h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

i misunderstood what you meant.
It was a good piece and covered the unexpected US result really well.I liked the fact that the constitution over there worked in this case rather then allowing politicians to overrule the law.
The "theory" of having a constitution is attractive and i would like my rights protected but as you said it would require such a change from all our current systems that when i start to consider the practicalities of geting it started i always worry that it'll go horribly wrong.

You have nothing to be sorry for Pixel. Take it easy.

I agree a constitution to limit the power of politicians would be a good thing (aptly demonstrated by Novo over the page talking about Blunkett/Clarke and detention without trial.)

I loved Steve Bells' cartoon in the Guardian about the Gunatanamo detainees in advance of the terroist legislation kicking off. it summed it all up splendidly.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/cartoons/stevebell/0,7371,1398846,00.html

The practicalities of how constitutional reform may be achieved is, I think, a just concern we share.

The other problem is you would need a cross party concensus to make sure the next government doesn't just repeal the whole thing ~
How do you get a set of rules every party would be happy with and then convince us that it was right?
Can't see that happening any time soon.

I really don't know whether it's worth bothering posting here any more. I've had the most uncontroversia and ordinary postings removed. One today and one 2 or 3 days ago. Who are these people to make these decisions? What qualifications do they have? Hiding away behind the scenes!

Hootoo is great for silliness but as an adult discussion forum about real subjects affecting ordinary people it's a frustrating joke!

Furture Parliaments are not bound by previous parliaments its true.

Cross party consensus is the only way to proceed on such issues - which is why large majorities are so dangerous - which is itself an argument for PR - which is an argument for constitutional reform that requires corss party consensus...

*dissappears with an audible pop inside a bubble of introspection.*

hi redpeckhamthegratepompomwithknobson

Did you email back and ask why you got yikesed i did and got one of mine put back ~ ofcourse i also lost one for quoting Clive on the subject of Blair and the war.

Got to keep bringing that back up.

Of course its worth posting here Red (I'd miss having a sparring partner for one thing.) The moderation issue has been with us ever since we came back from oblivion in the clutches of the benevolant and (sycophantic scraping) BBC.

The Mods are an outside unit who monitor the content of the beeb websites like ours and I agree its annoying frustrating and infuriating to have a post yiksed - at least they don't delete us for posting any outside links or swearing anymore

At times of great national debate such as elections everyone gets very excitable and consequently the mods are instructed to be extra careful in what the let through because believe it or not the beeb are liable for what we write as they host our discussions. It's a bit cockeyed I know - we are all adults and frankly what I say about X so long as its not illegal or whatever I think should be seen without restriction - but these are the rules and we have to play by them.

The only way the Italics can demonstrate that this board is responsible, looks after itself and doesn't need to be molly-coddled to death is if we play by the rules and give the Italics the trust in us they need tp be able to demonstrate to their bosses to give us more of the beenfit of the doubt.

If you leave or stop posting - then the arguments already lost.

Pixel what did they fail you for? Curious minds want to know.

I got caught out under the campaigning/lobbying rule before but they failed you for quoting me? Eh? That can't be right, otherwise I'd have been failed too for posting whatever it was that was so terrible it might offend fragile minds.

"intelligence, yes of course I'm sure, what do you mean I've lost
the trust and respect of the british public? etc."

Wasn't that the end of one of your posts aboutBlair and the war(o think i left out the banned bit) ~
They got mine first when i quoted it and then went back for the original ~ apologies if it wasn't you but when you asked about mine going i just assumed it was.

Posts 176,178 and 180

Sorry for the hypocrisy, I moaned about the Iraq thing and now I'm talking about it

One thing I've always been curious about is that Blair has often said it is in our national interest to side with the US and go to war. He's never really explained why it's in our national interest. Does anyone know what he means?

Oh.

Oh I *was* moderated.

*fires of an email to the towers*

I want to hear the explanation for how my "summation" of TB and the war was yikesable.

Ho Hum.

