Org Mobile Site
Thread: Will Tony Blair change his mind?
Brown is known for a penchant for taxing everything and making the taxes as byzantine as possible. Loads of credits, discounts and forms.
He thinks and acts like a Civil Service Manderin, and is as electable. Who wants his mate in the Treasury screwing even more money out of everyone whilst he sits in number 10.
Possibly I'm bieng harsh. The campaigns proper havn't started. Possibly there are many policies he'd instigate.
If we were Labour he'd be one reason I'd finally vote as although I am not thrilled with the prospects the Tories offer ANYTHING is better than him. At least the Tories will reduce the tax burden (I hope)
He thinks and acts like a Civil Service Manderin, and is as electable. Who wants his mate in the Treasury screwing even more money out of everyone whilst he sits in number 10.
Possibly I'm bieng harsh. The campaigns proper havn't started. Possibly there are many policies he'd instigate.
If we were Labour he'd be one reason I'd finally vote as although I am not thrilled with the prospects the Tories offer ANYTHING is better than him. At least the Tories will reduce the tax burden (I hope)
Originally Posted by :
Possibly I'm bieng harsh. The campaigns proper havn't started. Possibly there are many policies he'd instigate.
I don't think we need more of those. Maybe a consolidation parliament where the slightly more bizarre legislation is removed, and the other bits improved to the point it all works fairly well.Possibly I'm bieng harsh. The campaigns proper havn't started. Possibly there are many policies he'd instigate.
Then we can have another round of random changes without much thinking.
I hear Al Gore is looking for steady employment.....
Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito:
I hear Al Gore is looking for steady employment.....
He'd be good.I hear Al Gore is looking for steady employment.....
No more good relations with America!
Originally Posted by BDC:
He'd be good.
No more good relations with America!
Yeah, sugar daddies get old...He'd be good.
No more good relations with America!
Originally Posted by BDC:
I don't think we need more of those. Maybe a consolidation parliament where the slightly more bizarre legislation is removed, and the other bits improved to the point it all works fairly well.
Then we can have another round of random changes without much thinking.
There should be a commission tasked with sorting out much of the crap in parliment (such as archaic laws).I don't think we need more of those. Maybe a consolidation parliament where the slightly more bizarre legislation is removed, and the other bits improved to the point it all works fairly well.
Then we can have another round of random changes without much thinking.
I agree that action = good without thought to possible knock on effects. It seems that whoever "thinks" of policy forgets that the system's dynamic will react to the action - and the net result is not always for the better.
On the Al Gore thingy. I know that the president of the US has to be a US citizen and not a naturalized one but is there any similar impediment in the UK to a foreigner becoming an MP and thus PM?
Back OT.
Somehow I wouldn't have spit my cornflakes out if I'd heard this morning that Blair would go on and on.....it's only the memory of what happed to Maggie that prompted this in the first instance.
Back OT.
Somehow I wouldn't have spit my cornflakes out if I'd heard this morning that Blair would go on and on.....it's only the memory of what happed to Maggie that prompted this in the first instance.
Originally Posted by InsaneApache:
On the Al Gore thingy. I know that the president of the US has to be a US citizen and not a naturalized one but is there any similar impediment in the UK to a foreigner becoming an MP and thus PM?
I don't think so. Andrew Bonar Law was born in Canada, but at a time when it was a Dominion, so that might not be a good example. A naturalised person may stand for election as an MP, so they ought to be able to then become PM.On the Al Gore thingy. I know that the president of the US has to be a US citizen and not a naturalized one but is there any similar impediment in the UK to a foreigner becoming an MP and thus PM?
As far as I know, the only current restrictions are that a hereditary peer must relinquish his title (to be able to stand for the Commons) and the Prime Minister cannot be a Roman Catholic.
Those more learned than I may be able to confirm or otherwise.
EDIT: On further research, there is no constitutional barrier to a catholic becoming prime minister - merely some awkwardness over the State functions of such a PM advising HM Queen on Anglican Bishops.
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost:
....... and the Prime Minister cannot be a Roman Catholic.
What? This is not a joke is it!....... and the Prime Minister cannot be a Roman Catholic.
The Act of Settlement says that the Monarch cannot be a Roman Catholic. It seems that the PM can be one though. Tony is often to be found on bended knee, fumbling with his beads and muttering under his breath......and that's just in cabinet meetings! 
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost:
I don't think so. Andrew Bonar Law was born in Canada, but at a time when it was a Dominion, so that might not be a good example. A naturalised person may stand for election as an MP, so they ought to be able to then become PM.
As far as I know, the only current restrictions are that a hereditary peer must relinquish his title (to be able to stand for the Commons) and the Prime Minister cannot be a Roman Catholic.
Those more learned than I may be able to confirm or otherwise.
