badgerx16

Keep going JB. If you say it often enough, you'll start believing it Come on over to the dark side, you know you want to.

I think you might be a just a teeny weeny bit wrong there : http://fairdealphil.blogspot.com/2008/07/anti-sleaze-rules-come-back-to-haunt.html http://www.richardcorbett.org.uk/blog/2008/07/tory-revolt-against-camerons-anti.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/columnists/article-512517/QUENTIN-LETTS-Full-throttle-Cameron-seizes-moral-high-ground-bags-anti-sleaze.html http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2008/06/07/anti-sleaze-tory-caroline-spelman-put-nanny-on-expenses-115875-20598477/ http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-16675575.html etc, etc, etc Socialism Rocks ! Monetarism Sucks !

I just thank God that neither of the two parties you have espoused allegiance to will ever get into power, so we will never see the Jews, Gypsies, and gays being rounded up and corralled in this country, nor "unauthorised" books burnt on massive bonfires, nor only 'party approved' music being listened to. ( Mind you, even the Nazis started out as the National SOCIALIST party ).

Johnny boy, I simply can't be bothered to find an equivalent list of Tory misdeeds. The reality is that they are ALL at the trough. And I will leave you with the one over-riding ugly picture from the Conservatives... No matter what nu-Labour get up to, I challenge anybody to come up with anything more sickening than the thought of that champion of 'family values', John Major, in bed with Edwina Curry. :vom::vom::vom:

You take the oath of loyalty to the monarch because he / she is the FIGUREHEAD representing the nation. According to the constitution of this country the monarch rules at the request of Parliament. This started in 1660 with the return of Charles the Second, continued when William the Third was invited by Parliament to replace James the Second, ( having agreed to be bound by the Bill of Rights before he was enthroned ), and was most recently brought to light when the Prime Minister effectively forced the abdication of Edward the Eighth. Also, the Queen cannot choose her successor - the line of succession is set in law and the reigning monarch has no say in the matter. Therefore, for instance, she cannot state that Prince William is to become King on her death or abdication. The whole point of the discussion that prompted this thread is that royal marriages are governed by the Royal Marriages Act, an Act of Parliament by which all the royals in the line of succession are bound. The powers of the monarch are enshrined in the Royal Prerogative, which lists those actions that the reigning monarch could theoretically excercise independently of Parliament. In practice these powers, which include the declaration of war, will only be enacted in name only, after the monarch has been advised by the Prime Minister and/or the Privy Council. Indeed, the declaration of war against Iraq was done by the Prime Minister without any public statement or involvement from the Queen.

Is this the same George Soros who screwed us over so royally on 'Black Wednesday' ? A true grabbing capitalist b4stard if ever there was one.

Absolutely, bring on the revolution :smt041:smt041:smt041

Originally Posted by badgerx16 As a home owning, hard working, lawful member of society, I am happy to pay taxes. They help to ensure that the NHS functions, Not very well that my kids get educated, Not very well that pensioners keep warm in winter, Had to laugh here....not very well that the roads are maintained, Now I'm wetting my pants...I've seen better roads in third world country's that the 'blue light' services are manned and able to do what we require of them, Check out the Fire service and empty stations...Go play 'spot the copper on the beat', a great game this that children at risk are cared for, Failed there as well haven't they etc. ( Mind you, they are also currently ensuring that peace and democracy are being delivered to the people of Iraq & Afghanistan. :confused:) Firstly, both my wife and I work in the public sector, so taxes pay our salaries . As for education, my daughter has a Master's degree, #1 son is currently studying for his, and #2 son plans to go into medicine :cool:, so thanks to all of you for your gracious contributions; I found the NHS very effective during my recent illness ; My pensioner father-in-law is currently keeping warm by virtue of the fact he is in New Zealand visiting relatives . As for the cheap jibe about Children's Services - for every one that slips through the system, and consequently hits the headlines of a rabid press, there are literally thousands who are capably dealt with, ( and I speak from personal experience on this point ). Where there are possible deficiencies in public services it is likely to be because so many people seem to resent paying tax in the first place, ( heaven forbid any mention of taxes being raised to improve service ), yet complain when they find the level of service they are offered has been cut to suit the amount of funding available.

As a home owning, hard working, lawful member of society, I am happy to pay taxes. They help to ensure that the NHS functions, that my kids get educated, that pensioners keep warm in winter, that the roads are maintained, that the 'blue light' services are manned and able to do what we require of them, that children at risk are cared for, etc. ( Mind you, they are also currently ensuring that peace and democracy are being delivered to the people of Iraq & Afghanistan. :confused:)

That is because the monarch is the figurative and titular head of the nation, NOT because they wield any constitutional power to disrupt or overrule the lawfully elected Government. Effectively, you are swearing allegiance to the country, very much as they do in the USofA, Canada, Eire, etc. HTH

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/jun/27/monarchy.davidhencke A report on the civil list from 2002. It's not just the unit cost of the royals, it's the flunkeyism and fawning feudal attitudes the monarchy induce in certain social aspirants and people who are dazzled by excessive demonstration of pillaged wealth and faux pomp.

Those wings just don't look right.

Point is GLT, I know that JB thinks he is being sarcastic, and maybe a tad "clever", ( whether you agree with him or not is up to you ). Personally, as somebody who spent 16 months unemployed at the height of Maggie T's tenure in Downing Street, I have a contrary opinion on the relative merits of 'casino capitalism' and a Labour government.

Find another catchphrase, we've heard enough of that that b0ll0x now, thanks.

I think that constitutionally the Oath of Allegiance to The Queen is symbolic of swearing allegiance to the country. The Monarch is not the controller of the armed forces, and as far as I am aware he/she rules at the request of Parliament - go back to William and Mary and the Glorious Revolution.

Let me see; that's the motor sport where overtaking is possible, they don't have mandatory refuelling stops, and they don't decide the outcome of the race in the stewards' room two weeks after the finish

Which ones are they then, St L ?

Is that also the reason why Maggie won 3 ? Or were those electors smart ? Mind you, they also elected John Major, so maybe not.

Given the apparent right-wing bias on this thread, how on earth have Labour won the last three elections ? In particular, both the Southampton Test and Itchen constituency MPs are members of the democratically elected majority party. ( But that will now open a whole new can of worms; how can any electoral system be declared 'democratic' if less than 40% of the electorate can give a Government majority of over 100 seats ? )

Two words - Black Wednesday. Yep, your money is safe with the Tories.

"Royalty pollutes people's minds. Honest men start bowing and bobbing just because someone's grandad was a bigger murdering bastard than theirs was." :cool:

Also, following on from something Max Moseley said: can somebody explain how if the FIA technical experts declare something as 'legal', the race stewards can subsequently decide it isn't ?:smt017

Does that mean that Charlie has now changed his mind ? He was quoted last week, and again at Melbourne, as saying these diffusers were legal; "They used a loophole (in the regulations) that was always there," "Additionally, we can understand that other teams have a different view,"

Sorry Jilly, but that's rubbish. Does the French tourist economy suffer from not having a royal family ? Do the US, or Italy, or Switzerland ? Tourists come to see the sites, not the fossils.

There isn't any, they are all as bad as each other; self-serving, manipulative, and only really interested in the 'common man' when there's a vote that needs grabbing or a sound-bite to record. Not a 'vocational' or altruistic MP amongst them. Remember, "all power corrupts", etc.