Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Laurie on April 22, 2007, 01:43:14 PM
-
(http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-06/12/xin_320602120946305643220.jpg)
God help our nation if no-one in the labour party objects to his take over-bid and this sly crook becomes Prime Minister for Two and half damn years,
Vote conservative, this may and next general election :t
:furious
-
Since you brought this up, care to elaborate why that guy is the worst thing to come down the political pike in the last 5 centuries. Other than a bad picture you didn't bring anything to a discussion.
-
ppl in britain all know the facts it's always on the news e.t.c,
and the thing is, this guy is 1 month away from being british PM, with NO opposition within his party, which i think would be a failure of democracy if thsi man is given the keys to no.10 when he is Very un-popular in the british public it wont be good in my opinion and find him very un-likeable.
-
Well as a British citizen don't you have any say in who becomes Prime Minister? Don't you get to vote?
-
basically, it's halfway through a term of office,
and the prime minister, (tony Blair) is resigning in a month or so
and for soem stupid reason the public has no say in who takes over until the next election,(2 and a half yaers time). and no-one else is running other than this chap , gordon brown so were stuck with him, this man, in charge of our nuclear weapons, our country, and we dont even choose! the winner is who gets the most votes from within the party. it's a BIT like the 25th amendment, minus the illness and put in resignation, minus cabinet and joint chiefs and put in the whole of the political party (Labour)
-
I can't speak for your side of the Atlantic, but over here, someone often SEEMS popular or loathed thanks to the partiality of the press--liberals always get a more favorable view, and to my knowledge, your press is even more left-ward tilted than ours
-
OK all I've gotten from this is that the guy is reputed to be disliked. Nothing as to why or what he has or has not done. Don't you have ANYTHING to base why this guy is not qualified to be your PM?????
It does absolutely nothing to say it's in all the news over there, you posted it on a US bbs not an English one. Spit it out, what makes this guy such bad news?
-
liberals always get a more favorable view, and to my knowledge, your press is even more left-ward tilted than ours
You do realise that Brown and Blair are Labour? Labour is left wing?
As Chancellor and Senator Blair's right hand cabbage... err... man:
1) Raided pension schemes to the tune of billions through increased tax - in 2007/08 alone his policies will take £7 billion - against advice at the time from the CBI, leaving a huge pensions balck hole (estimated at around £100 billion)
2) Introduced a myriad of stealth taxes
3) Introduced more 'green' taxes
4) is Scottish
5) err...
6)...The End
-
I do understand that both are Labour, and your Labour, like our Democrats, typically want to buy everyTHING for everyBODY---alas, as Margaret Thatcher said, "Socialism is fine until you run out of other people's money"...hence the raided pension plans (admittedly, last part only a guess) If it makes you feel any better, the party on our side which purports to represent conservatism has been spending taxpayer money like drunken sailors for the last 6 years, and have now been voted out of office in favor of the proFESSIONAL big-government spenders :aok
-
it's part of the charm of being subjects you have no say in who lords over you. probably one of the reasons they were disarmed in the first place. it could be messy applying crushingly high taxes and placing leaders on an armed populace.
-
He's the taxman! lol
he has done some very cruel things with taxes in the past
and my biggest objection is that there will be no vote he is just going to walk in.
by the way i am a 'thatcherite' a.k.a i am a republican/conservative
-
Originally posted by Dowding
You do realise that Brown and Blair are Labour? Labour is left wing?
As Chancellor and Senator Blair's right hand cabbage... err... man:
1) Raided pension schemes to the tune of billions through increased tax - in 2007/08 alone his policies will take £7 billion - against advice at the time from the CBI, leaving a huge pensions balck hole (estimated at around £100 billion)
2) Introduced a myriad of stealth taxes
3) Introduced more 'green' taxes
4) is Scottish
5) err...
6)...The End
they're just eevil, lol
-
The opinion polls have been quite interesting. More people are thought likely to vote conservative if Gordon is PM than if the crown went to someone else. It's early days yet, but in 2009/10 I think Cameron can win by about 30 seats.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Since you brought this up, care to elaborate why that guy is the worst thing to come down the political pike in the last 5 centuries. Other than a bad picture you didn't bring anything to a discussion.
