On 12 May, 16:20, vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.! >
Sorry, but when you mentioned 'the well', that whole incident sprang to mind. > 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...- > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
