I'm tired of the french bashing

"Jeremy Henderson" wrote in message
...
On 26/12/03 7:06 pm, in article , "D.A.
Tsenuf" wrote:


"Jeremy Henderson" wrote in message
...
On 26/12/03 1:55 pm, in article ,
"D.A.
Tsenuf" wrote:


"Hatunen" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 22:03:51 +0000, pmlt
wrote:

On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 11:41:29 -0700, Hatunen
wrote:

In most of Europe it's not really possible to vote for or against
the leader.


Where isn't it possible?

The UK, for one.


Not that the UK qualifies for "most of Europe". I get what you
meant,
even if the queen hardly has any political power in the UK.

The queen is head of state; they don't elect their head of
government, either.


They don't ?
And here I thought that the Prime Minister was elected to Parliament
Better check your facts, bub

Better check yours before opening your big mouth - you'll look less
like
an
idiot that way.

clue: the Labour party chose Tony Blair to be PM; the voters chose him
to
be MP for Sedgefield (or wherever)

J;


Why don't you READ what I wrote, before you spew in public again..
You will also note that the original posted subsequently changed his
statement
I'm not responsible for your (lack of) reading skills.
Blame that on your poor education.

Here's another clue: when in a hole, stop digging. As has been pointed out
elsewhere, your comment was simply wrong and you got caught out.

Now, try to behave like a grown-up and admit that you screwed up. Most
people do, and it won't be your last time.

J;


Practice what you preach bub..
What ?
That the PM of England is NOT a sitting MP as well.?
Feel free to name one PM in recent British history who was NOT a sitting MP
as well.

As to the rest...
Go get **** yourself your dog you pompous and ignorant twit.

"Hatunen" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 12:11:05 -0600, "D.A. Tsenuf"
wrote:


"Hatunen" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 06:55:46 -0600, "D.A. Tsenuf"
wrote:


"Hatunen" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 22:03:51 +0000, pmlt
wrote:

On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 11:41:29 -0700, Hatunen
wrote:

In most of Europe it's not really possible to vote for or
against
the leader.


Where isn't it possible?

The UK, for one.


Not that the UK qualifies for "most of Europe". I get what you
meant,
even if the queen hardly has any political power in the UK.

The queen is head of state; they don't elect their head of
government, either.


They don't ?
And here I thought that the Prime Minister was elected to
Parliament
Better check your facts, bub

You better check yours: it is not necessary for the PM to hold a
seat in Parliament, although that is common. And having one
district elect him as MP is NOT the same as the country's people
electing him to be PM.



You should read more carefully both what was written, and my response..
Also note that the original poster then changed his statement.

Which original poster? I'm the one who, in response to another,
made the statement that in Europe, generally speaking, the people
do not choose their leader. A mild bit of confusion ensued
between heads of state and heads of government and I attempted to
note that I am referring to heads of governments, most European
heads of state not being leaders in the usual sense.


I'm truly sympathetic with you're inability to follow a simple thread
In England the "head of the governement" is the PM
You're the only one going on about a head of state

While you're at it, feel free to name one PM in recent British history who
was NOT a sitting MP as well.



I'll also add as an aside that in the US, contrary to popular belief, the
President is NOT forcibly elected by popular vote. CLUE (for those who
need
it): The Electoral College

I majored for a while in political science and I suspect I can
tell you more about the electoral college than you want to know.
But that has nothing to do with my statement about heads of
government in Europe.


Ah..
More pompous drivel
Point noted


In actual fact, it is very difficult for a PM to last long unseated in
any
Parliamentary system.

Why? Support yoru claim. In the past it wasn't that unusual for
English PMs to not be seated in Commons, although many wree of
the nobility and had, ipso facto, seats in Lords.


Since Parliament in England is BOTH houses. And since I did NOT specify the
Commons, as to where the PM rests his butt.
You made a lot of stupid assumptions
I can't help you with your lack of reading skills


At least if he or she wishes to appear to be running the show.
And the reason for that is very simple. But I'll leave it to you to
figure
that one out.
(Might be more constructive than picking nits.)

Now you're the one picking nits.


Riiiiiiiight..
Get yourself a reading primer.
You need it..

