K
kbourke88
Guest
I should be the next PM. we are better at sport. *cough* Commonwealth Games *cough* thats a valid point yes? 
(My intelligent 2 cents worth)
(My intelligent 2 cents worth)
-
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
H
Hadrian Vile
Guest
Never realised that there were so many angry right wingers on this RUGBY site! Nothing like inflexibility to inspire reasoned debate! :huh:
O
O'Rothlain
Guest
I'm glad you explained this...because I'm not English, British or whatever, and I understood the difference beteween our elected president and your prime minister. Go vote for your f___ing PM's if you want change.Now, this is an interesting conundrum which has resulted from years of Tony Blair and his 'Presidential' style of government.
Remember that this is an elected Parliament from which a government has been chosen from and not an elected Government with a separate Parliament to bring it to account. When a Parliament is elected, it is elected for a maximum of five years or when the monarch feels it acceptable to dissolve it. From this Parliament, the leader of the biggest faction is asked to form a government by the monarch.
As we are running by that way of doing things therefore, as we are still in the Parliament, as elected in 2005 which will be dissolved in 2010 at the latest, and as Labour is still the biggest party with an overall majority, therefore it is not actually breaking any rules. This is because the same party that had been elected is still there, it is just changing leader. You cannot dissolve Parliament because, in effect, nothing has changed. You cannot call new elections because the Prime Minister has changed when those elections are actually meant to elect a Parliament.
Thus, the problem is that in order to satisfy the demand for new elections to pick a new executive, there must be a separation of the executive from the legislature with separate elections to elect a Primer Minister and his/her team.
In any case, this would require serious new legislation to change the constitution as well as serious changes to the political landscape of the UK.
New elections would be a waste of time anyway, they would not tell us anything new, turnout would probably be low and Brown would still scrape through with a small majority. Far better to wait for Brown to trip up in the last two years of this Parliament than rush things with new fangled automatically triggered elections.
Edit: Low vote percentages have always been an interesting no-win situation. If they result via a first past the post ballot, then that means that the largest party in power was elected with a percentage of the vote far fewer than that of its rivals in opposition. However, with proportional representation, you then have the prospect of many different parties who could represent vastly different points of view clinging together in a coalition, thus bringing the argument that why should a party (or indeed parties) who had scored a paltry 5-10% of the vote have a part in government. Israel is a perfect example, with moderate left wing Labour Ministers representing mainstream public opinion finding their ideas being vetoed by the solitary minister representing the "Kill all ragheads" ultra-supa-doopa-zionist party representing roughly 1% of the country.
In short, the only government that could truly claim to "represent the people" is one that is totalitarian in nature. [/b]
B
Bullitt
Guest
You appear to have overlooked the entire point; Brown was un-elected. The idiots and spongers voted for Blair and his welfare benifits, Brown wormed his way into the backup position and ousted the Grinning git then haken the job for himself, so no one has even been given the option of a vote. In business terms, it would be known as a hostile takeover.
None of us get a vote for another 3 years because the arrogant, economy-raping c*** will no doubt run the term for as long as he can in full knowledge that the next election will be the rubber stamp on his P45.
None of us get a vote for another 3 years because the arrogant, economy-raping c*** will no doubt run the term for as long as he can in full knowledge that the next election will be the rubber stamp on his P45.
P
Prestwick
Guest
No, you've missed the entire point I was trying to clarify for you, namely on the workings of Parliamentary politics in the UK. I'm trying to explain to you chaps how the whole thing works.
Firstly, we do not "elect" Prime Ministers. We instead elect Parliaments and let them sort out the government, usually from the most powerful party that is sitting. Brown is just as qualified to take the post of Prime Minister as Blair, both were voted in by their respective constituencies and both have a valid reason to sit in Parliament. Also, Brown won a leadership election with his party.
