The Royals

[Johnny75]

The fact that others have influence is irrelevant. The Monarchy is meant to be different.

You live by an odd set of rules.

Still haven't proven any influence either. BTW writing letters that are disregarded aren't influence. You can do that to your MP with pretty much the same effect.

 

[Johnny75]

I’m gonna put this one on the Founders. “Lifetime service” for Justices… GTFO with that.

Still something el pres can do in their own though.

You can't do that here.

Also, nobody would care if a PM were bumped off is the party that rules and they'd put another leader in charge as seen by our current set of morons.

 

[Alan]

Still something el pres can do in their own though.

You can't do that here.

Also, nobody would care if a PM were bumped off is the party that rules and they'd put another leader in charge as seen by our current set of morons.

Very unlike our rotation of clowns.

 

[leedswolf]

if a PM were bumped off is the party that rules and they'd put another leader in charge as seen by our current set of morons.

That would happen with the VP?

 

[Templeton Peck]

You live by an odd set of rules.

Still haven't proven any influence either. BTW writing letters that are disregarded aren't influence. You can do that to your MP with pretty much the same effect.

What?! That the unelected head of state should be above using their position to lobby govt is 'an odd set of rules'?? Christ on a bike.

 

[Templeton Peck]

King's Consent - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Johnny75]

King's Consent - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

You haven't read that have you?

Try about half way down where it says royal consent is always given as a formality.

No matter how much you try to say it the royals have no influence on parliament.

As a teacher I thought you'd know that.

 

[Johnny75]

That would happen with the VP?

Not sure on that but again it's one person's choice not the party as a whole.

 

[Tony Towner]

Not sure on that but again it's one person's choice not the party as a whole.

That would be the case as per LBJ and JFK

 

[Alan]

Not really a “choice” fwiw. The line of succession is pretty rigid. If the Pres dies, it’s always the VP that takes over (unless they also died, then it’s Senate Majority Leader IIRC, etc).

If Trump had been impeached, Pence would have moved up.

 

[Tony Towner]

Not really a “choice”… the line of succession is pretty rigid. If the Pres dies, it’s always the VP that takes over (unless they also died, then it’s Senate Majority Leader IIRC, etc).

If Trump had been impeached, Pence would have moved up.

It's a choice in as much as the VP is chosen by the future President during the election process so therefore a nomination as he (in America not or she) is consciously picking who'd replace them in that eventuality

 

[Alan]

That's true. I think the distinction between "I picked this person before I got elected" and "I picked this person after I got elected" is worth noting, though.

A lot of people firmly believe that McCain would have beaten Obama had he not picked Palin as his VP, for example. Dunno if they're right, but Palin's, er, "antics", were certainly not a boon to McCain with more moderate conservatives.

 

[Tony Towner]

That's true. I think the distinction between "I picked this person before I got elected" and "I picked this person after I got elected" is worth noting, though.

A lot of people firmly believe that McCain would have beaten Obama had he not picked Palin as his VP, for example. Dunno if they're right, but Palin's, er, "antics", were certainly not a boon to McCain with more moderate conservatives.

Not sure if you are comparing that to the UK or not, but our Deputy PM role is more about keeping someone onside rather than in power. We've swapped PM 4 times in the last 7 years and the DPM hasn't got the role once. A bunch of 75 year old racists choosing them instead in some of those instances is another issue

 

[Alan]

Not sure if you are comparing that to the UK or not, but our Deputy PM role is more about keeping someone onside rather than in power. We've swapped PM 4 times in the last 7 years and the DPM hasn't got the role once. A bunch of 75 year old racists choosing them instead is another issue

I lurk in the `<PM> At It Again` thread enough to have worked this bit out.

Not defending our system here (I'd tear it down and start fresh, but that ship sailed in 1781), just trying to clarify things where I can.

 

[Templeton Peck]

You haven't read that have you?

Try about half way down where it says royal consent is always given as a formality.

No matter how much you try to say it the royals have no influence on parliament.

As a teacher I thought you'd know that.

Might want to take your own advice.

"One report noted that it was "almost certain that some bills were changed before introduction in order to address concerns about crown consent".

 

[Templeton Peck]

Queen’s secret influence on laws revealed in Scottish government memo

Exclusive: Internal memo admits ‘it is almost certain’ laws altered to secure monarch’s consent

www.theguardian.com

 

[leedswolf]

Then there's the Privy Council...

 

[Kenny]

The Stone of Destiny has left Edinburgh. This is very normal.

It has its own stool as well

 

[Langers]

Isn't that a mini Stonehenge?

 

[MARKakaJIM]

Arguably not even the original stone.