"Hatunen" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 12:03:31 -0600, "D.A. Tsenuf"
wrote:

"Jim Ley" wrote in message
...

The head of Government is not directly elected.

Jim.

Good thing you added the word "directly"..
By the way, that is ALSO true for the US President..
I'm sure you've heatd of "The Electoral College"..
So in that context, why is this an issue ?

Because one poster claimed otherwise.


Suuuuuuuure bub...

"Dave Smith" wrote in message
...
Hatunen wrote:


I suppose you can say that they don't know who the prime minister is at
election time because they don't know for sure who is going to win.

It is also possible for the party to elect a new leader after the
election.

Yes. The party can indeed elect a new leader. He will be the leader of the
party.
He will not be prime minister.


NOT correct..
Just look at Canada, in the very recent past.
Martin was an MP.
He took over the leadership of the Liberal Party when Chretien retired
He is now the PM with all the authority that it entails.




The
leader of the party that wins the most seats in Parliament is the Prime
Minister.

Usually, but not necessarily.

The leader of the party is determined by the party, and in
advance of elections. Should the leader not win a seat, an
elected member in a safe seat will step down and the leader runs
in a by-election.

But the leader can take the PMship even before the by-election,
and if he lost the by-election he (or she, come to think of it)
could remain PM. It is not a requirement that the PM be an MP.
Nor, for that matter, a member of Lords.

The House of Lords are appointed, as are Canadian Senators. But the Prime
Minister
has to have a seat in Parliament, and the only way to have a seat is to
win it in
an election.


See above.



The queen is a figure head only and has no real political party. She
gets to
have her picture on stamps and coins and gets to host ceremonies.

And be worth a gazillion dollars.

She is harmless. Think of her as "The People".

On 26/12/03 9:40 pm, in article , "D.A.
Tsenuf" wrote:


[...]

In England the "head of the governement" is the PM

[...]

Since Parliament in England is BOTH houses.

I think this pretty much demonstrates your understanding of the finer points
of the British political system.

J;

On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 14:40:39 -0600, "D.A. Tsenuf"
wrote:


"Hatunen" wrote in message
.. .

Which original poster? I'm the one who, in response to another,
made the statement that in Europe, generally speaking, the people
do not choose their leader. A mild bit of confusion ensued
between heads of state and heads of government and I attempted to
note that I am referring to heads of governments, most European
heads of state not being leaders in the usual sense.


I'm truly sympathetic with you're inability to follow a simple thread
In England the "head of the governement" is the PM

That's what I said.

You're the only one going on about a head of state

Uh, no. Were you following the thread you would know that I
responded to another poater who said, "Not that the UK qualifies
for "most of Europe". I get what you meant, even if the queen
hardly has any political power in the UK."

While you're at it, feel free to name one PM in recent British history who
was NOT a sitting MP as well.

Alec Douglas-Hume, who was an earl when appointed, and so a
member of Lords, and who then resigned that title, seeking a seat
in Commons. In the interim he was a member of neither house.

I'll also add as an aside that in the US, contrary to popular belief, the
President is NOT forcibly elected by popular vote. CLUE (for those who
need it): The Electoral College

I majored for a while in political science and I suspect I can
tell you more about the electoral college than you want to know.
But that has nothing to do with my statement about heads of
government in Europe.


Ah..
More pompous drivel

You brought up the Electoral College, not me.

Point noted


In actual fact, it is very difficult for a PM to last long unseated in
any Parliamentary system.

Why? Support yoru claim. In the past it wasn't that unusual for
English PMs to not be seated in Commons, although many wree of
the nobility and had, ipso facto, seats in Lords.

Since Parliament in England is BOTH houses.

Nowhere have I said otherwise. but since the question at hand in
this subthread was whether the leaders of European nations were
elected by the people, I will point out for you that members of
Lords aren't elected.

And since I did NOT specify the Commons, as to where the PM rests his butt.

Usually.

You made a lot of stupid assumptions
I can't help you with your lack of reading skills

So your claim is that a commoner not in the House of Commons
cannot be appointed Prime Minister?

At least if he or she wishes to appear to be running the show.

What he or she wishes to appear wasn't the question.

