wobbles
Posts: 148
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2005 10:40 am

Question About Tony Blair

Sun Jul 30, 2006 2:40 am

I was just watching something on CSPAN in the US about Bush and his current dictatorship which is really distrubing. Yes Bush has only vetoed one bill since he's come into office. But he has done something that basically sidesteps laws and admendments made by congress, called (I think) signature statements, when he does this, since it is not a veto, congress cannot go back and make admendments or override a veto and Bush basically violates the constitution by not enforcing laws that are passed, for example, holding funds to implement laws or directing agencies not to enforce it. He, as even the right know, said he is basicallly above the law since we are in wartime. Johnson and even Nixon did not try this stuff and this report said that he has used this measure to get his way (by not vetoing a law, but thinking it does not apply to him) way way more than all past presidents combined. My question is: has Tony Blair done similiar things in England? I know the constitution is different over there but, again, has Blair ever even indirectly said, Fuck the law, we in a war on terror. Even though I think he is a Bush puppet, I just don't think he has done so, but maybe I'm wrong. Thanks for an answer.
 
RichardPrice
Posts: 4474
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 5:12 am

RE: Question About Tony Blair

Sun Jul 30, 2006 3:41 am

Quoting Wobbles (Thread starter):
has Tony Blair done similiar things in England?

Tony Blair doesnt sign laws, the Queen does and can withhold Royal Assent, thus stopping the bill becoming law.

The majority party, of whom the Prime Minister is typically the leader (he doesnt have to be by law tho) takes the role of Executive and runs the country. Parliament, comprised of all elected members, brings new law for discussion and voting on, which then goes to the House of Lords for a vote there and then is signed into Law by the Queen. Although less common, law can originate in the Lords and be passed down to the Commons for discussion.

Any member can bring a bill for discussion, and it is then voted on - a defeat means the bill cannot be brought again for a certain period of time (last occurance of a majority party originating bill being defeated was in 2005 with the Terror Detention period extension being struck down).

Blair has no direct power to block laws, although it is common that the majority party uses its voting power to push through wide ranging modifications - althoiugh this can be blocked by the Lords and pushed through using the Parliment Act to Royal Assent.

Its worth mentioning that the British Prime Ministerial position is not one codified in law, it doesnt exist according to any law in British Justice, although in custom the holder of the position does so under Royal Perogative, and the reigning monarch invests in the holder any powers they may have, bar the Royal Assent.
 
deltagator
Posts: 6170
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 9:56 am

RE: Question About Tony Blair

Sun Jul 30, 2006 3:56 am

Quoting Wobbles (Thread starter):
Bush and his current dictatorship

And your credibility just went out the window.

Quoting Wobbles (Thread starter):
he has done something that basically sidesteps laws and admendments made by congress, called (I think) signature statements, when he does this, since it is not a veto, congress cannot go back and make admendments or override a veto and Bush basically violates the constitution by not enforcing laws that are passed

It is well known that every President we have ever had has done this as well. Seeing your disgust towards Dubya (and believe me when I say he is off my Christmas card list with his continued antics and love of spending) where was your outrage when Bubba did the same thing? Typical liberal attitude (and also used by the Right as well before you call me out on it)...attack when it is convenient and ignore when your group is in power.
"If you can't delight in the misery of others then you don't deserve to be a college football fan."
 
wobbles
Posts: 148
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2005 10:40 am

RE: Question About Tony Blair

Sun Jul 30, 2006 9:05 am

Why do you Bush loyalists always try to say Clinton did the same thing for everything your boy does wrong? Because it's just about the only defense you have! If you can show me any articles where Bubba used even 400 signature statements, I will put a Bush/Cheney sticker on my car.
 
deltagator
Posts: 6170
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 9:56 am

RE: Question About Tony Blair

Sun Jul 30, 2006 9:21 am

Quoting Wobbles (Reply 3):
Why do you Bush loyalists always try to say Clinton did the same thing for everything your boy does wrong?

I'm no Bush loyalist so you lose that argument. If you noticed I said every President. I only used Bubba as an example due to his recent term.