I'm not saying I agree with it, I am merely trying to explain to you that Blair was not "elected" as Prime Minister. He was merely leader of the largest party in Parliament, elected to the position of Labour leader I might add, by the mighty power of the trade union bloc vote. Gordon Brown has been elected in exactly the same way so, what exactly is the difference? In this case, all a General Election would do is merely formalise the appointment as a matter of procedure. What you really want is a direct referendum which directly asks the people "do you wish Gordon Brown to be our next Prime Minister, yes or no?"
This has gone on for centuries, Prime Ministers have come in on the middle of a Parliament such as Anthony Eden in 1952, Alexander Douglas-Home in 1963, James Callaghan in 1976 and John Major in 1990. You may call it a "hostile takeover" but this is actually simple procedure in politics that has gone on for much of Parliament's life in the UK. In fact, we've improved since the 17th and 18th centuries, usually the deposed former leader would be hanging from a gibbet somewhere in London.
If this were ten years ago during Major's government and he decided to step down early, I would guarantee you that nobody would kick up a fuss about the prospect of a new Tory PM being put in place without so much as a sniff of a new General Election. The reason why people care so much now is because of how personality has been put before substance and actual party politics. We care more about the actual person holding the office than we do about what his party actually stands for on matter of policy. This fundamentally clashes with how this system works, which explains the frustration and confusion on the part of Webby & Mite (which I can hardly blame them over).
Firstly, we do not "elect" Prime Ministers. We instead elect Parliaments and let them sort out the government, usually from the most powerful party that is sitting. Brown is just as qualified to take the post of Prime Minister as Blair, both were voted in by their respective constituencies and both have a valid reason to sit in Parliament. Also, Brown won a leadership election with his party.
I'm not saying I agree with it, I am merely trying to explain to you that Blair was not "elected" as Prime Minister. He was merely leader of the largest party in Parliament, elected to the position of Labour leader I might add, by the mighty power of the trade union bloc vote. Gordon Brown has been elected in exactly the same way so, what exactly is the difference? In this case, all a General Election would do is merely formalise the appointment as a matter of procedure. What you really want is a direct referendum which directly asks the people "do you wish Gordon Brown to be our next Prime Minister, yes or no?"
This has gone on for centuries, Prime Ministers have come in on the middle of a Parliament such as Anthony Eden in 1952, Alexander Douglas-Home in 1963, James Callaghan in 1976 and John Major in 1990. You may call it a "hostile takeover" but this is actually simple procedure in politics that has gone on for much of Parliament's life in the UK. In fact, we've improved since the 17th and 18th centuries, usually the deposed former leader would be hanging from a gibbet somewhere in London.
If this were ten years ago during Major's government and he decided to step down early, I would guarantee you that nobody would kick up a fuss about the prospect of a new Tory PM being put in place without so much as a sniff of a new General Election. The reason why people care so much now is because of how personality has been put before substance and actual party politics. We care more about the actual person holding the office than we do about what his party actually stands for on matter of policy. This fundamentally clashes with how this system works, which explains the frustration and confusion on the part of Webby & Mite (which I can hardly blame them over).
S
SaintsFan_Webby
Guest
Firstly, we do not "elect" Prime Ministers. We instead elect Parliaments and let them sort out the government, usually from the most powerful party that is sitting. Brown is just as qualified to take the post of Prime Minister as Blair, both were voted in by their respective constituencies and both have a valid reason to sit in Parliament. Also, Brown won a leadership election with his party. [/b]
Technically yes, but we all know who is going to be PM depending on which party we vote for, so it's little more than an election for one person in reality.
P
Prestwick
Guest
Well, we know who the leader of the party you are voting for is at the time. As we have found with the succession of previous Tory leaders, things can be very unstable at the top.
Again, what we expect and how the system actually works are usually two different things. This is the fault of people like Blair with their sofa style of government and insistence on having their mug on the front of every Party political piece of propaganda. People like Thatcher might have started the rot in terms of the rise of the personality, but it was people like Blair who really took it to the fore.
