King of Nepal seizes power
Sacha
'Nepal's King Gyanendra has sacked the government, declared a state of
emergency and assumed power, saying the leadership had failed to hold polls
or restore peace amid an escalating civil war with Maoist rebels.
'The king took power for the next three years, and placed many politicians
under house arrest, Indian media said on Tuesday.'
;-)
--
Sacha
(remove the weeds for email)
Susan Cohen
"Sacha" <sa...@weedsgarden506.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:BE2571ED.C044%sa...@weedsgarden506.fsnet.co.uk...
> Would someone please place this in front of Queen Elizabeth:
Oh, yes - *there's* a lovely dream!
SusanC
oliver...@hotmail.com
There used to be someone around called Mark IIRC who did advocate a
return to absolute monarchy, but he was the only one AFAICR. I think if
someone told the monarch that she'd just been elected absolute ruler,
she'd abdicate!
The only theoretical power she has is to dissolve Parliament in an
emergency. A G-G of Australia once did this (in her name) but all that
caused was an election - and there's one about to happen soon anyway,
judging by the spate of opinion polls. Worse crises than this (Suez,
Profumo, the Winter of Discontent under Callaghan, the Poll Tax riots,
Lamont's ERM fiasco) have passed without the monarch feeling the need
to act - though nos 2 and 3 happened pretty close to an election
anyway.
Oliver
Sacha
1107333787.6...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com,
"oliver...@hotmail.com" <oliver...@hotmail.com> wrote:
And yet in recent months I have seen three letters in different papers
advocating that the Queen be asked to take over the reins. Hardly a
landslide and not even a bump of a groundswell. But it is the very first
time that I can recall reading anything of the sort from members of the
public. I think Blair has fallen into the trap of many PMs of becoming
increasingly out of touch and listening only to those who are 'on message'
for him and his messianic approach to this country and indeed the countries
of others!
When Menzies (I think) called for the head of the PM in Australia,it caused
a huge hoohaa and I've seen it recalled as one of the few mistakes of the
Queen's reign. I don't remember much of the ins and outs of it.
oliver...@hotmail.com
of the Tory party (instead of that "twit 'Eaff")
O
volc...@aol.com
Please don't mention Alf. You'll have Pinky (or Perky) off again about
his mentor.
nemo
I knew that the smiley did not mean that she was joking. She really
would like to see a monarchist coup! Luckily HM has too much good
sense to coutenance such a wild idea, even if it had the remotest
chance of happening, plus I am sure she would not want the associated
extra work.
volc...@aol.com
There's an interesting paper on fixed term parliaments on the
Parliament website which touches on use of the power to dissolve
parliament. If ever adopted that power too would become redundant
unless in a "ceremonial" context which for all practical purposes it
probably already is.
http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/Fixedtermparliaments.pdf
>
> Oliver
Pinky & Perky ham it up
<volc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1107344594.0...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
--------------------------------
You should point out that, in the States, Alf metamorphosed into Archie
Bunker- a very poor copy of a TV classic.
In fact, the only American sit-com character that I ever laughed was Al
Bundy.
BTW, some news for Ollie - apparently, independent polls are now predicting
a huge rise in BNP support at the election! - the other parties are so
rattled that they're starting to fall over themselves to announce that
Something Must Be Done about immigration!
It's not surprising that sane people are thoroughly pissed off at seeing
Britain flooded with immigrants - who knows?, if the BNP do make substantial
gains we could be in for some very interesting times.
volc...@aol.com
Now I hate to say told you so but ............!
oliver...@hotmail.com
about
his mentor.
OK. But Johnny Speight wrote him as a spoof on bigots - unfortunately
some of them adopted him as a hero. Similarly with the Harry Enfield
character "Loadsamoney" more recently.
For transatlantic folk: Garnett was the original for Archie Bunker.
Oliver
Sacha
1107344740....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com, "nemo"
<janeki...@aol.com> wrote:
Oh god, why are republicans so utterly humourless - with one occasional
exception?
Sacha
Kilroy-Silk has announced the formation of his own party today, called
'Veritas'. He is campaigning on the immigration issue and says that it's
not an issue of race but of space.
volc...@aol.com
In his case mainly between the ears.
Sacha
1107350052.4...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com, "volc...@aol.com"
<volc...@aol.com> wrote:
Isn't that occupied by the perma-tan and the ego?
Pinky & Perky ham it up
<oliver...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107346572.3...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> >Please don't mention Alf. You'll have Pinky (or Perky) off again
> about
> his mentor.