Quoting Wobbles (Reply 3):
If you can show me any articles where Bubba used even 400 signature statements, I will put a Bush/Cheney sticker on my car.

But in reading your original post even one use is horrible so why the double standard?...because it fits your model. When a Dem does it then all is well and good. When the GOP does it we are living in a dictatorship and turning into Nazi Germany. Please! Try again.
"If you can't delight in the misery of others then you don't deserve to be a college football fan."
 
wobbles
Posts: 148
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2005 10:40 am

RE: Question About Tony Blair

Sun Jul 30, 2006 11:56 am

I NEVER said that one signature statement was horrible, but 800?
 
turbo7x7
Posts: 242
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 9:20 am

RE: Question About Tony Blair

Sun Jul 30, 2006 12:55 pm

Quoting DeltaGator (Reply 4):
When a Dem does it then all is well and good. When the GOP does it we are living in a dictatorship and turning into Nazi Germany. Please! Try again.

Puh-leeze! If a Democratic president had been caught doing all that Dubya's been caught doing so far, he would have been IMPEACHED already by the GOP Congress.

And you're complaining of double standards??

[Edited 2006-07-30 05:58:44]
 
ANCFlyer
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

RE: Question About Tony Blair

Sun Jul 30, 2006 1:39 pm

Quoting Wobbles (Thread starter):
I was just watching something on CSPAN in the US about Bush and his current dictatorship which is really distrubing. Yes Bush has only vetoed one bill since he's come into office. But he has done something that basically sidesteps laws and admendments made by congress, called (I think) signature statements, when he does this, since it is not a veto, congress cannot go back and make admendments or override a veto and Bush basically violates the constitution by not enforcing laws that are passed, for example, holding funds to implement laws or directing agencies not to enforce it. He, as even the right know, said he is basicallly above the law since we are in wartime. Johnson and even Nixon did not try this stuff and this report said that he has used this measure to get his way (by not vetoing a law, but thinking it does not apply to him) way way more than all past presidents combined.

Cute, a Blair thread that starts with a Bush Bash - incorrigible . . .

Quoting DeltaGator (Reply 2):
And your credibility just went out the window.

Yup, with the first line in the thread, it's already proven to be worthless.
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Question About Tony Blair

Sun Jul 30, 2006 2:58 pm

I don't think there is room here for what I would like to do, throw a brickbat at Holy Tony.

I cannot do half as well as RP, but a couple of things. The UK has put through some anti-terror laws that have been kicked out by the justices. Tonys other major contribution has been to get the opposition to vote for his policies while his own party has been seriously split by them.

I still cherish that TV interview with the Tyne bridge as background where he was crucified by an audience of Geordies (Tynesiders) for his Iraq capers.

My 2c on signing statements, the one saying he is above the torture law could get him in a spot of bother. Esp if he plans a triumphal world tour after he leaves office (not that the tour is all that likely!).
 
BigOrange
Posts: 2291
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 2:20 am

RE: Question About Tony Blair

Sun Jul 30, 2006 3:20 pm

Quoting DeltaGator (Reply 2):
It is well known that every President we have ever had has done this as well

Yes they have, but every past US president combined has only signed 600 of these.
 
QANTASforever
Posts: 5794
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2001 6:03 am

RE: Question About Tony Blair

Sun Jul 30, 2006 4:00 pm

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 1):
the Queen does and can withhold Royal Assent, thus stopping the bill becoming law.

Provide me with one example where the current Queen has witheld Royal assent.

In truth there is nothing to stop the British Parliament from passing all sorts of laws, because as many British members here have noted on numerous occasions - the Queen is vested with certain powers over the democratically elected parliament up until she decides to actually use them. It's a house of cards that they won't allow to topple.

QFF
Fighting for the glory of the Australian Republic.
 
Banco
Posts: 14343
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2001 11:56 pm

RE: Question About Tony Blair

Sun Jul 30, 2006 6:01 pm

Quoting QANTASforever (Reply 10):
Provide me with one example where the current Queen has witheld Royal assent.