Now, if you want my opinion on this whole furore, I don't really think it makes a difference whether you have an election or not, the same kind of center ground guy will always get in. Better to wait for a real conviction politician willing to surrender publicity for the better of the party and politics as a whole.
Again, what we expect and how the system actually works are usually two different things. This is the fault of people like Blair with their sofa style of government and insistence on having their mug on the front of every Party political piece of propaganda. People like Thatcher might have started the rot in terms of the rise of the personality, but it was people like Blair who really took it to the fore.
Now, if you want my opinion on this whole furore, I don't really think it makes a difference whether you have an election or not, the same kind of center ground guy will always get in. Better to wait for a real conviction politician willing to surrender publicity for the better of the party and politics as a whole.
R
Rugby_Cymru
Guest
I'll be PM if you want, because as much as i should care with what's going on in government - i really don't.
W
wigan_rlfc
Guest
<div class='quotemain'> Why does he like our country being run by bloody Scottish c***s?? [/b]
Who wasn't even elected into government by an English constituancy... <_<
[/b][/quote]
What difference does him being Scottish make?
B
Bullitt
Guest
He's a member of the Scottish parlament who was not elected by the ENGLISH to rule ENGLAND. The Scottish made him an MP, so he should be first minister of the Scottish parlament, not Englands.
Inicdentally, being the English PM, he has absoloutely no say over the Scottish constituancy which made him an MP in the first place.
Inicdentally, being the English PM, he has absoloutely no say over the Scottish constituancy which made him an MP in the first place.
S
SaintsFan_Webby
Guest
<div class='quotemain'>
<div class='quotemain'> Why does he like our country being run by bloody Scottish c***s?? [/b]
Who wasn't even elected into government by an English constituancy... <_<
[/b][/quote]
What difference does him being Scottish make? [/b][/quote]
I don't think the main gripe is about him being Scottish. I don't understand why Scotland have their own parliament, yet get to also have a say in English and Welsh issues. A joint UK parliament makes far more sense.
W
wigan_rlfc
Guest
He's a member of the Scottish parlament who was not elected by the ENGLISH to rule ENGLAND. The Scottish made him an MP, so he should be first minister of the Scottish parlament, not Englands.
Inicdentally, being the English PM, he has absoloutely no say over the Scottish constituancy which made him an MP in the first place.
[/b]
The only English parliament I can think of ceased to exist in 1707. Unless there is a new one which I've not heard about?
P
Prestwick
Guest
Its because of the half-arsed way in which the constitutional settlement was implemented.
The original plan was:
1. Scotland to have its own Parliament
2. Wales to have an Assembly
3. Northern Ireland to have an Assembly which is like a Parliament.
4. England to be divided up into regions (which cunningly follow the same boundaries as the European Parliament constituencies in the UK) with each to have its own Assembly.
5. Most cities and district towns to have their own elected mayors and authorities.
Steps four and five were a complete disaster because the people of England didn't want to be divvied up and divided and wanted an English Parliament. Also they didn't like the idea of Mayors either so in referendums for both ideas, both were rejected wholeheartedly.
This meant that the final stage of reform (that of Parliament) was put on hold. permanently. Although this is actually a big of a god send as if you thought having a fully elected House of Commons packed full of luvvies was bad enough, think of the chaos that would happen is the Lords (who, ironically have been the most sane lawmakers in this land) were forced to be re badged as a "Senate" and made to swallow the bitter pill of democratisation. I appreciate that somehow making the Lords all electable is a noble goal, but with respect to Canada and Australia, simply bending over and wrecking one of the oldest upper chambers in the world by slapping on a "Senate" badge and cutting what power it has left to the bone is sheer cultural vandalism.
Now, I am a pragmatic Unionist, not an Ulster Unionist (no, I don't believe in rounding up Catholics and burning them) but a British Unionist. I understand that in order to save the Union, you need to modify it somewhat, you need to compromise in order to get everyone on board. Love it or hate it, we are all in this together and the more we squabble and bicker about who pays the most tax or who owns the dwindling oil supplies, our rivals in Europe, America and the Far East steal yet another days march on us.