Read the title again - especially the last five words. Oh and Britain doesn't have political "pikes".
-
I think the important point Laurie is making is that Gordon Brown is being imposed upon us without universal mandate. That sticks in the craw of the people of a nation that likes to think of themselves as being the birthplace of parliamentary democracy. "Realpolitik" is remote from the ideology, but party politics is becoming more & more focused on the individual rather than the policies and my impression that this is more so in the US than the UK, where millions of dollars are spent on promoting candidates. General elections are becoming a race of personalities and no-one in the UK has voted for this personality (apart from within the Labour party)
If Blair had died suddenly, then it would be reasonable to have Brown take over (God forbid Prescott). However this transfer of power is being done cold and it smacks just a tadge of croneyism.
Brown may turn out to be a good PM. I hope he does but I'm not betting on it.
-
Oh & BTW, Happy St George's Day to any fellow Englanders :)
-
I think the important point Laurie is making is that Gordon Brown is being imposed upon us without universal mandate. That sticks in the craw of the people of a nation that likes to think of themselves as being the birthplace of parliamentary democracy.
I detest Brown, like I detest Labour, both new and old. However, there's nothing undemocratic about Brown talking over for the remainder of this parliament. It won't be the first time that the prime minister has stepped down mid term.
We elect our MPs to represent us. One of their functions is to put forward someone to form a government. How they do that isn't really important, the fact that our representatives have the right to remove that government from office at any time is.
Personally I'd much rather it was Brown taking over than someone like Milliband. I think Labour have far less chance of winning the next election with Brown as PM.
-
Sounds like Taxation without representation. Hey, kinda like here! :confused:
Good luck my brothers.
Any body know where the new world is?
-
The one thing that I find odd about parliamentary systems is that if enough of them decide you're out, they just toss you, public has naught to say about it--seems like it happens in Israel every few years
-
Originally posted by FastFwd
Read the title again - especially the last five words. Oh and Britain doesn't have political "pikes".
I read the title. I also stated you posted it on a US based BBS. Your polls and actual news are not listed here commonly so there is no basis for reference on this side of the Atlantic. You brought it up, I figured maybe you would like to actually share a bit about your own politics from the position of an interested citizen. I was actually interested in why you feel the way you do about this guy and or about your political structure.
I suppose that it's simply too much trouble for you to actually mention content or put down the issues. Sound bites are much easier to type.
-
You need to be more specific on why I shouldn't vote for him,I think you just don't like the labour party full stop.I hate politicians of all colours.The motivating force of politics is power!
I vote out whoever is in power,in an attempt to at least maintain the Democratic process,and keep them on their toes
Blair the present incumbent,beggars belief.How would Harold Wilson look now if he had sent Troops to Vietnam!:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Maverick
I read the title. I also stated you posted it on a US based BBS. Your polls and actual news are not listed here commonly so there is no basis for reference on this side of the Atlantic.
But I see people posting on this board from all around the world... But yes, I do realise foreign news is weak in the US.
-
that attitude is sort of arrogant considering this is not your BB or your nation's only. we have players from all over the world, many from britain. if it doesnt mean anything don't read it :aok
-
couldn't agree more, Laurie. ^ Unfortunately, it's an extremely widespread attitude which extends far beyond this BBS.
-
So if I ask about your politics which one of your country's folks brought up and posted on a bbs I'm arrogant. Check.
I guess it's simply too much trouble for you to really discuss the issues then. I was hoping for some real information instead of the lack of coverage for your side of the Atlantic.
-
Originally posted by Laurie
that attitude is sort of arrogant considering this is not your BB or your nation's only. we have players from all over the world, many from britain. if it doesnt mean anything don't read it :aok
Originally posted by Laurie
ppl in britain all know the facts it's always on the news e.t.c,
Pot..kettle..
-
Maverick has a point. IMHO it doesn't matter where you live, nor does it matter if the bbs are US based. If you post a statement that someone wants clarifying & has a genuine interest in, then it's common courtesy to expand & explain - isn't it?
Nashwan is right about the precedent of non-mandated change of leadership, but that doesn't mean it's right. I think something as fundamental as chosing the country's leader should always be subject to a popular vote in a modern democracy, except in an emergency. The honourable path would be for Blair to request a general election with Brown as Labour leader.