Beat me to it. I was going to say the same thing.

I think (though I could be wrong) the last time the Royal Assent was withheld was in 1707. In practice, the monarch never could do such a thing, because it would provoke a massive constitutional crisis. Picture the scenario, such a refusal is swiftly followed by a move to remove the monarch, which the monarch also refuses to sign. Bugger. What now?

It's a historical hangover, and the one point about it in the modern day and age is that it provides the "nuclear option" against tyranny, that the monarch could refuse to give the Royal Assent to a grotesque or tyrannical Bill.
She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
 
AerospaceFan
Posts: 6990
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 1:43 am

RE: Question About Tony Blair

Sun Jul 30, 2006 6:20 pm

Quoting QANTASforever (Reply 10):
In truth there is nothing to stop the British Parliament from passing all sorts of laws, because as many British members here have noted on numerous occasions - the Queen is vested with certain powers over the democratically elected parliament up until she decides to actually use them. It's a house of cards that they won't allow to topple.

This has been my impression, as well. At present, the monarchy in Great Britain exists as a ceremonial entity to solemnize the proceedings in government. Theoretically, Parliament cannot function unless the Great Mace, representative of the power of the monarch, is on display. The Queen also has a right to know what laws are proposed in her name, and any recommendations she makes are presumably taken into account. It is said that the monarch can also act as a backstop to tyranny, but by historical measure, when the time came to confront a dictatorial Cromwell, the leader of the "Roundheads" in Parliament, it turned out quite badly for the Crown: Charles I lost not only the battle, but his life.

Incidentally, it seems that one reason that Prince Charles, assuming that he is elevated in succession, will probably not take the name, "Charles II" could be the unfortunate end that befell the first.
What's fair is fair.
 
trident3
Posts: 988
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2001 7:10 am

RE: Question About Tony Blair

Sun Jul 30, 2006 6:28 pm

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 12):
Incidentally, it seems that one reason that Prince Charles, assuming that he is elevated in succession, will probably not take the name, "Charles II" could be the unfortunate end that befell the first

It is probably because we have already had a CharlesII! Reigned 1660-1685, he was Charles I son.
"We are the warrior race-Tough men in the toughest sport." Brian Noble, Head Coach, Great Britain Rugby League.
 
JGPH1A
Posts: 15080
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 4:36 pm

RE: Question About Tony Blair

Sun Jul 30, 2006 6:32 pm

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 12):
Incidentally, it seems that one reason that Prince Charles, assuming that he is elevated in succession, will probably not take the name, "Charles II" could be the unfortunate end that befell the first.

It would be Charles III. There was already a Charles II, who was the son of Charles I, and who was a fantastically poplular monarch, it seems, brought back by popular acclaim during the Restoration ie. after the republican Commonwealth period which was not popular, mostly because it imposed very strict Puritanism on Great Britain. So I don't think Prince Charles will have any problem being Charles III.

[Edited 2006-07-30 11:33:10]
Young and beautiful and thin and gorgeous AND BANNED ! Cya at airspaceonline.com, losers
 
AerospaceFan
Posts: 6990
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 1:43 am

RE: Question About Tony Blair

Sun Jul 30, 2006 6:33 pm

Quoting Trident3 (Reply 13):
It is probably because we have already had a CharlesII! Reigned 1660-1685, he was Charles I son.

My apologies -- my slip is showing!

You're quite right, of course.
What's fair is fair.
 
QANTASforever
Posts: 5794
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2001 6:03 am

RE: Question About Tony Blair

Sun Jul 30, 2006 6:46 pm

Quoting Banco (Reply 11):
It's a historical hangover, and the one point about it in the modern day and age is that it provides the "nuclear option" against tyranny, that the monarch could refuse to give the Royal Assent to a grotesque or tyrannical Bill.

This is like the real nuclear option. In a world of salami tactics, what constitutes the last straw?

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 12):
Theoretically, Parliament cannot function unless the Great Mace, representative of the power of the monarch, is on display.

