The new PM

[wales01man]

Re: The new PM

OPENLAW shut up you are going on and on and on like a stuck record please get bag to the thread

[Openlaw15]

Re: The new PM

OPENLAW shut up you are going on and on and on like a stuck record please get bag to the thread

Well, no I wasn't going on and on, in fact JulieM and I were merely debating things. I make a comment, she makes a comment...and so forth...it's not personal and I mean no animosity to others.

[Openlaw15]

Re: The new PM

To be pendantic , the act of union created Great Britain and not the United Kingdom. The United Kingom is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Devolution did devolve some powers to Scotland including tax varying powers and some primary legislation but what is often forgotten is that the UK parliament can over rule anything decided by the Scottish Parliament or Welsh assembly..

Northern Ireland is a different kettle of fish though as it is governed by the power sharing laid down in the good Friday agreement which guarantees seats on the ruling executive for the main factions. This is similar to the government of Belgium where different groups are still represented at executive level.

Nicola Sturgeon can claim to have a greater mandate as the SNP were elected via a form of PR unlike Westminster. Her claims for a new independence referendum are imp rhetoric as she has no power to call one and short of a revolution I can't see it happening.

Actually, for some constitutional history, Wales has been part of the Union with England since the Acts of Union (Act of Incorporation)1536. Before this, the King of England had ruled Wales since the death of its Prince, Llewellyn II (the second) in 1282; but Wales was never a part of the Union until said date. Ireland Joined about 1800. Great Britain is now, England, Scotland and Wales. The UK is Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

[EXC]

Re: The new PM

Apologies for the off-topic post but this needs to be said.

Actually, I never questioned and would never question Amethyst's (Sharon's) or anyone else's education or qualifications per se. I know how hard Sharon works/ will work because besides completing all the LLB modules, I've also completed optional law modules. Regardless, on the same thread, you can clearly see that I provided tips on how Sharon could develop/ improve her performances to build upon her underlying abilities, to obtain better grades when producing her law assignments, which will also equip her person to perform sufficiently for her LLB modules, a big jump up in terms of cognitive skills and practical skills.

@Openlaw15 do you realise that the sentiment expressed in the 2nd sentence of this paragraph invalidates the 1st?

There are no cliques on this website. If you feel alienated then I suggest (as have others) that you should consider not making repeated and unnecessary references to your education to support whatever point it is you're making. It has the inevitable effect of patronising others through the implication that your view is somehow superior to that of others. It isn't.

Do that and you'll get along a lot better with everyone.

[JulieM]

Re: The new PM

Hi again.
To try and make an on topic post, sorry if I got somewhat carried away.

Some people have said we need a new election because we did not vote for Mrs May , the same argument was used when Gordon Brown took the crown. What people seem to forget is that we do not vote for a prime minister, we elect representatives who usually belong to one of the two major parties. The party who can come and a majority run the government and by convention the leader of that party is Prime Minister. I suppose it could be argued that if a new PM runs a substantially different policy to the old PM then we are not getting what we voted for but we have the opportunity to change that at the next election.

I do do think a case could be made for an election because moving towards brexit is very different to the policies that the Tories were voted in on just as a break with austerity is a big change. However , there was a promise of a referendum so as that has changed the path of the government , we knew this was a possibility and why should there be an election.

However, how we plan the possible futures is a different thing.

[meellis]

Re: The new PM

I really enjoy this forum and believe it has a lot to offer especially to those who are at wits end and need solid, considered and not necessarily complex advice to there issues. Therefore I personally find it frustrating when there are posters who are obviously intelligent, capable and versed in the issues but decide to waste the opportunity to help by being either over complex, unable to read and understand the issues the thread is about but still offer advice on the issues they feel are there even though they have little bearing on the issues at hand or keep offering reams of complex case law when the original poster just wants to know and be reassured on how to proceed. Over the years I have been posting I have noticed posters who obviously have a sick sense of humour and post just to annoy people. posters who are always looking for an argument (and yes I am guilty of being involved in a few) and even some I have suspected of being spies in the camp but these all usually get weeded out. Like I say though , the frustrating ones are the ones you sense could actually give valuable advice if the actually decided to understand the problems at hand and really consider their advice.