Regards
-
FWIW the Presidency can shift without an election by ceding to the VP as did Nixon. Is what's happening with the PM something similar?
-
Originally posted by Maverick
FWIW the Presidency can shift without an election by ceding to the VP as did Nixon. Is what's happening with the PM something similar?
Mav - sorry, maybe I was a bit of an arse before.
To answer your question, Blair is set to resign. But his party was elected for 5 years beginning 5th May 2005. So in theory they could go up until May 2010. The maximum is five years, though most administrations are dissolved after four.
This happened back in 1976 when Harold Wilson resigned as PM. There was an internal leadership contest, and Jim Callaghan won and became PM, even though he was never directly elected by the people/electorate.
-
Originally posted by FastFwd
Mav - sorry, maybe I was a bit of an arse before.
To answer your question, Blair is set to resign. But his party was elected for 5 years beginning 5th May 2005. So in theory they could go up until May 2010. The maximum is five years, though most administrations are dissolved after four.
This happened back in 1976 when Harold Wilson resigned as PM. There was an internal leadership contest, and Jim Callaghan won and became PM, even though he was never directly elected by the people/electorate.
That seems sorta bogus, but not unlike that of Ford taking over for Nixon when Nixon resigned because of Watergate. (Shrugs)
-
Yes, it's unusual in British politics, but it does happen from time to time.
-
Does this guy have a position comparable to the US Veep where he was elected to be the #1 person in line of succession? In other words, should Blair suddenly be incapable of performing his duties, (auto accident, heart attack anything of non sinister nature) would this guy be the new PM automatically?
If not, how is that kind of situation handled?
-
Comparison with presidents is misleading because the prime minister does not have the same powers as a president.
It's more like Pelosi and the senate majority leader deciding to stand down in a couple of years, and the Democrats choosing someone to replace them.
In Britain we don't, technically, vote for our government. We vote for representatives, who form a government and opposition amongst themselves.
As I understand it, US congressional voters vote for a representative, who is free to switch sides, support a different candidate for speaker, etc, in a similar way.
Yes, it's unusual in British politics, but it does happen from time to time.
It's not actually that unusual. Since WW2, Eden handed over to MacMillan mid term, MacMillan to Douglas-Home, Wilson to Callaghan as you noted, and Thatcher to Major. That's at least 4 mid term handovers in 50 years, and there may be more I've missed.
-
Nashwan - as always, you are right! :aok
I'd forgotten the Thatcher/Major transition.
As for Macmillan/Eden/Home, I hadn't really thought about those, which must all have happened in the 1959-1963 time frame.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Does this guy have a position comparable to the US Veep where he was elected to be the #1 person in line of succession? In other words, should Blair suddenly be incapable of performing his duties, (auto accident, heart attack anything of non sinister nature) would this guy be the new PM automatically?
If not, how is that kind of situation handled?
no that is the deputy prime minister, (john prescott's) job, gordon brown is just the minister for the economy,
-
Originally posted by Maverick
So if I ask about your politics which one of your country's folks brought up and posted on a bbs I'm arrogant. Check.
I guess it's simply too much trouble for you to really discuss the issues then. I was hoping for some real information instead of the lack of coverage for your side of the Atlantic.
maverick wasnt saying to other nationalities to not discuss but to not claim ownership of the BB's.
-
Originally posted by Laurie
maverick wasnt saying to other nationalities to not discuss but to not claim ownership of the BB's.
Maverick - what he's trying to say is that the rest of the world gets pissed off with all this "Planet America" crap after a while.
-
Originally posted by Laurie
no that is the deputy prime minister, (john prescott's) job, gordon brown is just the minister for the economy,
Ok since there is a deputy PM why isn't he going to take over when Blair steps down? This is confusing to me.
-
Originally posted by FastFwd
Maverick - what he's trying to say is that the rest of the world gets pissed off with all this "Planet America" crap after a while.
That's his problem, not mine. I did not state this was planet America nor imply it. I also don't understand why he has such a problem in making a simple post that is comprehensible and needs an interpreter. It seems it's not just a one way street in comprehension as he totally misinterpreted my interest in the thread.