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

Aren't the Church supposed to do what is 'right' not what is 'best'.

I.e. it is morally right to dump the shares but it would be best to retain the shares and make money on them.

It really does blow a hole through any of their teachings now...





Robin Cook:-

A statement: "Private life is not relevant to political life."

My view is if someone is willing and able to lie and cheat on their wife...what do you think they are capable of doing to a country? That's always my worry.

However, Robin Cook did show cojones and also show that not all gingers are low-lifes... ...get away from the yikes button it's a joke...some of my best friends are redheads...

"My view is if someone is willing and able to lie and cheat on their wife...what do you think they are capable of doing to a country? That's always my worry"

I don't see that that follows at all, and Robin Cook is a classic counter example - someone who may have cheated on his wife (though I would imagine that no-one here is in a position to speculate about the state of the marriage), but who acted with integrity in the political sphere.

I guess the argument is that anyone who would cheat on their partner is a bounder, a rotter, and a cad and therefore not to be trusted with political power. But if that's true, should banks stop lending money to anyone who's cheated on a partner? Should those who are single immediately rule out as prospective partners anyone who has ever cheated on a partner? Shouldn't we be banning those found guilty of marital infidelity from teaching in our classrooms? From working in our hospitals?

I don't think it's a good thing that someone cheats on a partner - not at all. But I don't think it can be necessarily be interpreted as evidence of a deep-seated moral malaise. Surely the reality is that people are complicated. I don't think anyone divides their friends, colleagues and acquaintances into just two categories - trustworthy and untrustworthy. We'd all trust some people with some things, and not others.

As anyone in the middle will agree.
The pillars of society have collapsed.
Those at the top want more and those at the bottom want more of what it is that those at the top want more of.
For better of worse life goes on.

"Yeah: we don't vote for a Prime Minister, we vote for a party, and that party gets to pick who is in the hot seat."
"Actually we don't even do that. We Vote for an individual MP.

Funnily enough the first thing they do on election is swear to sever not us but the monarch. Contrary to popular beleif we are not a soveriegn people like those in most Democracys!"

While both of these things are technically true, in practice many people see the leader as the governement, and see the government as what they vote for. The replacement would be under tremendous pressure, especially if they represent a significant change in political identity, as with Clegg. If they did not go to the polls for 'approval' on the change, they would be branded as opportunistic power-grabbers for whom nobody voted.
Brown managed to avoid this, mostly, but only because that changeover was long expected. He still got some serious flack, though.

There have been large numbers of occasions of a PM changing mid term. It is consitutionally fine, and it was only because the right wing press hated Brown so much that they made such an issue of it.

It is a normal part of our consitution for this to happen and the idea that we have a presidential system is balderdash. And totally unworkable on the basis of the way our democracy works.

Harumph!

FB

<>

And if Cameron goes to be replaced by AN Other the left wing press won't write a word of criticism? Miliband won't call for an election or ever mention the unelected nature of the replacement in the House?

As anyone in the middle will agree.
Those at the top are hopeless and those at the bottom are useless.
When will the hopeless b&gg$rs at the top sort out the useless b&gg$rs at the bottom and leave those in the middle to get on with their lives and try to reestablish some faith,belief and respect in society.

Aaaaaand - there goes another cop http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14181344

This is getting to be rather fun. I don't think I've enjoyed anything so much since the fuel blockades in 2000 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_protests_in_the_United_Kingdom

B

"And if Cameron goes to be replaced by AN Other the left wing press won't write a word of criticism? Miliband won't call for an election or ever mention the unelected nature of the replacement in the House?"

Obviously they will. But I mean that a far bigger fuss than normal happened because the Right so especially hated Brown the man asm uch as Brown the leader of the Labour government.

Are you seriously pretending that it wasn't *more* of a story because it was Brown? C'mon man you are more astute than that.

FB

No, I reckon it was a big, big story. It was bigger than previous stories because the media and politicians have become far more enmeshed than in the 70s. But it will be dwarved by the furore that would erupt if Cameron is replaced by a left wing media absolutely desperate to break the coalition up.

All with little or no effect on society at large.
A warm up performance for the *United* act still to come.

But we don't have a left wing media. We have broadcast media forced to be impartial/balanced. And the print media is massively toward the right.

Brown was a particular bugbear of many on the right, they hated him personally (still do, judging by the Parliamentary Tory Party behavior toward him in the commons last week) and because of this it was obviously a bigger story than it owuld have been if someone like James Purnell or David Miliband had taken over.

Given that we have a coalition i'd say the argument against a particular PM stepping down meanin a General Election should be called is even weaker than it was then.

No for me the story will be will the new Tory leader (assuming we got one) be able/willing to keep the coalition together. I'd say if I was a betting man, and DC had to go tomorrow it would be Liam Fox.

FB

This post has been removed.

As for Liam Fox, are the English ready for *another* Scottish PM?

I meant to say left win media bias. Of course there are centrist and left leaning papers.

FB

If Cameron were to jump tomorrow I find it hard to see who else? Hague would probably win a membership ballot but not sure he'd stand.

In fact I might go and have a flutter on Liam Fox as next permanent leader of the tories.

FB

Possibly, or David Davis.

Tim Montgomery has just tweeted that he was very impressed by May and that she owuld be a contender.

I think Davis has had his day and is done. I would be frankly astonished if he were to become Tory leader now.

No chance.

FB

Can still see Miliband being dragged into this. He's not exactly squeaky clean. Balls has gone uncharacteristically quiet too.