I'm tired of the french bashing

"Hatunen" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 16:30:47 -0600, "D.A. Tsenuf"
wrote:


"Hatunen" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 21:21:11 -0600, "D.A. Tsenuf"
wrote:


"Hatunen" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 00:24:01 +0200, "Markku Grönroos"
wrote:


"Hatunen" wrote in message
news
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.

Sigh. Alec Douglas-Hume, for one.

Cabinet ministers come from inside the House. This chap did so too.

Which House? He was not a member of Commons when appointed prime
minister, and for a time he was a member of neither house.


BECAUSE, he had to resign his seat in the Lords to be able to sit in
the
House.
Why don't you look up the meaning of "transition" in a dictionary

I'm only pointing out:

A. Prime ministers can be appointed and take office without
having to be in commons, and

B. Under some conditions a prime minister may not be in either
house.

claims to the contrary having been made here.


Feel free to point out any one NON-sitting PM who was so for any
noticeable
duration that is longer than the time required to legally hold a
by-election.

What is that time, and where is it codified?


There are probably some rules in the elections laws that describe the
minimum time allowed to hold an election. I'll leave to you the pleasure of
researching it.
The English (and Canadian) parliamentary system is actually much more
flexible in that regard than many others.



I doubt you will find ANY such example, for the very simple reason that
traditionally you must be an MP to hold a cabinet position.

Now which is it? Above you call it a legal requirement to hold a
by-election, here you seem to say it's only traditional.


A lot of English governement operates on tradition as much as on written and
case law.
And because the tradition is so old, it has the same weight as law.


I believe that there were some exceptions to that "rule" during WWII in
Canada. I'm not sure that it's true for England.
And albeit, TECHNICALLY a party leader can be technically, PM

Lord Beaverbrook was in Chruchill's war cabinet without holding a
seat in commons.


There you go..
But he was the exception and not the rule.

On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 22:11:08 -0600, "D.A. Tsenuf"
wrote:


"Hatunen" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 16:30:47 -0600, "D.A. Tsenuf"
wrote:


"Hatunen" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 21:21:11 -0600, "D.A. Tsenuf"
wrote:


"Hatunen" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 00:24:01 +0200, "Markku Grönroos"
wrote:


"Hatunen" wrote in message
news
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.

Sigh. Alec Douglas-Hume, for one.

Cabinet ministers come from inside the House. This chap did so too.

Which House? He was not a member of Commons when appointed prime
minister, and for a time he was a member of neither house.


BECAUSE, he had to resign his seat in the Lords to be able to sit in
the
House.
Why don't you look up the meaning of "transition" in a dictionary

I'm only pointing out:

A. Prime ministers can be appointed and take office without
having to be in commons, and

B. Under some conditions a prime minister may not be in either
house.

claims to the contrary having been made here.


Feel free to point out any one NON-sitting PM who was so for any
noticeable
duration that is longer than the time required to legally hold a
by-election.

What is that time, and where is it codified?


There are probably some rules in the elections laws that describe the
minimum time allowed to hold an election. I'll leave to you the pleasure of
researching it.
The English (and Canadian) parliamentary system is actually much more
flexible in that regard than many others.



I doubt you will find ANY such example, for the very simple reason that
traditionally you must be an MP to hold a cabinet position.

Now which is it? Above you call it a legal requirement to hold a
by-election, here you seem to say it's only traditional.


A lot of English governement operates on tradition as much as on written and
case law.
And because the tradition is so old, it has the same weight as law.


I believe that there were some exceptions to that "rule" during WWII in
Canada. I'm not sure that it's true for England.
And albeit, TECHNICALLY a party leader can be technically, PM

Lord Beaverbrook was in Chruchill's war cabinet without holding a
seat in commons.


There you go..
But he was the exception and not the rule.

Wasn't Lord Carrington Thatcher's Foreign Secretary for a while?

D.A. Tsenuf muttered....



And as I stated elsewhere, if a party leader is de facto a non-sitting
PM because his party has a majority, the transition period is nearly
immediate before a by-election is run to get him a seat in the
commons. Also in those circumstances, traditionally, the opposition
will usually not run against the party leader in the by-election,
making the process a shoo-in.


.....Of course, the poor folk who reside in the "safe seat", proud though
they may be to have a PM sitting, are denied the opportunity to elect one
of their own, familiar with local issues, needs and conditions, a
"representative" as it were.

I'm afrid the whole Parliamentary system is entirely too devious and
sophisticated for us puir 'Merkins. After all, you dangerous Brits had to
get the Canajuns to attack us with Mad Cows, not being satisfied with all
the damage they had already done with Crown Victoria police cars (which
explode when attacked from the rear), the pitiful off-key wailing of long
haired blond chanteuses, and a succession of talent-free export actors and
actresses alongside whom Mamie Van Doren seems a thespian of the first
rank.

TMO

ah

so you're admitting these united States have NOT been at war since 1945
then.

ok.

Scott wrote:

You're obviously a ****ing bonehead. No use
wasting breath on you.


wrote in message
...

the USA hasn't been at -WAR- since the surrender of Imperial Japan
in 1945.

there hasn't been -WAR- in north america in over a hundred years.

but you don't have to believe ME that the french fought.

Open your eyes, we have had the BEST men in America dying

defending the interests of the US since 1945.

Hi,

ok... only Congress Assembled has the power to declare War.

on what date, since 1945, did congress declare war?

since congress has not declared war all the federal government has done
is hire our mercenearies (for example to the UN in Korea) and mess in
other countries business.






--

DERRINGER KIT SIDEPLATES
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...tem=3646327556