Accountable wrote: Only in America can people despair of being poverty stricken because they can only afford basic cable.
Maybe it's time people get perspective about poverty. But I agree about our homefront.
Those that can afford "basic" cable are really well to do, in respect to the homeless, & the millions of people that do have a meager home, (with "no" cable)but are having trouble putting food on the table, clothes on their backs, paying for their day to day living expenses, getting needed script meds, (having to decide whether to buy food or their needed script meds) and the like.
America gives "Billions" of handout aid overseas, here a person has to be dying & go through tons of "red tape" before they can get a little "limited" aid, if at all.
The Americans
The Americans
Cars 
The Americans
Raven wrote: What would be the point? Isnt he due to leave office soon?
Unlike your president there is no limit to how long he can stay in office so long as he has support. I wouldn't give him long though, I also reckon it will be a long time before the labour party recovers, they are`losing support where it matters at grass roots level and are becoming increasingly isolated from the electorate. That's my opinion anyway.
posted by openmind
Unfortunately, I don't know enough about politics to answer that. However, I would guess that having a single presidency without a Monarch would speed up the process of enactment since there would be no need to go through a House of Lords. The House of Commons would become the Supreme lawmaker and would have control of the legal system.
There are probably other more relevant advantages, but I don't know them.
The house of commons IS the supreme lawmaker already. They can make any laws they like. The executive is the cabinet led by the pm but they answer to parliament. The problem with TB is he is acting as if he IS a president taking advantage of the situation to run the country. Parliament needs to reassert itself and reminf him who is boss. The house of Lords acts as a useful check on the commons and most of the amendments they make are accepoted by the commons because they make sense, not because they have to acceot them because the lords say so.
The monarchy has no real power, were she ever to go against parliament and refuse to ratify a bill she would be gone five minutes later. She's a figurehead. We have no written constitution so nothing is cast in stone and we doin't have to worry what the founders meant hence no legalistic debates aboit what canb or cannot be done only the will of the people making their wishes felt through the ballot box. It would be a mistake I think to assume TB will get away with another election or Gordon Brown gets in as the next prime minister
posted by raven
The lack of 'britishness' is causing a serious depression amongst those whose heritage it is. But only you yourselves can fix that. Insist on being proud of who you are and all that entails. Without Great Britain as an anchor of identity, can you just imagine what would happen to the world?
What lack of Britishness? one of the main features of the British is the way they have embraced new ideas and immigrants from all over the place down throughouit the centuries. You can't look at any period of British history without finding influences from abroad and immigrants form abroad. We have always taken in refugees, especially when they have skills we needed. Our industrial revolution that starting with weaving and cloth manufacture was on the back of weavers from europe fleeing religious repression in their own countries. One of the most famous explorers of tudor times John Cabot was actually genoese. We do badly when we look inward and cling to the past.
You usually find those who lament the loss of Britishness know very little indeed about their own history. We are truly a mongrel nation and all the better for it.
If you go from Essex, to Lancashire to Yoprkshire to Scotland you will find four very different sets oif britishness. The idea of briutishness is absurd.
Heritage and history by their very nature must fade away in to the background, doesn't mean you can't know them but our heritage is not just the monarchy it's the poorhouse and social reform and religious warfare and slums and poverty, anmd imperialism just as it is all around europe. The communist manifeso was first printed in london-that also is part of our heritage whether you like it or not
just look at the English language, take out all the "foreign" words and made up words -television etc and we would be grunting at each other and pointing at things. It's one of the most eclectic the world has ever known.
Unlike your president there is no limit to how long he can stay in office so long as he has support. I wouldn't give him long though, I also reckon it will be a long time before the labour party recovers, they are`losing support where it matters at grass roots level and are becoming increasingly isolated from the electorate. That's my opinion anyway.
posted by openmind
Unfortunately, I don't know enough about politics to answer that. However, I would guess that having a single presidency without a Monarch would speed up the process of enactment since there would be no need to go through a House of Lords. The House of Commons would become the Supreme lawmaker and would have control of the legal system.
There are probably other more relevant advantages, but I don't know them.
The house of commons IS the supreme lawmaker already. They can make any laws they like. The executive is the cabinet led by the pm but they answer to parliament. The problem with TB is he is acting as if he IS a president taking advantage of the situation to run the country. Parliament needs to reassert itself and reminf him who is boss. The house of Lords acts as a useful check on the commons and most of the amendments they make are accepoted by the commons because they make sense, not because they have to acceot them because the lords say so.
