Queen distressed by Blair legacy
 

By god, she aint the only one.
CCTV everywhere, lack of liberties, high crime, massive unmetered immigration, need I go on!!

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/que...205078744.html

Re: Queen distressed by Blair legacy
 

If only she'd dismissed the governmnet and called a general election

Re: Queen distressed by Blair legacy
 

or had him executed in 1997

Re: Queen distressed by Blair legacy
 

Would have saved a lot of trouble.

Re: Queen distressed by Blair legacy
 

Why is it reported in an Australian paper and not here?

Can anyone say they are surprised? Can anyone say this makes a difference?

Re: Queen distressed by Blair legacy
 

Well, the Queen (ok her representative) unhappy with the Australian goverment did actually disolve it and call an election.

Re: Queen distressed by Blair legacy
 

isnt the sidney morning herald a murdoch owned paper??

Re: Queen distressed by Blair legacy
 

I believe it is owned by Fairfax Media, part of John Fairfax Holdings Limited.

Re: Queen distressed by Blair legacy
 

Erm, no fan of Blair, but this is such an obvious fabrication.

Unnamed 'friends' who talk in journalismese, who know the subject so closely they tell them their innermost thoughts, but are quite happy to stitch them up to a C division journo :erm:

Re: Queen distressed by Blair legacy
 

As well as the fact that the Queen has no right to interfere with the Government (and she didnt). Other than that I dont think the Royal family has ever really liked Blair + Labour so its a safe article to write anyway.

---------- Post added at 18:55 ---------- Previous post was at 18:52 ----------

It may not be down to Labour, But Crime has been going down since mid 90's in most weathly countrys. Immigration peaked in 2004 and now its starting to come down, also unmetered is quite a emotional word in this context are you refering to illegal immigration which by defination cannot be metered.

Re: Queen distressed by Blair legacy
 

She has every right to interfere, it's her goverment.
She could even dismiss them (oh if only!)

Re: Queen distressed by Blair legacy
 

She can only do that in theory, its not a power she can realistically use anymore. If she did it would pose massive questions over the role of the monarchy and its interference in the democratically elected government using a power which has been ceremonial in the UK for over 100 years.

Just because you could like her to do it because you dislike the current government does not mean it is the right thing to do as I am sure you know.

Re: Queen distressed by Blair legacy
 

Perhaps you aren't aware of the last time those powers were used to remove a goverment?
1975 in Australia.
Just because someone chooses not to do something they are entitled to do, it doesn't mean they are no longer entitled to do it.

Re: Queen distressed by Blair legacy
 

I did say in the UK.

But I am not saying she cannot do it legally, I am saying it would be the most reckless and stupid thing she could do. It would make a mockery out of our political system and it would endanger the idea of the monarcy, giving a massive boost to those who would the UK to turn into a Republic.

You really think a unelected Queen/King should be able to dismiss governments? Bearing in mind that you cant control it so she could just as well dismiss a government you like as one you dont?

Re: Queen distressed by Blair legacy
 

How is reckless and stupid to do the right thing for her people, if things were that bad, it needed her intervention she'd have a duty to act regardless of personal consequences

Re: Queen distressed by Blair legacy
 

Few things the Queen could do would be as reckless and stupid as New Labour have proved to be.

Re: Queen distressed by Blair legacy
 

Of course an unelected monarch should be able to dismiss their goverment!
My god man! Do you really think there should be no stops or checks in goverment to stop Britain becoming a dictatorship?

Look at what could happen if Bliar got his way with his reforms.
Imagine if Labour had been able to seed a majority of members of the Lords sympathetic to him.
With a majority in the commons, they'd have been able to do whatever they liked.
Now imagine if Bliar had aspirations of dictatorship, the majority in the commons would have seen it through, the majority in the Lords would have seen it through (just look at the crazy laws they've managed to get through anyway), are you really happy that there shouldn't be some he couldn't control in the way to prevent anything too drastic, such as removing the right to vote Bliar out?

Re: Queen distressed by Blair legacy
 

[Michael Winner] Calm down, It's only a democracy [/Michael Winner]

:D

Re: Queen distressed by Blair legacy
 

My god dude! How is a unelected monarch being able to dismiss governments at will not a step towards a dictatorship?

Majoritys do not mean they pass whatever their leader wants as Blair as seen multiple times. MP's will not vote to make a dictatorship. Not only that, but your doomsday stituation still needs a lot of ifs and buts. America has checks and balances and every one of them are elected houses. They do fine, Every part of our government should be elected, such as the Lords.

