fat_boy wrote:
No sh*t.
Then stop talking as if they do.
fat_boy wrote:
he PM has almost total power, at least while having popular support of his/her party
Our President often is the titular head of the minority party. It doesn't matter. He has, as I said, far more power and far less responsibility to the legislature.
fat_boy wrote:
The Queens spower can only be influential, and while she has the right to dissolve government would only do so in the most extreme of situations
Not quite sure why you bring her up. I certainly have never thought of her as anything more than a figurehead - kind of like our Washington Monument. ;)
fat_boy wrote:
Dont mistake the fact that the party will ellect a leader who is popular to the people, and also dont forget the party is composed of huge sections of the general population all of whoom have as much a say regarding the parties leader as electing a government
It still boils down to who gets 50%+1 votes in the House of Commons. The Labour Party may indeed permit input from others into the selection, but when push comes to shove, the selection is made by the MPs who belong either to the majority of to the coalition that forms a majority. And it can be remade at the drop of a hat by means of a negative outcome on designated votes.
fat_boy wrote:
And also dont forget that with maturity comes the narrowing of extremes, so there really isnt much choice in the UK anyway. Blair was as right wing as Thatcher in many ways.
As one of the more mature regs, I prefer to think of it as the wisdom conferred by the grace of age. :laugh:
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.