Total Posts:18|Showing Posts:1-18
Jump to topic:

RIP Labour Party (1900-2015)

Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 1:41:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Hm, not really. It may have been like 'RIP Labour Party' when they lost out at the May elections but if anything someone like Jeremy Corbyn will revive it; you don't necessarily have to like Labour or agree with his policies to recognise that.
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 6:09:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/12/2015 1:06:34 PM, TN05 wrote:


Yes they are now resigned to defeat at the election, both if Corbyn survives for 5 years and if the right of the party manage to overthrow him in a messy power struggle. Realistically though the lack of any serious left wing competition will see them realize their mistakes and retake a blairite position in the 2025 election. An interesting fact for people who don't know it, The UK election system is biased in favour of the Labour party. If the conservatives had 35% of votes and Labour 33% Labour still win more seats. The conservatives need around 2. 5% more votes to win elections and even in landslides like this year often struggle to get majorities. This is rarely discussed in the media but it is a huge flaw in the system.
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 6:30:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/12/2015 6:09:02 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 9/12/2015 1:06:34 PM, TN05 wrote:


Yes they are now resigned to defeat at the election, both if Corbyn survives for 5 years and if the right of the party manage to overthrow him in a messy power struggle. Realistically though the lack of any serious left wing competition will see them realize their mistakes and retake a blairite position in the 2025 election. An interesting fact for people who don't know it, The UK election system is biased in favour of the Labour party. If the conservatives had 35% of votes and Labour 33% Labour still win more seats. The conservatives need around 2. 5% more votes to win elections and even in landslides like this year often struggle to get majorities. This is rarely discussed in the media but it is a huge flaw in the system.

Yep. People don't seem to realize this - it is particularly bad in England. In 2005, the Tories won 35.7% of the English vote and Labour won 35.4%. However, Labour won 286 seats while the Tories only got 194. In an election Labour actually lost, they won nearly 100 more seats than the Tories.
beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 6:44:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/12/2015 6:30:35 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 9/12/2015 6:09:02 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 9/12/2015 1:06:34 PM, TN05 wrote:


Yes they are now resigned to defeat at the election, both if Corbyn survives for 5 years and if the right of the party manage to overthrow him in a messy power struggle. Realistically though the lack of any serious left wing competition will see them realize their mistakes and retake a blairite position in the 2025 election. An interesting fact for people who don't know it, The UK election system is biased in favour of the Labour party. If the conservatives had 35% of votes and Labour 33% Labour still win more seats. The conservatives need around 2. 5% more votes to win elections and even in landslides like this year often struggle to get majorities. This is rarely discussed in the media but it is a huge flaw in the system.

Yep. People don't seem to realize this - it is particularly bad in England. In 2005, the Tories won 35.7% of the English vote and Labour won 35.4%. However, Labour won 286 seats while the Tories only got 194. In an election Labour actually lost, they won nearly 100 more seats than the Tories.

Yes that's right. Change to the electoral system is urgently needed but is never discussed. It will only be when Labour lose an election throughout the whole of the UK but still win more seats the issue will be discussed. As I'm sure you know Labour significantly beat the conservatives in terms of votes and seats in Wales and Scotland in 2005, Therefore the issue wasent even raised. Why the conservatives don't bring it up is bewildering. I suppose they prefer the current system to the likely alternative proportional representation.
ErenBalkir
Posts: 157
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 7:30:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/12/2015 6:44:33 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 9/12/2015 6:30:35 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 9/12/2015 6:09:02 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 9/12/2015 1:06:34 PM, TN05 wrote:


Yes they are now resigned to defeat at the election, both if Corbyn survives for 5 years and if the right of the party manage to overthrow him in a messy power struggle. Realistically though the lack of any serious left wing competition will see them realize their mistakes and retake a blairite position in the 2025 election. An interesting fact for people who don't know it, The UK election system is biased in favour of the Labour party. If the conservatives had 35% of votes and Labour 33% Labour still win more seats. The conservatives need around 2. 5% more votes to win elections and even in landslides like this year often struggle to get majorities. This is rarely discussed in the media but it is a huge flaw in the system.

Yep. People don't seem to realize this - it is particularly bad in England. In 2005, the Tories won 35.7% of the English vote and Labour won 35.4%. However, Labour won 286 seats while the Tories only got 194. In an election Labour actually lost, they won nearly 100 more seats than the Tories.

Yes that's right. Change to the electoral system is urgently needed but is never discussed. It will only be when Labour lose an election throughout the whole of the UK but still win more seats the issue will be discussed. As I'm sure you know Labour significantly beat the conservatives in terms of votes and seats in Wales and Scotland in 2005, Therefore the issue wasent even raised. Why the conservatives don't bring it up is bewildering. I suppose they prefer the current system to the likely alternative proportional representation.