That's not theory - it's practice! lol

Also the case for most (if not all) of the federal, state, and provincial parliaments that operate in countries of which the Queen is equally and concurrently head of state.

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 12):
The Queen also has a right to know what laws are proposed in her name

Laws are never proposed in the name of the monarch, just as laws are never proposed in the US congress in the name of the President. Once royal assent has been given to an act of parliament, it becomes part of the legal position of "The Crown" as a legal entity, not as an individual.

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 12):
and any recommendations she makes are presumably taken into account.

The Queen **NEVER** makes legislative recommendations. See reply 11.

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 14):
So I don't think Prince Charles will have any problem being Charles III.

Maybe, but by all accounts he will most likely be King George VII.

QFF
Fighting for the glory of the Australian Republic.
 
JGPH1A
Posts: 15080
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 4:36 pm

RE: Question About Tony Blair

Sun Jul 30, 2006 6:54 pm

Quoting QANTASforever (Reply 16):
Maybe, but by all accounts he will most likely be King George VII.

Any reason why, apart from his Grandad being George ? I don't see the need particularly...
Young and beautiful and thin and gorgeous AND BANNED ! Cya at airspaceonline.com, losers
 
Banco
Posts: 14343
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2001 11:56 pm

RE: Question About Tony Blair

Sun Jul 30, 2006 6:56 pm

Quoting QANTASforever (Reply 16):
This is like the real nuclear option. In a world of salami tactics, what constitutes the last straw?

Ah. Yes, Prime Minister.  Wink

You're quite correct, of course. The other side of it though is whether anyone would risk causing the monarch to refuse to sign a Bill. Who knows? In gloriously British constitutional fashion, the very defence is that no-one has the faintest idea how to manage such an event.
She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
 
AerospaceFan
Posts: 6990
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 1:43 am

RE: Question About Tony Blair

Sun Jul 30, 2006 6:56 pm

Thank you for the reply, QANTAS. However, I wonder what you would make of the boldfaced language in the following, which I found after reading your message:

Quote:
Constitutional monarchy is a key principle, meaning that the monarch does not technically rule, he or she has a ceremonial role only. This principle traces from Restoration, and by the time Walter Bagehot wrote that the monarchy was the 'dignified parts' of the constitution, the modern situation had been established. However, this is tempered by the fact that parliament technically derives its authority from the Crown by the implicit consent of the monarch. The collective term for the legislative and governmental power of parliament is therefore the King (or Queen) in Parliament principle.

Source:

http://www.answers.com/topic/constitution-of-the-united-kingdom

(Boldfacing added.)

[Edited 2006-07-30 11:57:59]
What's fair is fair.
 
Banco
Posts: 14343
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2001 11:56 pm

RE: Question About Tony Blair

Sun Jul 30, 2006 7:04 pm

Quoting QANTASforever (Reply 16):
The Queen **NEVER** makes legislative recommendations. See reply 11.

Althouh the Queen does counsel the Prime Minister in the weekly audiences. Prime Ministers without exception talk about how valuable this is to them, to have a genuinely neutral person with huge experience to act as a sounding board, safe in the knowledge that she will never ever tell anyone.

Of course, none of us have a clue what they talk about. Could be the weather for all we know...
She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
 
JGPH1A
Posts: 15080
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 4:36 pm

RE: Question About Tony Blair

Sun Jul 30, 2006 7:21 pm

Quoting Banco (Reply 20):
Of course, none of us have a clue what they talk about. Could be the weather for all we know...

I bet the slag off the leader of the Opposition ("David Cameron, what a wanker, haha !") and talk about soaps.
Young and beautiful and thin and gorgeous AND BANNED ! Cya at airspaceonline.com, losers
 
RichardPrice
Posts: 4474
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 5:12 am

RE: Question About Tony Blair

Sun Jul 30, 2006 8:02 pm

Quoting QANTASforever (Reply 10):
Provide me with one example where the current Queen has witheld Royal assent.



Quoting Banco (Reply 11):
Beat me to it. I was going to say the same thing.