>
> OK. But Johnny Speight wrote him as a spoof on bigots - unfortunately
> some of them adopted him as a hero. Similarly with the Harry Enfield
> character "Loadsamoney" more recently.
------------------------------------------------
Ahhhhhhhh!, 'Speight'!!! - the archetypical purveyor of 60's lib'rul
fundamentalism and cultural treachery!
The 'progressive-Marxist' 'triumph' seems a tad hollow these day, don't you
think? - at least, when viewed by those of us who are struggling desperately
to remain afloat in the violent disease ridden, drug infested, social urinal
that was so lovingly constructed by people like Johnny Speight.
News of the proposed 'Islamic Village' to be built in Dudley - a Saudi
funded ghetto centred around a mosque boasting a 200' minaret - should be a
clarion call to even the dullest mind! - a verification that the doctrine of
'multi-culturalism' is merely a narcotic to be administered to the
indigenous people of Britain while their land is being annexed.
chorned...@hushmail.com
But just how, seriously, would one constitutionally go about
dismantling the Westminster system, provided that the Queen does mot
take initiative, for she does not want to?
If the Queen were elected absolute ruler, what exactly is to prevent
her from choosing a favourite minister and continuing to rule as if she
were still a constitutional monarch?
Or take the Liechtenstein constitution. The Sovereign appealed to the
People and got by referendum powers to overrule the Prime Minister, it
seems.
Suppose that Liechtenstein next were to get a Sovereign who really is
not interested in ruling (what are the political views of the now
Heir)? Would the constitutional amendments be expressly repealed? Or
would an uninterested Sovereign merely let the Goverment get on with
governing and let his powers stay in reserve?
What would happen if a majority of the UK Commons were to pass a Bill
like the constitutional amendments of Liectenstein? Would the Queen
refuse assent?
Suppose Blair is brought down by a wide coalition of malcontents,
whether they are found in the present Parliament or elected to a future
one, and they resolve to change the UK constitution so that none of
them is trusted with such abusive powers and a future PM, even
returning Blair, would be less powerful. What can they do?
Sacha
1107366198....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com,
"chorned...@hushmail.com" <chorned...@hushmail.com> wrote:
> Sacha wrote:
>> Oh god, why are republicans so utterly humourless - with one
> occasional
>> exception?
>> --
>>
>> Sacha
>
> But just how, seriously, would one constitutionally go about
> dismantling the Westminster system, provided that the Queen does mot
> take initiative, for she does not want to?
<snip>
>
It may not be the norm but it is, at least, polite to inform someone that
you intend to take their post to cross-posting. I detest this practice and
I would prefer that you do not do it again with any of my posts, please.
nemo
chornedsnork...@hushmail.com wrote:
>
> But just how, seriously, would one constitutionally go about
> dismantling the Westminster system, provided that the Queen does mot
> take initiative, for she does not want to?
The doctrine of the British system is that the crown in Parliament is
sovereign. Parliament can enact any laws or changes it wishes to. The
Queen could not take the initiative on such matters whether she wanted
to or not ( which I am sure she doesn't). She is obliged to accept the
advice of her ministers.
>
> If the Queen were elected absolute ruler, what exactly is to prevent
> her from choosing a favourite minister and continuing to rule as if
she
> were still a constitutional monarch?
This is such a wildly farfetched scenario that there is no point
thinking about it. She would not accept such a position, I am sure.
There is zero chance of the crown being given increased powers, its
remaining prerogatives are being steadily whittled away.
>
oliver...@hotmail.com
Sources?
Wrong again. I have the results for the 5 most recent independent
polls and the BNP don't get a mention. "Others" are around 8-10% as
usual but don't forget that has to include the SNP, Plaid Cymru, UKIP,
the Greens, Respect, the old Liberals (and by now Kilroy-Silk's new
Verisopht party) and support for the first 4 is fairly stable and would
take up all but 1 or 2% of that 8 or 10%. The BNP would probably claim
a rise from 0.25% to 0.5% in a poll as a "doubling" of their vote but
the truth is that measuring support for the small parties, except those
with an obvious base support area like SNP and Plaid, is inexact
because the pollsters encounter so few such people.
Oliver
http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=663360
http://www.yougov.com/ - but I don't really accept their polls because
they're prone to infiltration as the sample is self-selecting - UKIP
have tried that!
Pinky & Perky ham it up
<oliver...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107375687.4...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Silly Ollie!! - people *are* thoroughly pissed off by immigration, it's just
that white-haters like you can't bring themselves to admit it!:
"Britain has been named as one of the most xenophobic countries in the
world, surpassing France, Germany, Spain and Japan in its hostility to
immigration.
A new opinion poll which sampled opinion across ten countries found the
majority of people in Britain are supportive of religious tolerance - but
still believe that immigration has damaged the country.
The research triggered a mixture of disbelief and concern from mainstream
political parties yesterday, amid fears that asylum is becoming a growing
issue ahead of the 10 June European Parliament elections.
Ipsos, a Paris-based polling firm, found 60 per cent believing that
immigrants were a bad influence on Britain - the highest proportion of all
countries surveyed."
http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=602872004
"....the far right will at best maintain its protest vote or more likely
decline in next week's elections. These are huge assumptions to make. Visit
Halifax, Leeds, Dewsbury, Wakefield, Burnley, the West Midlands and speak to
people - this is not the reality on the ground. Labour party polling
separate research done by the Joseph Rowntree Trust shows how highly the BNP
is regarded by large swathes of the population - showing that its drive to
respectability has had some success."
http://www.fabian-society.org.uk/press_office/display.asp?cat=58&id=331
So, let's see...the Fabians declare that 'large swathes' of the population
hold the BNP in high regard? - shocking stuff, eh?
Naturally, these swathes of English men and women must be immediately told
just how wicked they are for daring to look around and see for themselves
just what a shitty country people like you have allowed Britain to turn
into.
BTW - no response from you about the Saudi funded Islamic Village proposed
for Dudley! - is this good village a good thing, Ollie? - or should Muslims
be compelled to live as an itegral part of the vibrant multi-cultural UK
community and grimly celebrate diversity like the rest of us poor bastards?
Stan Brown
>If the Queen were elected absolute ruler, what exactly is to prevent
>her from choosing a favourite minister and continuing to rule as if she
>were still a constitutional monarch?
In many ways, that is legally the current situation. The Queen has
a great many powers that she leaves to her ministers to exercise in
her name.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Royalty FAQs:
1. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html
2. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/atrfaq.htm
Yvonne's HRH page: http://users.uniserve.com/~canyon/prince.html
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm
Susan Cohen
Oh, admit it - he caught yo uout.
You;re the head of a secret underground organization dedicated to
overthrowing the government as it stands and reforming it under the
Monarchy.
And the Queen sends you weekly encouragement - unsigned, of course, so she
looks innocent.
SusanC <rolling eyes>
Susan Cohen
> <volc...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1107344594.0...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > oliver_two...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> Well I can remember Alf Garnett proposing the Duke of Ed be made
> > leader
> >> of the Tory party (instead of that "twit 'Eaff")
> >>
> >> O
> >
> > Please don't mention Alf. You'll have Pinky (or Perky) off again
about
> > his mentor.
> >
>
> --------------------------------
>
> You should point out that, in the States, Alf metamorphosed into
Archie
> Bunker- a very poor copy of a TV classic.
>
> In fact, the only American sit-com character that I ever laughed was
Al
> Bundy.
Was it because he was so close to the bone for you?
> BTW, some news for Ollie - apparently, independent polls are now
predicting
> a huge rise in BNP support at the election! - the other parties are
so
> rattled that they're starting to fall over themselves to announce
that
> Something Must Be Done about immigration!
>
> It's not surprising that sane people are thoroughly pissed off at
seeing
> Britain flooded with immigrants - who knows?, if the BNP do make
substantial
> gains we could be in for some very interesting times.
Bloody racists. But as long as the keep out the muslims,
I don't really mind.
Susan
Susan Cohen
Nonsense. The Japanese are the most xenophobic. They don't have
any immigration.
> A new opinion poll which sampled opinion across ten countries found
the
> majority of people in Britain are supportive of religious tolerance -
but
> still believe that immigration has damaged the country.
Of course it has.
> The research triggered a mixture of disbelief and concern from
mainstream
> political parties yesterday, amid fears that asylum is becoming a
growing
> issue ahead of the 10 June European Parliament elections.
You bet it is.
If they are all in one place, you'll know where to look
for them when the time comes.
Susan
Louis Epstein
>
> chornedsnork...@hushmail.com wrote:
>
>>
>> But just how, seriously, would one constitutionally go about
>> dismantling the Westminster system, provided that the Queen does mot
>> take initiative, for she does not want to?
>
> The doctrine of the British system is that the crown in Parliament is
> sovereign. Parliament can enact any laws or changes it wishes to. The
> Queen could not take the initiative on such matters whether she wanted
> to or not ( which I am sure she doesn't). She is obliged to accept the
> advice of her ministers.
You confuse practice with principle.
This is how things HAPPEN TO BE DONE.
However,it is intrinsic in the nature of Monarchy
that the Sovereign can never either surrender or
be divested of the right to abolish Parliament and
all its works at will.
Every Monarch is by RIGHT an absolute one,
and any constitutional provision to the contrary
is of no more effect than one claiming to make
the Moon of green cheese.
>> If the Queen were elected absolute ruler, what exactly is to prevent
>> her from choosing a favourite minister and continuing to rule as if
> she
>> were still a constitutional monarch?
>
> This is such a wildly farfetched scenario that there is no point
> thinking about it. She would not accept such a position, I am sure.
> There is zero chance of the crown being given increased powers, its
> remaining prerogatives are being steadily whittled away.
"Time never runs against the King".
-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
oliver...@hotmail.com
Proof once and for all that you're living in a time-warp. One URL dated
May 2004 and another a month or two later! Buy yourself a calendar!
(The polls I quoted OTOH were from January 2005.) And no mention of any
actual figures for BNP support in either of them.
Hilarious to read in the Scotsman one that UKIP have "just recruited"
Kilroy-Silk. How times change:
The Fabian Society article was written just before the local elections.
The predicted BNP "breakthrough" did not happen.
The BNP technique is to target a particular area until they get "found
out" and then move on. Usually active only in London and the West
Midlands, they suddenly turned up in Oldham in 2001. Then they moved on
to Burnley. Now they seem to be targetting West Yorkshire, and have
stopped making much effort in Lancashire, from reports I'm getting.
Their problem is lack of manpower. Why don't you stop wasting your time
in here and volunteer to help them wherever they're targetting this
year? It's not that far away.
One problem that's going to arise if you get your way and foreigners
are repatriated is who's going to do the dirty jobs? I would expect a
conscription force rounding up those who lead idle and useless lives -
no, not merely those on benefits but those with nothing better to do
than disrupt Usenet. Arbeit Macht Frei, as your friends in the BNP
would say.
As to the proposed Saudi-backed scheme, I'll wait till I find anything
out from a more reliable source, but any investment in inner cities is
in broad terms welcome.
Oliver
Ixxus
<oliver...@hotmail.com> wrote his usual shite in message
news:1107418750.3...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
[majority of Oliver's useless verbiage snipped]
> As to the proposed Saudi-backed scheme, I'll wait till I find anything
> out from a more reliable source, but any investment in inner cities is
> in broad terms welcome.
=======================================
You silly hypocritical twat - an Islamic enclave, built with foreign money
and espousing a West-hating ideology is being proposed in your own country,
but you are too bloody spineless to condemn it!
It would appear, Ollie, that some muslims are not as anxious to embrace the
multi-cultural utopia that you dangle before them as, perhaps, you think
they should be. Indeed, it almost seems as if they are saying something
along the lines of, "Piss off you silly liberal wanker, we want the nation -
not integration", don't you agree?
As for your apparent morbid fear of being forced to perform some useful work
if our friends from the third world were prevented from flooding into the
UK - tough!, get off your lazy arse and empty your own dustbin.
I think I might have mentioned before that you make me feel almost
physically sick? - if not, let me now assure you that you do - your
assiduous loathing of Britain (a product of your Irish origin?) is, in fact,
considerably less appealing than a worm ridden mongrel turd slapped between
two pieces of crusty white bread.
(not, I suppose, that you would ever countenance 'white' bread! -
bwaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!)
oliver...@hotmail.com
In other words, you snipped my post because you've been proved wrong
and couldn't answer any of it. You're not worth arguing with.
As to this last near-unreadable post, again all assertion and no
source. You feel unwell, I gather - I'd book an appointment with your
GP and get that dodgy ticker checked.
O
Sacha
<flav...@verizon.net> wrote:
Absolutely. I have this secret tunnel going all the way from Ashburton to
Buck House.....
Ixxus
<oliver...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107424596.1...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Indeed I do feel unwell, Oliver - every time I read of your enthusiasm for
encouraging the dross of the third world to soak up the UK's assets like a
malignant sponge.
Interesting BBC radio 4 programme today, discussing the number of Somali
'refugees' in Britain.
The census shows 42,000 - but, apparently, the real figure is over 250,000!
