| Author |
Message |
darkness39
Guest
|
 Posted:
Tue Nov 01, 2005 3:38 pm Post subject:
Re: NoEd |
|
|
No the UK is a multi party state. There are 3 (4) national parties in
Parliament: Labour, Tories, Liberal Democrats, (Respect).
The other national minority parties are British National Party (far
right), Moslem People's Party, Kashmiri Liberation Party (there are a
few others).
The only regional parties in Parliament are the Northern Irish ones:
Ulster Unionists and the Sinn Fein (the political wing of the
provisional Irish Republican Army (as distinct from the official IRA)).
The Scottish and Welsh Nationalists dominate in their own regional
parliaments (which are much less powerful than any State House) but
AFAIK they have no nationally elected politicians (SNP might have a
couple).
Then of course there is the European Parliament, where all of the above
parties have representation (system of voting is different and more
pure proportional representation).
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Herb
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Nov 01, 2005 4:03 pm Post subject:
Re: NoEd |
|
|
"darkness39" <darkness39@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1130837639.258825.10600@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
| Quote: | Actually, noise aside, Mass always struck me as surprisingly
conservative. Long string of Republican governors, and the social
policies are anything but 'liberal'. Tax burden is actually something
like 20th in the Union.
It gets its liberal reputation in the same way that the rest of the
country views Texas as the arch-conservative state (the state with the
most executions, etc). ie there has to be a 'liberal' state, and the
Kennedy's are in Mass, so it gets designated as such.
What Mass is, is a state where blue collar, Catholic, union voters and
political institutions retain power, whereas in most of the rest of the
US that New Deal political bloc has been consigned to history. Couple
that with a very high level of post secondary and post graduate
education (and post graduates tend to vote Democrat, wherever they are
in the US), and you get the 'people's republic'.
An outsider's impression to be sure.
|
And not entirely inaccurate but there is something big that you are missing.
Founded as a religious commonwealth, there is a 385 year old tradition that
the state has an active role to play in people's lives, we are all equal
before the law and the idea that the people as a whole own the state. Even
conservatives expect a high degree of state services and regulation.
We started the revolution by defying our royal governor and governors ever
since have been weak figureheads with no real power. The Governor's Council
weilds the authority that many other states' governors hold. With
ridiculously veto-proof majorities in the House and Senate, it is the
Speaker and Senate president who can pass any law they choose and only a
vote of the people can constrain them.
Don't confuse Greens with liberals. They can be rather puritanical and
dogmatic.
-herb |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Herb
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Nov 01, 2005 4:10 pm Post subject:
Re: NoEd |
|
|
"darkness39" <darkness39@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1130837639.258825.10600@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | Our system of government allows for a President from an opposing party
to head the government, while the House and the Senate could be
controlled by the dominant party. In this situation the Presidency is
pretty weak. That's because the real power resides on Capital Hill.
Less and less true, I think-- true in the era of Sam Rayburn and LBJ
(as Senate Majority Leader, not President). Contrast Carter
(Democratic House and Senate) to Reagan who was a much stronger and
more successful President. It's not at all clear now which is more
powerful: it seems to wax and wane. What the President has is a much
greater resource of bureaucracy and appointees.
We have entered the age of the executive, imperial presidency.
You could argue the Gingrich era was the peak of Congressional power,
which is likely to wane now that Tom Delay is in such trouble.
|
It actually seems to run in cycles. Nixon and Clinton were hardly weak
presidents and FDR was as close to a dictator as we ever came. There is
nothing like a disastrous presidency (Nixon, e.g.) to send the pendulum
swinging back in the other direction. The current incumbent is in the
process of going from our worst president to our most unpopular president.
The struggle between Congress and the President for supremacy is designed
into the system with the people acting as the referee. Politicians here can
be counted upon to do whatever it takes to get them reelected.
-herb
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Herb
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Nov 01, 2005 4:10 pm Post subject:
Re: NoEd |
|
|
"darkness39" <darkness39@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1130837887.775219.251350@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | No the UK is a multi party state. There are 3 (4) national parties in
Parliament: Labour, Tories, Liberal Democrats, (Respect).
|
Are you saying that the Liberal Democrats are randomly distributed among the
British Isles? I didn't think that was the case but I don't really know
much about the current makeup of parliament. I thought it was a common
practice, in local constituencies, for opposition parties to agree which
should oppose the government's candidate.
I would be very surprised to learn that, in most districts, every seat is
contested by three viable parties.
Europe is a joke.
-herb |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ed
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Nov 01, 2005 5:01 pm Post subject:
The important stuff |
|
|
"Herb" <XXX@YYY.COM> wrote
| Quote: | I didn't think that was the case but I don't really know
much about the current makeup of parliament.