My post never alluded that she had, jsut that she could.

Quoting QANTASforever (Reply 10):
In truth there is nothing to stop the British Parliament from passing all sorts of laws, because as many British members here have noted on numerous occasions - the Queen is vested with certain powers over the democratically elected parliament up until she decides to actually use them. It's a house of cards that they won't allow to topple.

Ahh so we are back to this crap again - wah wah wah shes jsut a figurehead. Her powers certainly sorted out the Australian government in 1975!

The reason the monarch hasnt withheld their Assent recently is because of the success of the House of Lords - you dont have to refuse to sign something that never makes it to you.

This thread was about what happened to laws in the UK, and I answered that with the legal chain.
 
Banco
Posts: 14343
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2001 11:56 pm

RE: Question About Tony Blair

Sun Jul 30, 2006 8:08 pm

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 22):
My post never alluded that she had, jsut that she could.

Sorry, no. You said, and I quote: "the Queen does and can withhold the Royal Assent" which is not true, as she never has.
She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
 
Banco
Posts: 14343
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2001 11:56 pm

RE: Question About Tony Blair

Sun Jul 30, 2006 8:14 pm

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 22):
Ahh so we are back to this crap again - wah wah wah shes jsut a figurehead. Her powers certainly sorted out the Australian government in 1975!

Well, I'm going to leap in and defend QFF here, because that isn't what he's saying at all. He is entirely correct that the British constitution, which has evolved over a thousand years, is almost entirely constrained by convention rather than statute. Despite the complications of EU membership and the recent Human Rights Act, Parliament remains sovereign in this country, and can do absolutely anything it likes. That is doesn't is because of the peculiar historical circumstances that created our political structure. The safeguards to autocracy in the British system are down to how complicated everything is, rather than any specific safeguards.

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 22):
The reason the monarch hasnt withheld their Assent recently is because of the success of the House of Lords - you dont have to refuse to sign something that never makes it to you.

300 years ago is hardly "recently". And it has nothing to do with the House of Lords, it has everything to do with the gradual transfer of power from the monarch to the Lords to the Commons, which at the kindest estimate for your argument could be said to be complete 100 years ago, and more realistically 200 years ago.

You are entirely mistaken in your apparent belief that the removal of all but the vestiges of monarchical power occured within living memory.
She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
 
RichardPrice
Posts: 4474
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 5:12 am

RE: Question About Tony Blair

Sun Jul 30, 2006 8:29 pm

Quoting Banco (Reply 24):

You are entirely mistaken in your apparent belief that the removal of all but the vestiges of monarchical power occured within living memory.

When did I say that? The question posed was 'Provide me with one example where the current Queen has witheld Royal assent.' - thats my 'recent' and I make no mention of the transfer of power.

Quoting Banco (Reply 23):

Sorry, no. You said, and I quote: "the Queen does and can withhold the Royal Assent" which is not true, as she never has.

Lets see the entire quote shall we?

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 1):
Tony Blair doesnt sign laws, the Queen does and can withhold Royal Assent, thus stopping the bill becoming law.

Read it. Read it again. It doesnt mean what your above quote makes it out to mean. I shall break it down into individual sentences if its too much for you: Tony Blair doesnt sign law, the Queen does. And she can withhold Royal Assent....

Queue back to the rubbish above.
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Question About Tony Blair

Sun Jul 30, 2006 8:38 pm

Quoting Banco (Reply 11):
I think (though I could be wrong) the last time the Royal Assent was withheld was in 1707.

Indeed, it was in all the papers.

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 22):
Her powers certainly sorted out the Australian government in 1975!

"Potted" would be the correct term after the salami reference. I was going to bring this up as a matter where a goodly few of her subjects were a bit annoyed she did not intervene. It is a bit of an angels of the head of a pin job, but there is a view that it was rather the lack of exercising her powers that potted Gough Whitlam. And on the issue of powers, it would have been possible for Whitlam to have had a letter in his pocket to withdraw and present to Kerr and tell him go jump because the letter withdrew his powers.

