The Queen has almost no political power so our Prime Minister is a President in all but name. If he or she was elected as such it might lead to a better outcome.
I'm against the entire concept of the monarchy, but I'm not sure an elected President would make much of a difference, unfortunately. The same is true of the second chamber. I'd like to see them both replaced, in theory, but I can't help but feel that we'd just end up with more of the same ****e that we've already got. One more group of bought and paid for arseholes working for the same people as the main mob. What's the point? Not sure what a good alternative would be without it being completely undemocratic, though. Douglas-Home was appointed after he'd gone through the proper motions. The Queen actually tried to stay out of it as much as possible, getting the Tories to make their selection before the appointment. Douglas-Home wasn't the Deputy Prime Minister and there were powerful cabinet members who opposed him taking the post. She knew and liked him, so it would've suited her very well. As for the peerage, that was a simple matter of him becoming the leader of the House of Commons. It had nothing to do with the Monarch, if something to do with the monarchy itself. Nobody was supposed to be a member of both chambers. He still did so, though it was very temporary. I'll go through your points: i.) The dictionary definition fits Qatar's Emir perfectly. ii.) Irrelevant. The Emir controls the Prime Minister, selects him, can remove him at will and he's a member of his family. iii.) Nation master defines Zimbabwe as a Parliamentary Democracy. It also doesn't define monarchies as dictatorships. iv.) No, it doesn't. v.) No, you're the one defending a ludicrous decision and a dictatorship with awful arguments for no apparent reason. Nobody slagged of the decision to give South Africa the World Cup?! Is that really the argument you're going for? What reason do you think people are actually criticising Qatar for, then? You've lost me. Islamophobia?
The only proven record of a socialist government over time has been Sweden However you read all the comments on this section it's bleeding hearts wishing for fair minded truly balanced for all peoples socialistic people's governance Have all the wishes sincerely held but history to date demonstrates the winner is efficiency over pipe dreams
US prosecutors are now looking into "the votes for the 1998, 2006, 2010, 2018 and 2022 tournaments". Funny they’re not going back as far as ’94.
When Scotland leaves the union reform of the UK democracy will be a lot easier. We should compare the UK with our 'peers' ,countries like France, Germany, Holland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark and so on, if we do the UK is not as impressive as it likes to portray itself. From average wages to equality, working conditions, manufacturing, democratic institutions, social benefits, housing, education, pensions, all fall short of our peers. The only area where we are a leading nation is health care and the Tories are doing their best to seriously damage that for the profit of themselves and their friends.
Mostly true but again all but Sweden they function with contractors and the profit motive Also worth remembering that Labour government first to go to contractors My personal belief is that in healthcare we should all be prepared to commit employment to the benefit of all Unfortunately the human condition has not progressed that far, having worked and managed in a great many NHS hospitals I've witnessed at first hand the massive incompetence and wilful waste in time and money and nowhere more so than in the purchasing departments where £300 machines are purchased for thousands with ease of understanding why etc Of course there are people with total commitment doing a great job 24/7 but very often managed by low level management paid high level salaries How would observations of the Wales NHS hospitals be judged in performance having been Labour controlled for six years plus, the answer being depressing and remember only Wales in that period saw budget cuts and they were applied by Labour party controls.
The US spends far more per capita on health care than any other country and gets worse results than most wealthy nations (3x more than Japan, for example, to get seven fewer years of life expectancy). Anyone who would want to imitate the greatest fraud in the history of the world, which is what the US health care system is, is mad, bribed, or both.
"The only proven record of a socialist government over time has been Sweden" Ah, the old chestnut of the socialist utopia that is Sweden. And yet when I meet monthly with my Swedish colleagues. the tale is all so similar to the usual gripes that are/were in the UK. From immigration to defence spending, the costs of employment, state subsidy of inefficient industry sectors, politicians allegedly educated in economics yet are utter idiots. Take your pick it seems.
The FAI are piling on, saying FIFA paid them off to drop their complaint about Thierry Henry's playing basketball costing them a place in the 2006 World Cup. ...or, to look at it another way, the FAI had legitimate grounds for appeal against France qualifying for the World Cup at their expense though dubious means - but were happy to accept a cheque from Uncle Sepp as soon as he offered one.
That's why the England fans were singing "Sepp Blatter he paid for your stadium" at today's megabore.
I'm not sure that the FAI did have any real chance of successfully appealing Henry's cheating, to be honest. It happens fairly frequently and I've yet to see anyone challenge a poor refereeing decision, rather than one that's just blatantly wrong in execution.
There has been occasions where the final minutes of a match have been replayed due to refereeing incompetence, although the interesting part is the different approaches that FIFA and UEFA took... UEFA: replay the last minute of the game, starting with the penalty one team were bafflingly denied FIFA: play the whole game again, which allows the team who benefited from a refereeing mistake to win the replay outright
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-33050289 I know the US is probably not the target audience for this kind of film but it's a wonderful kind of hubris that FIFA launched this propaganda piece just as their committee members were starting to be carted off to the gulags. That's at least 2 bribes worth of FIFA money wasted on this vanity project.
How did Tim Roth get suckered into starring in a piece of **** like that? He's a West Ham fan, so I guess he's used to backing a loser.
Have they left k off the end, or did it really take less £400? Liked this review The Village Voice called it "not merely ham-fisted, but pork-shouldered, bacon-wristed, and sausage-elbowed".
Somebody paid $400 for a cinema ticket??? Still, could we worse - FIFA's puff piece outgrossed this one by a whole digit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zyzzyx_Road
"A vanity film about the history of Fifa has flopped in the US, taking just $607 (£397) in its opening weekend." I’ve never been so proud of my country. Sniff.
They tried to ditch the film completely, hiring a small cinema to fulfil a domestic viewing agreement, so they could pay the actors less money. Nobody was supposed to see it. Virtually nobody did. http://www.ew.com/article/2007/02/09/how-zyzzyx-road-only-grossed-3000 Quite amusing that it still managed to make nearly as much money as FIFA's ridiculous movie. I'm surprised that Blatter didn't bribe people to watch it. Maybe he did?
I think they must have kept very quiet about it in a moment of rare shame. I hadn't even heard about it until a friend forwarded me the link.
