ITN News at Ten

ITN's reporter got right in there at the African Union Conference and tackled Mugabe and South Africa's Thabo Mbeki. Needless to say Mugabe went for the Victim line - "we're not a British colony....etc etc" whilst one of his minders bundled Manyon away. Mbeki just smiled and said he'd nothing to say. Kenya's PM, Raila Odinga, who was not at the conference - if I heard it correctly, was the only politician to condemn Mugabe.

I haven't seen the BBC's effort tonight in regard to the African Union meeting, so if anyone saw it, I'd like to know how in-depth it was. 

No more aid for Africa.

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 22:27:40 +0100, "True Blue" 
wrote:

>ITN News at Ten
>
>ITN's reporter got right in there at the African Union Conference and tackled Mugabe and South Africa's Thabo Mbeki. Needless to say Mugabe went for the Victim line - "we're not a British colony....etc etc" whilst one of his minders bundled Manyon away. Mbeki just smiled and said he'd nothing to say. Kenya's PM, Raila Odinga, who was not at the conference - if I heard it correctly, was the only politician to condemn Mugabe.
>
>I haven't seen the BBC's effort tonight in regard to the African Union meeting, so if anyone saw it, I'd like to know how in-depth it was. 
>
>No more aid for Africa.

If the surrounding countries ,particularly S.A.do nothing now then
they are as bad as Zimbabwe .Apparently there is to be a closed
meeting tomorrow to discuss the problem .

"True Blue"  wrote in message 
news:Dr-dnYZ1PaRe0vTVnZ2dnUVZ8uOdnZ2d@giganews.com...
ITN News at Ten

> ITN's reporter got right in there at the African Union Conference and 
> tackled
> Mugabe and South Africa's Thabo Mbeki. Needless to say Mugabe went for the 
>  > Victim line - "we're not a British colony....etc etc" whilst one of his 
> minders
> bundled Manyon away. Mbeki just smiled and said he'd nothing to say. 
> Kenya's > PM, Raila Odinga, who was not at the conference - if I heard it 
> correctly, was the > only politician to condemn Mugabe.

> I haven't seen the BBC's effort tonight in regard to the African Union 
> meeting, so > if anyone saw it, I'd like to know how in-depth it was.



The BBC said rather haughtily that it was terribly difficult for African 
nations to criticise the election in Zimbabwe as over half the nations of 
that continent have no democratic elections for their head of state anyway.

Strangely though, it didn't seem to occur to them that Britain is the same.

Norman Wells wrote:
> 
> "True Blue"  wrote in message 
> news:Dr-dnYZ1PaRe0vTVnZ2dnUVZ8uOdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> ITN News at Ten
> 
>> ITN's reporter got right in there at the African Union Conference and 
>> tackled
>> Mugabe and South Africa's Thabo Mbeki. Needless to say Mugabe went for 
>> the  > Victim line - "we're not a British colony....etc etc" whilst 
>> one of his minders
>> bundled Manyon away. Mbeki just smiled and said he'd nothing to say. 
>> Kenya's > PM, Raila Odinga, who was not at the conference - if I heard 
>> it correctly, was the > only politician to condemn Mugabe.
> 
>> I haven't seen the BBC's effort tonight in regard to the African Union 
>> meeting, so > if anyone saw it, I'd like to know how in-depth it was.
> 
> 
> 
> The BBC said rather haughtily that it was terribly difficult for African 
> nations to criticise the election in Zimbabwe as over half the nations 
> of that continent have no democratic elections for their head of state 
> anyway.
> 
> Strangely though, it didn't seem to occur to them that Britain is the same.
> 
> 

Eh? Look up *constitutional monarchy UK* then come back

True Blue wrote:
> ITN News at Ten
>  
> ITN's reporter got right in there at the African Union Conference and 
> tackled Mugabe and South Africa's Thabo Mbeki. Needless to say Mugabe 
> went for the Victim line - "we're not a British colony....etc 
> etc" whilst one of his minders bundled Manyon away. Mbeki just smiled 
> and said he'd nothing to say. Kenya's PM, Raila Odinga, who was not at 
> the conference - if I heard it correctly, was the only politician to 
> condemn Mugabe.
>  
> I haven't seen the BBC's effort tonight in regard to the African Union 
> meeting, so if anyone saw it, I'd like to know how in-depth it was.
>  
> No more aid for Africa.
> ** 
> ** 

No more aid? Like that's going to happen.