[Fred]

Re: The new PM

Election....................well no because, I do not think we can have one at present without causing further damage due to the lack of quality in any of the parties.

Jobs for the "boys" at present.............................please somebody explain to me why Boris is/was the best candidate for his new role ?

[meellis]

Re: The new PM

JulieM, I cannot remember how Gordon Brown got in but one question about May is whether she got voted in by her party or not. The other party decided to join the new craze and pull out before the final election and it could be said that the other candidates votes might have been taken by someone who was never going to go the distance.

[meellis]

Re: The new PM

Fred, Boris probably got his role because he as a fanbase which makes him either a powerful enemy or ally. Give him a position that might make him look more of an oath and he might end up losing more of his fans. As an aside there was an interesting article in the Observer I believe about George Osbourne. You can believe it about as much as any other journalism around but it echoes my sentiments that in the fullness of time we will all find out that the government have done as much damage to the country as previous governments and hence caused some of the resentment fuelling the Brexit vote.

[PAWS]

Re: The new PM

As I said in an earlier post, it looks like May deliberately chose Brexiters like Boris, Fox and Davis in these roles because before the vote they insisted it could work. Now she is simply letting them prove they were right -and good luck with that!

[Crazy council]

Re: The new PM

JulieM, I cannot remember how Gordon Brown got in......

By backstabbing Blair, its them that pushed the term Blairites , whereas, if you ask me, the period 1997 - 2010 -- Great period in politics for equality, business, general britishness. ( dont mention the war )

I was glad they way the conservatives went against Grove, however good or bad he is at his Job, that was a mighty Machiavellian back-stab he tried. I think with Boris, Good candidate, wrong argument. May seems the best middle ground at the moment, especially what she did with sturgeon yesterday. I just Corybin would dissapair or the labour party splits so we can have an effective opposition. I think hes trying to Mess up the trident vote to show his strengths, Incidentally, i would like him to explain what the UKs final defence would be if not trident.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36820416

All in all, for the UK in General, i think May is the best chance to get a good deal

[des8]

Re: The new PM

[QUOTE=Crazy council;663349]Incidentally, i would like him to explain what the UKs final defence would be if not trident./QUOTE]

But my understanding is that Trident is not the final defence, but a deterrent in that when we had lost we could unleash our nuclear weapons as a retaliation.
This is supposed to dissuade others attacking us in the first place.
It is not a defensive weapon in the sense we could use it to defend against attacking forces.

[wales01man]

Re: The new PM

With trident I wonder why it cannot be up graded not renewed the cost of decommissioning the existing subs has not been mentioned I believe we will never use nuclear weapons there is more chance of a terrorist dirty bomb if that happens who would target be to use trident on?

[Crazy council]

Re: The new PM

The thing with Trident, is although its seems like a lot of money being spent over a long time, it meens we are keeping employment long term for

1. Nuclear Scientists
2. Engineers of the highest grade

And it will keep us at the front of the technology. We need a deterrent, and subs seems the most sense because there not fixed targets. I am not avid triednt supporter, its just if your going to spend loadss of money, perhaps its not a bad way to do it.

I believe we will never use nuclear weapons there is more chance of a terrorist dirty bomb if that happens who would target be to use trident on?

Its stops anyone thinking of using arms against us, becuase they know they will get fired upon regfardless

But my understanding is that Trident is not the final defence,

No, that the Scottish, even the Great Roman Army gave up and built a wall, :tinysmile_aha_t:

[wales01man]

Re: The new PM

CC if one of todays terrorists uses a dirty bomb bearing in mind that some of the worst whre European nationals French English comes to mind who do we aim at France or GB???