Romney actually has some fans in Poland

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Inertia and traditional conservatism in the UK can arguably be seen as one and the same. For better or worse.

England turned out bad because of a rabid and liberal British press.

Hahah what? If anything, the conservative papers were even more critical of him than the left-wing ones!

There's barely such a thing as small-c conservatives in Britain.

Britain is one of the most small-c countries in the world.

It's why we still have things like the House of Lords, Monarchy and a FPTP electoral system.

Can any of those first two say no to the House of Commons on a major issue? Does anything restrict the ability of the Commons to do something other then precedent and tradition, which are things that can be overturned with a vote of the said body?

The House of Lords, as of now, can vote down Commons passed bills, but this only sends it back to the original chamber to 'rethink'. Usually the government tries, and usually succeeds, in overturning votes by the House of Lords. One example of the Lords causing a government 'rethink' was in 2008 when Gordon Brown had to back down over the 72 (?) day detention without trial bill, it was reduced to 24 days I believe.

The Monarchy technically can veto any bill, but hasn't done since the 1710's or so. So it's a non-factor. Although the Monarch is informed of all major government decisions. If a government goes all Nazi-crazy though, then I presume the Queen would exercise her reserve powers.

To the second question, since Parliament is sovereign, anything can be passed by the Commons, heck even the Scottish Parliament could be legally abolished by the House. While this won't happen, technically, no, nothing restricts the power of the Commons. (A case can be made for EU-made laws overriding UK law, but that's another debate).

In Britain, criticisms of Constitution being unwritten come primarily from the left, correct?

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Tories are more conservative than Republicans; unlike Republicans, they actually cut spending.

[You kip if you want to...]

Like I've been saying, I don't consider British conservatives to be the same as American conservatives. Line them up beside Mitt Romney, and they are liberal.

Also, you don't need to be a dick.

You don't know what you're talking about. At all.

And neither do you.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

England turned out bad because of a rabid and liberal British press.

Rabid yes, but liberal? lol

I mean... alright... the Guardian and the Independent are both liberal (by any definition), but hardly anyone reads either. More people read the Daily Mirror and it's on the left, but it's most certainly not liberal. The rest of the national press (and so the overwhelming majority of titles and readership) is conservative and generally Conservative. And not in a very cuddly way. Attempting to claim otherwise just makes you look a bit delusional.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

lol

[Filuwaúrdjan]

There's barely such a thing as small-c conservatives in Britain.

Er... no. Try again. Or perhaps don't: it may be less embarrassing for you.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

In Britain, criticisms of Constitution being unwritten come primarily from the left, correct?

Yes (although it would still be a minority position even on this side of things). And when not, it comes from people in the middle. Basically.

[mondale84]

Like I've been saying, I don't consider British conservatives to be the same as American conservatives. Line them up beside Mitt Romney, and they are liberal.

Also, you don't need to be a dick.

American "conservatives" aren't conservatives...they cloak themselves in the veneer of "constitutionalism" while instead serving the corporate overlords by bankrupting the country and raiding the treasury. They are the real re-distributors.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Tories are more conservative than Republicans; unlike Republicans, they actually cut spending.

American politics has become defined by cultural and social issues, even when Economics dominate the issues. Hence why Mittens is leading in West Virginia, despite being a horrible candidate for it and Connecticut is going to vote for Obama. On that consideration, his point stands unquestionably, does it not?

[Supersonic]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Inertia and traditional conservatism in the UK can arguably be seen as one and the same. For better or worse.

England turned out bad because of a rabid and liberal British press.

Hahah what? If anything, the conservative papers were even more critical of him than the left-wing ones!

There's barely such a thing as small-c conservatives in Britain.

Britain is one of the most small-c countries in the world.

It's why we still have things like the House of Lords, Monarchy and a FPTP electoral system.

Can any of those first two say no to the House of Commons on a major issue? Does anything restrict the ability of the Commons to do something other then precedent and tradition, which are things that can be overturned with a vote of the said body?

The House of Lords, as of now, can vote down Commons passed bills, but this only sends it back to the original chamber to 'rethink'. Usually the government tries, and usually succeeds, in overturning votes by the House of Lords. One example of the Lords causing a government 'rethink' was in 2008 when Gordon Brown had to back down over the 72 (?) day detention without trial bill, it was reduced to 24 days I believe.

The Monarchy technically can veto any bill, but hasn't done since the 1710's or so. So it's a non-factor. Although the Monarch is informed of all major government decisions. If a government goes all Nazi-crazy though, then I presume the Queen would exercise her reserve powers.

To the second question, since Parliament is sovereign, anything can be passed by the Commons, heck even the Scottish Parliament could be legally abolished by the House. While this won't happen, technically, no, nothing restricts the power of the Commons. (A case can be made for EU-made laws overriding UK law, but that's another debate).

In Britain, criticisms of Constitution being unwritten come primarily from the left, correct?