"Sofa - Spud"  wrote in message 
news:g4blcv$c5t$2@aioe.org...
> True Blue wrote:
>> ITN News at Ten
>>  ITN's reporter got right in there at the African Union Conference and 
>> tackled Mugabe and South Africa's Thabo Mbeki. Needless to say Mugabe 
>> went for the Victim line - "we're not a British colony....etc etc" whilst 
>> one of his minders bundled Manyon away. Mbeki just smiled and said he'd 
>> nothing to say. Kenya's PM, Raila Odinga, who was not at the conference - 
>> if I heard it correctly, was the only politician to condemn Mugabe.
>>  I haven't seen the BBC's effort tonight in regard to the African Union 
>> meeting, so if anyone saw it, I'd like to know how in-depth it was.
>>  No more aid for Africa.
>> ** **
>
> No more aid? Like that's going to happen.

After I pressed the "send" tit, I realised that I'd contradicted my own 
position on Africa. We shouldn't be sending aid *anyway*. It does more harm 
than good.

"Sofa - Spud"  wrote in message 
news:g4blc2$c5t$1@aioe.org...
> Norman Wells wrote:
>>

>>
>> Strangely though, it didn't seem to occur to them that Britain is the 
>> same.
>>
>>
>
> Eh? Look up *constitutional monarchy UK* then come back

The Queen is our head of state and she wasn't democratically elected.
And neither was Gordon Brown.
-- 
Col

Steal a spaceship and head for the sun,
Shoot the stars with a lemonade ray gun.

Col wrote:
> "Sofa - Spud"  wrote in message 
> news:g4blc2$c5t$1@aioe.org...
>> Norman Wells wrote:
> 
>>> Strangely though, it didn't seem to occur to them that Britain is the 
>>> same.
>>>
>>>
>> Eh? Look up *constitutional monarchy UK* then come back
> 
> The Queen is our head of state and she wasn't democratically elected.
> And neither was Gordon Brown.

It's a title only - the power rest with parliament, that's why Charles 
II lost his head. These bods in Africa really do have power.

True Blue wrote:
> 
> "Sofa - Spud"  wrote in message 
> news:g4blcv$c5t$2@aioe.org...
>> True Blue wrote:
>>> ITN News at Ten
>>>  ITN's reporter got right in there at the African Union Conference 
>>> and tackled Mugabe and South Africa's Thabo Mbeki. Needless to say 
>>> Mugabe went for the Victim line - "we're not a British colony....etc 
>>> etc" whilst one of his minders bundled Manyon away. Mbeki just smiled 
>>> and said he'd nothing to say. Kenya's PM, Raila Odinga, who was not 
>>> at the conference - if I heard it correctly, was the only politician 
>>> to condemn Mugabe.
>>>  I haven't seen the BBC's effort tonight in regard to the African 
>>> Union meeting, so if anyone saw it, I'd like to know how in-depth it 
>>> was.
>>>  No more aid for Africa.
>>> ** **
>>
>> No more aid? Like that's going to happen.
> 
> After I pressed the "send" tit, I realised that I'd contradicted my own 
> position on Africa. We shouldn't be sending aid *anyway*. It does more 
> harm than good.

Aren't one of the biggest providers to Zimbabwe? it just goes in mugabes 
  pocket anyway. This country needs massive investment - we ought to cut 
right back for a few years and sort our own country out.

"Sofa - Spud"  wrote in message 
news:g4cjjb$n4j$2@aioe.org...
> Col wrote:
>> "Sofa - Spud"  wrote in message 
>> news:g4blc2$c5t$1@aioe.org...
>>> Norman Wells wrote:
>>
>>>> Strangely though, it didn't seem to occur to them that Britain is the 
>>>> same.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Eh? Look up *constitutional monarchy UK* then come back
>>
>> The Queen is our head of state and she wasn't democratically elected.
>> And neither was Gordon Brown.
>
> It's a title only - the power rest with parliament, that's why Charles II 
> lost his head. These bods in Africa really do have power.

I think you mean Charles I.

To be honest I think that Mr Wells was just picking up on a
technicality. Our head of state *isn't* democratically elected.

Though of course said head of state has no real power and
that lies with parliament which is, of course, what the term
'constitutional monarchy' means.
-- 
Col

Steal a spaceship and head for the sun,
Shoot the stars with a lemonade ray gun.

