd get defensive as well.

Because you disagree with it. If i posed pro-Democrat and pro-liberal stuff all day, there'd be nothing but back slapping and high fiving in here. Borrrring. Dissent is always a good thing. I don't care if it's yours or mine. If i did care, this forum wouldn't exist.

No, because it's false, that's why and because it paints a misguided picture of Europe.[/quote]

That's why i posted it. Not because I agreed with it. I wanted to see what Matt had to say since he lives there. I don't. So, i'm not going to make an assumption.

BubbleBliss wrote:No, if you were to give me examples of how a 100% deregulated economy greatly affects your citizens in a positive way, I'd be rooting for that. There's always room for improvement.

Nobody calls for a 100% deregulated economy here. Nobody. If you can post proof of that, bring it on. Over-regulations isn't always a good thing. Some regulations is always a good thing. There has to be a fine line; a compromise.

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:

TexasBlue wrote:

Which means that I see things you don't sometimes. Sometimes you need another set of eyes to solve the problem.

Another set of eyes is a good thing. Just don't expect people to see the same thing you do.

Plenty of people do, Conservatives just tend not to.

That why the country as a whole is more conservative than liberal? The stats are there. Go look it up. You'll see when the Dems lose control of the House this fall.

What was the percentage of people who voted for Obama's change? It was only after he brought parts of that change in a very inefficient, irresponsible way that people backed away from him.

TexasBlue wrote:

TexasBlue wrote:

Yeah, with some of the articles you've posted here, I'd get defensive as well.

Because you disagree with it. If i posed pro-Democrat and pro-liberal stuff all day, there'd be nothing but back slapping and high fiving in here. Borrrring. Dissent is always a good thing. I don't care if it's yours or mine. If i did care, this forum wouldn't exist.

No, because it's false, that's why and because it paints a misguided picture of Europe.

That's why i posted it. Not because I agreed with it. I wanted to see what Matt had to say since he lives there. I don't. So, i'm not going to make an assumption. [/quote]

Well then don't say people are getting defensive if you're posting the article to see what Matt had to say/correct about it anyways.

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:No, if you were to give me examples of how a 100% deregulated economy greatly affects your citizens in a positive way, I'd be rooting for that. There's always room for improvement.

Nobody calls for a 100% deregulated economy here. Nobody. If you can post proof of that, bring it on. Over-regulations isn't always a good thing. Some regulations is always a good thing. There has to be a fine line; a compromise.

Completely side-stepping the point...

BubbleBliss wrote:What was the percentage of people who voted for Obama's change? It was only after he brought parts of that change in a very inefficient, irresponsible way that people backed away from him.

Independents carried the day with him as they do in any election here.

BubbleBliss wrote:Well then don't say people are getting defensive if you're posting the article to see what Matt had to say/correct about it anyways.

You're misinterpreting what i meant. I posted it to get his take on it. Nothing more.

Independents still chose to vote for the things he promised instead of the things McCain promised.

Yeah, and once Matt gave his take on it and pointed out some obvious flaws with the article, he was getting defensive according to you.