There is much speculation as to whether Aus PMs nowadays go around permanently armed for such a show down (ever notice how Howard always wears a jacket?). But there are some Australians who think that Queenie had the power to overturn Kerr and should have used it. You may think that but I could not possibly comment.
 
Banco
Posts: 14343
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2001 11:56 pm

RE: Question About Tony Blair

Sun Jul 30, 2006 8:45 pm

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 25):
When did I say that? The question posed was 'Provide me with one example where the current Queen has witheld Royal assent.' - thats my 'recent' and I make no mention of the transfer of power.

You went on about the House of Lords being important. That is not so. The most recent change in the status of the Lords was the Parliament Act of 1949, which had no bearing whatseover on the status of the Royal Assent. Once again, the last time the monarch refused to assent to a Bill was in 1707. Your argument is irrelevant.

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 25):
Lets see the entire quote shall we?

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 1):
Tony Blair doesnt sign laws, the Queen does and can withhold Royal Assent, thus stopping the bill becoming law.

Read it. Read it again. It doesnt mean what your above quote makes it out to mean. I shall break it down into individual sentences if its too much for you: Tony Blair doesnt sign law, the Queen does. And she can withhold Royal Assent....

You seem to have major problems understanding the word "does". You said the Queen does (note: DOES) withhold assent. No, she does not. You are clearly incorrect on this point. Stop trying to defend the indefensible  Yeah sure
She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
 
QANTASforever
Posts: 5794
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2001 6:03 am

RE: Question About Tony Blair

Sun Jul 30, 2006 8:51 pm

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 17):
Any reason why, apart from his Grandad being George ? I don't see the need particularly...

It's an oft repeated rumour. Nothing to do with me.

Quoting Banco (Reply 18):
Ah. Yes, Prime Minister.

I knew you'd get it.  Wink That was exactly what I was talking about.

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 19):
However, this is tempered by the fact that parliament technically derives its authority from the Crown by the implicit consent of the monarch. The collective term for the legislative and governmental power of parliament is therefore the King (or Queen) in Parliament principle.

In purely constitutional terms, parliament is a counselling body for the benefit of the monarch who develops laws and moves them into practice. Of course, the reality is vastly different - but this theory is what that paragraph was referring to. The Parliament is a constitutional instrument of the crown that so happens to be made up of representatives of the people and eminent persons.

Quoting Banco (Reply 20):
Althouh the Queen does counsel the Prime Minister in the weekly audiences.

Counsel - yes. Advise - no. Certainly there's the story of how she helped John Major and John Howard get on better by informing the British PM they both loved cricket, but that's the extent of her advice.....as far as we can tell....

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 22):
Her powers certainly sorted out the Australian government in 1975!

If by sorted out you mean - helped to orchestrate a constitutionally questionable partisan coup that placed the country on the verge of a civil war - then yes.

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 22):
The reason the monarch hasnt withheld their Assent recently is because of the success of the House of Lords - you dont have to refuse to sign something that never makes it to you.

Are you saying that the House of Commons struggles to pass legislation through the House of Lords these days?

Quoting Banco (Reply 24):
Well, I'm going to leap in and defend QFF here

I think I hear the trumpets of the apocalypse. Big grin

RichardPrice - you're right, let's get back to basics. What on earth is your argument?

QFF
Fighting for the glory of the Australian Republic.
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Question About Tony Blair

Sun Jul 30, 2006 9:13 pm

Quoting Banco (Reply 27):
You seem to have major problems understanding the word "does". You said the Queen does (note: DOES) withhold assent. No, she does not. You are clearly incorrect on this point. Stop trying to defend the indefensible

Is it time for Apostrophe man?

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 1):
Tony Blair doesnt sign laws, the Queen does and can withhold Royal Assent, thus stopping the bill becoming law.

MS Word has a bad time with this. First it would like a semi-colon after laws. Then it has trouble, so manual (or Manuel if you prefer) assistance gave us.

Tony Blair doesn't sign laws; the Queen does. She can withhold Royal Assent, thus stopping the bill becoming law.