Col wrote:
> "Sofa - Spud"  wrote in message 
> news:g4cjjb$n4j$2@aioe.org...
>> Col wrote:
>>> "Sofa - Spud"  wrote in message 
>>> news:g4blc2$c5t$1@aioe.org...
>>>> Norman Wells wrote:
>>>>> Strangely though, it didn't seem to occur to them that Britain is the 
>>>>> same.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Eh? Look up *constitutional monarchy UK* then come back
>>> The Queen is our head of state and she wasn't democratically elected.
>>> And neither was Gordon Brown.
>> It's a title only - the power rest with parliament, that's why Charles II 
>> lost his head. These bods in Africa really do have power.
> 
> I think you mean Charles I.
> 
> To be honest I think that Mr Wells was just picking up on a
> technicality. Our head of state *isn't* democratically elected.
> 
> Though of course said head of state has no real power and
> that lies with parliament which is, of course, what the term
> 'constitutional monarchy' means.

you don't say:)

On a serious note it's pointless talking to these nutcases in Africa - 
nothings going to change, never has never will.

On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 08:22:32 +0100, Sofa - Spud
 wrote:

>Col wrote:
>> "Sofa - Spud"  wrote in message 
>> news:g4cjjb$n4j$2@aioe.org...
>>> Col wrote:
>>>> "Sofa - Spud"  wrote in message 
>>>> news:g4blc2$c5t$1@aioe.org...
>>>>> Norman Wells wrote:
>>>>>> Strangely though, it didn't seem to occur to them that Britain is the 
>>>>>> same.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Eh? Look up *constitutional monarchy UK* then come back
>>>> The Queen is our head of state and she wasn't democratically elected.
>>>> And neither was Gordon Brown.
>>> It's a title only - the power rest with parliament, that's why Charles II 
>>> lost his head. These bods in Africa really do have power.
>> 
>> I think you mean Charles I.
>> 
>> To be honest I think that Mr Wells was just picking up on a
>> technicality. Our head of state *isn't* democratically elected.
>> 
>> Though of course said head of state has no real power and
>> that lies with parliament which is, of course, what the term
>> 'constitutional monarchy' means.
>
>you don't say:)
>
>On a serious note it's pointless talking to these nutcases in Africa - 
>nothings going to change, never has never will.

Yep. It's still all Whitey's fault.

"True Blue"  wrote in
news:gL2dnTFXg-chwPTVRVnyhQA@giganews.com: 

> 
> "Sofa - Spud"  wrote in message 
> news:g4blcv$c5t$2@aioe.org...
>> True Blue wrote:
>>> ITN News at Ten
>>>  ITN's reporter got right in there at the African Union Conference
>>>  and 
>>> tackled Mugabe and South Africa's Thabo Mbeki. Needless to say
>>> Mugabe went for the Victim line - "we're not a British colony....etc
>>> etc" whilst one of his minders bundled Manyon away. Mbeki just
>>> smiled and said he'd nothing to say. Kenya's PM, Raila Odinga, who
>>> was not at the conference - if I heard it correctly, was the only
>>> politician to condemn Mugabe. 
>>>  I haven't seen the BBC's effort tonight in regard to the African
>>>  Union 
>>> meeting, so if anyone saw it, I'd like to know how in-depth it was.
>>>  No more aid for Africa.
>>> ** **
>>
>> No more aid? Like that's going to happen.
> 
> After I pressed the "send" tit, I realised that I'd contradicted my
> own position on Africa. We shouldn't be sending aid *anyway*. It does
> more harm than good. 

If it could be better controlled so that it reaches the people who need 
it - particularly during crises - would you be amenable to some aid for 
Africa?

Also, would you agree with my cynical view that aid is sometimes a 
foreign policy weapon, designed to buy foreign governments and turn them 
into clients? And (outrageously) that it can be quite useful sometimes?

Col wrote:
> "Sofa - Spud"  wrote in message
> news:g4cjjb$n4j$2@aioe.org...
>> Col wrote:
>>> "Sofa - Spud"  wrote in message
>>> news:g4blc2$c5t$1@aioe.org...
>>>> Norman Wells wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Strangely though, it didn't seem to occur to them that Britain is
>>>>> the same.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Eh? Look up *constitutional monarchy UK* then come back
>>>
>>> The Queen is our head of state and she wasn't democratically
>>> elected. And neither was Gordon Brown.
>>
>> It's a title only - the power rest with parliament, that's why
>> Charles II lost his head. These bods in Africa really do have power.
>
> I think you mean Charles I.
>
> To be honest I think that Mr Wells was just picking up on a
> technicality. Our head of state *isn't* democratically elected.
>
> Though of course said head of state has no real power and
> that lies with parliament which is, of course, what the term
> 'constitutional monarchy' means.

