Question to All International Forum Members

[Colin]

What party would I belong to in your Country? Could you also give me a brief description of that party too.

[A18]

Also, what party would I belong to?

Oh, and in my country, you would be a Republican.

[Carioca]

As Republicans you could fit into several parties. If you are a right-leaning Libertarian you would go in Partido da Frente Liberal. If you are very right wing all-around you would be in Partido Progressista. If you are a libertarian you would go in Partido Liberal. You could also go into the centrist party Partido do Movimento Democrático Brasileiro.

[Tory]

Should I include all of the UK, or just the English parties?

Colin: Tories, UUP(NI)

Philip: BNP, possibly UKIP. I would have suggested the DUP as well but they are pretty moderate on Gay Rights.

[Peter]

Something like UKUP or NIUP might be an appropriate Northern Ireland party for Philip.

I think you've got Colin spot on; He'd probably be in the more libertarian sect of the party.

[Richard]

There is no party in Canada either of you would fit in.

[Colin]

There is no party in Canada either of you would fit in.

What about the Alliance?

[Richard]

There is no party in Canada either of you would fit in.

What about the Alliance?

They're called the Conservative Party now, and they're basically conservative Democrats.

[Tory]

Richius would be a good fit for RESPECT.

[The Man From G.O.P.]

Id want to be a conservative but im afraid id defect to ukip or bnp if things go badly

the family is strongly tory even being welsh and we havent had good luck in elections even outside wales i.e. steven norris in london (not too closeley related but somthing or other)

[Tory]

bnp

I hope you realise that BNP are quite left-wing economically

[The Man From G.O.P.]

bnp

I hope you realise that BNP are quite left-wing economically

yeah but theres nothing like crazed rightwing foreign policy

[M]

I know some of mine:

Canada: CPC
Mexico: PAN
UK: Tory (but pro-Blair)
France: UMP (pro-Sarkozy)
Spain: PP
Germany: CDP (with FDP sympathies)
Russia: Yabloko
Israel: Likud (Pro-Sharon, Sharansky, Mofaz, and sometimes Netanyahu but not now)
South Africa: DA
Australia: Liberal

[minionofmidas]

Colin - CDU.
Philip - certainly wouldn't "belong" to a party, but would vote CDU or FDP if bothered to vote.

[Middle-aged Europe]

Colin - CDU.
Philip - certainly wouldn't "belong" to a party, but would vote CDU or FDP if bothered to vote.

Could it be generalized this way?:

--> Republicans: CDU/CSU
--> Libertarians and libertarian-leaning Republicans: FDP
--> centrist Democrats: CDU/CSU (or possibly FDP?)
--> liberal Democrats: SPD or Greens
--> very liberal Democrats (BRTD-style ): PDS

[minionofmidas]

Colin - CDU.
Philip - certainly wouldn't "belong" to a party, but would vote CDU or FDP if bothered to vote.

Could it be generalized this way?:

--> Republicans: CDU/CSU
--> Libertarians and libertarian-leaning Republicans: FDP
--> centrist Democrats: CDU/CSU (or possibly FDP?)
--> liberal Democrats: SPD or Greens
--> very liberal Democrats (BRTD-style ): PDS

Add
--> Populist Democrats: SPD; and for some of them possibly far right "protest".
--> Populist-leaning Republicans: SPD or CDU, depending on regional and family traditions, and indirectly confession (Protestant implies SPD, Catholic implies CDU); and possibly far right "protest".
--> Populist Democrats (East Germany): PDS

[Math]

no one for you in France... FN and MNR are too liberals !

[Colin]

Colin - CDU.
Philip - certainly wouldn't "belong" to a party, but would vote CDU or FDP if bothered to vote.

Could it be generalized this way?:

--> Republicans: CDU/CSU
--> Libertarians and libertarian-leaning Republicans: FDP
--> centrist Democrats: CDU/CSU (or possibly FDP?)
--> liberal Democrats: SPD or Greens
--> very liberal Democrats (BRTD-style ): PDS

How is the FDP on economics since I am more of a libertarian-leaning Republican myself.

Math, I am not crazy like Phillip. Ask anyone when I say that I am a libertarian conservative I mean it.

[minionofmidas]

FDP is pretty Libertarian by its programme, both socially and economically.
However, the program does not always have much influence on the party's behaviour in government - although since this is more true socially than economically, it should suit you fine.
The FDP has very few real hardcore supporters, however. They tend to get a lot of votes from people who want to "keep them in parliament" (that 5% threshold) to help the CDU form the government.
FDP's dependency on the CDU has gotten less in the last 5 years or so thanks to a more populist course (not in the US sense...just in the sense of that TR quote, "whoever says loudest what is on everyone's mind").

[angus]

Colin - CDU.
Philip - certainly wouldn't "belong" to a party, but would vote CDU or FDP if bothered to vote.

