No, Pat, I had none of Indian History in my mind. All of it I
projected on the basis of what ' democracy ' + search for political
power through coalition era translates into, when the floodgates
open.!

On May 12, 7:13 pm, Pat <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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/-Hid...text
> > > > > -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -

Reply via email to