She still does have real power.  Not supreme power or authority, but 
nevertheless real power.  She invites whom she will to form a government for 
example.  That's outrageous in what proudly regards itself as a modern 
democracy.

"Sofa - Spud"  wrote in message news:g4cm00$1ci$2@aioe.org...
>
> On a serious note it's pointless talking to these nutcases in Africa -


Hoot!

<quote>

June 25, 2008

Anglo American, the London-based mining giant, is to make what is believed
to be the largest foreign investment in Zimbabwe to date, just as the British
Government puts pressure on companies to withdraw from the country.

Anglo will invest $400 million (£200 million) to build a platinum mine in
Zimbabwe - a move that has raised concern among some of the company's
shareholders and been condemned by politicians.

The Foreign Office was investigating tonight whether the company's investment
breached sanctions against Zimbabwe. Anglo insisted that its involvement in
the country did not break the law.


</quote>


> nothings going to change, never has never will.


Nope. When money talks, bullshit walks.



<quote>

- Anglo American was founded by Sir Ernest Oppenheimer in South Africa in 1917.
Oppenheimer had already taken over De Beers, the diamond corporation, from Cecil
Rhodes, who founded the country that became Zimbabwe

- Anglo still owns 45 per cent of De Beers and is the fourth-largest mining company
in the world

- The company's headquarters are just off Pall Mall, Central London and is listed
on the FTSE 100. It employs 162,000 people worldwide

- It is being sued over working conditions in South Africa during the apartheid era.
Miners claim that they were treated as slave labour, The company denies wrongdoing

</quote>

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/africa/article4207971.ece


Seems like Julian din't mention any of that then, eh ?

Slurp, slurp, Mugabe bad, Mugabe bad, slurp, slurp.




michael adams

...

"Norman Wells"  writes:


>"True Blue"  wrote in message 
>news:Dr-dnYZ1PaRe0vTVnZ2dnUVZ8uOdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>ITN News at Ten

>> ITN's reporter got right in there at the African Union Conference and 
>> tackled
>> Mugabe and South Africa's Thabo Mbeki. Needless to say Mugabe went for the 
>>  > Victim line - "we're not a British colony....etc etc" whilst one of his 
>> minders
>> bundled Manyon away. Mbeki just smiled and said he'd nothing to say. 
>> Kenya's > PM, Raila Odinga, who was not at the conference - if I heard it 
>> correctly, was the > only politician to condemn Mugabe.

>> I haven't seen the BBC's effort tonight in regard to the African Union 
>> meeting, so > if anyone saw it, I'd like to know how in-depth it was.



>The BBC said rather haughtily that it was terribly difficult for African 
>nations to criticise the election in Zimbabwe as over half the nations of 
>that continent have no democratic elections for their head of state anyway.

>Strangely though, it didn't seem to occur to them that Britain is the same.

You mean when John Major took over from Thatcher? No didn't think so.

Graham

G Bell wrote:
> "Norman Wells"  writes:

>> The BBC said rather haughtily that it was terribly difficult for
>> African nations to criticise the election in Zimbabwe as over half
>> the nations of that continent have no democratic elections for their
>> head of state anyway. 
> 
>> Strangely though, it didn't seem to occur to them that Britain is
>> the same. 
> 
> You mean when John Major took over from Thatcher? No didn't think so.

Have you any idea at all who the head of state is?  No, didn't think so.

