On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 10:37 AM, Robin Paulson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 2008/4/9 Dave Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > maybe someone should tell the government? apparently we're all wasting > > > > our time voting for them, and 'rough consensus' should be used to > > > > decide who's in power. > > > On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 12:31 AM, Bruce Cowan > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Mon, 2008-04-07 at 14:57 +0300, SteveC wrote: > > > > Like, er, electing President Bush, or Prime Minister Gordon Brown (no > > > > election) ? > > > > > > I'm a pedant, but you never vote for a Prime Minister. You vote for > your > > > local MP and the leader of the party with the most MPs gets to be Prime > > > Minister. > > > > Well, if we're being pedantic then the Queen appoints the PM, and by > > convention she chooses the person most likely to have the confidence > > of parliament. There's nothing other than "constitutional convention" > > to stop her picking anyone she likes, whether they're an MP or not, > > and whether parliament likes it or not -- luckily the convention seems > > quite strong. So all in all, there's not much voting going on, or > > where there is it isn't necessarily treated in the way you'd expect, > > which was kind of Steve's point. > > well, if we're being really, really pedantic, then i wasn't talking > about that government, but the one here (nz), where there are no damn > monarchs choosing leaders, [...]
really? wikipedia isn't so convinced: 'The post of Prime Minister is, like other ministerial positions, an appointment by the Governor-General "during the Queen's pleasure"' [1] Convention means this isn't really true, as it does in the UK. Quite what happens if you break convention I don't know. Probably a Constitutional Crisis. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Minister_of_New_Zealand _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