Thus, the best compromise is to continue on with creating a federal Britain with each nation of the Union having a Parliament with a Westminster Parliament kept in line with strict rules on who can vote on what, where and when.
The original plan was:
1. Scotland to have its own Parliament
2. Wales to have an Assembly
3. Northern Ireland to have an Assembly which is like a Parliament.
4. England to be divided up into regions (which cunningly follow the same boundaries as the European Parliament constituencies in the UK) with each to have its own Assembly.
5. Most cities and district towns to have their own elected mayors and authorities.
Steps four and five were a complete disaster because the people of England didn't want to be divvied up and divided and wanted an English Parliament. Also they didn't like the idea of Mayors either so in referendums for both ideas, both were rejected wholeheartedly.
This meant that the final stage of reform (that of Parliament) was put on hold. permanently. Although this is actually a big of a god send as if you thought having a fully elected House of Commons packed full of luvvies was bad enough, think of the chaos that would happen is the Lords (who, ironically have been the most sane lawmakers in this land) were forced to be re badged as a "Senate" and made to swallow the bitter pill of democratisation. I appreciate that somehow making the Lords all electable is a noble goal, but with respect to Canada and Australia, simply bending over and wrecking one of the oldest upper chambers in the world by slapping on a "Senate" badge and cutting what power it has left to the bone is sheer cultural vandalism.
Now, I am a pragmatic Unionist, not an Ulster Unionist (no, I don't believe in rounding up Catholics and burning them) but a British Unionist. I understand that in order to save the Union, you need to modify it somewhat, you need to compromise in order to get everyone on board. Love it or hate it, we are all in this together and the more we squabble and bicker about who pays the most tax or who owns the dwindling oil supplies, our rivals in Europe, America and the Far East steal yet another days march on us.
Thus, the best compromise is to continue on with creating a federal Britain with each nation of the Union having a Parliament with a Westminster Parliament kept in line with strict rules on who can vote on what, where and when.
W
wigan_rlfc
Guest
The best thing for Britain would be if devolution had not happened at all. The Northern Ireland parliament (1921 - 1972) is a prime example of the mess that devolution can make.
P
Prestwick
Guest
Well, more an example of devolution implemented incorrectly. The current settlement with the Good Friday and the St Andrews agreements involving a law making, power sharing executive with a fair and balanced legislature lays the foundations for a far more stable and prosperous Northern Ireland.
Devolution is a good idea, but only when done properly. There should have been a comprehensive constitutional settlement including full Parliaments for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, the merging of all the London boroughs into one general London assembly and executive and more.
Devolution is a good idea, but only when done properly. There should have been a comprehensive constitutional settlement including full Parliaments for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, the merging of all the London boroughs into one general London assembly and executive and more.
W
wigan_rlfc
Guest
I don't think that adding further levels of Burocracy (sp?) is a good idea. I belive that all departments should be controlled by central government in Westminster.
P
Prestwick
Guest
I don't think it is about adding new layers of bureaucracy, it is more a case of replacing existing and inefficient layers of bureaucracy which have been shown to have failed to live up to the expectations of those who live outside of the South East of England.
The whole point of devolving power is to take the responsibility away from central government and put it in the hands of those who can manage issues in each nation in a more efficient way. For example, the Scottish Executive is now putting into action a myriad of plans to restore train links, fund tram schemes in Edinburgh and Glasgow and more because it now has the responsibility for transport policy in Scotland without having to go down to Westminster every five minutes. The Scottish Office simply didn't have that jurisdiction or power to get things done up there.
The whole point of devolving power is to take the responsibility away from central government and put it in the hands of those who can manage issues in each nation in a more efficient way. For example, the Scottish Executive is now putting into action a myriad of plans to restore train links, fund tram schemes in Edinburgh and Glasgow and more because it now has the responsibility for transport policy in Scotland without having to go down to Westminster every five minutes. The Scottish Office simply didn't have that jurisdiction or power to get things done up there.
