1. 70% of the UK vote went to parties that voted for war in Iraq. That is not a bare majority, nor was the vote for war. What more do you want?
2. Why would Britons want an American Republican Party? What within the Republican Party are we so missing?
In that sense, nothing.Why would Britons want an American Republican Party? What within the Republican Party are we so missing?
When the Conservative Party was headed by Mrs. Thatcher, again - nothing. I just am happier when there is a party on offer which advocates government which unabiguously respects and nurtures a spirit of independence in its citizenry. Which does not subvert its citizens' ability to plan their own lives and prosper according to their own virtue.But the problem I see in Britain is that you have made an important and controversial decision on Iraq, and yet the election was run in such a way that the electorate had no clear way to register its approval or disapproval. We had all of that sort of thing we needed, back in 1968.
Back then the Republican Party, having been reluctant to fully engage in Vietnam (Vietnam was really Lyndon Johnson's war; he took it from a side show to a 500,000 troop committment), was reluctant to cut and run and proposed a steady course. And of course Hubert Humphrey, being LBJ's vice president, could not take the position which was already the Establishment position of "objective" journalism and was fast becoming the core attitude of the rest of the Democratic Party. But in 1968 any party which flatly proposed to do what the Democrats ultimately did in 1972 would have suffered the fate that the Democrats ultimately did in 1972 - and in 1968 the Democratic Party's Establishment was not prepared to fall on that sword.
Believe me, you don't want to go there! Of course, your parliamentary system does have the advantage that a government can be replaced without waiting for a year which is an integer multiple of four . . .