Brits: How would opposition act? re: Bush, SOTU

Sava · January 21, 2004, 11:34

I'm not familiar with British politics or how things work in the UK, but it is my understanding, that British politicians are more open with their opposition during political events.

This is in reference to Bush's dopey State of the Union speech. While the Repukes made themselves look like cheerleaders wanting to mount the high school football star with the incessant standing ovations, the Democrats sometimes clapped with a somewhat disapproving look on their faces. How would the SOTU have been different if it were in Britain? Would Dubya have been heckled by opponents?

I've seen UK parliament on C-Span before. It's quite entertaining, what with the yelling and all. The way we Americans handle political events seems awfully silly. It's like the Dem's have to clap even though most of them want to get up and smack Bushy in the mouth.

Shi Huangdi · January 21, 2004, 11:46

"While the Repukes made themselves look like cheerleaders wanting to mount the high school football star with the incessant standing ovations, the Democrats sometimes clapped with a somewhat disapproving look on their faces. "

Did you ever see any of Clinton's speeches?If you watch one of the old SOTU speeches the roles are reversed.

It's just that we're more subtle about it, I'd think. The chief way of getting your point across seems to be clapping at times you are not supposed to "The Patriot Act will expire this year"

JohnT · January 21, 2004, 11:50

Sava, it's been that way ever since I remember. (in re: to the opposition being silent during the SOTU).

Sava · January 21, 2004, 11:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
Did you ever see any of Clinton's speeches?If you watch one of the old SOTU speeches the roles are reversed.

to be honest, no... but I can believe it. The Dem's often worship CLinton worse than Repukes do with Reagan. While Clinton was a good prez, he wasn't GREAT. Sure, the economy and job market was good; but there was a lot of bad stuff going on and Clinton didn't clean up Wall Street. The SEC, IMO, failed us during the CLinton years.

Quote:

It's just that we're more subtle about it, I'd think. The chief way of getting your point across seems to be clapping at times you are not supposed to "The Patriot Act will expire this year"

I didn't see the Clinton ass-licking, so I have no frame of reference. But if you say teh Repukes are more subtle about the inane clapping, I'm scared to see what Clinton SOTU's were like.

But still, my question remains. How would the Brits have acted?

Sava · January 21, 2004, 11:52

Quote:

Originally posted by JohnT
Sava, it's been that way ever since I remember. (in re: to the opposition being silent during the SOTU).

yes I know... that's not my question FOOLIO!

TheStinger · January 21, 2004, 11:53

The UK system is so totaly different that we don't have anything like this.

Having said that if the PM did a speach like this to parliament his own party would cheer the opposition would jeer and the house of lord would fall asleep.

Shi Huangdi · January 21, 2004, 11:56

"I didn't see the Clinton ass-licking, so I have no frame of reference. But if you say teh Repukes are more subtle about the inane clapping, I'm scared to see what Clinton SOTU's were like.

I meant "we" as in the USA with clapping at uninteded points as opposed to Britain, not the USA compared to Britain.

MikeH · January 21, 2004, 12:00

If the PM gave that speech the opposition would cheer and his own party would boo.

Drogue · January 21, 2004, 12:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
How would the SOTU have been different if it were in Britain? Would Dubya have been heckled by opponents?

Even an ordinary speech would be heckled by the opposition. However swearing, insults and calls of "hypocrite" are usually repremanded (in a sense, they are usually askedto be withdrawn). But it gets silly at times. The Opposition will heckle the PM, the Labour benches will then heckle the hecklers. Quite entertaining, but probably not that condusive to decent debate.

The main difference is that right after the SotU, if it were in the UK, the opposition would be given a speech to respond but the opposition leader (Aren't responses individual questions in the SotU?)

But basically, it wouldn't happen. We have the Budget and Pre-Budget Report that give us the economic situation, and party conference speeches seem to be for putting forward ideology and policies. Everything else is just done in day to day speeches.

Sava · January 21, 2004, 12:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
"I didn't see the Clinton ass-licking, so I have no frame of reference. But if you say teh Repukes are more subtle about the inane clapping, I'm scared to see what Clinton SOTU's were like.

I meant "we" as in the USA with clapping at uninteded points as opposed to Britain, not the USA compared to Britain.

now you are just confusing me...

oh and shi, could you please start to use the quote functions because it is hard for my feeble mind to seperate text like that.

Drogue · January 21, 2004, 12:03

Quote:

Originally posted by MikeH
If the PM gave that speech the opposition would cheer and his own party would boo.

I dunno, quite recently everyone's been booing, but they bills have still been passing.

GePap · January 21, 2004, 12:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi

I meant "we" as in the USA with clapping at uninteded points as opposed to Britain, not the USA compared to Britain.

That sounds like a great moment, when the dems. did that

There is a difference that matters- the Prime minister is the head of government, but NOT the head of state. The president is both, and you treat the Head of State with more respect. You never see people heckle the Queen when she speaks to parliment- you don't heckle the Head of State.

Sava · January 21, 2004, 12:14

Quote:

you don't heckle the Head of State.

I would

TheStinger · January 21, 2004, 12:25

But of course if our head of state had any power then she would be heckled by those opposed to her policies.

MikeH · January 21, 2004, 12:25

I would too, if he was talking sh1t.

