UKIP go from strength to strength

[Flying Pig]

As with Griffin I say give them enough rope to hang themselves. Quakers, iirc, thought it was shameful how Griffin looked a fool when he had a chance to play with the big boys. Lets hope his new white hope can do a little better.

Farage has a good deal more charisma than Nick Griffin, though, and is much less of a lunatic.

 

[Antilogic]

While I don't understand all the intricacies of British politics, I approve of the recent Babylon 5 bent of the thread.

 

[ArneHD]

More like the Pak'mara.

Ha! pak'ma'ra are best ma'ra.

 

[Quackers]

..and now the Greens are threatening legal action because they are not being offered a place in the debates

As with Griffin I say give them enough rope to hang themselves. Quakers, iirc, thought it was shameful how Griffin looked a fool when he had a chance to play with the big boys. Lets hope his new white hope can do a little better.

You must have an exceptional memory. Even I don't remember what I wrote about that. In the end I've never supported Griffin or his party so take your clueless smears elsewhere

 

[Traitorfish]

Yeah, GinandTonic, you're thinking of Tommy Robinson and the EDL. Quackers is quite particularly about which fascists he supports, so get it right.

 

[Tahuti]

Maybe Farage will choke on his own hubris and then we can get back to politics without the Tories trying to turn into the Republicans, rushing ever further rightLeft.

US Republicans are to the Left of Tories (and Labour) on one thing I hold especially dear: The Monarchy.

 

[gay_Aleks]

Well, if they ever remove the monarchy, and maybe constitute French as their actual language, everyone will realise England is nothing more than an overseas department of France.

 

[Tahuti]

Britain will turn into a Totalitarian Puritan republic before that happens!

 

[gay_Aleks]

Hey, it happened once. With cloning technology, they can resurrect Cromwell, who will then presume to conquer the newly-freed Scottish state, and do what English people gotta do - subjugate the Irish, as they're naturally incapable of ruling themselves.

 

[Traitorfish]

US Republicans are to the Left of Tories (and Labour) on one thing I hold especially dear: The Monarchy.

That's debatable. The president is not a crowned monarch, but he wields monarchical authority, while the British monarchy is a mere totem. The US Senate, similarly, has more real authority that the House of Lords has had for a long time. The American constitutional order is far closer to the eighteenth century British order than the contemporary British constitutional order is, because while we've kept the trappings of eighteenth century monarchical government to decorate a basically republican political system, they've thrown out the trappings and kept the system.

 

[bhsup]

Imperial Presidency FTW! With the added bonus that we get to choose every four years rather than having to pick sides with awesome names like Roundheads and Cavaliers and whack each other.

 

[gay_Aleks]

Well, as they say, you either die, or live enough to see yourself becoming your nemesis.

 

[Traitorfish]

It was more "the Articles of Confederation aren't working, so let's deliberately become our nemesis because that's pretty much the only reference point we have for an even halfway-republican government larger than a football pitch". Which is, granted, less catchy.

 

[jackelgull]

To be fair, ever since Nixon, the imperial presidency has lost some power- which later presidents are struggling desperately to regain.

 

[Traitorfish]

Presidents need to remember that while Americans love their kings, they don't like being asked to do anything or give them any money. That's how it kicked off with Geordie: the Americans loved the Hanoverians, much more than the actual British did, but it was an affection premised on the assumption that the king remained a distant, idealised figure. As soon as they realised that kings might be prone to bossing people around, they recoiled in horror, and after a brief experiment with Switzerland-turned-up-to-11, decided to set up their own monarchy, which had neither the power nor incentive to do much of anything. (It didn't work out that way, of course, but these things never do.) The American constitutional system is in essence an idealised version of the early Hanoverian British constitutional system.

 

[classical_hero]

Imperial Presidency FTW! With the added bonus that we get to choose every four years rather than having to pick sides with awesome names like Roundheads and Cavaliers and whack each other.

Interesting. An Imperial President.

Link to video.

 

[Tahuti]

That's debatable. The president is not a crowned monarch, but he wields monarchical authority, while the British monarchy is a mere totem. The US Senate, similarly, has more real authority that the House of Lords has had for a long time. The American constitutional order is far closer to the eighteenth century British order than the contemporary British constitutional order is, because while we've kept the trappings of eighteenth century monarchical government to decorate a basically republican political system, they've thrown out the trappings and kept the system.

You think too much in terms of political power. Much as I loathe democracy, the rituals and traditions are just as important as the actual rôle of a monarchy in day-to-day politics, if not more. The US presidents may have political power resembling that of a monarch - even then not quite - but ultimately 'President' is a fairly mundane to describe a political leader. It lacks the bigger-than-lifeness and the transcendental elements of an actual monarchy.

 

[Flying Pig]

Isn't that a good thing? Not sure I like the idea of the government being presented as fundamentally better people than the rest of us.

 

[Smellincoffee]

There are a couple of interesting books in this vein -- The Once and Future King: the Future of Crown Government in America and The Cult of the Presidency which examine the powers and mystique given to the office of POTUS. I haven't read them yet, as I've barred myself from buying any new nonfiction until I finish reading what I've got.

Isn't that a good thing? Not sure I like the idea of the government being presented as fundamentally better people than the rest of us.

If it inspired the people elected to that office to actually BE better, I might be more supportive...human nature being what it is, I suspect the sacrosanct status of the office might hide their failings and allow them to expand.

 

[useless]

..and now the Greens are threatening legal action because they are not being offered a place in the debates

Why shouldn't they? They as well as the SNP have around, if not more, representatives in government than UKIP did, especially before the clacton by-election.

I know you like to claim the bbc etc are all left-wing, but UKIP has recieved a disproportionate amount of coverage in comparison to other parties.