EDIT: On further research, there is no constitutional barrier to a catholic becoming prime minister - merely some awkwardness over the State functions of such a PM advising HM Queen on Anglican Bishops.
Isn't Blair a catholic? I don't think so. Andrew Bonar Law was born in Canada, but at a time when it was a Dominion, so that might not be a good example. A naturalised person may stand for election as an MP, so they ought to be able to then become PM.
As far as I know, the only current restrictions are that a hereditary peer must relinquish his title (to be able to stand for the Commons) and the Prime Minister cannot be a Roman Catholic.
Those more learned than I may be able to confirm or otherwise.
EDIT: On further research, there is no constitutional barrier to a catholic becoming prime minister - merely some awkwardness over the State functions of such a PM advising HM Queen on Anglican Bishops.
Originally Posted by Fenring:
Isn't Blair a catholic?
No. His wife is and his children are being brought up in the faith, but he has not converted as yet.Isn't Blair a catholic?
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost:
and the Prime Minister cannot be a Roman Catholic.
Satanist candidates are fine, just not catholics... and the Prime Minister cannot be a Roman Catholic.
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost:
I don't think so. Andrew Bonar Law was born in Canada, but at a time when it was a Dominion, so that might not be a good example. A naturalised person may stand for election as an MP, so they ought to be able to then become PM.
As far as I know, the only current restrictions are that a hereditary peer must relinquish his title (to be able to stand for the Commons) and the Prime Minister cannot be a Roman Catholic.
Those more learned than I may be able to confirm or otherwise.
EDIT: On further research, there is no constitutional barrier to a catholic becoming prime minister - merely some awkwardness over the State functions of such a PM advising HM Queen on Anglican Bishops.
Canada is still a dominion. But it doesn't mean the same thing as back then. Now it means that we, the Auzzie's, Kiwi's, Jamacans, etc. Get a say as to wether Charlie gets the throne or not.I don't think so. Andrew Bonar Law was born in Canada, but at a time when it was a Dominion, so that might not be a good example. A naturalised person may stand for election as an MP, so they ought to be able to then become PM.
As far as I know, the only current restrictions are that a hereditary peer must relinquish his title (to be able to stand for the Commons) and the Prime Minister cannot be a Roman Catholic.
Those more learned than I may be able to confirm or otherwise.
EDIT: On further research, there is no constitutional barrier to a catholic becoming prime minister - merely some awkwardness over the State functions of such a PM advising HM Queen on Anglican Bishops.
Originally Posted by econ21:
It varies by party. With Labour, I think candidates need 50 signatures from MPs and then the names are put to an "electoral college" - ie there is balloting among MPs, party members and Trade Unions, where each of the three parts get a share of a total vote (30:30:40 AFAIK). I may be wrong though. I would imagine the ballot would be synchronised with a party congress, so the new leader can be inaugurated to the acclaim of the party faithful.
Sounds familiar. Minus trade unions getting a vote. For us all party members get an equal vote.It varies by party. With Labour, I think candidates need 50 signatures from MPs and then the names are put to an "electoral college" - ie there is balloting among MPs, party members and Trade Unions, where each of the three parts get a share of a total vote (30:30:40 AFAIK). I may be wrong though. I would imagine the ballot would be synchronised with a party congress, so the new leader can be inaugurated to the acclaim of the party faithful.
Originally Posted by lars573:
Sounds familiar. Minus trade unions getting a vote. For us all party members get an equal vote.
I think the Liberal Democrats and recently the Conservatives have one member one vote (although with the Tories, only the two candidates with the most MP votes are put on the ballot paper). Sounds familiar. Minus trade unions getting a vote. For us all party members get an equal vote.
With the Labour Party, there was a fear that the party members might push the party too far to the left (perhaps not unlike the Conservative party members electing a mediocre right wing stiff - Ian Duncan-Holmes - as their leader at the first opportunity). Plus the affiliated trade unions still bankroll the party to some degree and of course created it about a 100 years ago. Trade unions are now required to ballot their members, so this will involve more of the public than just covering individual party members.
BTW: I was wrong about the 30:30:40 split - it's now a third each.
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost:
As far as I know, the only current restrictions are that a hereditary peer must relinquish his title (to be able to stand for the Commons) and the Prime Minister cannot be a Roman Catholic.
Just to pluck this out for a moment, Hereditary Peers.As far as I know, the only current restrictions are that a hereditary peer must relinquish his title (to be able to stand for the Commons) and the Prime Minister cannot be a Roman Catholic.
Consider, the traditional far to the commons is based on the "one man one vote" principle. Hereditary, and other peers, have the right to sit in the Lords and therefore cannot partake of elections of sit in the Commons.
Here's the thing, if I lost my seat in the Lords in the reforms I should be able to keep my family title but still vote in elections and sit in the Commons, otherwise you're denying me my human rights.
Thread Ratings provided by
Thread Ratings (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO