Jump to content
270soft Forum

United States 2008 - UK Parties


Recommended Posts

What do you all think of this?

Labour:

Gordon Brown

David Miliband

Alan Johnson

Peter Mandelson

Tony Blair (Off)

Tony Benn (Off)

Dennis Skinner (Off)

Conservative:

David Cameron

George Osborne

Kenneth Clarke

William Hague

Anne Widdecombe

Michael Howard

Boris Johnson

John Major (Off)

Liberal Democrats:

Nick Clegg

Vince Cable

Chris Huhne

Lembit Öpik

Charles Kennedy

Menzies Campbell

Greens:

Caroline Lucas

Derek Wall

Siân Berry

Adrian Ramsay

UKIP:

Nigel Farage

Roger Knapman

Bob Spink

BNP:

Nick Griffin

Richard Barnbrook

Simon Darby

Respect:

George Galloway

Lindsey German

Independent:

Richard Branson

I've included Richard Branson because he has said several times that he might run for office, as an Independent.

I think Labour would be the strongest in the Mid-West, the Conservatives in the Mountain States, the Liberal Democrats in the North-East and the West Coast. The UKIP and the BNP would probably get most of thier support in the South, and possibly Mid-West, the Greens in the North-East and the West Coast, Respect in the Mid-West and North-East, and Branson in the Mountain States.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really like the idea. I think some of the strongly republican states may become marginals, and UKIP & BNP doing better. UKIP would be prominent in northern Republican states with the BNP being the 2nd or 1st place in the southern states as you have said. The UK conservatives aren't as hard right wing as the Republicans, so they may be in control of soft democrat states as well, such as Missouri & Iowa. Labour may break into a mid-west state if the vote is fragmented in 3 ways (CON, UKIP & BNP) i would say. Lib dems realistically may be in control of no states, but if you wanted to stretch that a little, the Lib Dems could have California and maybe New York. The North east could be more fragmented, the most democratic seats may have strong Lib dem support, while softer ones, may give the Tories a chance with more than New Hampshire.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If we were doing an accurate comparison. The Labour Party would be seen as too far to the left, under Brown they seem like Blair's New Labour but to be honest, the Liberal Dems are the centrists. The states that Obama carried by more than 60% (Massachussetts, California) would be Labour states, maybe those less would be Liberal Democrat like Pennsylvania or New Hampshire. Conservatives in the UK are center-right by United States standards. John McCain is a good transferable example of a UK-Conservative candidate, meanwhile someone like Sarah Palin is the fringe in the UK.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's what I would suggest:

Hillary Clinton for the Labour Party, John McCain for the Tories, Barack Obama for the Lib-Dems, Sarah Palin for the UKIP, Chuck Baldwin for the BNP, Nader for the Greens, Cynthia McKinney for RESPECT, and Bob Barr as an Independent.

After all, I don't see the Cheating Chancellor and Dave the Chameleon moving to the US anytime soon.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If we were doing an accurate comparison. The Labour Party would be seen as too far to the left, under Brown they seem like Blair's New Labour but to be honest, the Liberal Dems are the centrists. The states that Obama carried by more than 60% (Massachussetts, California) would be Labour states, maybe those less would be Liberal Democrat like Pennsylvania or New Hampshire. Conservatives in the UK are center-right by United States standards. John McCain is a good transferable example of a UK-Conservative candidate, meanwhile someone like Sarah Palin is the fringe in the UK.

It's almost impossible to do an accurate comparison, and I don't think you've got it quite right there either. The Tories in Britain are probably in line with the Democrats in the US, and on social issues they're in line with the left wing of the Democrats. The Tories - as a party - are against the death penalty, place a heavy emphasis on civil liberties, support civil unions, and are strong supporters of the NHS (universal, government-provided health care). They support cuts to public spending and tax cuts, but oppose the idea of cutting off government programmes entirely or significantly changing long-term commitments to the government being firmly involved in social and economic policy. Naturally, there are tensions between different parts of the party, but the party is dominated by social libertarians (by US standards, anyway). Even Thatcher was an economic ideologue, not a cultural crusader.

Any scenario like this would have to sacrifice a lot of realism, simply because it's not feasible to transplant one country's political landscape onto another country's ideological spectrum. It's an interesting idea in theory, though. To make it work you would have to create some sort of explanatory history in which:

- the Thatcherite wing of the party becomes the most powerful in the Tories, sidelining the One Nation Conservatives and appeasing the traditionalists with conservative social policy;

- New Labour's Third Way agenda morphs into a form of "conservative liberalism" with pro-globalisation views and an emphasis on being "tough" on crime and immigration;

- the LibDems become a firmly left-wing party campaigning on civil liberties and on "fair" economic policy.

