Printable View
Right about now, Tony Blair is about to drive into Buckingham Palace to offer his resignation to Her Majesty.
In about thirty minutes on from there, Gordon Brown will be summoned and asked to form a government.
Quite a momentous time, and worth reflecting that in many countries, a simple, civilised handover of power like this would be impossible.
And the removal men have possibly the simplest job possible - and are already doing the packing.
What are Orgahs' thoughts on this moment of history?
Is there some pomp or ceremony associated with these two events, or is it: "Ah, Tony - you've quit then. Listen: ask Gordon to pop 'round soon, won't you?"Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
And (another dumb Q): technically, for some short bit of time, there is no UK government at all. Is that correct? Fascinating.
My Governator (Herr Schwartzenegger) is there watching it all.
In essence, that's exactly it. No pomp at all. Blair doesn't even retain the courtesy title like your presidents.Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
Parliament is still in session, so there is governance, just not government as executive. Downing Street refused to say who they thought would be in power, but my interpretation of the constitution would argue that the Speaker is in fact in charge while Parliament sits.Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
Even if Parliament had dissolved, the Queen is always there, though again, with no direct executive power.
Seems very un-British. ;)Quote:
No pomp at all.
I have this Twilight Zone-like image of all the agents of the UK executive (soldiers, police, etc) standing at Parade Rest for the few minutes between the resignation of the old guy and appointment of the new guy.
Best of Luck and Pluck to both Mssr.'s Blair and Brown. They'll both need it, living in these interesting times.
I like Ireland. Less pomp and more beer:smash: Oh and good job England for not rioting when your goverment changes. Good show
Good job Brits, even if a man is not as popular as in the past, its good to see a good nonviolent turn over.:2thumbsup:
Tony's gone. I'll miss him.
Not bloody likely, good riddance. :laugh4:
Now I have Gordy in my :bullseye:
Gordy! You've promised a new era in UK politics, you've said that you will listen to the people and learn. Listen to this grumpy Gordon........
GIVE US THE REFERENDUM YOU PROMISED IN YOUR LAST ELECTION MANIFESTO. :director:
*channelling Tribesman*: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
Meh, In Belgium we go months without an official executive...Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
EDIT: Oh yeah Tony, never liked him, a socialist arguing against social protection/rights ? Bleh.
And technically speaking there is no government whenever there is a general election as well. As the PM has to ask the monarch to dissolve parliment and the governemnt to have an election.Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
hmm, so when is it next that there is no government, sounds like a good time for an invasioooooh uh visit~D
Prior to Eisenhower, the President relinquishing power would invite the newly elected one to the Whitehouse for coffee (or tea) on inauguration day. After, they would then walk beside each other to the inaugural ceremony.
Ike ended this tradition when he refused to meet with Truman in this manner, and it was the initial beginnigs of political warfare between the political partys - the initiation of total bi-partison politics and the advent that anything the Presidential predicessor did had to be reversed (180 degrees). The end to common courtesy, is often the end of civility and compromise.
It is nice to see that other democracys end one leadership and flow into another without ending civility. Though, I well imagine the next few weeks will be fun in the GB.
:balloon2:
From my experience with most political leaders, "familiarity breeds contempt". I wish our best ally well as they transition to a change in leadership.Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
How well do you think Blair will do in this new assignment? Seems to me he would be a lightning rod for discord in the process rather than an asset.Quote:
Blair, who led the Labour Party to three successive election victories, later resigned his seat in Parliament and was announced as envoy to the Quartet of Mideast peace mediators.
It's laughable. "Yo Blair!" is the comment that haunts him and echoes round the Middle East.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito
Mr Blair did very good things in a similarly intractable situation for Northern Ireland, and there might be hope that he would bring that tact and diplomacy to his new post. However, then he talked freely with terrorists. With Hamas and Hizbollah, he refused. What will change?
Politics: egh.
So, is Tony now the Steward or Bailiff of Her Majesty's Three Chiltern Hundreds of Stoke, Desborough and Burnham in the county of Buckingham, or the new Crown Steward and Bailiff of the Manor of Northstead?
Edit: I checked, it's the Chiltern Hundreds.
I'm told he's the first Primeminister to recieve a standing ovation from all political parties at his last PQ. True?
I say we give it a few years, maybe a decare or so.. and many of us will be looking back on Blair's decade as Primeminister fondly.
Tony hasn't been too bad tbh. Although questionable what may be attributed to him, it is during his reign that the North Ireland conflict got its official end, additionally he witnessed the paying off of the last ww2 loans, and he also managed to reform and modernize: if not politically at least in attitude, bringing Britain into the 21th century. He also showed a sound (though not strong enough) scepticism towards the EU madness. His major mistake that he will be remembered for is the entry into the Iraq massacre, but he seems to have realized his mistake, when he started calling for the gradual withdrawal of British troops from the region, something that will hopefully be completed early on in the reign of the successor. In short, Blair perhaps hasn't been so bad.