"Dr Quite"  wrote in message 
news:Xns9ACE5CFA3C2C4quite@85.214.90.236...
> "True Blue"  wrote in
> news:gL2dnTFXg-chwPTVRVnyhQA@giganews.com:
>
>>
>> "Sofa - Spud"  wrote in message
>> news:g4blcv$c5t$2@aioe.org...
>>> True Blue wrote:
>>>> ITN News at Ten
>>>>  ITN's reporter got right in there at the African Union Conference
>>>>  and
>>>> tackled Mugabe and South Africa's Thabo Mbeki. Needless to say
>>>> Mugabe went for the Victim line - "we're not a British colony....etc
>>>> etc" whilst one of his minders bundled Manyon away. Mbeki just
>>>> smiled and said he'd nothing to say. Kenya's PM, Raila Odinga, who
>>>> was not at the conference - if I heard it correctly, was the only
>>>> politician to condemn Mugabe.
>>>>  I haven't seen the BBC's effort tonight in regard to the African
>>>>  Union
>>>> meeting, so if anyone saw it, I'd like to know how in-depth it was.
>>>>  No more aid for Africa.
>>>> ** **
>>>
>>> No more aid? Like that's going to happen.
>>
>> After I pressed the "send" tit, I realised that I'd contradicted my
>> own position on Africa. We shouldn't be sending aid *anyway*. It does
>> more harm than good.
>
> If it could be better controlled so that it reaches the people who need
> it - particularly during crises - would you be amenable to some aid for
> Africa?
>
> Also, would you agree with my cynical view that aid is sometimes a
> foreign policy weapon, designed to buy foreign governments and turn them
> into clients? And (outrageously) that it can be quite useful sometimes?

It's complicated, for sure. The threat of withdrawing aid can achieve 
humanitarian goals and it can be a condition of supplying it that Western 
inspectors be allowed access to impoverished regions where (some) aid ends 
up.

But are we just perpetuating a cycle of dependency? The means by which we in 
the West have left Africa behind, in economic terms, is capitalism. Mr Ndogo 
starts a one man business making shirts and in three years has four 
employees all paying taxes and providing for their families. Then *that* 
truck arrives. The one from Orpington which that town's Girl Guides have 
filled full of shirts.

Withdrawing aid from Africa would only ever be a unilateral decision by this 
country. There are too many vested interests involved, not least - and 
ominously for Africa - China.

I'm sure you've seen this before, in fact I've an inkling that you may have 
posted it here initially, but for the benefit of those that haven't;

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,363663,00.html

Kenyan economics expert James Shikwati's interview with Der Spiegel.

******

Oh well, that's me for a few days. Off to Sardinia 'til Sunday to catch some 
rays. Toodle pip!

On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 09:15:34 +0100, "Norman Wells" 
wrote:

>> Though of course said head of state has no real power and
>> that lies with parliament which is, of course, what the term
>> 'constitutional monarchy' means.
>
>She still does have real power.  Not supreme power or authority, but 
>nevertheless real power.  She invites whom she will to form a government for 
>example.  That's outrageous in what proudly regards itself as a modern 
>democracy.

But if she ever tried to exercise that power, for example by inviting
a minority party to form a government, then it would be curtains for
her.

-- 
TF

True Blue wrote:
> "Dr Quite"  wrote in message
> news:Xns9ACE5CFA3C2C4quite@85.214.90.236...
>> "True Blue"  wrote in
>> news:gL2dnTFXg-chwPTVRVnyhQA@giganews.com:
>>
>>>
>>> "Sofa - Spud"  wrote in message
>>> news:g4blcv$c5t$2@aioe.org...
>>>> True Blue wrote:
>>>>> ITN News at Ten
>>>>>  ITN's reporter got right in there at the African Union Conference
>>>>>  and
>>>>> tackled Mugabe and South Africa's Thabo Mbeki. Needless to say
>>>>> Mugabe went for the Victim line - "we're not a British
>>>>> colony....etc etc" whilst one of his minders bundled Manyon away.
>>>>> Mbeki just smiled and said he'd nothing to say. Kenya's PM, Raila
>>>>> Odinga, who was not at the conference - if I heard it correctly,
>>>>> was the only politician to condemn Mugabe.
>>>>>  I haven't seen the BBC's effort tonight in regard to the African
>>>>>  Union
>>>>> meeting, so if anyone saw it, I'd like to know how in-depth it
>>>>>  was. No more aid for Africa.
>>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> No more aid? Like that's going to happen.
>>>
>>> After I pressed the "send" tit, I realised that I'd contradicted my
>>> own position on Africa. We shouldn't be sending aid *anyway*. It
>>> does more harm than good.
>>
>> If it could be better controlled so that it reaches the people who
>> need it - particularly during crises - would you be amenable to some
>> aid for Africa?
>>
>> Also, would you agree with my cynical view that aid is sometimes a
>> foreign policy weapon, designed to buy foreign governments and turn
>> them into clients? And (outrageously) that it can be quite useful
>> sometimes?
>
> It's complicated, for sure. The threat of withdrawing aid can achieve
> humanitarian goals and it can be a condition of supplying it that
> Western inspectors be allowed access to impoverished regions where
> (some) aid ends up.
>
> But are we just perpetuating a cycle of dependency? The means by
> which we in the West have left Africa behind, in economic terms, is
> capitalism. Mr Ndogo starts a one man business making shirts and in
> three years has four employees all paying taxes and providing for
> their families. Then *that* truck arrives. The one from Orpington
> which that town's Girl Guides have filled full of shirts.
>
> Withdrawing aid from Africa would only ever be a unilateral decision
> by this country. There are too many vested interests involved, not
> least - and ominously for Africa - China.
>
> I'm sure you've seen this before, in fact I've an inkling that you
> may have posted it here initially, but for the benefit of those that
> haven't;
> http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,363663,00.html
>
> Kenyan economics expert James Shikwati's interview with Der Spiegel.
>
> ******
>
> Oh well, that's me for a few days. Off to Sardinia 'til Sunday to
> catch some rays. Toodle pip!