This has 71% readability if that helps. This statistic is not available for the original!!

Pip pip: Ap'man
 
RichardPrice
Posts: 4474
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 5:12 am

RE: Question About Tony Blair

Sun Jul 30, 2006 9:22 pm

Quoting Banco (Reply 27):
You seem to have major problems understanding the word "does". You said the Queen does (note: DOES) withhold assent. No, she does not. You are clearly incorrect on this point. Stop trying to defend the indefensible

No I didnt, I said she DOES SIGN LAWS. You are reading something into my sentence which DOES NOT EXIST. The sentence is constructed to portray that SHE DOES SIGN LAWS and SHE CAN WITHHOLD ASSENT. The two are seperate, the 'does' pertains to a modifier of 'Tony Blair does not sign laws', in that 'she does'.

Quoting QANTASforever (Reply 28):
RichardPrice - you're right, let's get back to basics. What on earth is your argument?

I have no arguement, you lot are the ones taking offence at what basically amounts to semantics in my answer of the thread starters question.


Quoting Banco (Reply 27):
Your argument is irrelevant.

And your argument is based on whatever modifications you wish to make in order for you to win. None of your blathering has sufficed to suggest that my original answer is wrong, Tony Blair cannot veto or amend law as passed by the house.

[Edited 2006-07-30 14:23:24]

[Edited 2006-07-30 14:24:53]
 
RichardPrice
Posts: 4474
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 5:12 am

RE: Question About Tony Blair

Sun Jul 30, 2006 9:26 pm

Quoting Baroque (Reply 29):
Is it time for Apostrophe man?

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 1):
Tony Blair doesnt sign laws, the Queen does and can withhold Royal Assent, thus stopping the bill becoming law.

MS Word has a bad time with this. First it would like a semi-colon after laws. Then it has trouble, so manual (or Manuel if you prefer) assistance gave us.

Tony Blair doesn't sign laws; the Queen does. She can withhold Royal Assent, thus stopping the bill becoming law.

This has 71% readability if that helps. This statistic is not available for the original!!

Based on my use of MS Word, I wouldnt use it as the basis of any statistical analysis of sentence structure.
 
QANTASforever
Posts: 5794
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2001 6:03 am

RE: Question About Tony Blair

Sun Jul 30, 2006 9:26 pm

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 30):
I have no arguement, you lot are the ones taking offence at what basically amounts to semantics in my answer of the thread starters question.

Well that's not quite true, you do have an argument - going by your reference to the 1975 constitutional crisis.

That aside, nobody took offence at what you wrote; intentions aside, what you wrote appeared to suggest that the Queen witholds Royal assent on a regular basis, which as we've all established (yourself included) is not the case.

Done.

QFF
Fighting for the glory of the Australian Republic.
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Question About Tony Blair

Sun Jul 30, 2006 10:04 pm

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 31):
Based on my use of MS Word, I wouldnt use it as the basis of any statistical analysis of sentence structure.

Just looking for an unbiased assessment, sport, or do I take it that you have in some way offended the dark forces of MS and they just know your work regardless of where it comes from and mark it down automatically?

FWIW, after the reconstruction, 71% is pretty good for the Flesch RI. I ran the whole of the first post through, and it was "a bit" lower.
 
AerospaceFan
Posts: 6990
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 1:43 am

RE: Question About Tony Blair

Mon Jul 31, 2006 12:42 am

Quoting QANTASforever (Reply 28):
In purely constitutional terms, parliament is a counselling body for the benefit of the monarch who develops laws and moves them into practice. Of course, the reality is vastly different - but this theory is what that paragraph was referring to. The Parliament is a constitutional instrument of the crown that so happens to be made up of representatives of the people and eminent persons.

Ah, yes. On this, we heartily agree! I think you have put it quite well, as it captures our mutual position on this matter.

By the way, I appreciate the expert opinion in this thread, which is most fascinating. Thank you, to all.

[Edited 2006-07-30 17:43:38]
What's fair is fair.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Tugger and 10 guests