H
Hazey
Guest
Personally I think an election should be called whenever a new PM is to be put in power. It's utter ******** that an unelected guy can just waltz straight into the top job.
[/b]
Prestwick, although I respect the points you made, can't help agreeing with this arguement...
T
Triniquint
Guest
Just when you think this country can't get any worse, we are now ruled by a forigner, who wasn't elected, passing laws he cannot vote on himself as his constituancy is in Scotland where they have their own parlament, who's overloaded an already shakey economy with false growth onto the point of recession.
England is f***ed. And I thought things were bad with Blair. [/b]
That's it, Teh Mite, in a nutshell. Labour won some 23-25% of votes in the last election, Tories won some 22-24%, and yet the majority is huge! Weird or what? Not much between them. Yet the majority still remain silent because they don't believe anyone will do much. This majority hold similar views to what you have just stated. In fact, it is reckoned that more people voted for Scottish devolution when Mrs Thatcher was the Prime Minister, than who voted for Labour - yet devolution never occurred then, but labour got in. It's laughable. Trouble is, the Tories have had ample opportunity to rip this shower to pieces, and have failed to sieze it. Cameron goes on about killing off Grammar Schools, and buying wind generators that are as much use as a chocolate fireguard. Too frightened of alienating anyone at all, he says nothing of any substance.
You are right, England has been royally shafted, and it won't be fixed even in my grandchildrens lifetime. As for Gordon Brown, he's just another windbag who was massively behind whatever Blair did, and as a waste of space, Blair was monumental.
Where on earth are G K Chesterton's Quiet Folk?
The Secret People
by G.K.Chesterton
Smile at us, pay us, pass us; but do not quite forget;
For we are the people of England, that never have spoken yet.
There is many a fat farmer that drinks less cheerfully,
There is many a free French peasant who is richer and sadder than we.
There are no folk in the whole world so helpless or so wise.
There is hunger in our bellies, there is laughter in our eyes;
You laugh at us and love us, both mugs and eyes are wet:
Only you do not know us. For we have not spoken yet.
The fine French kings came over in a flutter of flags and dames.
We liked their smiles and battles, but we never could say their names.
The blood ran red to Bosworth and the high French lords went down;
There was naught but a naked people under a naked crown.
And the eyes of the King's Servants turned terribly every way,
And the gold of the King's Servants rose higher every day.
They burnt the homes of the shaven men, that had been quaint and kind,
Till there was no bed in a monk's house, nor food that man could find.
The inns of God where no man paid, that were the wall of the weak.
The King's Servants ate them all. And still we did not speak.
And the face of the King's Servants grew greater than the King:
He tricked them, and they trapped him, and stood round him in a ring.
The new grave lords closed round him, that had eaten the abbey's fruits,
And the men of the new religion, with their bibles in their boots,
We saw their shoulders moving, to menace or discuss,
And some were pure and some were vile; but none took heed of us.
We saw the King as they killed him, and his face was proud and pale;
And a few men talked of freedom, while England talked of ale.
A war that we understood not came over the world and woke
Americans, Frenchmen, Irish; but we knew not the things they spoke.
They talked about rights and nature and peace and the people's reign:
And the squires, our masters, bade us fight; and scorned us never again.
Weak if we be for ever, could none condemn us then;
Men called us serfs and drudges; men knew that we were men.
In foam and flame at Trafalgar, on Albuera plains,
We did and died like lions, to keep ourselves in chains,
We lay in living ruins; firing and fearing not
The strange fierce face of the Frenchmen who knew for what they fought,
And the man who seemed to be more than a man we strained against and broke;
And we broke our own rights with him. And still we never spoke.
Our patch of glory ended; we never heard guns again.
But the squire seemed struck in the saddle; he was foolish, as if in pain,
He leaned on a staggering lawyer, he clutched a cringing Jew,
He was stricken; it may be, after all, he was stricken at Waterloo.