Have a good time.  Bring us back a stick of rock!

-- 
Enzo

I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.

Trash Folder wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 09:15:34 +0100, "Norman Wells" 
> wrote:
>
>>> Though of course said head of state has no real power and
>>> that lies with parliament which is, of course, what the term
>>> 'constitutional monarchy' means.
>>
>> She still does have real power.  Not supreme power or authority, but
>> nevertheless real power.  She invites whom she will to form a
>> government for example.  That's outrageous in what proudly regards
>> itself as a modern democracy.
>
> But if she ever tried to exercise that power, for example by inviting
> a minority party to form a government, then it would be curtains for
> her.

Nope.  She did just that when inviting Heath to form a government when 
Wilson had won more seats in 1960 something.  She's still there.

Norman Wells wrote:
> Trash Folder wrote:
>> On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 09:15:34 +0100, "Norman Wells"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>>> Though of course said head of state has no real power and
>>>> that lies with parliament which is, of course, what the term
>>>> 'constitutional monarchy' means.
>>>
>>> She still does have real power.  Not supreme power or authority, but
>>> nevertheless real power.  She invites whom she will to form a
>>> government for example.  That's outrageous in what proudly regards
>>> itself as a modern democracy.
>>
>> But if she ever tried to exercise that power, for example by inviting
>> a minority party to form a government, then it would be curtains for
>> her.
>
> Nope.  She did just that when inviting Heath to form a government when
> Wilson had won more seats in 1960 something.  She's still there.

I'm afraid you are mistaken. The only similar incident occured in February 
1974. Although the Conservative party polled more votes, the Labour party 
gained more seats in Parliament but was still in a minority. Therefore the 
Queen was required to ask the Labour party to form the government, which she 
did.  Harold Wilson called another election later that same year, which 
Labour won with a majority of three seats!

-- 
Enzo

I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.

Enzo Matrix wrote:
> Norman Wells wrote:
>> Trash Folder wrote:
>>> On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 09:15:34 +0100, "Norman Wells"
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Though of course said head of state has no real power and
>>>>> that lies with parliament which is, of course, what the term
>>>>> 'constitutional monarchy' means.
>>>>
>>>> She still does have real power.  Not supreme power or authority,
>>>> but nevertheless real power.  She invites whom she will to form a
>>>> government for example.  That's outrageous in what proudly regards
>>>> itself as a modern democracy.
>>>
>>> But if she ever tried to exercise that power, for example by
>>> inviting a minority party to form a government, then it would be
>>> curtains for her.
>>
>> Nope.  She did just that when inviting Heath to form a government
>> when Wilson had won more seats in 1960 something.  She's still there.
>
> I'm afraid you are mistaken. The only similar incident occured in
> February 1974. Although the Conservative party polled more votes, the
> Labour party gained more seats in Parliament but was still in a
> minority. Therefore the Queen was required to ask the Labour party to
> form the government, which she did.  Harold Wilson called another
> election later that same year, which Labour won with a majority of
> three seats!

The queen was not 'required' to do anything.  In 1974 what she did, despite 
the Conservatives winning fewer seats in Parliament than Labour, was to 
invite Heath, the Conservative leader, to form a new government.  It was 
only when he failed to do so because his negotitations with the Liberals 
collapsed, that she had no alternative but then to invite Wilson, the Labour 
leader, to form a government.  So, she did invite a minority party to form a 
government, and she is still there.  My point is that it's her power, and 
she does exercise it.  If she has that power and uses it then she should be 
accountable to the people, ie elected.