Hmm, a small minority of left wing, and by that I mean, the Labour Party, criticises the constitutional settlement. Most Liberals (UK centrists, although some may call them faux-Tories post 2010), favour a big re-hash of the constitution. I'm talking, fully written, US style with a bill of rights. Elected Lords with extended powers etc, etc.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Inertia and traditional conservatism in the UK can arguably be seen as one and the same. For better or worse.

England turned out bad because of a rabid and liberal British press.

Hahah what? If anything, the conservative papers were even more critical of him than the left-wing ones!

There's barely such a thing as small-c conservatives in Britain.

Britain is one of the most small-c countries in the world.

It's why we still have things like the House of Lords, Monarchy and a FPTP electoral system.

Can any of those first two say no to the House of Commons on a major issue? Does anything restrict the ability of the Commons to do something other then precedent and tradition, which are things that can be overturned with a vote of the said body?

The House of Lords, as of now, can vote down Commons passed bills, but this only sends it back to the original chamber to 'rethink'. Usually the government tries, and usually succeeds, in overturning votes by the House of Lords. One example of the Lords causing a government 'rethink' was in 2008 when Gordon Brown had to back down over the 72 (?) day detention without trial bill, it was reduced to 24 days I believe.

The Monarchy technically can veto any bill, but hasn't done since the 1710's or so. So it's a non-factor. Although the Monarch is informed of all major government decisions. If a government goes all Nazi-crazy though, then I presume the Queen would exercise her reserve powers.

To the second question, since Parliament is sovereign, anything can be passed by the Commons, heck even the Scottish Parliament could be legally abolished by the House. While this won't happen, technically, no, nothing restricts the power of the Commons. (A case can be made for EU-made laws overriding UK law, but that's another debate).

In Britain, criticisms of Constitution being unwritten come primarily from the left, correct?

Hmm, a small minority of left wing, and by that I mean, the Labour Party, criticises the constitutional settlement. Most Liberals (UK centrists, although some may call them faux-Tories post 2010), favour a big re-hash of the constitution. I'm talking, fully written, US style with a bill of rights. Elected Lords with extended powers etc, etc.

To American conservatism a written constitution, containing a strong balance of powers and a bill of rights, interpretted as written (strict construction) and difficult to amend is the last word in good government structure.

[minionofmidas]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Inertia and traditional conservatism in the UK can arguably be seen as one and the same.

Traditional conservatism is all about inertia (/cautiousness in reform). Especially as it benefits the ptb, of course, but sometimes even where that doesn't apply. That's its defining characteristic.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Inertia and traditional conservatism in the UK can arguably be seen as one and the same.

Traditional conservatism is all about inertia (/cautiousness in reform). Especially as it benefits the ptb, of course, but sometimes even where that doesn't apply. That's its defining characteristic.

and?

[HagridOfTheDeep]

In the United Kingdom, there is no constitution for conservatives to defend—there is less restraint on the political system, so change can happen faster (change usually comes from the left).

In the United Kingdom, views on taxation are fundamentally different, with the Brits viewing it as more of an instrument for social change.

In the United Kingdom, social conservatism is hardly ever discussed, leading one to believe that discussing such issues would a political loss—thus, the population is probably more liberal than the population of the States.

In the United Kingdom, politicians—even Conservative ones—make far fewer references to God, as politics are less motivated by religiosity.

In the United Kingdom, emphasizing one’s patriotism as a prerequisite for national office is not as important.

In the United Kingdom, the concept of American exceptionalism is not one that would go over too well with any politician, and that concept happens to be more associated with American conservatives.

So do I know a lot about the intricacies of British politics? Not at all. But I do know that there are fundamental differences between the two countries that would generally make one country appear more left-wing than the other. British conservatives are less likely to fight for the same things that American conservatives would fight for. So when Mitt Romney heads over to England, he's got a different world-view than that of right-wingers in Britain. He’s very religious. He does not view taxation as a fundamental good. He is a social conservative. His base of support is still the religious right in America. He talks about American exceptionalism. These things make him look like a much more radical entity to the Brits than Obama. So yeah—by the definitions of conservatism in America, I would say that the conservative British press is probably liberal next to Mitt Romney. Obama would look a lot more sensible, even to British conservatives.

[Supersonic]

What I can say, from my own experiences, is that among grassroots Conservative Party opinion, views of President Obama are rather low indeed. Generally I've heard the term 'socialist' and 'big government' thrown around alot, also he's perceived as being rather 'anti-British' for what it's worth.

However views on Romney are rather mixed, some Conservatives, like myself, would support the GOP, while others are raving Gary Johnson fans. A minority think the Republicans are 'racist hicks', so they back the President.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

You know, there was a substantial number of those who hardly can be labeled as "Romney fans" present in Gdańsk.



Also, major Polish media received Romney's visit lukewarmly at best. They are mostly concentrating on his recent gaffes. He pretty much became today's punchline, which is pretty funny to watch.