I thought
|
Herb is admitting that he doesn't know his ass from his elbow. He would just
like you to believe otherwise. He is a troll. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ed
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Nov 01, 2005 5:01 pm Post subject:
Re: NoEd |
|
|
"Herb" <XXX@YYY.COM> wrote
| Quote: | we are all equal
before the law
|
I told you he was an idiot. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David Wilkinson
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Nov 01, 2005 5:01 pm Post subject:
Re: NoEd |
|
|
Ed wrote:
| Quote: | "Herb" <XXX@YYY.COM> wrote
we are all equal
before the law
I told you he was an idiot.
To paraphrase Orwell, the more money you have the more equal you are. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Herb
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Nov 02, 2005 12:50 am Post subject:
Re: NoEd |
|
|
"David Wilkinson" <david@wilkinson6337.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:dk7ucs$gfd$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
| Quote: | Ed wrote:
"Herb" <XXX@YYY.COM> wrote
we are all equal
before the law
|
[snip moronic troll quoted, yet again, by David]
| Quote: | To paraphrase Orwell, the more money you have the more equal you are.
|
If you put this quote back into context, I said we have this belief. I
certainly didn't say it was reality.
-herb |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ed
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Nov 02, 2005 1:05 am Post subject:
And Herb continues to prove his stupidity. |
|
|
"Herb" <XXX@YYY.COM> wrote
| Quote: | To paraphrase Orwell, the more money you have the more equal you are.
If you put this quote back into context, I said we have this belief. I
certainly didn't say it was reality.
-herb
|
He needs to get out of that apartment. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
darkness39
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Nov 02, 2005 4:21 pm Post subject:
Re: NoEd |
|
|
Herb wrote:
| Quote: | "darkness39" <darkness39@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1130837639.258825.10600@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
.
You could argue the Gingrich era was the peak of Congressional power,
which is likely to wane now that Tom Delay is in such trouble.
It actually seems to run in cycles. Nixon and Clinton were hardly weak
presidents and FDR was as close to a dictator as we ever came.
|
Hmmm. FDR was stymied (a lot). Are you thinking during WWII? Which I
agree was a separate (and special) case.
My impression is there has been a general strengthening of the
Presidency relative to the Congress.
I agree it is cyclical, although in reality Clinton did very little
that wasn't Congressionally mandated or driven: he was just a master at
starting behind the curve, and getting ahead of it.
There is
| Quote: | nothing like a disastrous presidency (Nixon, e.g.) to send the pendulum
swinging back in the other direction. The current incumbent is in the
process of going from our worst president to our most unpopular president.
|
FWIW I think he will spring back. He is surrounded by a very powerful
and politically adept family and he himself is not *personally*
unpopular. By which I mean people (I'm not talking the 30% of
Americans who are liberals, I am talking middle America) don't hate him
personally although there are questions re his competence*. To the
extent that James Baker and others can be brought back into the fold,
they may be able to rescue him.
I have an uncanny feeling that this is what, for the right, a Teddy
Kennedy Presidency would have been like for the left. ie a standard
bearer, who then comes ashore shipwrecked on reality.
GWB I think will bounce back at the next clear crisis: eg a terrorist
attack on the US mainland. Already his latest Supreme Court
appointment is shrewd.
History is full of politicians who seemed unpopular because the
intelligentsia and opinion formers couldn't 'get' him (I am thinking eg
Herr Kohl of Germany and Schroeder more recently) but who keep bouncing
back and winning because the marginal voter, the guy in the street,
thinks their heart is in the right place and he is 'one of them'.
This is the sort of test that defines a successful politician, that
ability to reach over the talking heads of media, politics and into the
heads of the voters.
I don't think anyone personally implicates him in Plamegate. I doubt
the public even understands the issues (Watergate had a break-in and
easy to understand wrongdoing). And I doubt Rove will take the fall.
| Quote: |
The struggle between Congress and the President for supremacy is designed
into the system with the people acting as the referee. Politicians here can
be counted upon to do whatever it takes to get them reelected.
|
As in all countries ;-).
* one very odd thing, though. The National Enquirer says he has
started drinking again. I have talked to friends who are in AA, they
say it is almost impossible for someone who has not sought the help of
an organisation like AA to stay dry and AFAIK Bush has not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Herb
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Nov 02, 2005 11:21 pm Post subject:
Re: NoEd |
|
|
"darkness39" <darkness39@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1130926897.163467.211300@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | * one very odd thing, though. The National Enquirer says he has
started drinking again. I have talked to friends who are in AA, they
say it is almost impossible for someone who has not sought the help of
an organisation like AA to stay dry and AFAIK Bush has not.
|
The National Enquirer also says that people have had aliens' babies and that
Bigfoot is real. That said, I have often thought the same things as your
friends. AA has about a 40% success rate (most other programs are closer to
20%). It is hard to imagine someone just curing themselves with no support,
whatever.