In Harringay alone, ONE Somali advice centre sees three thousand of the
buggers every year! - in just ONE London borough. Needless to say, the
primary purpose of the advice centre, funded by the British taxpayer, is to
help the Somali's claim welfare benefits and avoid deportation.
According to the BBC (not exactly rabid race haters, I'm sure you'll agree)
amongst the Somali's in Harringay "Unemployment is high and literacy levels
are low, a majority of families are headed by single mothers entirely
dependant upon benefits"
Wonderful!
Frankly, I'm sick and tired of shits like you peddling pernicious lies about
the 'valuable contribution' that asylum seekers make to the UK economy.
They come here for only one reason - stupid bastards like you who wet
themselves with excitement at the prospect of giving them handouts.
This country is drowning in non-contributing foreigners - from the laughing
Iraqis who idle their days away while British lads die to bring order to
their country, to the huge numbers of diseased interlopers who come to avail
themselves of out health service - countless (literally, as no-one knows
just how many are flooding in!) immigrants devour Britain like a biblical
pestilence! - and do so with the smirking approval of self-loathing
imbeciles like you.
Let the final words be that of a youth, born in Britain of Somali refugee
parents - "I was born here, but I consider myself to be a Somali"
Of course he does - so why doesn't he piss off back to Somalia?
chorned...@hushmail.com
Stan Brown wrote:
> "" wrote in alt.talk.royalty:
> >If the Queen were elected absolute ruler, what exactly is to prevent
> >her from choosing a favourite minister and continuing to rule as if
she
> >were still a constitutional monarch?
>
> In many ways, that is legally the current situation. The Queen has
> a great many powers that she leaves to her ministers to exercise in
> her name.
>
the Queen to the Prime Minister, so there is no Act that the Parliament
could repeal to return the powers to the Queen even if the Parliament
wished to do so.
chorned...@hushmail.com
nemo wrote:
> chornedsnork...@hushmail.com wrote:
>
> >
> > But just how, seriously, would one constitutionally go about
> > dismantling the Westminster system, provided that the Queen does
mot
> > take initiative, for she does not want to?
>
> The doctrine of the British system is that the crown in Parliament
is
> sovereign.
Does it mean that the House of Commons is sovereign?
Parliament can enact any laws or changes it wishes to. The
> Queen could not take the initiative on such matters whether she
wanted
> to or not ( which I am sure she doesn't). She is obliged to accept
the
> advice of her ministers.
> >
So, should the Parliament want to make the Queen an absolute ruler, the
Queen would be obliged to accept the position?
> > If the Queen were elected absolute ruler, what exactly is to
prevent
> > her from choosing a favourite minister and continuing to rule as if
> she
> > were still a constitutional monarch?
>
> This is such a wildly farfetched scenario that there is no point
> thinking about it. She would not accept such a position, I am sure.
> There is zero chance of the crown being given increased powers, its
> remaining prerogatives are being steadily whittled away.
> >
Er, I think that there have been some powers that the Sovereign has
gained since 18th century... Like, the ladies in waiting used to be
appointed by the Prime Minister and be removable on a cabinet reshuffle
or fall of government. Victoria demanded and got the prerogative to
appoint her ladies in waiting, and I think the Queen still has that
right. Also sometime in 1920-s, I think, the Prime Minister lost the
right to appoint Lord Chamberlain.
And wasn't there a major expansion of the royal prerogatives in 1760's?
On whose initiative did it happen? Because George III personally wanted
it or because the British public was fed up with absentee kings and the
post of Prime Minister repugnant to the British constitution which
Walpole had usurped?
Suppose that there were a backlash against the abuse and dictatorship
of Tony Blair - some people have suggested they have noticed it - and
that such a backlash were to result in a formation of a political
coalition commanding majority in Commons and who does not want to
replace Blair with another dictatorial Prime Minister, instead
deliberately weakening the office and among other things expanding the
personal powers of Sovereign. Which steps might be politically doable
and feasible?
Gary Holtzman
>
> Er, I think that there have been some powers that the Sovereign has
> gained since 18th century... Like, the ladies in waiting used to be
> appointed by the Prime Minister and be removable on a cabinet reshuffle
> or fall of government. Victoria demanded and got the prerogative to
> appoint her ladies in waiting, and I think the Queen still has that
> right. Also sometime in 1920-s, I think, the Prime Minister lost the
> right to appoint Lord Chamberlain.
This is only an illusory "increase" in the Queen's powers. The positions in
question no longer have any political role or influence, thus it is unimportant
from a political standpoint who appoints them.
>
> And wasn't there a major expansion of the royal prerogatives in 1760's?
