The_Kincardine Posted May 1, 2017 Share Posted May 1, 2017 2 minutes ago, Shades75 said: Will you write to every newspaper, journalist.... That your understanding of our constitution is driven by Red Top headlines is verging on tragic. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shades75 Posted May 1, 2017 Share Posted May 1, 2017 6 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said: My recollection of the 2010 election was that Lizzy didn't send for Cameron until after Brown tendered his resignation as PM. Brown remained PM until that moment. If he had refused to resign, I believe it would have taken a confidence motion tat WM to remove him? Accordingly, I would suggest that Lizzy's duties are simply to welcome the winner to the office of PM, not to pick and choose who gets it. Yes, that's the point. To take Kincy's argument to where it should, logically, go, the Queen should be able to make anyone she wants Prime minister. But she can't. If the electorate don't choose who the PM is, and she can't choose, then who the f**k does choose? The voters. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shades75 Posted May 1, 2017 Share Posted May 1, 2017 1 minute ago, The_Kincardine said: That your understanding of our constitution is driven by Red Top headlines is verging on tragic. Au contraire. The Telegraph will say, and believe - as will it's readers, the very same. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted May 1, 2017 Share Posted May 1, 2017 1 minute ago, Shades75 said: To take Kincy's argument to where it should, logically, go, the Queen should be able to make anyone she wants Prime minister. But she can't. If the electorate don't choose who the PM is, and she can't choose, then who the f**k does choose? The voters. She can, of course. This is why we've had a minority government. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shades75 Posted May 1, 2017 Share Posted May 1, 2017 (edited) 5 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said: She can, of course. This is why we've had a minority government. The leader of the party with the largest share of the vote. Edited May 1, 2017 by Shades75 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lichtgilphead Posted May 1, 2017 Share Posted May 1, 2017 4 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said: She can, of course. This is why we've had a minority government. ????? Are you referring to the 2010 GE? That resulted in a formal coalition, not a minority government. The clue would be all these Lib Dems in the cabinet. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted May 1, 2017 Share Posted May 1, 2017 Just now, Shades75 said: The leader of the largest party. No..hence the appointment of a minority govt. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted May 1, 2017 Share Posted May 1, 2017 1 minute ago, lichtgilphead said: ????? Are you referring to the 2010 GE? That resulted in a formal coalition, not a minority government. The clue would be all these Lib Dems in the cabinet. Not at all. The 1974 situation when Her Maj appointed Heath who then resigned. Either way, it doesn't matter. The notion that we elect a PM and such a view is justified by Red Top dross is ignorant on all levels 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shades75 Posted May 1, 2017 Share Posted May 1, 2017 (edited) 7 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said: Not at all. The 1974 situation when Her Maj appointed Heath who then resigned. Either way, it doesn't matter. The notion that we elect a PM and such a view is justified by Red Top dross is ignorant on all levels That you read the first few words of a post and based your argument on that takes ignorance off the scale. That you ignored the rest and peddled this untruth is rather ironic, to say the least. At least be consistent. Edited May 1, 2017 by Shades75 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lichtgilphead Posted May 1, 2017 Share Posted May 1, 2017 3 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said: Not at all. The 1974 situation when Her Maj appointed Heath who then resigned. Either way, it doesn't matter. The notion that we elect a PM and such a view is justified by Red Top dross is ignorant on all levels I assume you're referring to the February 1974 election? If you're going to be such a pedant about other points, I would expect you to be precise. In February, Heath didn't resign immediately. He attempted to form a coalition (with the Ulster Unionists & Liberals). As far as I recall, he was never invited to form a Government by Lizzie. This is exactly the scenario I set out above, with Heath & Wilson replacing Brown & Cameron as the main players. Lizzie only invites the winners to form a government after the political parties thrash out agreements. She doesn't pick & choose. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted May 1, 2017 Share Posted May 1, 2017 1 minute ago, lichtgilphead said: Lizzie only invites the winners to form a government after the political parties thrash out agreements. She doesn't pick & choose. Heath was appointed and then resigned so Wilson had a shot and then called a GE. However you interpret it 1974 demonstrates perfectly clearly what everyone knows - we don't elect a PM. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandarilla Posted May 1, 2017 Share Posted May 1, 2017 Heath was appointed and then resigned so Wilson had a shot and then called a GE. However you interpret it 1974 demonstrates perfectly clearly what everyone knows - we don't elect a PM. We definitely do not elect a pm. But you get yourself into a right mess by denying that Scotland is under the rule of wm. Time and time and time again Scotland votes a different way and has to accept the consequences. The fact that at times the pm is Scottish makes absolutely no difference. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lichtgilphead Posted May 1, 2017 Share Posted May 1, 2017 1 minute ago, The_Kincardine said: Heath was appointed and then resigned so Wilson had a shot and then called a GE. However you interpret it 1974 demonstrates perfectly clearly what everyone knows - we don't elect a PM. Proof please. The election was Thursday 28th February. The results were in on Friday 1st March Jeremy Thorpe refused to enter coalition on Sunday 3rd March Heath resigned on Monday 4th March. When exactly was he appointed? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted May 1, 2017 Share Posted May 1, 2017 5 minutes ago, pandarilla said: We definitely do not elect a pm. But you get yourself into a right mess by denying that Scotland is under the rule of wm. Time and time and time again Scotland votes a different way and has to accept the consequences. The fact that at times the pm is Scottish makes absolutely no difference. This is a nonsensical phrase - almost as daft as "we elect a PM". In WM elections there's no way for Scotland to vote and nor should there be. That we've had about a dozen Scottish PMs - out of all proportion to our size as a country - makes nonsense of the trope that I originally took exception to that they are, "keeping us under WM rule". In truth we've punched above our weight in Westminster. Part of the proof of that is the number of Scottish PMs. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topcat(The most tip top) Posted May 1, 2017 Share Posted May 1, 2017 You better get a full stop in there, he'll be along in a minute. All my posts are actually experimental poetry playing elaborate games with the form.If I've omitted any punctuation then rest assured I've done it on porpoise 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandarilla Posted May 1, 2017 Share Posted May 1, 2017 This is a nonsensical phrase - almost as daft as "we elect a PM". In WM elections there's no way for Scotland to vote and nor should there be. That we've had about a dozen Scottish PMs - out of all proportion to our size as a country - makes nonsense of the trope that I originally took exception to that they are, "keeping us under WM rule". In truth we've punched above our weight in Westminster. Part of the proof of that is the number of Scottish PMs. So now you're denying that Scotland can vote a different way from rUK? Are we all just imagining it? Number of MPs from Scotland? Is that not a thing?Let's just admit it comes back to whether or not you believe Scotland is a nation or just a region? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted May 1, 2017 Share Posted May 1, 2017 1 minute ago, pandarilla said: So now you're denying that Scotland can vote a different way from rUK? Are we all just imagining it? Number of MPs from Scotland? Is that not a thing?Let's just admit it comes back to whether or not you believe Scotland is a nation or just a region? In WM elections? Makes no odds. Scotland has no regional vote nor should it. We all cast our vote for our constituency candidate and to say 'Scotland didn't vote for x party' is crass as no one votes for a party. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shades75 Posted May 1, 2017 Share Posted May 1, 2017 2 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said: This is a nonsensical phrase - almost as daft as "we elect a PM". In WM elections there's no way for Scotland to vote and nor should there be. That we've had about a dozen Scottish PMs - out of all proportion to our size as a country - makes nonsense of the trope that I originally took exception to that they are, "keeping us under WM rule". In truth we've punched above our weight in Westminster. Part of the proof of that is the number of Scottish PMs. How can Scotland not vote another way than the rest of the UK yet at the same time "punch above it's weight" by having more than it's fair share of PM's? If Scotland is no different to the UK in terms of how it votes, rendering it's geographical borders meaningless, then the notion of "Scottishness" must too be meaningless. That those PM's were Scottish is irrelevant to how Scotland has been represented in WM, if your argument is to be accepted. Only brain-dead, forelock tugging, lickspittles can deny that Scotland makes different choices to other parts of the UK and that these choices are, very often, seen as irrelevant and ignored. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandarilla Posted May 1, 2017 Share Posted May 1, 2017 In WM elections? Makes no odds. Scotland has no regional vote nor should it. We all cast our vote for our constituency candidate and to say 'Scotland didn't vote for x party' is crass as no one votes for a party. Does Scotland return a number of MPs from various parties? Are you going to argue every single pedantic point? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted May 1, 2017 Share Posted May 1, 2017 Just now, Shades75 said: How can Scotland not vote another way than the rest of the UK yet at the same time "punch above it's weight" by having more than it's fair share of PM's? 'Scotland' has no vote in WM elections and to suggest otherwise is silly. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.