[Pseudoscience-is-malarkey (OP)]

It seems that in politics, the UK can be even more polarised than the U.S. During the 1960s there was Team Heath and Team Wilson. For the older englishmen reading this post, whose side were you on (or mostly on) and why?

[alancalverd]

Wholly untrue.

This is a civilised country. We don't (or didn't until Thatcher) have a presidential government, so the only people who voted for Wilson were the electorate of Liverpool Huyton and the only people who voted for Heath were residents of Bexley, Kent. 

It is sadly the case that there are two very large political parties, and most members of parliament, though elected to represent their constituents, actually behave as members of one or other of those parties. The monarch invites whoever can command a parliamentary majority to form an executive government, but it isn't always the leader of the party with the most members as MPs: temporary deals are done (at the taxpayer's expense) with various scum if the Labour and Tory parties have similar numbers. Alec Douglas Home wasn't even an elected MP when he became prime minister.

Neither government was wholly incompetent or entirely corrupt in matters of home affairs, but the Heath administration (and his evil successor Thatcher) supported Pinochet and campaigned for the UK to join the Common Market.

[Petrochemicals]

It seems that in politics, the UK can be even more polarised than the U.S. During the 1960s there was Team Heath and Team Wilson. For the older englishmen reading this post, whose side were you on (or mostly on) and why?

I would say that thatcher was equally as polarising as trump, and probably managed the economy in a similar fashion, lowered taxes and borrowed funds. By my recconing the us economy should go bust in 2025.

[useeameil]

I wasn't around in the 60s, but I've heard a lot about the Heath-Wilson era from my grandparents. They were mostly Team Wilson because they believed in his social and economic reforms.