Re: Queen distressed by Blair legacy
 

Germany had too, and look what happened.
Zimbabwe did as well, and South Africa, not forgeting Saddam's Iraq.
It can happen anywhere and without a safety valve they can be impossible to remove from power.

With electable Lords you run the risk that you have with MP's, who are only interested in getting back into power the next time elections come round, rather than doing what is required of them for the interest of the Nation.

America does far from fine, Regan used to have to hold his nose while signing bills simply because of the way their system works in order to get things through he had to add items to bills that he knew would be harmful for the country or undo what he was trying to do.

Re: Queen distressed by Blair legacy
 

The only part of government that has had any credibility for years is the Lords and yet we keep hearing calls from untrustworthy, incompetent, corrupt MP's to abolish it and run it along their lines, please, they should sort their own house out before they start dictating to others

Re: Queen distressed by Blair legacy
 

Since Labour came to power, the Lords have done a better job of keeping loonie laws under control, and representing what the public want, than the goverment have.
No wonder Bliar wants rid of them!
Ironically, due to his ineptitude, it has resulted in the most rebellious house of Lords for a very long time (thank goodness!)

Re: Queen distressed by Blair legacy
 

Yep - there's been plenty of sleaze, corruption and ineptitude involving elected members over recent years. Sadly, being an elected politician is no guarantee of integrity or ability.

---------- Post added at 10:27 ---------- Previous post was at 10:12 ----------

How long has the Monarch had such powers? Not much sign of any dictatorships (well except in Bliar's cabinet).

Re: Queen distressed by Blair legacy
 

And the Lords, who are not held to account come a election are not open to corruption?

---------- Post added at 10:51 ---------- Previous post was at 10:49 ----------

Maybe the Lords are rebellious because they knew Blair was after them? They do not want reform. Comfy lifetime jobs were they are hard to remove. They have the power to make life very difficult for anyone who endangers that.

Re: Queen distressed by Blair legacy
 

Actually they've been rebellious on legitimate issues, such as poorly thoughtout/written bills, look at the RIP act, the fox hunting act, the VCR bill, the bill to force all motorbikes to be registered and have number plates, even if they were built in 1908 and have sat in a museum for the past 50 years or are in pieces in your garage!
This government is appauling when it comes to writing laws, thankfully we have the Lords to hold them to account for it.
We also have the parliment act to hold the Lords to account if they decide to try and prevent bills necessary (banning fox hunting isn't necessary) for the future of the Nation from going through.

Re: Queen distressed by Blair legacy
 

Err they are held accountable, stripped of their peerages in some cases, jailed in others etc

---------- Post added at 11:31 ---------- Previous post was at 11:30 ----------

Exactly, why they would want to wreck something that works perfectly well and is against the majority of the publics wishes is beyond me, another example of New Labour arrogance, telling the plebs that they know what's best for us

Re: Queen distressed by Blair legacy
 

Hmm, when was the last time a member of the commons was held accountable say for lying to the house and taking us to war on false information?

Re: Queen distressed by Blair legacy
 

Re: Queen distressed by Blair legacy
 

It's Labour's yoyo ministerial policy ;)
Run by yoyo's, for yoyo's, in the style of yoyo's

Re: Queen distressed by Blair legacy
 

2 years vote them out. An option not their for the lords.

Re: Queen distressed by Blair legacy
 

You think more elections are the answer to voter apathy? What happens if a Lord and an MP have differing views on the same policy, how much would it undermine the elected MP to have an elected Lord muscling in on constituency matters.

Re: Queen distressed by Blair legacy
 

Just been listening to the candidates for Deputy PM whining on about stuff and promising all sorts. The same old claptrap about how they'll be different, engage with the public, be accountable, solve problems, remedy the failings of the past.

They wonder why the public are apathetic - possibly because we've heard it all too many times before from the same old faces.

The only time these people ever listen to the public is when they need votes!

Re: Queen distressed by Blair legacy
 

I never talked about voter apathy which is really a different topic.

Why do we need to use the same system as MPs for voting in lords? Drastically cut down the amount of lords needed and have 1 lord over multiple areas. So each lord will have around 3/4 mps in their area. The lord would be the representive of the area for national issues while the MP would be local (and national). MP's will have more time on local issues this way and we could cut down on the number of lords we need.

---------- Post added at 14:13 ---------- Previous post was at 14:10 ----------

Its hard to judge what people want until votes. What the public wants is different to what the papers or what the polls say people want. Certianly a government should not govern based on those. The public vote in a government to then make choices for them, if the public dont like it then vote them out in 4 years.

