Post #84,554
2/27/03 3:42:34 AM
|
I don't believe many people here would seriously accept
Marlowes position on this.
He may or may not grasp the way British palimentary votes are cast.
I don't expect many Americans understand the significance of a back-bench revolt & the extent that this one was.
I am happy to ascribe his comments to excessive enthusiasm for a religious stance (his) on Blair's wonderful commitment to support George W Bush and how magnificent it was that Blair did not suffer a more humiliating level of back-bench revolt.
But by way of explanation to people not familiar with the term. In British politics the governing party form a government made up of a PM & cabinet and a front-bench. The cabinet is the governing inside circle made up from senior front-bench people who are usually ministers responsible for some ministry.
The back-bench are the other members of parliment for the governing party. At times the PM will 'shuffle' the cabinet or front-bench & may promote promising back-benchers.
When votes are held back-benchers are freer that front-benchers to vote against the Govt in a house vote (this can be seen as voting against the PM). Members of the front-bench may get sacked if they do so. But, back-benchers are far more likely to follow the majority opinion of their electorates as they know only too well that if they vote against the people who elected them & the people don't forget, they will be ousted in the next election.
When 88 plus back-benchers revolt, it is usually considered a serious challenge to the authority of the PM.
Now if, as Marlowe (unbelievably) said, Blair were to change sides. He would be fired as PM & replaced. Labor has a big majority. So Marlowe's remarks about the Labor party are naive in the extreme, as it is they who nominate people to stand for the party & Blair is merely the most senior person they chose.
Doug Marker
|
Post #84,569
2/27/03 7:27:15 AM
|
Fired and replaced?
Until the next election? Then what?
All he has to do is wait until re-election time, then blow off the irrelevant party.
No oil for TotalFinaElf!
CHICKENHAWK! Scourge of clucking hens everywhere!
Victory is the answer. There are no alternatives.
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfire...arlowe/index.html]
|
Post #84,571
2/27/03 7:32:08 AM
2/27/03 8:08:28 AM
|
Sorry, but how about an intelligent response ?????
Boxley, Another Scott, ??? tell me this guy is for real
Doug
#2 removed grin, I am no longer amused nor tolerant of the level of banality this twit brings to the table. Either he is a serial idiot posting garbage just to offend and to occupy space or he is an intelligent person with a serious point of view - If anyone here can defend him on this issue please do so as my patience & tolerance is at and end. How long do we put up with it.
Edited by dmarker
Feb. 27, 2003, 07:44:59 AM EST
Edited by dmarker
Feb. 27, 2003, 08:08:28 AM EST
|
Post #84,572
2/27/03 7:33:26 AM
2/27/03 7:45:33 AM
|
Duplicate
Edited by dmarker
Feb. 27, 2003, 07:45:33 AM EST
|
Post #84,601
2/27/03 9:16:42 AM
|
forever
You don't like what he says, don't read it.
For myself, I will rarely respond to his trolling anymore. But occasionally, interesting threads get started in response to his inflammatory remarks. Don't get upset because he remains the same despite all evidence to the contrary. That's what true believers do.
How many lives per gallon?
--Sign outside of various churches
|
Post #84,651
2/27/03 2:13:25 PM
|
I think he's "for real".
He has experience with ONE form of government of ONE nation in which he's lived in ONE town.
He doesn't understand different cultures, different people or even different forms of government.
To Marlowe, everyone wants to be American.
Those who claim they don't are just jealous because they know they will never be.
|
Post #84,583
2/27/03 8:49:46 AM
|
indications are he would have a hard time getting elected
as dog catcher much less finding enough votes for the conservative party to win.
thanx,
bill
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
\ufffdOmni Gaul Delenda est!\ufffd Ceasar
|
Post #84,586
2/27/03 8:55:53 AM
|
You really have no clue about parliaments, do you
If that happened, chances are good that the Labour party would return to power. I don't know if you've checked lately, but the vast majority of Britons are against going to war in Iraq. Losing Blair (and then splitting from the US position) would improve Labour's election prospects, not damage them. --\r\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca *\r\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca] [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\r\n* Kingston Ontario Canada [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\r\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Post #84,758
2/27/03 11:48:43 PM
|
He really doesn't
M doesn't talk such a bad game as jingoes go, but every now and again he betrays, as here, a ludicrous gap in his comprehension of the way the world is put together--in this instance comically compounded by his innocent failure to remain silent when he was first called on it. This just in, Marlowe: when you find yourself in a hole, you stop digging.
mirthfully,
"Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist."
|
Post #84,759
2/27/03 11:53:19 PM
|
I kindly told him once before ...
Not to dig his own grave with his tongue.
Ahhh well, we can only but try.
Cheers
Doug
|
Post #84,966
2/28/03 7:44:49 PM
|
Well, here's how it works
He would no longer be PM. The Labour Party would select a new leader, and that person would become PM. The likelihood of the Conservative Party making him leader would approach 0; it's extremely unlikely that they would take the person who was disloyal to his party and make them the leader of their party... such a move smacks of political opportunism, and in parliamentary democracies, the person who would do that is not to be trusted in a party. Then, come election time (and him voluntarily leaving the party would NOT be a pretext for calling an election) it would be the luck of the vote as to whether the person who is leading the Conservative Party would become PM... who would almost certainly NOT be Tony Blair.
For him to do that would be comitting political suicide.
--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca] [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Post #85,027
2/28/03 11:26:44 PM
|
More to the point, in the history of Brit politics ...
No PM has *ever* left office to join the opposition let alone imagined they could be immediately the oppositions choice of PM.
Churchill left the Libs after WW1 to join the Tories but went into the political wilderness for 25 years.
Cheers
Doug
|
Post #85,034
3/1/03 3:39:56 AM
|
Like I said... chances approaching the limit of 0
--\r\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca *\r\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca] [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\r\n* Kingston Ontario Canada [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\r\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
|
