Would this pitch work in the UK also?

[Candidate987]

Just reading about a recent Republican candidates' debate. Vivek Ramaswamy - a seemingly pushy biotech entrepreneur wrapped up his contribution with the following statement:

“God is real. There are two genders. Fossil fuels are a requirement for human prosperity. Reverse racism is racism. An open border is not a border. Parents determine the education of their children. The nuclear family is the greatest form of governance known to man. Capitalism lifts us up from poverty.”

Would a candidate in the UK making the same pitch be a refreshing relief to our increasingly beige candidates or just attempting to take us back 50 years?

I started listening to him on the Jordan Peterson podcast this week.
He comes across very very poorly to me indeed. He doesn’t come across as authentic, and for all his self-aggrandizement regarding his intellect, he leaves himself open to all sorts of embarrassing pot-shots (e.g. If the American Constitution has always been so great why has it needed so many amendments?).

His pathetic “Trumps a great guy, but I’m better” schtick has very severe potential for negative Consequences.

I was surprised Peterson kept his cool- he’s normally a shocking talk-overer

Do you have an opinion at all?

My opinion is that we can no longer rely on politicians to make credible promises.

Instead, I would like to see thirty or forty things that are important to people who care to engage, and the politicians can compete by offering us options from that list.

Vivek appears to be something of a grifter, he allegedly claimed financial support for law school fees in a year when he earned over $2 million.

I just heard Keir Starmer this morning rowing back on pledges about pledges while criticising the Tories (for which there is much ammunition) and the unequivocal soundbites were a refreshing change to the usual Westminster bubble.

"God is clearly real for orthodox/fundamentalist practitioners across a range of faiths. In 2023, only a minority of people see themselves as Christian in the UK.

The two sexes is biological fact and will appeal to women who feel disadvantaged by the apparent preference for gender as a defining characteristic.

Support for traditional family units including support for unpaid carers and time for parents to take time off with pre-school children, would seem popular to me.

Similarly, some consultation with parents about potentially contentious subject matter might play well for a number of parents."

But he didn't actually say any of that did he?

He didn't say "People have the right to follow their own religion; I recognise that some women feel disadvantaged by the preference for gender and will support them; I will support unpaid carers and SAH parents; parents will be consulted about education".

What he did seem to me to say was:
"If you don't believe in God (not Gods, implied Christian God) you are wrong.
Being Trans isn't a thing.
Damaging the planet is fine in the pursuit of prosperity.
We don't want any nasty foreigners here.
Parents own their children - they can teach their kids whatever they want to and should be free to "govern" their children in whatever way they want"

All of which I fundamentally disagree with.

I find the most of the Republican stance mind boggling medieval. And very very scary. I wish it was less important to the future of the planet.

God is real. - given the large non Christian population we have in the UK, no, it wouldn't be well received unless it was phrased differently

There are two genders. - this would be really popular. We are a surprisingly conservative country despite being socially liberal

Fossil fuels are a requirement for human prosperity. - no. The UK seems fairly progressively green on the whole

Reverse racism is racism. Many would agree with this. Racism is racism you can't reverse it. This would probably appeal to a silent majority

An open border is not a border. This would appeal to the racists who forget about Northern Ireland...

Parents determine the education of their children. No. Have you met a British school kid?

The nuclear family is the greatest form of governance known to man. There is an ultra conservative aspect of the UK this might appeal to but it wouldn't appeal to the average Brit on the street.

Capitalism lifts us up from poverty.” a surprising number would probably vote for this.

I think that would get traction with the same demographic that loves it in the US. They're distressingly large group, but not as big in UK as in US.

The God things is interesting. In US it seems almost compulsory to, publicly at least, be a practicing Christian, whereas in UK even those politicians who are (Tony Blair) keep it quiet to get elected.

Vivek Ramaswamy describes himself as a Monotheistic Hindu

That's funny. I'm a multitheist Christian

Lets' call the whole thing off ?

Hello AI

If you want to go back to demonising single parents, making healthcare available only to those who can afford it and offering "thoughts and prayers" after the next school shooting then this is the guy for you.

@Candidate987 are you saying you find unequivocal sound bites refreshing? Can you think of any reasons why that is problematic??

I want to hear a politician say ‘Gender ideology is sexist bollocks.’ I’d be equally ok with ‘sexist crap’ though, or I’d even settle for ‘sexist nonsense’. As long as they get the point across.

Also, if you think that republican support for the nuclear family unit will equate to state mandated employee and carer protections (such as Flexi working etc, maternity leave, or carers allowance), I have some bad news...

In the UK many parts of this would appeal to different voter segments and plenty of politicians already use some of this rhetoric in this country.

"Go back to..." I thought we were already there ?

Ugh, I'm so, so sick of far right wing politicians who are clearly racist, homophobic, and usually religious fundamentalist being thrust upon us under the guise of "but they're gender critical!"

It happens all the time on Mumsnet - that we're expected to tolerate or support far right racists on the grounds they're GC - when those men ccouldn't give a fuck about women and women's rights.

I honestly find it so sinister how many people are working their arses off to try to associate GC feminism with far right and racist beliefs. I don't know if their agenda is to push the far right, or to discredit GC feminism by making it look like we're all far right racist nutjobs.

Really alarming how frequently this comes up, though it's usually in Feminist Chat.

I think he's there to dilute the Trump vote.
Whether that's a hood or bad thing depends on your leaning...

Because, standing in front of an open goal, 15 spare balls and with as much sympathy as an opposition leader is ever going to get, I haven't the foggiest what Labour unequivocally believes in.
With probably less than a year before the next General Election, that's a problem.

I agree absolutely. The whole "at least they know what a woman is..." drives me bonkers. Yes they know what one is, and then they van be sure to abuse and exploit them. As if any of these people are friends of women.

The opening statement would put off over half of the U.K. so no it wouldn't work. We are also less keen on capitalism, much keener on green energy etc.

When we had televised leaders debates for the first time in the 2010 election, Nick Clegg calmly stated that he was not "a man of faith". An American commentator said that would be absolutely impossible in the US. We mostly share a language, but are not comparable at all politically.

The faith issue is interesting, my devout Muslim friend sent his son to a C of E school with instructions to recite prayers and take part, because he wanted an environment in which religion was respected.
The religious primary school that my parents sent me to has Hindu and Muslim children who attend for the same reason.
That said, I'm not sure if respect for religion extends as far as all or most of those with a specific faith, respecting others of different or related creeds.

Nick Clegg may have enjoyed the height of popularity for the Lib Dems.

Nick Clegg today admitted he "should have been more careful" when he signed a pre-election pledge to oppose a rise in tuition fees.
The deputy prime minister and Liberal Democrat leader said the decision to break his promise was "part of a compromise in a coalition government".
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2010/nov/11/nick-clegg-careful-tuition-fees-pledge

And what makes you think this guy is being open and honest?

He thinks Trump is "the best president of the 21st century". If that doesn't tell you everything you need to know about him then I don't what to say.
Religion should have no part in politics or in how a country is run.

That said, I'm not sure if respect for religion extends as far as all or most of those with a specific faith, respecting others of different or related creeds.

It's a two way street - which means religions (or more accurately the people that follow religions) have to respect those with no faith, not just a different one.