Even taking into account ideological shifts within the party, the Thatcherite Tories would still only be mainstream Republicans rather than at the right-wing: after all, Thatcher pledged to preserve the NHS, increasing real spending on the NHS by 21% and seeking merely to encourage more internal competition among trusts. Obviously in a more receptive political environment, there might be more freedom to espouse a more explicitly free market position, but that should be kept within perspective. They would also still be quite moderate on social issues, even if they had to appease the traditionalists. Also, note that if you wanted to make ideological shifts to allow this scenario to be somewhat feasible, it would become inevitable that certain leadership figures in each party would either have had to modify their views, or wouldn't be as serious contenders. David Cameron's ascension was made possible by the fact that the One Nation Conservatives and other moderate groupings have become so integral to the leadership structure of the party. If he wanted to be a contender, he would either have to shift himself rightward or go for an insurgent candidacy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is a good idea, however as in Canada, the Westminster system in the UK cannot be translated into the American Executive-Legislative system. Also, many states in the US would be too socially different for the positions of the main UK political parties. For example, the current US President, could be considered as a Red Tory and even some right-wing democrats could even be too right-wing for the Conservative Party.

Basically, the UK and Canada have a similar political system (parties and parliament wise), so maybe a UK scenario with the Canadian map and issues, will be pretty nice thing to do as the the Tories are very similar to Canadian Conservatives and New Labour is about a clone of the Canadian Liberal Party. Also, both systems also have regional parties (SNP and Plaid for the UK and the Bloc Québécois in Canada).

This could many go with something like that:

Conservatives: Stephen Harper, David Cameroun

Labour: Gordon Brown, Michael Ignatieff, Bob Rae

Lib Dems: Jack Layton, Nick Clegg

QNP (Quebec National Party): Gilles Duceppe

Greens: Elizabeth May, Caroline Lucas

CIP (Canadian Independence Party): David Orchard, Nigel Farage)

CNP (Canadian National Party): Doug Christie

However, I completed a part of a US scenario with Canadian parties and leaders, but I think the political landscape is too different to do something workable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok applying the UK parties isn't too much of an issue and can be done. Firstly, People are giving the other parties too much strength the UK system is essentially two party so no other party would start ahead of Labour or the Tories in any state. I will talk about Labour as though they had more typical poll ratings (as they would without Brown).

Tories are pretty much in line with progressive Republicans although there are plenty of right wingers in the UK as well (they're just kept quiet by Cameron e.g.Daniel Hannon)so they would have a grip over most republican strongholds- Florida, Texas, Indiana etc etc. Conservative voters are typically middle-upper middle class so think rural and suburban areas as being their strongholds( except the North East).

Labour, however, are old trade unionists and socially liberal this would give them a stronghold in the North East, California but especially in the Rust belt- Pennsylvania, ohio, maryland. Labour would also probably have a loose grip on the deep South as the working class (Blue collar workers)are typically Labour voters (Put the BNP in 3rd or 2nd place). California could be a tie between Labour and Green. Ethnic minorities are also traditionally staunchly Labour supporters.

The Liberal Democrats are fairly hard to place as their views change fairly drastically from candidate to candidate. Generally though I would think of them as being challengers in centrist states such as Missouri,Iowa,Wisconsin possibly Maine and New Hampshire also. As for their percentages they would be in a position similar to Ross Perot's 1992 type position (In terms of general percentages not necessarily the same states.)

Greens would only be strong in California but would have considerable support in CA and some marginal support in Left-wing suburban states (e.g. Connecticut).

UKIP would be only be challengers in Tory states. Despite their similarities in position with Reagan and Thatcher they still wouldn't have much support as their issue is mainly Europe.

BNP voters are typically socially Conservative blue collar workers. This will make them challengers in the deep south. However, as their main issue focus is Immigration they would garner some support in border states such as Texas and Arizona though not being particularily strong.

Overall only Labour and the Conservatives would be be in an obvious position to win although the Liberal Democrats may have a chance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As for candidates traditionally Leadership challenges are fairly rare so most candidates other than party leaders should start as off.

Labour

Gordon Brown- Weak weak weak. He would not fair well in a primary (his Charisma should be 1) nor in a general election. He would probably be challenged by Milliband. Consider turning him off (think LBJ type position in '68)

David Milliband- Should start on and be well ahead in primary polls. Centrist platform similar to Bill Clinton's.

Alan Johnson- would be the main obstacle to Milliband. Left wing platform.