The monarchy has no real power, were she ever to go against parliament and refuse to ratify a bill she would be gone five minutes later. She's a figurehead. We have no written constitution so nothing is cast in stone and we doin't have to worry what the founders meant hence no legalistic debates aboit what canb or cannot be done only the will of the people making their wishes felt through the ballot box. It would be a mistake I think to assume TB will get away with another election or Gordon Brown gets in as the next prime minister
posted by raven
The lack of 'britishness' is causing a serious depression amongst those whose heritage it is. But only you yourselves can fix that. Insist on being proud of who you are and all that entails. Without Great Britain as an anchor of identity, can you just imagine what would happen to the world?
What lack of Britishness? one of the main features of the British is the way they have embraced new ideas and immigrants from all over the place down throughouit the centuries. You can't look at any period of British history without finding influences from abroad and immigrants form abroad. We have always taken in refugees, especially when they have skills we needed. Our industrial revolution that starting with weaving and cloth manufacture was on the back of weavers from europe fleeing religious repression in their own countries. One of the most famous explorers of tudor times John Cabot was actually genoese. We do badly when we look inward and cling to the past.
You usually find those who lament the loss of Britishness know very little indeed about their own history. We are truly a mongrel nation and all the better for it.
If you go from Essex, to Lancashire to Yoprkshire to Scotland you will find four very different sets oif britishness. The idea of briutishness is absurd.
Heritage and history by their very nature must fade away in to the background, doesn't mean you can't know them but our heritage is not just the monarchy it's the poorhouse and social reform and religious warfare and slums and poverty, anmd imperialism just as it is all around europe. The communist manifeso was first printed in london-that also is part of our heritage whether you like it or not
just look at the English language, take out all the "foreign" words and made up words -television etc and we would be grunting at each other and pointing at things. It's one of the most eclectic the world has ever known.
The Americans
OpenMind wrote: They have fought hard against the Government for recognition of their status as independent nations and the right to govern theirselves within the UK. England has become complacent as it has nothing to fight accept itself.
Just a thought........but isnt Scotland, Wales and Cornwall basically the folks that were here BEFORE the angles and the saxons? Perhaps genetics plays a bigger role in current events than was at first thought. Because they have finally got what they have fought centuries for, with their identity intact. Have you ever wondered why those nations celebrate their own saints whilst england does not?
Just a thought........but isnt Scotland, Wales and Cornwall basically the folks that were here BEFORE the angles and the saxons? Perhaps genetics plays a bigger role in current events than was at first thought. Because they have finally got what they have fought centuries for, with their identity intact. Have you ever wondered why those nations celebrate their own saints whilst england does not?
~Quoth the Raven, Nevermore!~
The Americans
Raven wrote: Just a thought........but isnt Scotland, Wales and Cornwall basically the folks that were here BEFORE the angles and the saxons? Perhaps genetics plays a bigger role in current events than was at first thought. Because they have finally got what they have fought centuries for, with their identity intact. Have you ever wondered why those nations celebrate their own saints whilst england does not?
Several years ago, tests were made on schoolchildren in Wales. This involved taking their DNA and examining the mitochondrial DNA within the main DNA. The results were astonishing as none of the children showed a trace of any lineage from the Picts and Celts. Cornwall, likewise was overrun by the Saxons as they were driven out by the Normans. Scotland and Ireland I have no info for. However, they are also fully integrated societies and it is likely that similar results would be recorded for them as well. (One of the facts of life that tickle me pink is listening to the broad Scottish accent of an Indian.)
Several years ago, tests were made on schoolchildren in Wales. This involved taking their DNA and examining the mitochondrial DNA within the main DNA. The results were astonishing as none of the children showed a trace of any lineage from the Picts and Celts. Cornwall, likewise was overrun by the Saxons as they were driven out by the Normans. Scotland and Ireland I have no info for. However, they are also fully integrated societies and it is likely that similar results would be recorded for them as well. (One of the facts of life that tickle me pink is listening to the broad Scottish accent of an Indian.)
The Americans
The house of commons IS the supreme lawmaker already. They can make any laws they like. The executive is the cabinet led by the pm but they answer to parliament. The problem with TB is he is acting as if he IS a president taking advantage of the situation to run the country. Parliament needs to reassert itself and reminf him who is boss. The house of Lords acts as a useful check on the commons and most of the amendments they make are accepoted by the commons because they make sense, not because they have to acceot them because the lords say so.
You certainly appear to have done your homework, GMC. Thank you for the lesson.
I swear that I learn more here on this forum than I ever did at school.
You certainly appear to have done your homework, GMC. Thank you for the lesson.
I swear that I learn more here on this forum than I ever did at school.
The Americans
Point of parlimentary procedure! I second that motion!:D
All the world's a stage and the men and women merely players...Shakespeare