Its in their name. They are the "conservatives". They don't want anything to change and for the past 200 years, they have always been on the side of electoral reform that is the most unfair and biased. They opposed lowering voting age, women voting, men without property voting and they oppose any change to a more fair electoral system. Of course I blame those in the labour party just as much, but it is clear that jeremy does clearly want to change it, maybe to AV and reform the lords.
beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 7:40:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/12/2015 7:30:56 PM, ErenBalkir wrote:
At 9/12/2015 6:44:33 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 9/12/2015 6:30:35 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 9/12/2015 6:09:02 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 9/12/2015 1:06:34 PM, TN05 wrote:


Yes they are now resigned to defeat at the election, both if Corbyn survives for 5 years and if the right of the party manage to overthrow him in a messy power struggle. Realistically though the lack of any serious left wing competition will see them realize their mistakes and retake a blairite position in the 2025 election. An interesting fact for people who don't know it, The UK election system is biased in favour of the Labour party. If the conservatives had 35% of votes and Labour 33% Labour still win more seats. The conservatives need around 2. 5% more votes to win elections and even in landslides like this year often struggle to get majorities. This is rarely discussed in the media but it is a huge flaw in the system.

Yep. People don't seem to realize this - it is particularly bad in England. In 2005, the Tories won 35.7% of the English vote and Labour won 35.4%. However, Labour won 286 seats while the Tories only got 194. In an election Labour actually lost, they won nearly 100 more seats than the Tories.

Yes that's right. Change to the electoral system is urgently needed but is never discussed. It will only be when Labour lose an election throughout the whole of the UK but still win more seats the issue will be discussed. As I'm sure you know Labour significantly beat the conservatives in terms of votes and seats in Wales and Scotland in 2005, Therefore the issue wasent even raised. Why the conservatives don't bring it up is bewildering. I suppose they prefer the current system to the likely alternative proportional representation.

Its in their name. They are the "conservatives". They don't want anything to change and for the past 200 years, they have always been on the side of electoral reform that is the most unfair and biased. They opposed lowering voting age, women voting, men without property voting and they oppose any change to a more fair electoral system. Of course I blame those in the labour party just as much, but it is clear that jeremy does clearly want to change it, maybe to AV and reform the lords.

Yes that's true. They oppose electoral reform generally. Av. would actually favour Labour even more so I suppose you can see why they don't want that. I would personally like to see some type of change. Probably the best option would be proportional representation. Maybe to avoid situations of deadlock and coalitions give the winning party some bonus seats, say 100 extra seats for getting the most votes in a 500 seat chamber. This system would at least allow change to be possible and other parties to establish themselves/ grow. Currently only 2 parties have realistic chances of power. I would like to see the house of lords abolished. It is a complete waste of time and money. It achieves nothing apart from wasting money and being an embarrassment to British politics.
ErenBalkir
Posts: 157
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 7:42:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/12/2015 7:40:36 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 9/12/2015 7:30:56 PM, ErenBalkir wrote:
At 9/12/2015 6:44:33 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 9/12/2015 6:30:35 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 9/12/2015 6:09:02 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 9/12/2015 1:06:34 PM, TN05 wrote:


Yes they are now resigned to defeat at the election, both if Corbyn survives for 5 years and if the right of the party manage to overthrow him in a messy power struggle. Realistically though the lack of any serious left wing competition will see them realize their mistakes and retake a blairite position in the 2025 election. An interesting fact for people who don't know it, The UK election system is biased in favour of the Labour party. If the conservatives had 35% of votes and Labour 33% Labour still win more seats. The conservatives need around 2. 5% more votes to win elections and even in landslides like this year often struggle to get majorities. This is rarely discussed in the media but it is a huge flaw in the system.

Yep. People don't seem to realize this - it is particularly bad in England. In 2005, the Tories won 35.7% of the English vote and Labour won 35.4%. However, Labour won 286 seats while the Tories only got 194. In an election Labour actually lost, they won nearly 100 more seats than the Tories.

Yes that's right. Change to the electoral system is urgently needed but is never discussed. It will only be when Labour lose an election throughout the whole of the UK but still win more seats the issue will be discussed. As I'm sure you know Labour significantly beat the conservatives in terms of votes and seats in Wales and Scotland in 2005, Therefore the issue wasent even raised. Why the conservatives don't bring it up is bewildering. I suppose they prefer the current system to the likely alternative proportional representation.