> On whose initiative did it happen? Because George III personally wanted
> it or because the British public was fed up with absentee kings and the
> post of Prime Minister repugnant to the British constitution which
> Walpole had usurped?
A great deal has happened since the 1760s. An activist-minded monarch like
George III would be unlikely to assert the same sort of influence today.
>
> Suppose that there were a backlash against the abuse and dictatorship
> of Tony Blair - some people have suggested they have noticed it - and
> that such a backlash were to result in a formation of a political
> coalition commanding majority in Commons and who does not want to
> replace Blair with another dictatorial Prime Minister, instead
> deliberately weakening the office and among other things expanding the
> personal powers of Sovereign. Which steps might be politically doable
> and feasible?
None, because expanding the personal powers of the sovereign is not politically
doable or remotely plausible in modern Britain.
--
Gary Holtzman
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Ixxus
-------------------------------------------------
Never mind all that nonsensical intrigue! - this is 2005, and what the
nation demands to know is *why* Ashburton doesn't have it's own asylum
seeker processing centre!
Come to that, why no Somali lesbian women's rice growing co-operative?, or a
Kurdish orphans welfare rights information workshop? - I'll wager that you
don't even have an ethnic minorities employment quota monitoring official on
the parish council!
People like you make me and my friend Oliver feel sick.....it's high time
that you stepped forward to embrace diversity! - for a start, organise a
village petition calling upon the local diocese to sell (or preferably
donate) the village church to your local council of mosques - or, at the
very least, tell the vicar in no uncertain terms that he has a duty to
remove the culturally divisive ban on smoking in order to make Sunday
services accessible to the local Rastafarian community.
You'd be surprised how vibrantt Ashburton would become with a bit of
muli-cultural effort..........
oliver...@hotmail.com
Not unwell enough, it seems.
The foreigners who live here make far more contribution to British
society than yoiu do.
You are the liar.
Please cut and paste this reply and treat it as my response to all your
future rantings. You're not worth the bother
O
oliver...@hotmail.com
http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/Fixedtermparliaments.pdf
Thanks for that. The only problem I can see with a fixed term is that
it allows for no possibility for the parliament to be dissolved in a
crisis. This is why we had 2 elections in 1974 - the first was an
absolute tie.
The Americans don't have this problem because there can't seriously be
a tie in the electoral college - someone wins, even if by a tiny margin
(like Bush in 2000.) The problem begins when a President has to go -
usually it would be the Veep - but under Nixon, Agnew was even more
corrupt so they had to get rid of him first and bring in the dumb but
pure Ford, first as Veep, then as Prezz.
IMO if they brought in 4-year terms there would still be the odd
occasion when there was an early dissolution and the Monarch would then
be needed, but at least we'd stop the prerogative of PM's choosing 4,
4.5 or 5 years depending on how the wind was blowing. Still, we might
get year-long campaigns like in the US, instead of the few months we
get at present.
OTOH would that system cope if a crisis necessitated a postponement of
an election, such as Foot-and-Mouth in 2001?
Oliver
Ixxus
<oliver...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107456618....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
--------------------------------------------------------------
It seems to me that the bog-Irishman in you fuels your hatred of England and
your gleeful desire to see this land subjugated by illegal immigrants.
Simply put, you're a cunt.
Sacha
<ix...@flushnet.com> wrote:
The Golden Lion, now some rather posh residences, but once the HQ of the
Monster Raving Loony Party, will no doubt be thrilled to learn of your
interest.
Ixxus
--------------------------------
Is that where Such lived, then? - if so, he wasn't such a looney after all,
was he?!.....mind you a lot of progressive types take care to ensure that
they live in leafy surroundings - take the fearless anti-fascist balladeer
and champion of asylum seekers, Billy Bragg. Billly, is inspired by the
gritty reality of our immigrant crowded cities - but finds it beneficial to
reside in delightful Dorset.
His heart is forever with the oppressed masses in Tower Hamlets - but his
body prefers the countryside.....
Louis Epstein
Which is more than enough reason to abolish modernism
in Britain!!!
Politicians are certainly against any reduction in the
discretion of politicians...but their subordination to
hereditary leadership is something they should be required
to accept as a test of fitness for holding office.
Sacha
<ix...@flushnet.com> wrote:
He didn't live there, it was a pub back then but I think he lived in or
around Ashburton. They went up one of the Tors for their Summit Meeting and
the Party secretary was the pub cat, IIRC! It was only converted into
housing last year but the golden lion still stands on the porch.