Harriet Harmman- Brown's standard bearer and successor. Centrist. Limited support.

Peter Mandleson- Should start off. Dark horse would start off with small support but that could easily increase and be a winner. Fiscally conservative socially Liberal.

Jon Cruddas or John McDonnel- Leftist candidates. Small support Tony Benn would be a crusader.

Tony Blair- Off. Support depends on whether you are thinking of US or UK voters- US voters would make him a clear favourite whereas his UK support is dwindling. Good Charisma. Fiscally Conservative Socially Liberal.

Conservatives

David Cameron- would be clear favourite and possibly the only candidate (turn others off)- Center Right goodish Charisma.

Boris Johnson- (on) Popular with more conservative voters. Poor charisma.

Ken Clark- (on) Dark Horse. Support would start low but could sky rocket. Charasmatic, well established, experienced and a good leader strong contender. Popular amongst the Progressive Tories/ Republicans.

Lib Dem

Nick Clegg- Strong candidate- poor experience- ok charisma. Center Left views.

Chris Huhne- Strong candidate- poor charisma- good experience. Center Views.

Lib Dems could have a 50/50 start and a close primary.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As for candidates traditionally Leadership challenges are fairly rare so most candidates other than party leaders should start as off.

Labour

Gordon Brown- Weak weak weak. He would not fair well in a primary (his Charisma should be 1) nor in a general election. He would probably be challenged by Milliband. Consider turning him off (think LBJ type position in '68)

David Milliband- Should start on and be well ahead in primary polls. Centrist platform similar to Bill Clinton's.

Alan Johnson- would be the main obstacle to Milliband. Left wing platform.

Harriet Harmman- Brown's standard bearer and successor. Centrist. Limited support.

Peter Mandleson- Should start off. Dark horse would start off with small support but that could easily increase and be a winner. Fiscally conservative socially Liberal.

Jon Cruddas or John McDonnel- Leftist candidates. Small support Tony Benn would be a crusader.

Tony Blair- Off. Support depends on whether you are thinking of US or UK voters- US voters would make him a clear favourite whereas his UK support is dwindling. Good Charisma. Fiscally Conservative Socially Liberal.

Conservatives

David Cameron- would be clear favourite and possibly the only candidate (turn others off)- Center Right goodish Charisma.

Boris Johnson- (on) Popular with more conservative voters. Poor charisma.

Ken Clark- (on) Dark Horse. Support would start low but could sky rocket. Charasmatic, well established, experienced and a good leader strong contender. Popular amongst the Progressive Tories/ Republicans.

Lib Dem

Nick Clegg- Strong candidate- poor experience- ok charisma. Center Left views.

Chris Huhne- Strong candidate- poor charisma- good experience. Center Views.

Lib Dems could have a 50/50 start and a close primary.

I agree with most of this, but i think Hannan would be an interesting Conservative candidate, kind of like Ron Paul, i.e. anti-war, very fiscally conservative, socially moderate. Also, Johnson is fairly charismatic in my opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Adding Hannan is a very good idea He would be something of a fringe candidate for the tories though as speaking against the NHS in the UK is potentially political suicide. Boris could be seen a charasmatic i guess he is scandal prone though and his rhetoric tends to cause more trouble than it smooths over. Ken Livingstone could be a good Labour challenger. Michael Howard could be put in for the Tories (as a weak-ish candidate) and possibly Iain Duncan Smith and William Hague (Hague is popular with UK voters and a good candidate) both should start as off though and Smith would struggle. Charles Kennedy should be in for the Lib Dems though. Primaries would probably be uncontested for smaller parties (UKIP, Green, BNP and Respect) as their leaders are all in fairly strong positions this would also give them more chance at a national level. Might be worth throwing in Ed Balls as well for Labour as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Adding Hannan is a very good idea He would be something of a fringe candidate for the tories though as speaking against the NHS in the UK is potentially political suicide.

He'd be fringe in the UK, but this is a "United States 2008 - UK Parties" scenario. Based purely on ideology, he'd probably be one of the frontrunners for an election taking place in the United States.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I seriously doubt he'd be a front runner seeing as no one has heard of him (he was a nobody here in the UK until his interview and is now faded from public view). He'd also be very poorly established and in fighting against the likes of Cameron, Clark and Hague. In short he would not be a front runner. Ideology wise it is far more likely that Boris Johnson or Howard would be the Conservative voice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I seriously doubt he'd be a front runner seeing as no one has heard of him (he was a nobody here in the UK until his interview and is now faded from public view). He'd also be very poorly established and in fighting against the likes of Cameron, Clark and Hague. In short he would not be a front runner. Ideology wise it is far more likely that Boris Johnson or Howard would be the Conservative voice.