I wouldn't underestimate the power of an unpopular war to erode the personal
popularity of the President who got us into it.
-herb |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
darkness39
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Nov 03, 2005 1:01 am Post subject:
Re: NoEd |
|
|
Herb wrote:
| Quote: | "darkness39" <darkness39@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1130926897.163467.211300@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
* one very odd thing, though. The National Enquirer says he has
started drinking again. I have talked to friends who are in AA, they
say it is almost impossible for someone who has not sought the help of
an organisation like AA to stay dry and AFAIK Bush has not.
The National Enquirer also says that people have had aliens' babies and that
Bigfoot is real.
|
AFAICR it was the tabloids which said that Clinton had had an affair
with a staff member, and she was about to go public. It was dismissed
at the time.
The tabloids also did a better job on OJ Simpson than the Broadsheets
(there was a very good 'Frontline' recently on the OJ trial) and on
that missing intern (Chandra something and Gary Condit?).
They are the odd mix of the fantastical, and a kind of digging, gutter
journalism that the mainstream press no longer sullies itself with.
Better to be Judith Miller and rely on your 'high level sources'.
That said, I have often thought the same things as your
| Quote: | friends. AA has about a 40% success rate (most other programs are closer to
20%). It is hard to imagine someone just curing themselves with no support,
whatever.
|
GWB did have the personal intervention of Billy Graham. He is not
lying when he says that faith saved him (and Laura).
www.markarkleiman.com/archives/gwb_the_beloved_leader_/2005/09/should_we_care_if_bush_is_drinking_again.php
(for some reason, the posting doesn't appear properly in my browser.
Kleiman's site I have to read with Firefox rather than MS Internet
Explorer).
Kleiman is a Clinton Democrat, but not a wishy washy one (he reminds me
of some of the neocons before they became Republicans) eg he is anti
gun control (his analysis of the data says it will make no difference
to crime). His stuff on drug policy is very sensible.
If the story is true, it is the first time I ever felt real sympathy
for GWB. It gives credence to a view of the man that I have argued
vociferously against: ie as a guy who is just out of his depth. I have
always argued that he is a shrewd politician who has known *exactly*
what he was doing and that liberals do themselves a disservice by
sneering at him: I remember too well the Reagan era, when it was
fashionable to sneer at Ronnie, too, but he outsmarted just about
everyone. And based on personal experience it seems to be a Texan
thing to act folksy, but play hardball smart.
I remember too well what Nixon was like at the end of his days.
Defence Secretary Schlesinger went so far as to make special
arrangements with the carrier of the 'Football' nuclear switch, so that
Schlesinger would be consulted if Nixon tried to launch nuclear war on
his own.
| Quote: |
I wouldn't underestimate the power of an unpopular war to erode the personal
popularity of the President who got us into it.
|
GWB has exit options, but none palatable. He seems more and more like
LBJ every day, although of course the agony is only a fraction of the
size. I don't remember where we were, though, in terms of Americans
dead at this point in Vietnam -- middle of 1966? The only good news is
the insurgents are not the VC.
I doubt his 'opposition' (if the Democrats really function in that role
any more) will be able to make political hay out of it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Norm De Plume
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Nov 03, 2005 5:01 pm Post subject:
Re: NoEd |
|
|
Herb wrote:
| Quote: | "darkness39" <darkness39@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1130926897.163467.211300@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
* one very odd thing, though. The National Enquirer says he has
started drinking again.
The National Enquirer also says that people have had aliens' babies and that
Bigfoot is real.
|
You have lost all credibility with that statement because everybody
knows it's not the National Enquirer but the Weekly World news that
runs stories about alien babies and Bigfoot. The Enquirer concentrates
on celebrity scandals, although a few years ago its cover story was
about Enron; this was during the week when the far more dignified Wall
Street Journal printed a front page story about transvestite
prostitutes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Herb
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 04, 2005 12:31 am Post subject:
Re: NoEd |
|
|
"Norm De Plume" <norm_de_plume@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1131016997.616157.125450@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: |
Herb wrote:
"darkness39" <darkness39@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1130926897.163467.211300@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
* one very odd thing, though. The National Enquirer says he has
started drinking again.
The National Enquirer also says that people have had aliens' babies and
that
Bigfoot is real.
You have lost all credibility with that statement because everybody
knows it's not the National Enquirer but the Weekly World news that
runs stories about alien babies and Bigfoot. The Enquirer concentrates
on celebrity scandals, although a few years ago its cover story was
about Enron; this was during the week when the far more dignified Wall
Street Journal printed a front page story about transvestite
prostitutes.
|
It's true that I haven't read the Enquirer in many years. It has apparently
come a ways.
-herb |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in