Brian Kirby Posted May 7, 2007 Share Posted May 7, 2007 Had a link to this Government petition this morning. May strike a chord with some. The petition reads:'We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Change the law so that a British Prime Minister can only be elected by a General Election.'The link is http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/peterb/Seemed a good idea to me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chas Posted May 7, 2007 Share Posted May 7, 2007 They would consider the response, and with careful thought and much deliberation, would do exactly what they do now, do as THEY please. Heartbreaking really. chas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
couscous Posted May 7, 2007 Share Posted May 7, 2007 i agree and i have signed too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
messerschmitt owner Posted May 7, 2007 Share Posted May 7, 2007 don't know why you bothered - you voted for the party not the man who supposedly runs it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
couscous Posted May 7, 2007 Share Posted May 7, 2007 no, not my philosophy these days. only interested in the prospective prime minister who proposes to give the £200 heating allowance for severely disabled people who are not and may not be fortunate to get to the age of 60. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest caraprof Posted May 7, 2007 Share Posted May 7, 2007 messerschmitt owner - 2007-05-07 9:17 PM don't know why you bothered - you voted for the party not the man who supposedly runs it! Oh come on! The party's leader is often the main reason why people vote for a particular party. The majority of the electorate are set in their political allegiancies and elections are won and lost by those in the centre who switch votes at every General Election from one party to another. If I'd voted for a party because I thought that its leader was the answer to my country's problems I would then feel cheated if he resigned and another, for whom I had no respect, took over as Prime Minister. Gordon Brown should call an election, as should anyone else who takes over in mid-term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
howie Posted May 8, 2007 Share Posted May 8, 2007 messerschmitt owner - 2007-05-07 9:17 PM don't know why you bothered - you voted for the party not the man who supposedly runs it!I agree. The personality and appeal of a party leader is important of course, and will account for some of the votes, but surely its the policies of any given party that matter regardless of who leads it, and I don,t think a change of leader mid term justifies calling a general election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forester Posted May 8, 2007 Share Posted May 8, 2007 Well IF he had done his term like he was suppose to do all this wouldn't have happened he's made his money and ran, tipical. 8-(The goverment dont like thieves. cannot stand the competion!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted May 8, 2007 Author Share Posted May 8, 2007 Well yes, Guys and Gals, but after all that, have you signed the bleedin' petition?Regarding the party, and not the PM, being elected, I do think this misses the point of the petition. Increasingly, since (but including) Thatcher, we no longer have "traditional" PMs. We now have PMs who, gaining large majorities, behave like presidents. In that respect, it is the person, and not the party, who dominates. When they vet the candidates, and then select their cabinets from among the large number of their elected acolytes, who they trounce publicly, brief against when it suits, and/or sideline; when we have policy being decided in un-minuted sofa discussions, and taken to cabinet for mere ratification, if at all: it is the PM who becomes the policy. Brown will have learned this from Blair, and it seems abundantly clear to me, Cameron has his eye on this chance as well. Manifestos are written to give the maximum scope for subsequent "re-interpretation", along the age old lines of "that was then, this is now". This new order includes the notion that when things go wrong under your jurisdiction, all you have to do is mumble a half apology, and not resign, to rate as “taking responsibility”. What nonsense!It is true that for most of the above period, we have had totally dysfunctional oppositions, but that has served only to confirm this new, “presidential” style of PM. Now it has been proved possible for the UK to be run by an unelected president, it will stick. It is only by forcing a general election that objection can be registered. Fat chance? Maybe. But I think the marker should be put down nevertheless. Our system has worked pretty well for us in the past. However, it is now a shambles and it needs some radical attention. The politicians won’t do it, because they are the main beneficiaries of the new order. Somehow, we have to humble them into accepting the authority of Parliament, or go the whole hog and become a republic and accept the concept of an elected president. