She doesn't have any weight to throw behind that nowadays. The last time it was even hinted at, that the Monarch could dissolve a parliament if a settlement on something wasn't reached, was IIRC under her father George IV....nearly six decades ago. She doesn't have any legal authority now to do anything.
Unfortunately...
If the Queen's appointed representative the Governor General can force the Prime Minister of Canada to hold an election (as he did last year), the Queen should be able to do the same here.
If the Queen's appointed representative the Governor General can force the Prime Minister of Canada to hold an election (as he did last year), the Queen should be able to do the same here.
It doesn't work like that. The constitution of Canada allows for that - but it's a completely different country to the UK.
If the Queen's appointed representative the Governor General can force the Prime Minister of Canada to hold an election (as he did last year), the Queen should be able to do the same here.
PM Stephen Harper asked the Governor General to dissolve the 39th parliament so they could have early elections (which were held in October--resulting in another Conservative minority government).
The idea of a person like the queen voicing concern about the `crisis` would be laughable if it wasn`t so two-faced. It`s well known the Windsors hate Labour, whether the political party or the act of working.
The idea of a person like the queen voicing concern about the `crisis` would be laughable if it wasn`t so two-faced. It`s well known the Windsors hate Labour, whether the political party or the act of working.
The Windsors at least have some sense and the Queen has just voiced the concern of her people.
They are jumping on the bandwagon, Brown should tell her to keep her nose out of politics... he won`t, of course.
The Queen is head of this country — not Brown thank God. She only voices her opinion under exceptional circumstances. After watching Brown grinning on Youtube she must have thought he had just "lost it" completely.
The Queen is head of this country — not Brown thank God. She only voices her opinion under exceptional circumstances. After watching Brown grinning on Youtube she must have thought he had just "lost it" completely.
I thought you were a modern, non sectarian, country, obviously not.
Yes, Labour is bound to be happy if loads more people stand against them in the next election - as the votes will get split up all over the place and they could scrape through again.
BUT that is the way the system works, and unlikely to change unless we go for PR.
What I don`t get is the way Brown, after putting pressure on TB to move over, seems to be sleep-walking his way out of number ten. You would hope he has a cunning plan* to beat back the Tories, who, let`s face it, are hardly spotless. He needs to get new advisors...and quick.
* placing a huge turnip over his head, like Baldrick, does not count.
The idea of a person like the queen voicing concern about the `crisis` would be laughable if it wasn`t so two-faced. It`s well known the Windsors hate Labour, whether the political party or the act of working.
At least she has voiced her concern, I'm actually amazed that happened. For once I'll say of the Queen, good for her. Wonder what Gordon's reaction was.
They are jumping on the bandwagon, Brown should tell her to keep her nose out of politics... he won`t, of course.
She's Head of State, it's part of her role to get involved, or at least voice her views in a private meeting. It's something she does very rarely, but she does do it.
She could not dissolve Parliament against the wish of the government if there has not been a vote of no-confidence. Therefore, this is really a non-story. Besides, isn't it a bit rich from her to critisize anyone for living too lavishly?
She doesn't have any weight to throw behind that nowadays. The last time it was even hinted at, that the Monarch could dissolve a parliament if a settlement on something wasn't reached, was IIRC under her father George IV....nearly six decades ago. She doesn't have any legal authority now to do anything.
Unfortunately...
Not quiet true.
The Queen, through her representative, dissolved the Australian Parliament in 1974 after the Labour Party there made a complete dogs dinner of it and where about to commit to massive sums of debt that would have bankrupted the country.
There were other issues that they were about to carry out as well, so HRH had the parliament dissolved.
Comments
If the Queen's appointed representative the Governor General can force the Prime Minister of Canada to hold an election (as he did last year), the Queen should be able to do the same here.
It doesn't work like that. The constitution of Canada allows for that - but it's a completely different country to the UK.
You might be thinking of the Governor General proroguing parliament on Harper's request to prevent a no-confidence vote and the opposition coalition taking power without another election:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%932009_Canadian_parliamentary_dispute
She's in good company then. Her people hate them too.
The Windsors at least have some sense and the Queen has just voiced the concern of her people.
Why were they voted in then?
They are jumping on the bandwagon, Brown should tell her to keep her nose out of politics... he won`t, of course.
I don't call 36% of the vote a popular mandate.
The Queen is head of this country — not Brown thank God. She only voices her opinion under exceptional circumstances. After watching Brown grinning on Youtube she must have thought he had just "lost it" completely.
The rules were the same for everybody, check out most election results. Next you will be calling Brown a dictator.....
I thought you were a modern, non sectarian, country, obviously not.
No we won't, he is not even a leader.
Yes, Labour is bound to be happy if loads more people stand against them in the next election - as the votes will get split up all over the place and they could scrape through again.
BUT that is the way the system works, and unlikely to change unless we go for PR.
You mean as in unelected as PM, unvoted-for, forced the previous incumbent out of office...?
"Brown a dictator" - well, he's got the colour, now he needs the shirt!
* placing a huge turnip over his head, like Baldrick, does not count.
At least she has voiced her concern, I'm actually amazed that happened. For once I'll say of the Queen, good for her. Wonder what Gordon's reaction was.
She's Head of State, it's part of her role to get involved, or at least voice her views in a private meeting. It's something she does very rarely, but she does do it.
Why is it sectarian?
looks good value to me compared to the HOC
I say thats pushing things a bit too far, Britain Great ? not in my book its not ,,;-)
looks a good investment to me given the returns we get from having a royal family
Not quiet true.
The Queen, through her representative, dissolved the Australian Parliament in 1974 after the Labour Party there made a complete dogs dinner of it and where about to commit to massive sums of debt that would have bankrupted the country.
There were other issues that they were about to carry out as well, so HRH had the parliament dissolved.
I agree.
Also they have no place meddling in politics.
Recently one of the Royals got involved in the Gurkha debate. They are supposes to stay impartial and out of politics.
Waving her hand from a carriage is her job, I wished she'd get on with it.
If they want to get involved in politics lets have a vote on whether we want them.