Its in their name. They are the "conservatives". They don't want anything to change and for the past 200 years, they have always been on the side of electoral reform that is the most unfair and biased. They opposed lowering voting age, women voting, men without property voting and they oppose any change to a more fair electoral system. Of course I blame those in the labour party just as much, but it is clear that jeremy does clearly want to change it, maybe to AV and reform the lords.

Yes that's true. They oppose electoral reform generally. Av. would actually favour Labour even more so I suppose you can see why they don't want that. I would personally like to see some type of change. Probably the best option would be proportional representation. Maybe to avoid situations of deadlock and coalitions give the winning party some bonus seats, say 100 extra seats for getting the most votes in a 500 seat chamber. This system would at least allow change to be possible and other parties to establish themselves/ grow. Currently only 2 parties have realistic chances of power. I would like to see the house of lords abolished. It is a complete waste of time and money. It achieves nothing apart from wasting money and being an embarrassment to British politics.

How can you hold those views and still vote conservative! Can't you see they will never do any of that - they are only concerned with two thing, holding office and lowering taxes for the rich as much as possible. They don't care about anything else.
beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 8:14:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/12/2015 7:42:58 PM, ErenBalkir wrote:
At 9/12/2015 7:40:36 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 9/12/2015 7:30:56 PM, ErenBalkir wrote:
At 9/12/2015 6:44:33 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 9/12/2015 6:30:35 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 9/12/2015 6:09:02 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 9/12/2015 1:06:34 PM, TN05 wrote:


Yes they are now resigned to defeat at the election, both if Corbyn survives for 5 years and if the right of the party manage to overthrow him in a messy power struggle. Realistically though the lack of any serious left wing competition will see them realize their mistakes and retake a blairite position in the 2025 election. An interesting fact for people who don't know it, The UK election system is biased in favour of the Labour party. If the conservatives had 35% of votes and Labour 33% Labour still win more seats. The conservatives need around 2. 5% more votes to win elections and even in landslides like this year often struggle to get majorities. This is rarely discussed in the media but it is a huge flaw in the system.

Yep. People don't seem to realize this - it is particularly bad in England. In 2005, the Tories won 35.7% of the English vote and Labour won 35.4%. However, Labour won 286 seats while the Tories only got 194. In an election Labour actually lost, they won nearly 100 more seats than the Tories.

Yes that's right. Change to the electoral system is urgently needed but is never discussed. It will only be when Labour lose an election throughout the whole of the UK but still win more seats the issue will be discussed. As I'm sure you know Labour significantly beat the conservatives in terms of votes and seats in Wales and Scotland in 2005, Therefore the issue wasent even raised. Why the conservatives don't bring it up is bewildering. I suppose they prefer the current system to the likely alternative proportional representation.

Its in their name. They are the "conservatives". They don't want anything to change and for the past 200 years, they have always been on the side of electoral reform that is the most unfair and biased. They opposed lowering voting age, women voting, men without property voting and they oppose any change to a more fair electoral system. Of course I blame those in the labour party just as much, but it is clear that jeremy does clearly want to change it, maybe to AV and reform the lords.

Yes that's true. They oppose electoral reform generally. Av. would actually favour Labour even more so I suppose you can see why they don't want that. I would personally like to see some type of change. Probably the best option would be proportional representation. Maybe to avoid situations of deadlock and coalitions give the winning party some bonus seats, say 100 extra seats for getting the most votes in a 500 seat chamber. This system would at least allow change to be possible and other parties to establish themselves/ grow. Currently only 2 parties have realistic chances of power. I would like to see the house of lords abolished. It is a complete waste of time and money. It achieves nothing apart from wasting money and being an embarrassment to British politics.

How can you hold those views and still vote conservative! Can't you see they will never do any of that - they are only concerned with two thing, holding office and lowering taxes for the rich as much as possible. They don't care about anything else.

I have a range of views on different issues, a mixture of liberal, centre right and some most would consider far right (ukip territory). I don't view the conservatives as perfect by any means. I vote for them for economic reasons mainly. I have a particular dislike for the idea you can spend your way out of debt. In fairness the conservatives are generally competent with the government's finances, especially when compared to labour. There are some people like that in the conservative party but I think Cameron and Osbourne are decent people.
ErenBalkir
Posts: 157
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 8:20:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I have a range of views on different issues, a mixture of liberal, centre right and some most would consider far right (ukip territory). I don't view the conservatives as perfect by any means. I vote for them for economic reasons mainly. I have a particular dislike for the idea you can spend your way out of debt. In fairness the conservatives are generally competent with the government's finances, especially when compared to labour. There are some people like that in the conservative party but I think Cameron and Osbourne are decent people.

