Queen Warning to Brown

24

Comments

  • phylo_roadkingphylo_roadking Posts: 21,339
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Yep. The Australian example is pretty irrelevant here...unfortunately!
  • DS9DS9 Posts: 5,482
    Forum Member
    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.
  • phylo_roadkingphylo_roadking Posts: 21,339
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    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.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 3,939
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    DS9 wrote: »
    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).

    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
  • AZZURRI 06AZZURRI 06 Posts: 11,173
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    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.
  • TequilaTequila Posts: 5,111
    Forum Member
    AZZURRI 06 wrote: »
    It`s well known the Windsors hate Labour, whether the political party or the act of working.

    She's in good company then. Her people hate them too.
  • CaxtonCaxton Posts: 28,881
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    AZZURRI 06 wrote: »
    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.
  • AZZURRI 06AZZURRI 06 Posts: 11,173
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Tequila wrote: »
    She's in good company then. Her people hate them too.

    Why were they voted in then?
  • AZZURRI 06AZZURRI 06 Posts: 11,173
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Caxton wrote: »
    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.
  • TequilaTequila Posts: 5,111
    Forum Member
    AZZURRI 06 wrote: »
    Why were they voted in then?

    I don't call 36% of the vote a popular mandate.
  • CaxtonCaxton Posts: 28,881
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    AZZURRI 06 wrote: »
    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.
  • AZZURRI 06AZZURRI 06 Posts: 11,173
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Tequila wrote: »
    I don't call 36% of the vote a popular mandate.

    The rules were the same for everybody, check out most election results. Next you will be calling Brown a dictator.....
  • AZZURRI 06AZZURRI 06 Posts: 11,173
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Caxton wrote: »
    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.
  • CaxtonCaxton Posts: 28,881
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    AZZURRI 06 wrote: »
    The rules were the same for everybody, check out most election results. Next you will be calling Brown a dictator.....


    No we won't, he is not even a leader.
  • jonmorrisjonmorris Posts: 21,680
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Tequila wrote: »
    I don't call 36% of the vote a popular mandate.

    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.
  • phylo_roadkingphylo_roadking Posts: 21,339
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Brown a dictator

    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!
  • AZZURRI 06AZZURRI 06 Posts: 11,173
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    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. :o
  • dmwatdmwat Posts: 1,226
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Daily Mail
    Writing in the News of the World today Gordon Brown said he was 'appalled and angered' by last week's expenses revelations.
    Shame it's the revealing part he's appalled and angered by and not the actual expenses.
    AZZURRI 06 wrote: »
    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.
    AZZURRI 06 wrote: »
    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.
    AZZURRI 06 wrote: »
    I thought you were a modern, non sectarian, country, obviously not.
    Why is it sectarian?
  • AdsAds Posts: 37,037
    Forum Member
    The Queen has a nerve, considering the amount of funding the taxpayers give her and her family to live lavish lifestyles.
  • welwynrosewelwynrose Posts: 33,666
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Ads wrote: »
    The Queen has a nerve, considering the amount of funding the taxpayers give her and her family to live lavish lifestyles.

    looks good value to me compared to the HOC
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 77
    Forum Member
    ccm wrote: »
    This is a very damaging leak, this will just add to the questions around Gordon Brown's leadership on this issue & others (gurkas.....)

    Great Britain is a ship without a captain.

    I say thats pushing things a bit too far, Britain Great ? not in my book its not ,,;-)
  • kibblerokkibblerok Posts: 1,878
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Ads wrote: »
    The Queen has a nerve, considering the amount of funding the taxpayers give her and her family to live lavish lifestyles.

    looks a good investment to me given the returns we get from having a royal family
  • THRTHR Posts: 9,808
    Forum Member
    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?
  • Poison_FengPoison_Feng Posts: 3,294
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    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.
  • pauli89pauli89 Posts: 12,874
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Ads wrote: »
    The Queen has a nerve, considering the amount of funding the taxpayers give her and her family to live lavish lifestyles.

    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.