Could it be generalized this way?:

--> Republicans: CDU/CSU
--> Libertarians and libertarian-leaning Republicans: FDP
--> centrist Democrats: CDU/CSU (or possibly FDP?)
--> liberal Democrats: SPD or Greens
--> very liberal Democrats (BRTD-style ): PDS

no, it cannot.  Al has repeatedly pointed out, for example, that englanders do not vote on social issues to the degree that yankees do.  And in developing nations the issues are almost strictly economic, as I have observed in conversations with folks in central and south american bars and cafes.  Even in our own country it doesn't translate from locale to locale.  For example, I am a registered republican in California, but I can assure you that I would not be a registered republican in Mississippi, for example.  And I'm quite sure I would not be a CDU member in Germany.  Such oversimplification does not work.  Also, note that in many western european nations, the term "liberal" really means liberal, and not what it has evolved to mean here.  Alliances arise from issue disagreements, and since issues vary from place to place, you can expect alliances to differ from place to place, and from time to time.  For example, we have often discussed Chirac's party, and its abject nationalism, not unlike that of the american GOP, yet many republicans here are under the false impression that his worldview is orthogonal to their own.  You'll all do well not to attempt to make such juxtapositions, as it would impede communication and understanding.

[opebo]

I'm American, but living in Thailand.  Here there are two main parties:

Thai Rak Thai (TRT), which roughly means 'Thais love Thais' or 'the Thai people love Thailand'.  As you can tell by the name this is the party of unreasoning patriotism and xenophobia.  This is a huge and electorally dominant monstrosity with a horrible demogogue at its head - the Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, a corrupt media billionaire(USD) and Thailand's richest man.  This party is right wing economically and poses as the party of 'traditional values'.  This would be were you would fit in, Colin.

The other major party, is known to English speakers as the Democrat Party.  It is basically a liberal party in the American sense as far as tax polcy and redistribution, though with a fairly open and economically Liberal philosophy as far as trade and investment.  It is very analagous to the Democrats in the USA - the Thai 'Democrats' used to pretty much run things before the 1997 financial crisis, and nearly every university professor is a member.  Very much the party of the educated/professional elite, while TRT is the party of a) Plutocrats, and b) angry, ignorant country people.

Amazing the similarities - incidentally, Thailand has a comparable GINI Index to the USA - Thailand = 41.4, USA = 45.  America is actually more unequal than this middle income third world nation! (source - CIA World Factbook - http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook)

The similarity to the USA breaks down in that there are several smaller parties in parliament, but all are relatively unimportant and I think all but one side with TRT.  In any case I know nothing about them except that they are regional as opposed to national parties.

[Julien]

France: UMP (pro-Sarkozy)

[Middle-aged Europe]

no, it cannot.  Al has repeatedly pointed out, for example, that englanders do not vote on social issues to the degree that yankees do.  And in developing nations the issues are almost strictly economic, as I have observed in conversations with folks in central and south american bars and cafes.  Even in our own country it doesn't translate from locale to locale.  For example, I am a registered republican in California, but I can assure you that I would not be a registered republican in Mississippi, for example.  And I'm quite sure I would not be a CDU member in Germany.  Such oversimplification does not work.  Also, note that in many western european nations, the term "liberal" really means liberal, and not what it has evolved to mean here.  Alliances arise from issue disagreements, and since issues vary from place to place, you can expect alliances to differ from place to place, and from time to time.  For example, we have often discussed Chirac's party, and its abject nationalism, not unlike that of the american GOP, yet many republicans here are under the false impression that his worldview is orthogonal to their own.  You'll all do well not to attempt to make such juxtapositions, as it would impede communication and understanding.

I admit that such generalizations aren´t never totally accurate and that the possibility of exceptions remain. On  the other hand, as hard as I try, I can´t imagine many Republicans who would vote for something other than CDU, CSU or FDP in Germany. But surprise me...

[Platypus]

If you lived in the country, The National Party, if you lived in an urban or rurban seat, the Liberal party, unless you live in the bush in TAS, WA and SA (no Nationals) or anywhere in the Northern Territory (and then you'd be Country Liberal Party).

Liberal Party: Economic quite right wing, and whilst historically the've been pretty borderline on social issues, they are now heading towards much more social conservatism. The probably next Prime Minister, Peter Costello, is a lot more moderate on social issues then the current PM, John Howard.

National party: Agrarian, 'moralistic' conservative party, in a coalition with the Liberal Party and CLP to form government.

Country Liberal party: Basically, the Liberal and National Parties don't run in the NT, so the CLP is the conservative party up there. They only hold one seat, but there are only two in the whole territory

[Jens]

Umh, placing a republican in the country that once was decribes by East German leaders as "the Model Socialist State" is hard, but unlike most of my countrymen and -women I will not claim that even Democrats are too right wing to fit Danish parties.

But, first of all, things like gay rights, abortion, patriotism, gun control, protecting the enviroment and many especial "moral" isues are not a part of the active Danish political life. The wast majority of the parties in the Diet support these things including the conservative parties.

After excluding the Socialists and Social Democrats and the Social Liberals, I'd say that you probably would vote either Left, Denmarks Liberal Party (V) or Conservative People's Party (C)

CPP is what I would call a Social Conservative party, with God, Queen and Country as base, but still supports the welfare state (all do)
LDLP is a liberal (European) party, used to been the farmers party, but is not as libetarian as the US-version. The cooperative idea was very strong among the farmers and still has support in parts of the party.

Last major party is Danish People's Party, but they are xenophobic welfare lovers (National Socialists ;-) )