надо переписать текст, основываясь на информации во втором тексте.
в целом, можешь оставить структуру и поинты, которые затронуты, да и сами предложения, просто какие-то заменяй прям непосрественно на предложения из текста, чтобы подтвреждать. особенно надо упомянуть предложение где типа у британцев есть чувство уверенности в стабильности и тд. но в моей тексте предложения не меняй, потому что там важные слова из вокабуляра использованы, просто либо убирай какие-то и заменяй их на те, что из текста. все, что писали про россию, менять не надо совсем 
монолог 2. compare the public attitude to politics and politicians in Great Britain and in Russia

The public perception of politics and politicians in the United Kingdom and Russia reflects the deep-rooted cultural and historical contexts of these two nations. Exploring these differences offers valuable insights into how diverse societies are shaped by their political landscapes.


Speaking about Interest in Politics and the Influence of Culture and History:
The United Kingdom, with its longstanding parliamentary democracy, has established a consolidated and stable political environment. Historically, political engagement was seen as vital, sparking spirited debates. However, in contemporary times, the predictability of political processes has rendered them somewhat less thrilling for many citizens. Today, politics is often perceived as a routine aspect of life, rather than the once contentious and captivating subject it was.
In contrast, Russia's complex political history—from tsarist autocracy to Soviet socialism and post-Soviet democracy—has created varied approaches to political discourse. In some families, remnants of the Soviet-era tendency to avoid political topics linger, contributing to a culture of silence. Yet, in modern Russia, there is also a growing openness and humor in discussing politics, reflecting an increasing freedom of expression and gradual disenchantment with rigid structures.


Well, if we speak about the Reasons for Entering Politics and the Public Perception of Politicians in general, i can say that: 
In both countries, individuals enter politics for reasons such as public service, personal ambition, and in some cases, to amass personal wealth. In the UK, while there is a degree of skepticism towards politicians, rooted in a tradition of maintaining democracy, most citizens do not automatically regard their leaders with a high degree of suspicion regarding illegal activities. The trustworthiness of the political system, despite occasional allegations of dishonest practices, remains largely intact, allowing for a meaningful democracy.
In Russia, however, politicians are often viewed through a lens of suspicion, with frequent assumptions of corruption and political sleaze. This can be attributed to historical experiences with political patronage and influence peddling. Despite these challenges, there are still those in Russian politics who genuinely seek to enact positive change and are keen on power not just for its own sake.


The differing public attitudes toward politics in the United Kingdom and Russia underscore unique cultural and historical foundations. While the UK enjoys a stable, albeit sometimes dull, political arena, Russia grapples with a more dynamic and occasionally tumultuous landscape. These disparities highlight the evolving nature of political engagement and the ongoing challenge of fostering genuine democratic practices in distinct societies.


текст на который нужно опираться:
The public attitude to politics in Great Britain
Read the text and compare public attitudes to politics and politicians in Great
Britain and in your country. Find the statements you agree or disagree with.
Politicians in Britain do not have a good reputation. To describe someone who
is not a professional politician as 'a politician ' is to criticize him or her, suggesting a
lack of trustworthiness. It is not that people hate their politicians. They just regard
them with a high degree of suspicion. They do not expect them to be corrupt or to use
their position to amass personal wealth, but they do expect them to be frequently
dishonest. People are not really shocked when the government is caught lying. On the
other hand, they would be very shocked indeed if it was discovered that the
government was doing anything actually illegal. A scandal such as the Watergate
affair in the USA in the early 1970s would endanger the stability of the whole of
political life. The first rule of politics is ‘Never Believe Anything Until It's Been
Officially Denied'.
The lack of enthusiasm for politicians may be seen in the fact that surveys have
shown a general ignorance of who they are. More than half of the adults in Britain do
not know the name of their local Member of Parliament (MP), even though there is
just one of these for each area, and quite a high proportion do not even know the
names of the important government ministers or leaders of the major political parties.
The British were not always so unenthusiastic. In centuries past, it was a
maxim of gentlemen's clubs that nobody should mention politics or religion in a
polite conversation. If anybody did, there was a danger that the conversation would
become too heated, people would become bad-tempered and perhaps violent.
14
However, there has been no real possibility of a revolution or even of a radical
change in the style of government for almost two centuries now. This stability is now
generally taken for granted. Most people rarely see any reason to become passionate
about politics and nobody regards it as a 'dangerous' topic of conversation. They are
more likely to regard it as a boring topic of conversation! However, this lack of
enthusiasm is not the same as complete disenchantment. Three-quarters of the adult
population are interested enough in politics to vote at national elections, even though
voting is not compulsory. There is a general feeling of confidence in the stability and
workability of the system.
Yes, Prime Minister is just one of many programmes and publications devoted
to political satire. All of them are consistently and bitingly critical. Moreover, their
criticism is typically not about particular policies but is directed at the attitudes of
politicians, their alleged dishonesty and disloyalty, and at the general style of political
life. Given this, you might think that people would be very angry, that there would be
loud demands that the system be cleaned up, even public demonstrations. Not at all!
The last demonstrations about such matters took place 150 years ago. You might also
think that the politicians themselves would be worried about the negative picture that
these satires paint of them. Far from it! On the back cover of the 1989 edition of
Yes, Prime Minister there is a tribute - from Margaret Thatcher, the real Prime
Minister of the country throughout the 1980s. In it, she refers to the book's “closely
observed portrayal of what goes on in the corridors of power” (suggesting it is
accurate) and how this portrayal has given her 'hours of pure joy'.
In Britain it is generally accepted that politics is a dirty business, a necessary
evil. Therefore, politicians make sure that they do not appear too keen to do the job.
They see themselves as being politicians out of a sense of public duty. That is why, in
the extract, Jim Hacker does not admit that he actually wants to be Prime Minister.
Eric and Duncan, and Jim himself, all know and accept that to be the Prime Minister
is the ultimate goal of most politicians. But for Jim Hacker to admit this openly, even
in a private conversation, would make him seem dangerously keen on power for its
own sake.