Last, but not least, I've already saw a number of polls suggesting clearly that Obama is far more popular in Poland, than Mittens.

Tender, title of your post is at least slightly misleading.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

You know, there was a substantial number of those who hardly can be labeled as "Romney fans" present in Gdańsk.



Also, major Polish media received Romney's visit lukewarmly at best. They are mostly concentrating on his recent gaffes. He pretty much became today's punchline, which is pretty funny to watch.

Last, but not least, I've already saw a number of polls suggesting clearly that Obama is far more popular in Poland, than Mittens.

Tender, title of your post is at least slightly misleading.

Love the Ron Paul sign

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

You know, there was a substantial number of those who hardly can be labeled as "Romney fans" present in Gdańsk.



Also, major Polish media received Romney's visit lukewarmly at best. They are mostly concentrating on his recent gaffes. He pretty much became today's punchline, which is pretty funny to watch.

Last, but not least, I've already saw a number of polls suggesting clearly that Obama is far more popular in Poland, than Mittens.

Tender, title of your post is at least slightly misleading.

Love the Ron Paul sign

I'm pretty sure Ron Paul have more true supporters in Poland than Mitt Romney.

I'm serious.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

In the United Kingdom, there is no constitution for conservatives to defend—

Obviously untrue, of course. It isn't even true that the Constitution is unwritten; it's just that it's not in one document. And, inevitably, it was once very common for Tories to define their ideology as loyalty to the Constitution.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's certainly true that political change is easier in Britain than the U.S, but I'm not sure what that has to do with your bizarre claims in this thread. And with regards to change 'usually coming from the left'... aha. Alas no.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't think criticism of Romney was based on his view of the role of taxation in society. I'm also not entirely convinced that people here (or, you know, anywhere) view it in such an eternally benign light either, but let's ignore that for now...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What does this even mean?

It's certainly true that the things known as 'social issues' in America do not feature in election campaigns here, but that doesn't mean they aren't part of public discourse; they are discussed on a regular basis in the media and elsewhere. The reason why (most) politicians avoid campaigning on them is an electoral calculation, but not the one you seem to be assuming; it's because opinion on such issues does not correlate strongly with party support.

Though, again, I don't see the relevance of any of this to the right-wing and proudly illiberal nature of the British press...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's true that politicians don't see the need to pay lip service to God, but I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. There are politicians (from all parties) who are sincerely religious, for what that's worth.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

uh huh

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I am now convinced that you are trolling. No one, not even a Canadian who identifies as an American Conservative, could be so fundamentally moronic...

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

You know, there was a substantial number of those who hardly can be labeled as "Romney fans" present in Gdańsk.



Also, major Polish media received Romney's visit lukewarmly at best. They are mostly concentrating on his recent gaffes. He pretty much became today's punchline, which is pretty funny to watch.

Last, but not least, I've already saw a number of polls suggesting clearly that Obama is far more popular in Poland, than Mittens.

Tender, title of your post is at least slightly misleading.

Love the Ron Paul sign

I'm pretty sure Ron Paul have more true supporters in Poland than Mitt Romney.

I'm serious.

Gotta love the Congress of the New Right

[Simfan34]

The rabid Daily Mail and the venerable Telegraph are different things. The Grauniad is... the Grauniad.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

England turned out bad because of a rabid and liberal British press.

Hahah what? If anything, the conservative papers were even more critical of him than the left-wing ones!

England turned out bad because he said stupid s**t. And it makes perfect sense in the context of British politics than the Right would be more critical than Left.

Agree with this. Cameron comes over here and starts talkin' shit, the Right should be up in arms about it over here.

[Marokai Backbeat]

"Hey, if you just forgot all of the embarrassing bad stuff about Romney's foreign trip, it's been great!"

[Oakvale]

More people read the Daily Mirror and it's on the left, but it's most certainly not liberal.

Might want to check your facts, Al, "liberal Piers Morgan" edited it, after all.

[Joe Republic]

Romney had a huge crowd in Poland

If that crowd was huge, what does that make Obama's crowd in Berlin in 2008?

England turned out bad because of a rabid and liberal British press.

Yeah, this idiocy has already been addressed.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Romney had a huge crowd in Poland

If that crowd was huge, what does that make Obama's crowd in Berlin in 2008?

England turned out bad because of a rabid and liberal British press.

Yeah, this idiocy has already been addressed.

1) Nauseating.

2) I've backtracked a bit, but anyone who can't acknowledge that conservatives in America are a very different breed from conservatives in the United Kingdom are just being stubborn. American conservatives are much more religious, overtly patriotic, anti-tax, and interested in militaristic foreign policy. Theirs aren't. American Democrats are a little more subdued on those fronts, so would naturally appear less-radical in some regards to the British press--regardless of the outlet's political stance. So I say again: Even a conservative British paper looks liberal next to Mitt Romney.