Canada having been mentioned, although not in Europe, I'll quote
a message from a Canadian friend:

"You become PM by being elected (by your party) as leader of the
party that happens to be in power (have a majority in the House
of Commons). Both Brian Mulroney and Jean Cretien became leaders
of their respective parties while not having a seat in the House
of Commons or the Senate, and instantly became leader of Her
Majesty's Loyal Opposition. In both cases, within a few weeks or
months the party convinced somebody in a safe seat to step down
so the leader could get elected into the House. Also in both
cases, the leader's party then won the next election and the
leader became premier"



************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 14:34:02 -0600, "D.A. Tsenuf"
wrote:


"Hatunen" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 12:06:21 -0600, "D.A. Tsenuf"
wrote:

Why don't you READ what I wrote, before you spew in public again..
You will also note that the original posted subsequently changed his
statement
I'm not responsible for your (lack of) reading skills.
Blame that on your poor education.

And no one else is to blame for your misstating facts, or
implying such misstatement if you prefer.


Are you claiming that the PM of England is NOT a sitting member of
Parliament ?

The current PM is, of course, a sitting MP. But not all have been
at all times, even within the last five decades.

By the way, feel free to name one PM in recent British history who was NOT a
sitting MP as well.

Alec Douglas-Hume, although he became an MP.

Why don't you look up the word "fact" in a dictionary before you use it
again..


I said "The queen is head of state; they don't elect their head
of government, either."


And the PM is ELECTED...

By the party, not the people.

Feel free to name one PM in recent British history who was NOT a sitting MP
as well.

Alec Douglas-Hume became PM withoug being elected by anyone but
the party.

You responded, "They don't ?" implying that my statement was
wrong, and then went on to add, "And here I thought that the
Prime Minister was elected to Parliament," an event that is
usually true but not a requirement, and, furthermore, implied
that one district electing a person as MP constitutes the people
electing their PM.


The fact that it may not be a requirement is still to be demonstrated.
I will wait for you to quote us the pertinent law
While you're at it, free to name one PM in recent British history who was
NOT a sitting MP as well.

Alec Douglas-Hume was not an MP when appointed.

How many times do I have to do this?


Then, despite the shakiness of your own statements as facts,
added gratuitously, "Better check your facts, bub."

Glass houses and all that, doncha know?


Obviously, you need to start with the basics.
Look up the word "fact" in a dictionnary
That should be within your capacities.

Look up Alec Douglas-Hume.

************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

"Hatunen" wrote in message
...

Are you claiming that the PM of England is NOT a sitting member of
Parliament ?

The current PM is, of course, a sitting MP. But not all have been
at all times, even within the last five decades.

Name a few of them.

"Hatunen" wrote in message
...

Are you claiming that the PM of England is NOT a sitting member of
Parliament ?

The current PM is, of course, a sitting MP. But not all have been
at all times, even within the last five decades.

By the way, feel free to name one PM in recent British history who was
NOT a
sitting MP as well.

Alec Douglas-Hume, although he became an MP.

He was a peer at the time. In Britain ministers must be MPs.

On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 11:23:46 -0500, Dave Smith
wrote:

Jim Ley wrote:

"Hatunen" wrote in message
The queen is head of state; they don't elect their head of
government, either.


They don't ?
And here I thought that the Prime Minister was elected to Parliament
Better check your facts, bub

Only the constituency where he's standing can vote for or against him,
so the most would be around 100,000 people or so get to vote against
the prime-minister. However the electorate don't necessarily know who
the prime-minister will be when electing their members of parliament.

The head of Government is not directly elected.


I suppose you can say that they don't know who the prime minister is at
election time because they don't know for sure who is going to win.

No, they only know who the options are because the parties campaign
saying they're leader and therefore their PM will be X or Y, there's
no obligation on them to keep to that after the election, or for the
leader to accept, what happens is the group with a parliamentary
majority are asked to form a Government and fill the roles of PM etc.
how they do that is up to them. It would be unusual for them not to
follow through on what they said before the election.

Should the leader not win a seat, an elected member in a safe
seat will step down and the leader runs in a by-election.

Probably, not definately, there's no rule that says they have to.

Jim.