Foreign take on British Politics?

[Tri-Nitro-Toluene]

I was reading this article on the Independent Website, and it got me thinking slightly.

In my personal opinion everything that was said in the article is true, but that's probably not that surprising as the article comes from the leader of the political aprty I'm a member of, but I can't see anything changing for quite a while. So I started to think, what exactly would allow us to make the changes that are needed in the political system?

The main thing is obviously public pressure, but there's another facotr that I think could make a difference. If The US, or some of Britain's other allies, were to start pushing us to make these changes would this not force our hand on the issue?

It's not unheard of, hell after World War 2 one of the main reasons Britain started to pull back on it's imperialism was becuase the US had said to us, and the rest of Europe, ' If you want our help, you play by our rules'.

So, as most of this board is American I have to ask, what's your take on the British system and british politics? How does it appear, or how is it presented, over there on the other side of the pond?

Do you think the US should focus on perhaps trying to improve the situation in its allied nations by some means as doing so could potentially show some places in the world ( such as Iran) that you aren't just 'acting the bully' and picking on people not in your group, but are quite happy to hit out against people in your gang if you think they are doing something wrong.

[LazyPint]

Interesting article. I didn't know how crazy Parliament was.

Change will be difficult to come by though, you're right. I think the problem with getting the US to tell us is unlikely to happen since the way we do things doesn't cause any trouble for other nations like Imperialism did.

[Slizor]

The main thing is obviously public pressure, but there's another facotr that I think could make a difference. If The US, or some of Britain's other allies, were to start pushing us to make these changes would this not force our hand on the issue?

Why would the US do that? If they pushed us to modernise and become more representative in our democracy, then they would be exposing themselves to calls to modernise and become more representative in their democracy.

[Tri-Nitro-Toluene]

At 5/21/08 07:02 AM, Slizor wrote: Why would the US do that? If they pushed us to modernise and become more representative in our democracy, then they would be exposing themselves to calls to modernise and become more representative in their democracy.

It doesn't jsut have to be the US. Europe and the EU would actally probably be jsut as good as the nations there, as a whole, tend to have a more democratic system than Britain ( and arguably America if you believe the Economists Democracy Index). I was just using the US as an example as most people on the board are American.

And since when has the US cared that it might be open to critique? that's enevr stoppe dit before, and it's not likely to stop it now.

[slowerthenb4]

Governments cannot change without the motivation of its functionaries. The progress you recognize electing multi parties to power is a step to modernizing the archaic faculty that plagues apathy with your fellow citizens.

As far as America is concerned, the same overwhelming apathy and disenchantment exists towards our representatives but with much less heritage associated with these feelings. To motivate Americans to provoke change would require a miraculous turn of zealous political activism unfounded in the known history of this country

the problem is that your government functions effective enough to provide a safe prosperous environment to its citizens in a society that is competitive with other capitalist economies.

your government, to me at least, is highly ornamental. the emphasis on traditions as a keystone to your everyday governances seems frivolous and unproductive. but like i said before your quality of life is not seemingly affected by this burden, in fact it seems to be a tribute to carry the past with such remembrance.

i know we can afford any conflicts with our allies right now. British people need to become feverishly motivated towards liberal reforms in order for any change to be seen.

time causes reform too.

[Britkid]

The USA would never advise us on how to run our own politics, and they'd get a two word response if they did.

I think that's something of a 'code' among developed democracies. You don't interfere in ours, we don't interfere in yours.

[Tri-Nitro-Toluene]

At 5/21/08 07:29 AM, slowerthenb4 wrote: the problem is that your government functions effective enough to provide a safe prosperous environment to its citizens in a society that is competitive with other capitalist economies.

You say that the government is affective enough, but for how long? Lets be honest here, growth can not continue infintiley. In a system that is based on limited resources, an expectation of infiinite growth is just plain retarded. With other nations making head way in the growth stakes ( South Korea, China, India etc) someone has to lose out, as that is how the capitalist system works, you have winners and you have losers. The US will, essentially be ok, it may take some hits, but it'll pull through, the rest of the western World however might have problems as they don;t have the economic power to pull through on their own. Britain will not pull through if thigns stay the same, essentially it boils down to do you wait for the problem to arise before you deal with it? Or do you stop it before it becomes a problem?

i know we can afford any conflicts with our allies right now. British people need to become feverishly motivated towards liberal reforms in order for any change to be seen.

I do agree with that.

At 5/21/08 02:43 PM, Britkid wrote: The USA would never advise us on how to run our own politics, and they'd get a two word response if they did.

May I remind you that we've been playing lapdog to the US for a decade at least? If the US were to actually make a suggestion to us that was purely beneficial and was not in anyway harmful to Britain, what logical reason would the Government, regardless of which aprty is in pwoer, have to say no to it?

I think that's something of a 'code' among developed democracies. You don't interfere in ours, we don't interfere in yours.

I disagree, if there is a genuine problem that needs to be fixed then democracies will start to ' interfere' with other democracies. And the state of British politics is actually quite important to the US as we're one of their closest allies, and if we sit here doing archiac shit with no relevance and being generally inept at running the nation, it looks bad for the US. Imagine how natiosn like Iran would react if they realised what a shit state of affairs Britian is in politically. They'll just say to the US ' You want US to reform? Why not try and sort out your friends first. Once you're not being hypocritical then we can talk'.

[Loch-Ness-Monster]

At 5/21/08 02:43 PM, Britkid wrote: I think that's something of a 'code' among developed democracies. You don't interfere in ours, we don't interfere in yours.

Not quite true unfortunately. Look at the EU. It's an international organisation of democratic nations dedicated to sticking their noses into other people's business. The EU always wants to interfere in our affairs when there's relatively little appetite among the British people to do the same.

As for the OP, I disagree with the idea of any other countries interfering in our domestic affairs, America included. I agree with a lot of what Nick Clegg said in that article, but I think that other countries should just butt out of what doesn't rightfully concern them. Being a sovereign country means you control your own affairs, unless you want us to be a full blown colony of the US. I know we're too much their lap dog at the moment (That can and should change) but I'd sooner we distance ourselves a bit from the US rather than be their permanent bitch. A country's constitution questions are best dealt with by their own people, interference would probably backfire.

Anyway, I wouldn't listen to a word the Lib Dems say when they talk about democracy. They were more than happy to deny the British people their say on the EU reform treaty (You know, the repackaged EU Constitution, the thing we were promised a referendum over). Democracy my arse, they're no better than rest of the political shower.

[slowerthenb4]

i am begging to understand your quandary but must add that the current mindset of the UK puts America as a bossy former colony that swings its member around the word with foreign policy that ally you with former rogue states and fighting wars as an obedient surly "lapdog"

just have a conceited American president or pompous senator give a humbled causality speech about cutting protectionist policies and cleaning up the plethora of red tape in your system to an eagerly receptive audience of parliament and people?

Technology is the leading edge that all western countries have over these developing nations. While they will be digging for coal and buying two hundred dollar barrels of oil your energy is coming from annual switchgrass, offshore sea current energy plants and thermal spring steam generators.

You will not suffer the fate as you say to become fodder for the big dicks of the world to openly manipulate and mock. you have friends that would fight with you without hesitation and thats more then enough.

the technologies that are being developed are intended to increase and modernize our energy faculty and capacity, as this problem boils down to the unquenchable thirst for cheap energy sources. industry will never falter with technology on your side