To take pity on the uninitiated, Mr Blair has also resigned as a Member of Parliament. It is actually not permitted to do this. Only by taking a paid position on behalf of the Crown can an MP be released from his duties (well he can die or accept a peerage, which is much the same fate).Quote:
Originally Posted by Big King Sanctaphrax
Taking the Chiltern Hundreds is one such post set aside for the purpose of releasing MPs. God forbid they would change a four-hundred year old law to enable resignation. :beam:
So he was sacked by the Queen. I feel much better now. :belly:
and I get a chance to use this smiley. :beam:
Can't resign. Similar to the Mafia credo, "Nobody leaves the family" perhaps? It wouldn't be my idea (fantasy I'm sure) of England without the tradition, pomp & ceremony. I do like the important, pompous sounding English titles though.Lord Bunion of the Liverwurst on the RyeQuote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
I see (I think). The will of the people having been expressed by electing a guy as their representative (MP),Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
that will (of the people) shall not be thwarted by whim, skullduggery, or political expedience... those MP's are not only honoured, they are duty-bound to represent their constituancy/voting citizens. And can only be released from that sacred honour/duty by death, the elimination of the function (dissolution), or a higher calling (a royal appointment). Or, of course, a new election.
Beautiful, actually, as a process that recognizes the supermacy of the will of the people,
as it is (somehow) embodied in the person of a monarch - which bugs me a bit; as I guess it should, being american and therefore, by definition, an anti-monarchist.
Setting monarchy, and it's implied embodiment of the spirit and will of the people, aside, I must say: pomp & ceremony or not, today's events in London were nevertheless fraught with symbolism. The two small motorcades arriving, then departing the palace. The 2 fellas speaking in PQT, then both appearing at 10 Downing.
Well done.
Not really. I read BG link and back when the law was set (1623) being an MP was not a desireable job (think how jury duty is to some these days). They were forbidden from resigning to stop then from getting out of their responsibilities easily. And a general vote wasn't nessiarily how they were chosen. Yes they were elected but the electorate was small. Voting rights had property and income riders on them. And some were rotten or pocket boroughs. That is the electoral regions having been set in the 13th century and never changed coupled with the shifts in populations that happend and those property/income riders on voting rights resulted in the electorate in some places being fewer than 100 people to elect 2 MP's. Add in the none secret ballot and you had a recipe for corruption. Rich aristocrats could buy an MP. Or effectively appoint whom ever they wanted. Some nobles int he Lods would "give" a seat to their sons.Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
On a related note. Just so all are familiar with all this...
Election
Quid
I see lars573. The 'people' in the phrase "will of the people" was a lot smaller sample of the total population of actual humans on the island, in those days.
We did that too, here. Our first electors were exclusively land-owning old white men. Both nations have greatly expanded their electorate to include many more people defined as citizens. Yet the attendant procedures (like: you cannot resign) have been retained as still relevant, if a bit arcane.
I think that's cool.
I was just pleased he went on me birfday.Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
You might think that it's the hand of history on your shoulder Blair, it's probably plod coming to whisk you off to err....well it can't be prison can it Tony? You've filled them all up.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6249300.stmQuote:
Former Prime Minister Tony Blair has been questioned for a third time by detectives investigating allegations of "cash-for-honours", it has emerged.
Mr Blair, who left Downing Street on Wednesday, had already become the first PM to be interviewed by police in the course of a corruption inquiry.
On the contrary!Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
the whole idea of the hours in between goverments is quite exciting, the queen could officially (and quite within the law) say "nope, I'm ruling"...its the very british sense of 'ok chaps lets allow the new fellow in without causing all that horrible mess of a coup d'etat.
it just reminds me of how boring life is under parliament...which is why i want Harry to be king
i could see it now
Prime Minister David Beckham steps down to allow his deputy to become PM
the new pm arrives at buckingham palace only to be told that King Harry I has assumed absolute control
things would be so much more fun from then on :2thumbsup:
I didn't see any footage of him leaving 10 Downing Street. Can someone please confirm if the door either did or did not hit him on the :daisy: on the way out?
I think its quaint the way you Americans feel the need to relate everything to the people when in reality we are subjects of her Majesty not citizens and the MPs work for her, not us.Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
Thats why they can resign for those two Crown Offices, the Queen would rather have them doing that job than sitting in Parliament.
We live in a non-constitutional Monarchy and one would hope that the new First Lord of the Treasury will be less of a megalomaniac interfeier than his predecessor. Sadly I fear irreperable damage has been done and it will be decades before we know the full impact.