Almost the time to dissolve Parliament?

[fuctifino]

Does anyone else feel that the time is fast approaching for Her Majesty to dissolve Parliament before the balloon REALLY goes up?

Edited by fuctifino on Friday 27th March 17:09

[fuctifino]

Martial Arts Man said:

The problem for Gordo, even if he wanted to stoop as low as delaying an election, is that he is in charge of a party of politicians.

Politicians who will certainly not sacrifice themselves, as they would do by way of election wipe-out, for anyone, let alone GB. There are plenty of ambitious Labourites who would use the delaying of an election to their own ends.

It would take the media all of 5 minutes to be whipping up a storm of Biblical proportions if such an act came to be.


His own side aren't loyal enough to go along with this and kamikaze themselves; and quite rightly, too.


The Queen would not have to become involved in this unlikely scenario in my opinion.

To clarify, are you saying that the majority of Labour MPs would force Brown out? If that happened their would surely be a confidence vote engineered and bye bye, kamikaze indeed.

The dissolution of Parliament would have to come from the Queen, not an unlikely scenario in my view, especially if Brown decided as a last throw of the dice, to engineer some kind of 'National Emergency' around demonstrations by the hoi-polloi at the G20 summit....I wonder?

[fuctifino]

s3fella said:

oh hang on the army don't have any equipment, do they? Genius Gordon.

Don't you believe it, they have contingency plans for this...:wink:

[fuctifino]

Shuvi said:

jimmyb said:

Don't bet your house. Elections are meant to be held by next may however however gordo and labour scare me they really do. They are a deeply devious and conniving bunch of s and it would not surprise me to see them bring in some form of so called emergency powers to delay elections/keep themselves in power. Have you not noticed there stalinist police state leanings??

How did mugabe come to be in power for 27 yrs?? Gordos party members wouldnt see it as suicide if done right. In fact they would potentially stand to benefit by sticking with him yet again ala Mugabe. Those who stuck with the breakaway are now severely wealthy.

In my book the queen should dissolve parliament next week monday. Hell tomorrow woundnt be soon enough for me.

I know i sound like a tinfoil hat nut but I have been watching and listening to labour for ten years.

The Queen cannot just dissolve Parliament.

Many people from all social strata voted labour and possibly will again. Get used to it.

The last two Conservative periods gave us Heath and three day week and Thatchers engineered disputes, many communities were destroyed and suffered. You really think now is worse?

All this nonsense about postponing the election is just that, nonsense. It is very common among American nutjobs to claim whichever Pres' is in charge will take powers to delay elections and rule forever, you'll notice they are wrong.

This country is a Parliamentary Democracy. You're either a Democrat or not.

Pray enlighten us, which planet are you from?

[fuctifino]

jimmyb said:

s2art said:

Shuvi said:

The Queen cannot just dissolve Parliament.

Errm, actually the Queen can. In fact its her duty to do so if the situation is such that leaving the incumbents in is bad for Britain. She did precisely this in Australia in the '70's.

Whilst shuvi is wrong about whether she can dissolve parliament he is partly right on the flipside as if she does there are or could be serious ramafications for the royals in terms of fallout. Had a discussion with somebody about this a while back who pointed the problems out but cant remember what they were.

I would say that there are likely to be far more serious ramifications for the Royal Family if the Queen did not dissolve Parliament if things really went tits up, which is not impossible. Looking back through history, there are many parallel examples, Russia 1917 for one, not forgetting what happened to Ceaucescu in '89 although he was not a monarch but a despot. Don't think for one minute that the unthinkable couldn't happen in the UK.

[fuctifino]

Shuvi said:

s2art said:

Shuvi said:

The Queen cannot just dissolve Parliament.

Errm, actually the Queen can. In fact its her duty to do so if the situation is such that leaving the incumbents in is bad for Britain. She did precisely this in Australia in the '70's.

No she cannot.

The Queen has the right to veto any legislation brought in by HER government, the PM must seek permission from the Queen to call a general election etc etc. In short, Parliament is answerable to the monarch, the police and armed forces swear allegiance to the reigning monarch, she can dissolve Parliament or not, if she so chooses.

[fuctifino]

Shuvi said:

fuctifino said:

Shuvi said:

s2art said:

Shuvi said:

The Queen cannot just dissolve Parliament.

Errm, actually the Queen can. In fact its her duty to do so if the situation is such that leaving the incumbents in is bad for Britain. She did precisely this in Australia in the '70's.

No she cannot.

The Queen has the right to veto any legislation brought in by HER government, the PM must seek permission from the Queen to call a general election etc etc. In short, Parliament is answerable to the monarch, the police and armed forces swear allegiance to the reigning monarch, she can dissolve Parliament or not, if she so chooses.

But it isn't real power it is courtesy. What do you think would happen if she refused to enact a bill? Parliament answerable to the Monarch?


The Queen retains certain residual powers, notably to appoint a prime minister, (One having been elected normally) and to decide whether or not to grant a dissolution of Parliament.

It is not residual power, it is power that the monarch has the RIGHT to exercise but may choose to or not to exercise, dependent on the circumstances.

She has the absolute right to ORDER, not grant, a dissolution of Parliament and should the PM of the day refuse to follow the Queen's order then the military would be called out in full battle order, I can assure you.

The courtesy comes from the monarch not being involved in the day to day running of parliament, this is carried out by her 'First Minister' who reports to the Queen weekly, being summoned to Buck House to do so.

As for electing a Prime Minister, this is done by the majority party in parliament, following a general election he must go to the Queen and formally request her permission to form a government.

That's how it works.

[fuctifino]

Sheets Tabuer said:

I swore an allegiance to the crown, I didn't not swear an allegiance to the government.

If it was to kick off despite the fact I hate the monarchy I swore I would defend the queen.

I would defend her maj and I would protect this country against the elected idiots.

My point exactly. HM is The Boss, not some temporary incumbent in Westminster.