I agree it is *very irritating* "nix illigitums carborundum" as they say.

Peckham - One thing I've always been curious about is that Blair has often said it is in our national interest to side with the US and go to war. He's never really explained why it's in our national interest. Does anyone know what he means?

I assume he's refering to the re-building contracts that would come the way of British Industry (but which haven't appeared so far)

On a matter as serious as taking the country to war to invade another country the checks and balances should have been applied by MPs. Never mind the whips. The more senior the MP then the more culpable they are now that the intelligence supporting that invasion has been shown up for what it always was.

There are two important issues not yet debated. Is it democratic for a political party to campaign under a leader who, if successfully elected will form a government that will eventually be lead by somebody else.

And what about Europe. Nobody wants to talk about the issue that will most effect our future prosperity and security in the medium and long term.

"There are two important issues not yet debated. Is it democratic for a political party to campaign under a leader who, if successfully elected will form a government that will eventually be lead by somebody else."

No the short answer is that if a party is to change leadership in the immediate aftermath of an election it is blatantly dishonest not to tell the electorate.
I know someone is bound to post back saying that we are voting for a party not a president ~ but the prime minister (particularly when the government has a large majority) has great power and influence.
We should have the right to decide who will be the public and world face of our government.


"And what about Europe. Nobody wants to talk about the issue that will most effect our future prosperity and security in the medium and long term."

We have talked about Europe here ~ check out the thread "To Euro or not to Euro"

To repeat a bunch of points i made there ~ i do not want either the Euro or the European constitition.I like the status quo ~ there is no need to withdraw from the EU as it currently stands but i do not wish to join a federal Europe.

By convention I assume, as we do not have a written constitution, it is the party leader who is invited to form a government. However this time we know, depending on the trust factor, that in the event of a New Labour victory the leader who is invited to form the government will step down before the government has run it's course. Political new ground.

I haven't heard Europe being debated in terms of the election. Maybe the politicos will get to it in due course. Maybe they are waiting for the French to vote 'Non' to let them off the referendum hook.

The only reference i've heard from the politicos about Europe was when UKIP announced they would not field candidates against any Tory or Labour candidates who were publicly declared to be anti-europe but would instead target pro-europe MPs

W. Albatross I'm not going to repeat my point that we are not voting for a president, but what I shall say on the matter is that TB has already announced he's going to step down before the election after this one, so people can vote in the knowledge that this is the case.

Yesterday I had a post removed for doubting that one of the leaders, (I can't say which cos this might be yikesed) would make a very good PM. This makes proper discussion very difficult as people seem to be agreed that whoever becomes PM and their personality is a significant factor in deciding who to vote for. !!!!

Regarding a constitution, one thing I hear from debates on happenings in the US a lot is "its unconstitutional!" To me this is a circular arguement: you put things in the consitution because you think they're a good idea - to say that they're then a good idea because they're in the constitution is silly.

One justification is this whole limiting democracy's errors thing, but to me its merely an extension and invasion of the power of popular opinion (or popular politician opinion) in the time that the constitution is written into that of other times.

For me the government needs to be made more answerable to the masses, not to pieces of paper.

>>Yesterday I had a post removed for doubting that one of the leaders, (I can't say which cos this might be yikesed) would make a very good PM. This makes proper discussion very difficult as people seem to be agreed that whoever becomes PM and their personality is a significant factor in deciding who to vote for. !!!! <<

I agree Red. I got the feedback on my failed post. It was "borderline" apparently and lacked authoratative web resources to back up my claims which I've been pretty good at provideding hithertoo. It was failed specifically for naming TB - so I am as mystified as you as to how proper debate over for instance leadership can proceed. (despite the horrors of personality politics, we as voters will ultimately be affected by whomever is in charge.) I would consider thefore voicing an opinion on one or more of the politcians themselves who may or may not take up office and discussing their potential in future jobs or responsibility in past roles as being pretty non-contraversial and quite necessary.