My point is that if you just transplant UK parties over into the US, you'd find that the Conservatives as they currently exist in Britain would be in tune with Democrats in the North-East, while Labour would be hounded out as a bunch of communists or "Marxists". See my first post in this thread. Daniel Hannan's views are probably in line with a mainstream Republican; whereas someone like David Cameron has far more in common with Russ Feingold than with the average Republican. Hannan is in the fringe as far as the British political spectrum is concerned, so of course he's a marginal figure of whom most people haven't heard. But if you placed him on the US political spectrum, he'd be far more likely to gain traction with the Republican base than most of the Conservatives' current leadership. Again, it all depends on how realistic this scenario is meant to be.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand the point and that Hannan may not be as extreme in the US as he is in the UK but the notion that the Conservatives would control the North-East and that Labour would be "cast out as Marxists" is wrong.

Firstly, the Labour party is a very large party with a huge range of ideologies (this is common knowledge)and you should be aware that the "New Labourites" are in control of the party currently and are fiscally conservative and sociallly liberal (as I said earlier "New Labour" is lifted straight off Clinton's "New Democrat" idea). The other main Labour faction is -you guessed it- Old Labour the old trade unionists who used to control the party the far-left of these are hardcore socialists but they are very much a minority now. There are numerous other Labour factions and considering their size they certainly are the equivalent of the US Democrats.

As for Cameron and Russ Feingold this isn't quite the case. Cameron is socially fairly Liberal but nowhere near Feingold, he'd more likely be in an Evan Bayh type position or more likely a liberal Republican. Fiscally, however, he would certainly have more in common with Republicans. The problem of course is predicting where members of the Conservative party stand on moral issues such as abortion or school prayer since these are not really issues in the UK or not worth debating at any rate. The Conservatives are certainly not Liberals or ideologically anything like the majority of Democrats so I am certain you would not see Democrat strongholds in the US voting for the Tories.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Would you like to see a US-UK scenario but for Congress? I was thinking of combining the House and Senate together and put RL Senators and Congresspersons as party leaders. What do you guys think?

Ideally I'd like 6 parties at maximum, but I can do 8.

So they would be:

Labour

Conservative

Lib-Dem

UKIP

Green

BNP

(RESPECT)

(Independents)

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

here are some good issues:

Abortion

Afghanistan

Deficit

Economic Recovery

Energy

Environment

Free Trade

Gun Control

Healthcare Reform

Immigration

Iran

Jobs

Military

Obama Administration

Same-Sex Marriage

Schools and Universities

Tax Cuts

Unions

I agree with all of those except "Obama Adminstration". Remember, it's 2008, so it should be "Bush Adminstration".

Link to post
Share on other sites

Would you like to see a US-UK scenario but for Congress? I was thinking of combining the House and Senate together and put RL Senators and Congresspersons as party leaders. What do you guys think?

Ideally I'd like 6 parties at maximum, but I can do 8.

So they would be:

Labour

Conservative

Lib-Dem

UKIP

Green

BNP

(RESPECT)

(Independents)

You could be more flexible, say a Libertarian/Constitution candidate representing UKIP or a Reform candidate representing Labour or Lib Dem, but it depends on how you think the UK parties should be tweaked to be more US-friendly and elected senators/congresspersons only. Also, on the topic of how the parties would fare in the states. I agree it can't be realistic, there would be a large swathe of disenchanted Republican voters and nobody would vote Lib Dem, the leftist of the 3. The Conservatives would always win thanks to mainly Democrat voters, Labour would be way behind on even or below UKIP or the BNP. If you tweak the history/culture of the parties, then by all means you can exaggerate it to something on par. Think of the demographics who might vote for the particular tweaked parties? Maybe it would be best to sort out a state by state breakdown roughly of how the parties would fare.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, well I'm thinking of having RL American politicians lead the parties, unless you guys would want to just make up candidates...

And, I'm thinking the Conservatives will be closer to say the mainstream wing of the Republican Party while the UKIP represents the libertarian wing of the GOP and the BNP represents the Constitution Party, Minutemen, Extreme social conservatives, and Paleoconservatives.

The Labour Party will be the pro-labor Democrats (which includes both progressives and populists) while the Lib-Dems will be the pro-business Democrats (think the "New Democrats"). The Greens would be equivalent to the extreme left-wing of the Progressive caucus and the USA Green, Socialist, Peace and Freedom and other far-left Parties.

Putting in RESPECT would be redundant with the Greens, and I'd rather have 6 instead of 7 parties.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...