It is rare to find someone with a very wide range of views on the political spectrum and so far all your views seem to fit in almost perfectly with UKIP (immigration, economy and electoral reform) so really you aren't as varied as you think.
beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 8:49:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/12/2015 8:20:07 PM, ErenBalkir wrote:
I have a range of views on different issues, a mixture of liberal, centre right and some most would consider far right (ukip territory). I don't view the conservatives as perfect by any means. I vote for them for economic reasons mainly. I have a particular dislike for the idea you can spend your way out of debt. In fairness the conservatives are generally competent with the government's finances, especially when compared to labour. There are some people like that in the conservative party but I think Cameron and Osbourne are decent people.

It is rare to find someone with a very wide range of views on the political spectrum and so far all your views seem to fit in almost perfectly with UKIP (immigration, economy and electoral reform) so really you aren't as varied as you think.

Maybe that's right. I generally consider ukip a bunch of clowns. I agree with a considerable number of their policies but I consider them incompetent and incapable of running the country. I consider the following views I hold to be liberal.

1. I'm an atheist
2. I believe in equal rights for all citizens regardless of gender, ethnicity or sexual orientation.
3. I believe in electoral reform/ modernisation
4. I think trident should be scrapped and military spending reduced.
5. I think abortion should be allowed at any stage of pregnancy.
6. LGBT rights
7. Strong agenda against religion.

Strongly right wing views-
1. Introduction of immigration controls only allowing people into the country who benefit the economy.
2. Deportation of all illegal migrants.
3. Introduction of fines, forced labour and in the worst incidences the death penalty for prisoners.
4. Removal of pensions and chiild benefit to those with no financial need for it.
5. Only pay child benefit for 2 children per parent.
6. Abolish green energy subsidies, encourage most profitable energy production methods including fracking and nuclear.
7. Reform agricultural payments introducing performance based payments and removing restrictive inefficient environment minded ones.
ErenBalkir
Posts: 157
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 9:15:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Maybe that's right. I generally consider ukip a bunch of clowns. I agree with a considerable number of their policies but I consider them incompetent and incapable of running the country. I consider the following views I hold to be liberal.

1. I'm an atheist
2. I believe in equal rights for all citizens regardless of gender, ethnicity or sexual orientation.
3. I believe in electoral reform/ modernisation
4. I think trident should be scrapped and military spending reduced.
5. I think abortion should be allowed at any stage of pregnancy.
6. LGBT rights
7. Strong agenda against religion.

These show very little. Libertarians who are usually classed as very right wing believe in a lot of this stuff as well. You could probably be in UKIP or the conservatives and still hold these views very easily. Few of these have any policy implications and the ones that do like the military can also be seen through a right-wing "smaller government" angle.

Strongly right wing views-
1. Introduction of immigration controls only allowing people into the country who benefit the economy.
2. Deportation of all illegal migrants.
3. Introduction of fines, forced labour and in the worst incidences the death penalty for prisoners.
4. Removal of pensions and chiild benefit to those with no financial need for it.
5. Only pay child benefit for 2 children per parent.
6. Abolish green energy subsidies, encourage most profitable energy production methods including fracking and nuclear.
7. Reform agricultural payments introducing performance based payments and removing restrictive inefficient environment minded ones.

These are clearly right wing and have direct policy implications. Immigration, welfare, energy, prisoners and the environment. On the key policy issues you are almost entirely on the right. Once again, it seems no-one has yet to have a truly diverse range of political views.
beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 10:14:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/12/2015 9:15:05 PM, ErenBalkir wrote:
Maybe that's right. I generally consider ukip a bunch of clowns. I agree with a considerable number of their policies but I consider them incompetent and incapable of running the country. I consider the following views I hold to be liberal.

1. I'm an atheist
2. I believe in equal rights for all citizens regardless of gender, ethnicity or sexual orientation.
3. I believe in electoral reform/ modernisation
4. I think trident should be scrapped and military spending reduced.
5. I think abortion should be allowed at any stage of pregnancy.
6. LGBT rights
7. Strong agenda against religion.

These show very little. Libertarians who are usually classed as very right wing believe in a lot of this stuff as well. You could probably be in UKIP or the conservatives and still hold these views very easily. Few of these have any policy implications and the ones that do like the military can also be seen through a right-wing "smaller government" angle.


Strongly right wing views-
1. Introduction of immigration controls only allowing people into the country who benefit the economy.
2. Deportation of all illegal migrants.
3. Introduction of fines, forced labour and in the worst incidences the death penalty for prisoners.
4. Removal of pensions and chiild benefit to those with no financial need for it.
5. Only pay child benefit for 2 children per parent.
6. Abolish green energy subsidies, encourage most profitable energy production methods including fracking and nuclear.
7. Reform agricultural payments introducing performance based payments and removing restrictive inefficient environment minded ones.

