U.K vs U.S election questions

In following the United Kingdom’s general election this year, I noticed some interesting differences in the policies and priorities of the people of the U.K vs. the policies and priorities that are very commonly discussed during an election cycle in the United States.

Since the demographic and political culture might be a little different between the U.S and the U.K, this might not be an apple-to-apple comparison, but still an interesting one. Here are a few I observed –

1.      Health Care:

·        U.K: Every major party in the U.K wanted more funding for their universal healthcare system - the National Health Service (NHS). The question was always about which party’s ideas had a better prospect to acquire more funding for their NHS and never about reducing the funding.

·        U.S: In contrast, in the U.S, many republican politicians have been talking about defunding the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) for the last two years without actually providing a solid alternative for the current beneficiaries of the Affordable Care Act.

2.      Marriage Equality:

·        U.K: Marriage Equality was never a topic of discussion in the U.K elections. This is no surprise given the fact that sometime in 2014, legislation was passed in England, Scotland and Wales allowing gays to legally marry. The only place gay marriage is still not recognized is in Northern Ireland and I am not sure if candidates from those constituencies had to face this question.  

·        U.S: Politicians contesting for office in the U.S are repeatedly hammered on this topic. In fact, if one wants to run for office in the U.S, he better be ready to answer questions on this topic on day one (and make sure the answer satisfies his constituents).

3.      Immigration:

·        U.K: The two major parties in U.K – Conservatives and Labour – wanted to reduce net immigration from both the European Union and non-European countries.  Many smaller parties like the U.K. Independence party were also for reducing net immigration. And all these parties also wanted to cut back the benefits given to immigrants. They were in consensus that the “free movement of people” should not be misused to turn it into “free to claim” benefits. The question among these parties was only about how far one would go to reduce net immigration (and claiming of benefits).

·        U.S: In the U.S, the question on what to do with the illegal (or undocumented) immigrants has been going on for quite a while without solid answers. And same with the benefits – some wanted to give benefits to immigrants who are already in the U.S illegally for many years, and some do not.

To put it in other words, major U.K. parties seem to be in consensus that the incentives given to unskilled or low-skilled or illegal immigrants need to be cut back so as to reduce the attraction of immigrating to the U.K just to claim welfare benefits. In the U.S though, whether those incentives even need to be cut back is still a question that is debated across party lines and among the people themselves.

4.      Neck Ties:

·        U.K: During election debates, the politicians in the U.K seem to be wearing more colorful ties than the ones in the U.S J

·        U.S: Most politicians in the U.S more or less stick to blue or red…more fanciful colors are hard to see in a U.S politician’s tie than in a U.K politician’s tie J