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazza454 Posted May 8, 2007 Share Posted May 8, 2007 Brian Kirby - 2007-05-08 12:48 PM Well yes, Guys and Gals, but after all that, have you signed the bleedin' petition?Regarding the party, and not the PM, being elected, I do think this misses the point of the petition. Increasingly, since (but including) Thatcher, we no longer have "traditional" PMs. We now have PMs who, gaining large majorities, behave like presidents. In that respect, it is the person, and not the party, who dominates. When they vet the candidates, and then select their cabinets from among the large number of their elected acolytes, who they trounce publicly, brief against when it suits, and/or sideline; when we have policy being decided in un-minuted sofa discussions, and taken to cabinet for mere ratification, if at all: it is the PM who becomes the policy. Brown will have learned this from Blair, and it seems abundantly clear to me, Cameron has his eye on this chance as well. Manifestos are written to give the maximum scope for subsequent "re-interpretation", along the age old lines of "that was then, this is now". This new order includes the notion that when things go wrong under your jurisdiction, all you have to do is mumble a half apology, and not resign, to rate as “taking responsibility”. What nonsense!It is true that for most of the above period, we have had totally dysfunctional oppositions, but that has served only to confirm this new, “presidential” style of PM. Now it has been proved possible for the UK to be run by an unelected president, it will stick. It is only by forcing a general election that objection can be registered. Fat chance? Maybe. But I think the marker should be put down nevertheless. Our system has worked pretty well for us in the past. However, it is now a shambles and it needs some radical attention. The politicians won’t do it, because they are the main beneficiaries of the new order. Somehow, we have to humble them into accepting the authority of Parliament, or go the whole hog and become a republic and accept the concept of an elected president. Brian, do you mean Lady Thatcher? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
howie Posted May 8, 2007 Share Posted May 8, 2007 Brian Kirby - 2007-05-08 12:48 PM We now have PMs who, gaining large majorities, behave like presidents. In that respect, it is the person, and not the party, who dominates. It is true that for most of the above period, we have had totally dysfunctional oppositions, but that has served only to confirm this new, “presidential” style of PM. And there lies the problem Brian. There has not been any oppostion capable of curtailing Blairs ambitions and personal dictatorial tendancies for almost a decade. As you stated, with his front benches now filled by carefully selected cronies he has free rein to push through any half backed legislation he wishes. A smaller majority and a more vocal and stronger opposition should allay any fears that Blair , and any future leaders, becoming more "presidential", but until this happens i,m afraid those in power will do exactly as they please without any of the concerns associated with losing power in any future general elections. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted May 9, 2007 Author Share Posted May 9, 2007 Bazza454 - 2007-05-08 1:14 PM Brian, do you mean Lady Thatcher? Her name is Thatcher, and it was names I was refering to. "Lady" is a title, like "Mr" or "Mrs", and I chose not to use titles. However, what's the betting we shall shortly have a Lord Blair, or even (another) a Lord Brown? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest caraprof Posted May 9, 2007 Share Posted May 9, 2007 In future I would be grateful if you would refer to her as 'The Blessed Margaret'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twooks Posted May 9, 2007 Share Posted May 9, 2007 going away from 'personalities' - if we are to have presidential style politics then we should also have the US ruling that no one can serve more than 2 terms [WWII excluded] - and while we're at it, 2 balancing 'Houses' B-) oh yeah - and a republic, many of the problems have stemmed from the abuse of 'royal prerogative' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twooks Posted May 9, 2007 Share Posted May 9, 2007 caraprof - 2007-05-09 11:28 AM In future I would be grateful if you would refer to her as 'The Blessed Margaret'. as in 'may the blessed margaret spin in hell' ???? >:-) :-> >:-) :-> or do I need capital letters?? B-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted May 9, 2007 Author Share Posted May 9, 2007 caraprof - 2007-05-09 11:28 AM In future I would be grateful if you would refer to her as 'The Blessed Margaret'. Nah: doesn't alliterate properly: how about Mingin' Margaret instead? 'Course, when Lord Blair arrives, it'll become a criminal offence to poke fun at the nobility, so get in now boys and girls! So far, we've (mostly) escaped the curse of retrospective legislation! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazza454 Posted May 9, 2007 Share Posted May 9, 2007 Brian Kirby - 2007-05-09 11:17 AM Bazza454 - 2007-05-08 1:14 PM Brian, do you mean Lady Thatcher? Her name is Thatcher, and it was names I was refering to. "Lady" is a title, like "Mr" or "Mrs", and I chose not to use titles. However, what's the betting we shall shortly have a Lord Blair, or even (another) a Lord Brown? Then why not just be courteous and call her Margaret Thatcher. I'm sure that you'd be delighted to be addressed on this Forum as "Kirby".In terms of your second point, the Wicked Witch then becomes Lady Blair, what a thought..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michele Posted May 9, 2007 Share Posted May 9, 2007 That wicked Witch is my mates cousin ?. Ahh forget I said that . :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twooks Posted May 9, 2007 Share Posted May 9, 2007 witch one *-) - thatcher or blair / booth come the revolution and republic that would be something else to go B-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michele Posted May 9, 2007 Share Posted May 9, 2007 Lady Booth. still he hate er not nice but someone has to luv *-) They dont talk much now anyway he'staken up residence in Vozan france got right idea if ask me ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.