These are clearly right wing and have direct policy implications. Immigration, welfare, energy, prisoners and the environment. On the key policy issues you are almost entirely on the right. Once again, it seems no-one has yet to have a truly diverse range of political views.

Fair enough that is where I would generally classify my views on the political spectrum. I am generally classed as a liberal by republicans due to my stances on gun laws, gay marriage, defence spending and religeon. America Is generally quite a right wing country though and it's very religious.
ErenBalkir
Posts: 157
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 10:18:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/12/2015 10:14:51 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 9/12/2015 9:15:05 PM, ErenBalkir wrote:
Maybe that's right. I generally consider ukip a bunch of clowns. I agree with a considerable number of their policies but I consider them incompetent and incapable of running the country. I consider the following views I hold to be liberal.

1. I'm an atheist
2. I believe in equal rights for all citizens regardless of gender, ethnicity or sexual orientation.
3. I believe in electoral reform/ modernisation
4. I think trident should be scrapped and military spending reduced.
5. I think abortion should be allowed at any stage of pregnancy.
6. LGBT rights
7. Strong agenda against religion.

These show very little. Libertarians who are usually classed as very right wing believe in a lot of this stuff as well. You could probably be in UKIP or the conservatives and still hold these views very easily. Few of these have any policy implications and the ones that do like the military can also be seen through a right-wing "smaller government" angle.


Strongly right wing views-
1. Introduction of immigration controls only allowing people into the country who benefit the economy.
2. Deportation of all illegal migrants.
3. Introduction of fines, forced labour and in the worst incidences the death penalty for prisoners.
4. Removal of pensions and chiild benefit to those with no financial need for it.
5. Only pay child benefit for 2 children per parent.
6. Abolish green energy subsidies, encourage most profitable energy production methods including fracking and nuclear.
7. Reform agricultural payments introducing performance based payments and removing restrictive inefficient environment minded ones.

These are clearly right wing and have direct policy implications. Immigration, welfare, energy, prisoners and the environment. On the key policy issues you are almost entirely on the right. Once again, it seems no-one has yet to have a truly diverse range of political views.

Fair enough that is where I would generally classify my views on the political spectrum. I am generally classed as a liberal by republicans due to my stances on gun laws, gay marriage, defence spending and religeon. America Is generally quite a right wing country though and it's very religious.

In the UK those issues do not belong to any side of the political spectrum.
beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 10:40:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/12/2015 10:18:35 PM, ErenBalkir wrote:
At 9/12/2015 10:14:51 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 9/12/2015 9:15:05 PM, ErenBalkir wrote:
Maybe that's right. I generally consider ukip a bunch of clowns. I agree with a considerable number of their policies but I consider them incompetent and incapable of running the country. I consider the following views I hold to be liberal.

1. I'm an atheist
2. I believe in equal rights for all citizens regardless of gender, ethnicity or sexual orientation.
3. I believe in electoral reform/ modernisation
4. I think trident should be scrapped and military spending reduced.
5. I think abortion should be allowed at any stage of pregnancy.
6. LGBT rights
7. Strong agenda against religion.

These show very little. Libertarians who are usually classed as very right wing believe in a lot of this stuff as well. You could probably be in UKIP or the conservatives and still hold these views very easily. Few of these have any policy implications and the ones that do like the military can also be seen through a right-wing "smaller government" angle.


Strongly right wing views-
1. Introduction of immigration controls only allowing people into the country who benefit the economy.
2. Deportation of all illegal migrants.
3. Introduction of fines, forced labour and in the worst incidences the death penalty for prisoners.
4. Removal of pensions and chiild benefit to those with no financial need for it.
5. Only pay child benefit for 2 children per parent.
6. Abolish green energy subsidies, encourage most profitable energy production methods including fracking and nuclear.
7. Reform agricultural payments introducing performance based payments and removing restrictive inefficient environment minded ones.

These are clearly right wing and have direct policy implications. Immigration, welfare, energy, prisoners and the environment. On the key policy issues you are almost entirely on the right. Once again, it seems no-one has yet to have a truly diverse range of political views.

Fair enough that is where I would generally classify my views on the political spectrum. I am generally classed as a liberal by republicans due to my stances on gun laws, gay marriage, defence spending and religeon. America Is generally quite a right wing country though and it's very religious.

In the UK those issues do not belong to any side of the political spectrum.

Yes that's something I like about the UK. I don't believe they should be part of political debate.