Norman Wells wrote:
> Enzo Matrix wrote:
>> Norman Wells wrote:
>>> Trash Folder wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 09:15:34 +0100, "Norman Wells"
>>>>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Though of course said head of state has no real power and
>>>>>> that lies with parliament which is, of course, what the term
>>>>>> 'constitutional monarchy' means.
>>>>>
>>>>> She still does have real power.  Not supreme power or authority,
>>>>> but nevertheless real power.  She invites whom she will to form a
>>>>> government for example.  That's outrageous in what proudly regards
>>>>> itself as a modern democracy.
>>>>
>>>> But if she ever tried to exercise that power, for example by
>>>> inviting a minority party to form a government, then it would be
>>>> curtains for her.
>>>
>>> Nope.  She did just that when inviting Heath to form a government
>>> when Wilson had won more seats in 1960 something.  She's still
>>> there.
>>
>> I'm afraid you are mistaken. The only similar incident occured in
>> February 1974. Although the Conservative party polled more votes, the
>> Labour party gained more seats in Parliament but was still in a
>> minority. Therefore the Queen was required to ask the Labour party to
>> form the government, which she did.  Harold Wilson called another
>> election later that same year, which Labour won with a majority of
>> three seats!
>
> The queen was not 'required' to do anything.  In 1974 what she did,
> despite the Conservatives winning fewer seats in Parliament than
> Labour, was to invite Heath, the Conservative leader, to form a new
> government.  It was only when he failed to do so because his
> negotitations with the Liberals collapsed, that she had no
> alternative but then to invite Wilson, the Labour leader, to form a
> government.


Exactly.  Had Mr Heath and Mr Thorpe reached an agreement, the coalition 
would have had a majority of seats. The Queen invited Mr Heath to form the 
government because *at the time of the invitation* it was likely that the 
coalition would be formed and so the legal requirements of government had 
been fulfilled. When the coalition broke down, a couple of days after the 
invitation, the Queen was forced to extend that invitation to Mr Wilson.

Everything the Queen did was constitutional and legal. Never once did she 
abuse her power.  The abuse would have occured is she had maintained the 
invition to Mr Heath even after the coalition deal fell through.



-- 
Enzo

I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.

Enzo Matrix wrote:
> Norman Wells wrote:
>> Enzo Matrix wrote:
>>> Norman Wells wrote:
>>>> Trash Folder wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 09:15:34 +0100, "Norman Wells"
>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Though of course said head of state has no real power and
>>>>>>> that lies with parliament which is, of course, what the term
>>>>>>> 'constitutional monarchy' means.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> She still does have real power.  Not supreme power or authority,
>>>>>> but nevertheless real power.  She invites whom she will to form a
>>>>>> government for example.  That's outrageous in what proudly
>>>>>> regards itself as a modern democracy.
>>>>> 
>>>>> But if she ever tried to exercise that power, for example by
>>>>> inviting a minority party to form a government, then it would be
>>>>> curtains for her.
>>>> 
>>>> Nope.  She did just that when inviting Heath to form a government
>>>> when Wilson had won more seats in 1960 something.  She's still
>>>> there.
>>> 
>>> I'm afraid you are mistaken. The only similar incident occured in
>>> February 1974. Although the Conservative party polled more votes,
>>> the Labour party gained more seats in Parliament but was still in a
>>> minority. Therefore the Queen was required to ask the Labour party
>>> to form the government, which she did.  Harold Wilson called another
>>> election later that same year, which Labour won with a majority of
>>> three seats!
>> 
>> The queen was not 'required' to do anything.  In 1974 what she did,
>> despite the Conservatives winning fewer seats in Parliament than
>> Labour, was to invite Heath, the Conservative leader, to form a new
>> government.  It was only when he failed to do so because his
>> negotitations with the Liberals collapsed, that she had no
>> alternative but then to invite Wilson, the Labour leader, to form a
>> government.
> 
> 
> Exactly.  Had Mr Heath and Mr Thorpe reached an agreement, the
> coalition would have had a majority of seats. The Queen invited Mr
> Heath to form the government because *at the time of the invitation*
> it was likely that the coalition would be formed and so the legal
> requirements of government had been fulfilled. When the coalition
> broke down, a couple of days after the invitation, the Queen was
> forced to extend that invitation to Mr Wilson. 
> 
> Everything the Queen did was constitutional and legal. Never once did
> she abuse her power.  The abuse would have occured is she had
> maintained the invition to Mr Heath even after the coalition deal
> fell through.