Or perhaps the shades of the shaven men, whose spoil is in his house,
Come back in shining shapes at last to spoil his last carouse:
We only know the last sad squires rode slowly towards the sea,
And a new people takes the land: and still it is not we.
They have given us into the hand of new unhappy lords,
Lords without anger or honour, who dare not carry their swords.
They fight by shuffling papers; they have bright dead alien eyes;
They look at our labour and laughter as a tired man looks at flies.
And the load of their loveless pity is worse than the ancient wrongs,
Their doors are shut in the evening; and they know no songs.
We hear men speaking for us of new laws strong and sweet,
Yet is there no man speaketh as we speak in the street.
It may be we shall rise the last as Frenchmen rose the first,
Our wrath come after Russia's wrath and our wrath be the worst.
It may be we are meant to mark with our riot and our rest
God's scorn for all men governing. It may be beer is best.
But we are the people of England; and we have not spoken yet.
Smile at us, pay us, pass us. But do not quite forget.
True or what?
P
Prestwick
Guest
The reason why Labour has such a big majority from such a small share of the vote is because most of that vote is concentrated in the most densely packed clusters of seat winning constituencies in the UK, namely Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow, Central London and the Home counties.
A similar situation happened in the 1980s with the showdown between Labour and the SDP. They both received high percentages of the vote, but the SDP only received a fraction of the seats that Labour did. This was because the SDP's share of the vote was spread far and wide across the land and only rarely was enough to win a seat here and there.
This is a bug in the system of First Past the Post. However, like I said before, no voting system is entirely fair, only once in this country have we received the government that we had actually voted for and that was Clement Attlee's 1945-1950 Labour government. The fact remains that even under the various different kinds of proportional representation votes, you'll still probably end up with the government that you didn't want, be it a Labour minority government or a hodge podge coalition made up of many small parties, each with conflicting interests, none of which you actually voted for.
I understand the anger and frustration, heck, I'm pretty annoyed at the Islington establishment and the luvvies in power myself, but that is how the system works. I mean, if you really wanted to scare them you could vote BNP but at the end of the day, they've only changed their tune to become the working class champion because they know the most disaffected Labour voter is a white, working or lower middle class male. And when they come into power, half of what they'll want to do will be (thankfully) struck down either by the courts in the UK or by the European Court. It might even put us in a situation of international isolation, perhaps even falling victim to sanctions and economic blockade.
Don't worry though, that will never happen, what would happen however might be a large protest vote, those who don't really like the BNP at all but wanting to vote to scare the moderates into action. A clever strategy although I'll stick to voting Conservative thank you.
A similar situation happened in the 1980s with the showdown between Labour and the SDP. They both received high percentages of the vote, but the SDP only received a fraction of the seats that Labour did. This was because the SDP's share of the vote was spread far and wide across the land and only rarely was enough to win a seat here and there.
This is a bug in the system of First Past the Post. However, like I said before, no voting system is entirely fair, only once in this country have we received the government that we had actually voted for and that was Clement Attlee's 1945-1950 Labour government. The fact remains that even under the various different kinds of proportional representation votes, you'll still probably end up with the government that you didn't want, be it a Labour minority government or a hodge podge coalition made up of many small parties, each with conflicting interests, none of which you actually voted for.
I understand the anger and frustration, heck, I'm pretty annoyed at the Islington establishment and the luvvies in power myself, but that is how the system works. I mean, if you really wanted to scare them you could vote BNP but at the end of the day, they've only changed their tune to become the working class champion because they know the most disaffected Labour voter is a white, working or lower middle class male. And when they come into power, half of what they'll want to do will be (thankfully) struck down either by the courts in the UK or by the European Court. It might even put us in a situation of international isolation, perhaps even falling victim to sanctions and economic blockade.
Don't worry though, that will never happen, what would happen however might be a large protest vote, those who don't really like the BNP at all but wanting to vote to scare the moderates into action. A clever strategy although I'll stick to voting Conservative thank you.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 2
- Views
- 982
