On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 11:53:02 -0000, "JB"
wrote:


Since we elected Labour, who we knew were going to agree with the policy,
didn't we do just that?

We didn't elect them to import failed franco/german social policy.


Um...I thought I just cleared that up; Yes, yes I did. I suspect you didn't
vote for them at all but perhaps you were overruled by democracy?

Less than half the popular vote via FPTP is not a mandate to impose
monstrosities such as the proposed constitution.



greg

--
Yeah - straight from the top of my dome
As I rock, rock, rock, rock, rock the microphone

"Greg Hennessy" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 11:53:02 -0000, "JB"
wrote:


Since we elected Labour, who we knew were going to agree with the
policy,
didn't we do just that?

We didn't elect them to import failed franco/german social policy.


Um...I thought I just cleared that up; Yes, yes I did. I suspect you
didn't
vote for them at all but perhaps you were overruled by democracy?

Less than half the popular vote via FPTP is not a mandate to impose
monstrosities such as the proposed constitution.


.....Which is why we're getting a referendum on that. I'm sorry, am I
missing something here?

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 23:00:16 -0000, "JB"
wrote:


Less than half the popular vote via FPTP is not a mandate to impose
monstrosities such as the proposed constitution.


....Which is why we're getting a referendum on that.

Only by sheer fluke.


greg
--
Yeah - straight from the top of my dome
As I rock, rock, rock, rock, rock the microphone

"Greg Hennessy" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 23:00:16 -0000, "JB"
wrote:


Less than half the popular vote via FPTP is not a mandate to impose
monstrosities such as the proposed constitution.


....Which is why we're getting a referendum on that.

Only by sheer fluke.



OK, so you don't like the government therefore it must be unfair. I wonder
if you thought that when Maggie was reforming the unions, fighting for
control of the country from Scargill and battling for the British rebate
from Europe. I, for one, am convinced none of these things would have been
possible under the European PR system.

Personally, I'd far rather have our system that PR with the "never fired
politicians".

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 00:51:32 -0000, "JB"
wrote:

....Which is why we're getting a referendum on that.

Only by sheer fluke.



OK, so you don't like the government therefore it must be unfair.

No, I don't like government by decree courtesy of the royal prerogative.

I don't like it when a Home secretary signs up to very one sided
extradition arrangements without a debate in parliament.

I don't like handing the inland revenue, HMC&E powers to enter private
property without warrant to seize property to facilitate tax
'investigations'.

I don't like the enabling act powers of the civil contingencies bill.

etc
etc
etc


I wonder
if you thought that when Maggie was reforming the unions, fighting for
control of the country from Scargill and battling for the British rebate
from Europe. I, for one, am convinced none of these things would have been
possible under the European PR system.

Thank Insert your Deity here

Personally, I'd far rather have our system that PR with the "never fired
politicians".

Not much use with a 'constitution' which could and would bind successor
parliaments, voiding the Dicey concept of implied repeal.


greg

--
Yeah - straight from the top of my dome
As I rock, rock, rock, rock, rock the microphone