Enzo Matrix wrote:

> Exactly.  Had Mr Heath and Mr Thorpe reached an agreement, the
> coalition would have had a majority of seats. The Queen invited Mr
> Heath to form the government because *at the time of the invitation*
> it was likely that the coalition would be formed and so the legal
> requirements of government had been fulfilled. When the coalition
> broke down, a couple of days after the invitation, the Queen was
> forced to extend that invitation to Mr Wilson.
> Everything the Queen did was constitutional and legal. Never once did
> she abuse her power.  The abuse would have occured is she had
> maintained the invition to Mr Heath even after the coalition deal
> fell through.

The point is not whether she acted illegally or abused her power, though 
someone said quite wrongly that if she invited a minority leader to form a 
government (as she did) she would not still be here (which she is), but that 
she actually had and exercised power.  If she has and exercises power then, 
in a democracy, she should be accountable, ie subject to election.  But she 
isn't.

Norman Wells wrote:
> Enzo Matrix wrote:
>
>> Exactly.  Had Mr Heath and Mr Thorpe reached an agreement, the
>> coalition would have had a majority of seats. The Queen invited Mr
>> Heath to form the government because *at the time of the invitation*
>> it was likely that the coalition would be formed and so the legal
>> requirements of government had been fulfilled. When the coalition
>> broke down, a couple of days after the invitation, the Queen was
>> forced to extend that invitation to Mr Wilson.
>> Everything the Queen did was constitutional and legal. Never once did
>> she abuse her power.  The abuse would have occured is she had
>> maintained the invition to Mr Heath even after the coalition deal
>> fell through.
>
> The point is not whether she acted illegally or abused her power,
> though someone said quite wrongly that if she invited a minority
> leader to form a government (as she did) she would not still be here
> (which she is), but that she actually had and exercised power.  If
> she has and exercises power then, in a democracy, she should be
> accountable, ie subject to election.  But she isn't.

I understand the point that you are trying to make, but I believe it is 
flawed.  The Queen may invite people to form a government but she must give 
that invitation in accordance with the law. She does not have the authority 
to change that law.  Only Parliament has that authority and Parliament is 
elected and therefore (at least theoretically) accountable.

-- 
Enzo

I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.

Enzo Matrix wrote:

> I understand the point that you are trying to make, but I believe it
> is flawed.  The Queen may invite people to form a government but she
> must give that invitation in accordance with the law. She does not
> have the authority to change that law.  Only Parliament has that
> authority and Parliament is elected and therefore (at least
> theoretically) accountable.

There is no law that covers this.  The queen can invite whom she wants to 
form a government.  Normally of course it's in her interest to choose 
someone who can command a majority in the House of Commons, and normally 
that's the leader of the party with the largest number of seats.  However, 
as in the case of Heath in 1974, she doesn't always do this.  And this is 
but one example of the power she has.  Another, for example is in the 
appointment of the Archbishop of Canterbury.

She has powers.  She exercises them.  In a democracy, that is unacceptable 
unless she is accountable to the people and subject to election.  In having 
a non-elected head of state with powers, we are no better than Zimbabwe.

"Norman Wells"  wrote in message 
news:g4j3fj$ja6$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk...

  And this is
> but one example of the power she has.  Another, for example is in the 
> appointment of the Archbishop of Canterbury.

That's the PM,  she only gets one name to pick from,  she has no choice.

See:

http://www.cofe.anglican.org/news/appointment_of_the_next_archbishop_of_canterbury.html

For all the ghastly details...

-- 
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time,  like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

William Black wrote:
> "Norman Wells"  wrote in message
> news:g4j3fj$ja6$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk...
>
>  And this is
>> but one example of the power she has.  Another, for example is in the
>> appointment of the Archbishop of Canterbury.
>
> That's the PM,  she only gets one name to pick from,  she has no
> choice.
> See:
>
> http://www.cofe.anglican.org/news/appointment_of_the_next_archbishop_of_canterbury.html
>
> For all the ghastly details...

I think it's still in her power to reject anyone put forward, or to reject 
the first one and accept the second.  After all, she's the head of the 
church of England, and all CoE bishops have to swear an oath including the 
words:

""I accept Your Majesty as the sole source of ecclesiastical, spiritual and 
temporal power."

That's nice to have, just by accident of birth.

It's surprising just what powers she has when you look closely.