Re: Queen distressed by Blair legacy
 

It's not about what people want, it's about politicians consistently misleading the public and making manifesto pledges they subsequently don't deliver on. The prospect of an election in 4-5 years time is not much consolation to someone who discovers they've been conned.

Re: Queen distressed by Blair legacy
 

If you are proposing more elections, then it's important to consider the peoples current apathy towards voting

Cut down the number of Lords and you dilute the expertise available, also if they have to worry about being elected every couple of years they'd have less time to scrutinise bills

Re: Queen distressed by Blair legacy
 

And when a bill is passed calling on a state of emergency due to bombings etc, and for elections to be suspended?
Imagine if the Lords were elected in 97, you'd have a landslide Labour majority in the commons, and again in the Lords, with no reason not to be sympathetic to Bliar's cabinet.
You'd be stuck with a government that the people can't get rid of.
Add to that your idea of preventing the monarch dissolving government, and we the people are pretty stuffed.

I take it you've seen V for Vendetta?
Remember the part that explains how Norsefire got to power?
We had a certain member of this forum, who when given a list of policies, some good, some blatantly racist, said he saw no reason for voting for that party because of the good policies and ignored the bad ones?
The Lords have a tradition of not preventing bills which were in the manifesto from going through.
Labour (if they weren't so inept) could have used that to gain absolute control of the Lords, and therefore as long as they had a majority in the commons, they'd get bills passed.
How do you vote out a party if elections aren't being held?

Re: Queen distressed by Blair legacy
 

V for Vendetta is a movie/comic, it does not serve as a good warning sign of anything in the future. 1984 is still a better example for a nightmare dictatorship government but even that is not a good example.

Many countrys have a government that all voted in and has not resulted in a totalitarian government. You have a few checks and balances but at the end of day it is rarely in the intrests of the majority for that kind of government. How American governments havent managed to do so? The Republicans have held all 3 houses of power before and did not try to abolish the 2 Term limit for Presidents and install him as a grand leader.

Why would MP's vote on such a system? They have their own agendas to prove. They wont agree to it.

The idea that a unelected body is actually the system stopping a dictatorship is crazy.

Re: Queen distressed by Blair legacy
 

The Queen does in theory hold the right to dissolve Parliament and as head of the armed forces does in theory have the ability to back it up...However as far as I can see she (and her recent predecessors) have had no call to do so..The right conditions have not been pertaining to such an action. :)

Whatever we may think of the policies of recent governments, none of them have been really undemocratic even when we had such close hung Parliamentary votes under Major.However if we ever get a truly hung Parliament I'm sure the Monarch will act to sort matters out by inviting whomever gets the agreement of other parties to make up the government or to go back to the electorate to get a majority.

So in fact she does have power but doesn't see any need to use it leaving it to common sense on our part as a democracy to exercise that democracy. :tu:

Re: Queen distressed by Blair legacy
 

Indeed, in theory at least the Queen can dismiss the individual members of the governement (they are after all members of Her Majesty's Government) and literally appoint anyone she likes in their place. She can also disolve Parliament. But the crucial matter is that Parliament; by law; controls the finances of the country and only Parliament in conjunction with the Monarchy can make or change laws. So no Parliament, no taxes, no taxes, no money to run the country

So although the Queen can choose whoever she wants to be the govenment, unless they can command a majority in Parliament, which effectively means the Commons - directly elected by the people, in practice the Monarch's ability to interfere with the running of the country is severely limited.

Re: Queen distressed by Blair legacy
 

V for Vendetta (the movie not the graphic novel) is a fantastic warning sign for how facists can get into power using fear, and oppression.
Bliar filled his cabinet not with competent ministers, but with his friends and supporters. If someone is willing to put friendship and personal support above the needs of the nation, than it's not that further a step to believe that someone can get to power and fill their cabinet with likeminded individuals who wish to remain in power.
1984 is an example of what can occur under communism, but the details of how it came to power is sketchy at best.

Many more countries have had an fully elected government and ended up under a dictator which the people cannot remove without bloodshed.

Currently there is the whip system, which can make MP's vote for something which is against their principles or their own agenda simply to remain in their jobs. To go against a party whip can mean political suicide.
With a leader hell bent on domination, political suicide can turn into actual suicide (or that's the way it's made to look).

It's crazy to have people who have to worry about campaining for elections, making back room promises (look at Tony's Cronies for those) in order to stay in power and reliant on the leader of the government for their position to be in a position to hold that leader to account.
Its crazy to ignore voter apathy and expect reliable turnouts for even more elections.