Guynemer · January 21, 2004, 12:28

Just so you're aware Sava, Clinton's speeches were even worse re: incessant clapping. Add to that the fact that his speeches were typically 20-30 minutes longer than Bush, and you have some mind-numbing political idiocy.

MikeH · January 21, 2004, 12:30

I much prefer Clinton to Bush but he spouted a lot of heckleworthy twaddle as well.

Sava · January 21, 2004, 12:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Guynemer
Just so you're aware Sava, Clinton's speeches were even worse re: incessant clapping. Add to that the fact that his speeches were typically 20-30 minutes longer than Bush, and you have some mind-numbing political idiocy.

wow thanks for illustrating you are even more immature than me... political idiocy?

if you had brain one reading skills you would know that I "DID NOT SEE THE CLINTON SOTU'S" AND CLEARLY SAID THAT IF SHI WAS RIGHT ABOUT CLAPPING THAT IT WAS WORSE.

Learn to read...

and the RedWings suck

Guynemer · January 21, 2004, 12:35

Wow Sava.

I was just trying to add to what Shi said, particularly the fact that Clinton droned on and on for far longer than Shrub.

Do we have a problem?

JimmyCracksCorn · January 21, 2004, 12:50

If UK parliament is anything like Canada's, its just one big yelling match between parties and everyone calling everyone else a liar.

Sava · January 21, 2004, 13:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Guynemer
I was just trying to add to what Shi said, particularly the fact that Clinton droned on and on for far longer than Shrub.

Do we have a problem?

perhaps I misinterpreted what you said, if so, I apologize... but it sounds as if you were trying to call me an idiot, not make a point about Clinton.

East Street Trader · January 21, 2004, 13:23

UK parliamentary procedures involve many conventions and traditions. And some of them, as in the case of your state of the nation speech, involve being much more polite than normal.

So, for example, it is the tradition that when a minister gives a resignation speech those who have been busily doing their utmost to bring him down will listen with politeness and those who make speeches in response - government and opposition - look for whatever there is that is good which can be said about the person.

It is also conventional that the maiden speech of any newly elected member of the house of commons will be about his constituency - whatever the subject under debate when he gives that speech. Again this will be politely greeted and party politics will be given a (brief) rest.

In the Lords debate is conducted with almost exaggerated good manners. And in the commons, while that is far from true, it is the convention, enforced by the Speaker, that all members, of whatever party, are "honourable members". So it would be a solescism to call a member a liar and the Speaker would require an immediate withdrawal or would suspend the offender for a period. It is very rare for him or her to have to do so.

Shouting and heckling does go on. A rather nice little touch is that there are parallel lines running down the carpet one on each side of the central division and it is the convention that these lines cannot be crossed. They are fractionally further apart than two swords lengths.

Imran Siddiqui · January 21, 2004, 13:27

Quote:

but it sounds as if you were trying to call me an idiot

Only an idiot would have thought that

. Seriously, HOW in the Hell can you think he was calling you an idiot?! Really!

JohnT · January 21, 2004, 13:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Guynemer
Wow Sava.

I was just trying to add to what Shi said, particularly the fact that Clinton droned on and on for far longer than Shrub.

Do we have a problem?

Don't worry about Sava... his use of oversized letters and ALL CAPS is just training for his dream job of tract-writing for Chick publications.

www.chick.com

SpencerH · January 21, 2004, 13:49

For those who are unaware, the Queen gives the 'Speech from the Throne' (written by the government) to parliament which is the equivilant to the presidents 'State of the union' speech.

Sava · January 21, 2004, 14:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

but it sounds as if you were trying to call me an idiot

Only an idiot would have thought that

. Seriously, HOW in the Hell can you think he was calling you an idiot?! Really!

I'm extremely reactive and impulsive... I'll start a thread about my mental health soon. I had a brain-spec-scan done. It was quite interesting.

JohnT, does Chick publications have anything to do with hot women? if so, I'm down for it

East Street Trader · January 21, 2004, 14:37

I am not very knowledgeable about US politics. But I am doubtful that you are right, Spencer.

The Queen's speech has a particular function. It is indeed written by the government. It is delivered at the state opening of parliament and in it is set out that programme of legislation which the government intends to introduce into parliament during that session. The speech gives a brief description of the main points which will be included in each bill.

I stand to be corrected about the state of the nation speech but I had thought it involved standing back for a moment from the press of affairs so as to attempt a summary of how the US stands. If that is right it is a different thing from setting out a specific legislative programme.

Sandman · January 21, 2004, 14:58

The Queen doesn't usually get heckled. Although it has been known.

Whaleboy · January 21, 2004, 15:02

He would have been absolutely destroyed by the houses of parliament, but absolutely plastered by the media, making parliament look like the results of a valium competition.

DanS · January 21, 2004, 15:09

Quote:

The Queen's speech has a particular function. It is indeed written by the government. It is delivered at the state opening of parliament and in it is set out that programme of legislation which the government intends to introduce into parliament during that session. The speech gives a brief description of the main points which will be included in each bill.

Yeh, the State of the Union sounds similar to that. The executive branch actually writes the State of the Union. Each department drafts its part, which is then passed to the White House for inclusion (or not, mercifully). The difference here lies in the fact that the executive government does not legislate, but can only propose.

We should go back to the time where the president just mails it in, rather than giving a long, boring speech. The networks should refuse to air it.