Are you a QOTWer? Do you want to start a thread that isn't a direct answer to the current QOTW? Then this place, gentle poster, is your friend.
(, Sun 1 Apr 2001, 1:00)
« Go Back | See The Full Thread
It's part of our procedures
(, Tue 11 May 2010, 16:52, 2 replies, latest was 16 years ago)
I just find difficult to understand that, if Gordon Brownd decides to stay as PM, even if LibDem and Tories agree to work together, he could do it.
(, Tue 11 May 2010, 16:54, Reply)
he was in charge until a decision could be reached. If LibDems and Conservatives formed a coalition, he would not be PM
(, Tue 11 May 2010, 16:55, Reply)
That as nobody got absolute mayority (?) he could stay as PM, even if his party is not in power.
(, Tue 11 May 2010, 16:58, Reply)
if Labour is not part of the government formed then he couldn't remain as PM
(, Tue 11 May 2010, 17:06, Reply)
I was explained that, until now, that has been just good manners, but not a law. That's one of the first things they want to change about your election system and put it in writing.
(, Tue 11 May 2010, 17:07, Reply)
It's a nice, clear (and most importantly, concise!) explanation of the situation.
(, Tue 11 May 2010, 17:13, Reply)
But I'll do it when I get home (I have a long lonely evening in front of me)
If you are right, I'll be more than happy to correct my colleages at work :)
(, Tue 11 May 2010, 17:15, Reply)
but in fact Labour could remain as government until defeated by a vote of no confidence. This would almost certainly be at the Queen's speech.
So, in effect they are out.
Unless a Lib Lab pact can protect them from a VoNC.
(, Tue 11 May 2010, 17:17, Reply)
They were laughing at the situation, as it'd mean that Brown would be PM, but with no power at all.
That's as well why they want to put in writing that he has to step down, rather than leaving it as good manners only.
(, Tue 11 May 2010, 17:20, Reply)
Even though it is a parliamentary government, there is still *one* person who must give permission.
(, Tue 11 May 2010, 16:56, Reply)
my post probably counts as treason. If that were still a punishable offence, I think I could live with the additional consequence of the pro-royal /offtopicers being upset with me.
(, Tue 11 May 2010, 17:15, Reply)
(, Tue 11 May 2010, 17:19, Reply)
However, he keept asking me, when I started voting at 18, "If this is a real democracy, and you choose who is in the goverment, why cannot you choose if you want a king or not?"
(, Tue 11 May 2010, 17:22, Reply)
as such. But I certainly wouldn't want to abolish the monarchy. Make of that what you will
(, Tue 11 May 2010, 17:22, Reply)
(At least, I've mellowed over the years)
If they still turn a profit as the world's biggest hereditary tourist attraction, then they can carry on as figureheads, I just think it's time we did away with these dreadfully dated parts of the constitution (e.g., as Larry describes it "a democracy, unless the Queen says otherwise"). I know she doesn't wield any real power, it just strikes me as immensely hypocritical that we blunder round the world preaching the benefits and virtues of democracy when our own official head of state is appointed autocratically.
(, Tue 11 May 2010, 17:26, Reply)
Do you think he'll go with the royals or against them?
(, Tue 11 May 2010, 17:23, Reply)
It's /talkers he gets upset with. Not sure who would have a monarchy flounce...
(, Tue 11 May 2010, 17:28, Reply)
Everything goes too fast to follow.
Going home now, have a good evening!
(, Tue 11 May 2010, 17:30, Reply)
(Sorry, I don't speak Spanish so French will have to suffice)
(, Tue 11 May 2010, 17:31, Reply)
« Go Back | See The Full Thread