We have the commons to make the laws, the Lords to scrutinise the laws, and the monarch to enact the laws.

Re: Queen distressed by Blair legacy
 

Well the situation has not yet arisen in which a monarch might choose to exercise their rights..doesn't mean they don't exist and as for how far reaching they are..well that depends on the people of the country to decide.

Re: Queen distressed by Blair legacy
 

Heres a question... can the queen vote? :erm::confused:

Re: Queen distressed by Blair legacy
 

The Queen can vote, but in practice it is considered unconstitutional for the Monarch to vote in an election.
ParliamentFAQ

Re: Queen distressed by Blair legacy
 

intresting, I think she'd be a liberal myself, maybe green party.:D

Re: Queen distressed by Blair legacy
 

UKIP? :D

Re: Queen distressed by Blair legacy
 

UKIP if you want to. The lady's not for kipping ;)

Re: Queen distressed by Blair legacy
 

LOL maybe SNP, so Phil can have a bit more time at home.;)

Re: Queen distressed by Blair legacy
 

Athens?

Re: Queen distressed by Blair legacy
 

same to you :p:

:D

Re: Queen distressed by Blair legacy
 

I'm curious. If the Queen asked for your advice, which party would you recommend she vote for?

The Tories perhaps? :D

Re: Queen distressed by Blair legacy
 

I would recommend she didn't vote, as it could be seen to influence other voters, and as the Head of State she cannot be seen to be "partial" (imho).

btw, I would not recommend any party to anyone - if people need to be told who to vote for, democracy is doomed; they should make up their own minds, hopefully based upon an informed opinion (not on tabloid headlines, scare-mongering, twisted statistics, and pandering to people's worst insecurities and fears).

Anyway, I'm more of a Whig than a Tory ;)

Re: Queen distressed by Blair legacy
 

How do we know she doesn't vote in secret via post? ;)

Re: Queen distressed by Blair legacy
 

Because "secret ballots" aren't really very secret (unfortunately) - someone would surely sell the info to the Super Soaraway http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:...chives/sun.bmp
The ballot papers contains a serial number: it is possible, but illegal, to trace all the votes to the people who cast them. The number is there to stop electoral fraud (works so well lately).

Re: Queen distressed by Blair legacy
 

I agree that the Queen should not vote, but you have really surprised me in saying that you are more Whig than Tory. Only a few months ago you claimed to have:

A change of heart it seems.

And I also agree that people should not be told who to vote for. But I think it is a little cheeky to suggest that anyone bases their opinions of political parties on anything other than the policies they offer. An honest public political debate would go a long way to ensuring the voters hold informed opinions too. But I don't expect either mainstream politicians or any sector of the mainstream media to play a part in bringing that about!

;)

Re: Queen distressed by Blair legacy
 

No change of heart, my little UKIP-voting chum - I have voted (and continue to vote) Tory, but I favour the Whig (as was) philosophy; since the Whig Party no longer stands for HM Parliament (as it split into the Tory and Liberal Parties in the 1860's), it would be a tad difficult to vote for them, don't you think? ;) I joined the TRG in the early 1980's, and have "leant that way" ever since.

Basing one's vote solely on anything other than a party's policies is like choosing consultants solely on their advertisements/website - I would rather do a bit of research, see what they did previously, talk to previous customers, find out if they delivered; so "a little cheeky to suggest that anyone bases their opinions of political parties on anything other than the policies", no - "common sense", yes.

Re: Queen distressed by Blair legacy
 

Ah the Tory Reform Group. Now I understand where you're coming from. ;)

All common sense, and any voter would be wise to consider the likelihood of any party's policies being carried out as well as the policies themselves. But I wonder who you had in mind when you said that people should make up their own minds "hopefully based upon an informed opinion (not on tabloid headlines, scare-mongering, twisted statistics, and pandering to people's worst insecurities and fears)."

And as for UKIP, I have voted for them in the past (and have never hidden by euphemisms) , and I might in the future. I'll also consider several other parties, but having done my "research" seen "what they did previously", been a "previous customer" (unwilling most of the time) and didn't like what they "delivered", I know I won't be voting for Labour, the Lib Dems or the Tories, and the TRG is a definite turn-off imo!

Re: Queen distressed by Blair legacy
 

I'll vote for any party that can kick out my present long standing MP on the basis he's a useless MP and I'd definitely like a change.

Tho' I suppose I could be quickly changing my mind if they are an even lazier MP. :)