On 12 May, 14:54, vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > Given the fact that the current arrangement is precarious and fragile, > and if Lib - Dem know their politics, that of grandstanding the two > ancient gigantic sloths, I suspect they'd just have two priorities : > one, fill the party and MP coffers ; two, prove to populace ( their > constituency ) how inept their coalition partner is. So, expectant > romantics beware ! > > I am no cynic or dreamer. I believe that this is the best that's > happened to UK in a long time, as in coming of age. The monarchy will > be more sidelined and rendered inconsequential. The people will gain > in leverage, the dumb and street smart the most ... yes, much much > more than even the intellectual frog in the wells.
Oooooh, a little double-entendre there, Vam? No reference to the "Indian Revolt" where a few purported renegades were duly shot and thrown down a well, there, was there? ;-) That was TRULY a low point in the old Colonial history. Absolutely tragic. Yet, I suspect it's not taught to school children in the UK. I'm pretty sure my eldest hasn't run across that incident in any history classes, yet. And I doubt he will. He'll hear about it from me, though. >It's finally the > death knell of feudalism, thought not of demagoguery. The immigrants > ( read Asians, East Europeans ) will be valued and wooed, perhaps more > than the white natives ... in pursuit of vote banks. > No change there, then. LOL!! > UK's just entered a huge change, that'd cascade if I understand it > correctly, and leave many with visions of glorious past, or with > templates for future, fuming and terribly ill ! > Snowball, hill and rolling down all come to mind. I.e., get onto the top of a hill quickly!! > On May 12, 5:40 pm, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On 12 May, 00:12, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > A rather naive interpretation of the British Constitution Orn. I'll > > > be able to explain once someone works out whatever that is! It looks > > > as though we will have a Lib/Con coalition now, subject to votes > > > within the Liberal Democratic Party. > > > I prefer to think of it as "Living in a Con-Dem-Nation". At least > > they chose Hague for Foreign Sec.; that was a decent choice. > > > >All the pundits are claiming to > > > know what the British voters have said, but none actually ask us. > > > Lizzie is a procedural phenomenon with no actual power to do > > > anything. Apparently we need strong, lasting government to satisfy > > > the "markets" and we never have any vote about them. > > > Whilst our electoral farce trundled on, Europe got round to > > > quantitative easing to catch up with the US and UK in buying up its > > > debt electronically. This puts power in the hands of the European > > > Commission and Central Bank, and we don't get a vote for them either. > > > Are you suggesting that WWII isn't really over and that we're now > > fighting on the 'economic front'? After all, we recently had another > > Dunkirk evacuation, albeit due to the ash cloud from the Icelandic > > volcano. If this IS the case, then, so far...score one for the Holy > > Roman Empire--you remember them? They weren't holy, nor Roman, nor an > > empire. That was clearly an early exercise in political correctness > > for the naming of an area. > > Actually, Lizzie DOES have some power left, although if she ever used > > it, that would be the last time any monarch in the UK ever did. > > Except for the odd monarch butterfly. > > > First on the Con-Dem list of things to do is a bit of gerrymandering. > > Once that's done, it may end up assuring another hung parliament, as > > the gerrymandering would have to satisfy both the Conservatives AND > > the Lib-Dems. Unless, of course, the UK decides to 'save' the > > Republic of Ireland from the European 'economic killing fields' by > > declaring it a protectorate with the right to vote Conservative. > > Then, the country's, once again, safe in Tory hands. And, yes, that > > IS sarcastic. ;-) > > > Alternatively, there's the chance that Cameron could offer payments to > > New Labour (which is practically Conservative) MPs and get them to > > change parties, thus affording the Conservatives the majority they > > require. Much like the buying of the Roman Empire...back in the good > > ol' days. ;-) > > > > On 11 May, 16:28, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/05/07/uk.election.queen/-Hidequoted > > > > text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
