One is not amused.
Discussion
"The Queen has spoken to Gordon Brown personally to express her anger over equipment shortages suffered by troops in Afghanistan, it was reported last night."
“The Queen, Prince Philip and Prince Charles are all furious with Gordon Brown over sub-standard equipment in Helmand, principally the underarmoured armoured cars and the lack of helicopters, and have been making their views known to him in no uncertain terms,”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article68...
What can Winky do next? Who else will he annoy? When will anyone say enough is enough? Seems as if everyone is too polite to tell him where to go or everyone is waiting to see his reaction at the next election?
“The Queen, Prince Philip and Prince Charles are all furious with Gordon Brown over sub-standard equipment in Helmand, principally the underarmoured armoured cars and the lack of helicopters, and have been making their views known to him in no uncertain terms,”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article68...
What can Winky do next? Who else will he annoy? When will anyone say enough is enough? Seems as if everyone is too polite to tell him where to go or everyone is waiting to see his reaction at the next election?
turbobloke said:
chris watton said:
Send him to Obama beach!
Winky McFnut
He really is a national embarrassment, I cringe every time I hear/see him – I know it’s now very fashionable in some quarters to demonise Thatcher, but at least she stuck to what she believed, popular or not, and she was respected world wide, the polar opposite to McF*cknut!
" and no body armour and bad boots and set out on foot patrol. And the press _should_ cover ithugo a gogo said:
JMGS4 said:
NismoGT said:
I believe Brown should be shipped over , given a water pistol, a t-shirt with a cartoon of mohammed and no body armour and bad boots and set out on foot patrol. And the press _should_ cover it
Quote corrected.....
Given the lengths he's going to in getting the libyans on side, I doubt any third world terrorist would shoot him for fear that they'd then miss out on a winky bonus
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northame...
"Barack Obama's and his senior aides thought Gordon Brown was "lacklustre" and "depressing" when they first met, a new biography claims."
My my Obama is observant.
"Barack Obama's and his senior aides thought Gordon Brown was "lacklustre" and "depressing" when they first met, a new biography claims."
My my Obama is observant.
Parrot of Doom said:
She can dismiss her government, but they're ceremonial powers more than anything. Any move by a monarch to interfere with the running of this country would likely result in the removal of that monarch, given time.
I think if she did it in this instance, she'd probably cement the Monarchy as a very valuable balance against possible (or in this case, very real) bad government. The public would be on her side.Asterix said:
Parrot of Doom said:
She can dismiss her government, but they're ceremonial powers more than anything. Any move by a monarch to interfere with the running of this country would likely result in the removal of that monarch, given time.
I think if she did it in this instance, she'd probably cement the Monarchy as a very valuable balance against possible (or in this case, very real) bad government. The public would be on her side.I don’t think HMtQ would ever need to publicly order the dismissal of a government, when sustained whispers of disatisfaction will do the job just as well
AndrewW-G said:
Asterix said:
Parrot of Doom said:
She can dismiss her government, but they're ceremonial powers more than anything. Any move by a monarch to interfere with the running of this country would likely result in the removal of that monarch, given time.
I think if she did it in this instance, she'd probably cement the Monarchy as a very valuable balance against possible (or in this case, very real) bad government. The public would be on her side.I don’t think HMtQ would ever need to publicly order the dismissal of a government, when sustained whispers of disatisfaction will do the job just as well
Can't remember what the first was about.
Asterix said:
Parrot of Doom said:
She can dismiss her government, but they're ceremonial powers more than anything. Any move by a monarch to interfere with the running of this country would likely result in the removal of that monarch, given time.
I think if she did it in this instance, she'd probably cement the Monarchy as a very valuable balance against possible (or in this case, very real) bad government. The public would be on her side.
But because the HoS is ceremonial now. It will never happen. Not unless there is there is serious shake-up in the constitution.Asterix said:
AndrewW-G said:
Asterix said:
Parrot of Doom said:
She can dismiss her government, but they're ceremonial powers more than anything. Any move by a monarch to interfere with the running of this country would likely result in the removal of that monarch, given time.
I think if she did it in this instance, she'd probably cement the Monarchy as a very valuable balance against possible (or in this case, very real) bad government. The public would be on her side.I don’t think HMtQ would ever need to publicly order the dismissal of a government, when sustained whispers of disatisfaction will do the job just as well
Can't remember what the first was about.
The Queen has told Gordon Brown she is worried that the scandalous revelations about MPs' expenses could damage Parliament
turbobloke said:
Asterix said:
AndrewW-G said:
Asterix said:
Parrot of Doom said:
She can dismiss her government, but they're ceremonial powers more than anything. Any move by a monarch to interfere with the running of this country would likely result in the removal of that monarch, given time.
I think if she did it in this instance, she'd probably cement the Monarchy as a very valuable balance against possible (or in this case, very real) bad government. The public would be on her side.I don’t think HMtQ would ever need to publicly order the dismissal of a government, when sustained whispers of disatisfaction will do the job just as well
Can't remember what the first was about.
The Queen has told Gordon Brown she is worried that the scandalous revelations about MPs' expenses could damage Parliament
I've been politically aware from the early 80's and I can't think of that ever happening before, let alone twice for a single PM.
Much as I would like this to be true, I for one don't believe the story. The chats with Prime Ministers are in private, just the two of them. Who is going to be the first to tell anyone else what was said? Brown, no way if he's supposed have been told off. The Queen has been having chats with Prime Ministers since Churchill. You don't get to speak on a weekly basis if you spill the beans. So someone hoping that's what happened, rather than knowing it happened, is more than likely.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff