A Level Politics Help

[Stoo82]

Keep them in for me. Purley becasuse i think the Government should never have complete control over the Army/Navy/Airforce. Yes the Government are the one's who send our chaps and chapesses out to war, but her Maj is Comander in Cheif and if, for example, the BNP legaly got in power I would be glad that her Maj would have the power to get the fuckers out and force another election.

Equaly her Maj should not have any Political power. It works quite well if you ask me.

 

[Moshe Gariani]

Would your name be more accurate as Cambridge 3 Brighton 4 ...? Or is there some other derivation?

 

[clapham_gull]

Keep them in for me. Purley becasuse i think the Government should never have complete control over the Army/Navy/Airforce. Yes the Government are the one's who send our chaps and chapesses out to war, but her Maj is Comander in Cheif and if, for example, the BNP legaly got in power I would be glad that her Maj would have the power to get the fuckers out and force another election.

Equaly her Maj should not have any Political power. It works quite well if you ask me.

Surely being able to get rid of a government is the very definition of political power ?

 

[Dandyman]

Well we didn't really. We felt terribly bad about the years of Cromwell's Commonwealth and the puritan repression. After 12 years of the 17th century Taleban we were gagging for a king to come back - even one as dissolute as Charles (or should that be, especially one as dissolute as Charles?)

The French, on the other hand, ended up with Napoleon, then the monarchy back again before kicking them out for good again.

Charles II was a tyrant as was his son James, hence the Glorious Revolution.

 

[coventrygull]

Keep them in for me. Purley becasuse i think the Government should never have complete control over the Army/Navy/Airforce. Yes the Government are the one's who send our chaps and chapesses out to war, but her Maj is Comander in Cheif and if, for example, the BNP legaly got in power I would be glad that her Maj would have the power to get the fuckers out and force another election.

Equaly her Maj should not have any Political power. It works quite well if you ask me.

Bit of a fascist are we stoo

 

[Gwylan]

Charles II was a tyrant as was his son James, hence the Glorious Revolution.

James was Charles's brother

I think "tyrant" was a bit strong for both of them - there have been plenty of worse monarchs. The Glorious Revolution was driven by religion as much as anything, basically anyone but a Papist would do.

 

[clapham_gull]

Charles II was a tyrant as was his son James, hence the Glorious Revolution.

Now, I know f*ck all about history, but I did study the Glorious Revolution briefly when I was under the control of Communist State of East London Polytechnic doing a Marxist Interpretation of the United Kingdom.

Very interesting stuff - makes the whole Orange nonsense in Ireland look a little bit silly.

Wasn't William of Tangerine actually allied with the Pope against whoever was ruling France at the time in a silly hat.

 

[Dandyman]

James was Charles's brother

I think "tyrant" was a bit strong for both of them - there have been plenty of worse monarchs. The Glorious Revolution was driven by religion as much as anything, basically anyone but a Papist would do.

My mistake on James but Charles among other repression measures aimed against the working people of Engalnd introduced the Clarendon Code which consisted of several acts:

Corporation Act: Everyone in public office had to renounce the Solemn League and Covenant, and had to take the Sacrament has give by the Church of England.

Act of Uniformity:
Any preacher not ordained by an Anglican bishop had to be re-ordained and was not recognized as a preacher until he did so.

Anyone in public office had to assent to everything in the Anglican Common Book of prayer, and give an oath of obedience to church bishops

No one in public office could resist the King in even the smallest matter. Complete obedience was required.

With a stab at puritan and Reformed beliefs the Act of Uniformity was passed on the anniversary of Saint Bartholomew’s days, when the French Huguenots were fooled into a false sense of security and in doing so 36,000 of them lost their lives.

Penalties for non-compliance:

The non-conformists were deprived of home, church and livelihood.

2,000 preachers would not bow to the King over the act of Uniformity, and they were driven into utter poverty.

5 Mile act:
Any preacher who didn’t conform was banned from living or visiting any place he use to teach as a preacher.

Conventicles were outlawed and this was first imposed and carried out on the Quakers. A conventicle was designated any meeting with five or more persons.

The first offence you were fined five pounds and jailed for three months.
Second offence fined ten pounds and jailed for six months.
Third offence banished to a penal colony.

Five thousand Quakers were imprisoned within a short period of time. There were sixty thousand arrests all told for refusing to conform.

 

[Kuipers Supporters Club]

Would your name be more accurate as Cambridge 3 Brighton 4 ...? Or is there some other derivation?

Its from the game when we beat them at The Withdean a couple of years back, when Zamora bagged a hatrick with Hart getting the other...

 

[coventrygull]

Now, I know f*ck all about history, but I did study the Glorious Revolution briefly when I was under the control of Communist State of East London Polytechnic doing a Marxist Interpretation of the United Kingdom.

Very interesting stuff - makes the whole Orange nonsense in Ireland look a little bit silly.

Wasn't William of Tangerine actually allied with the Pope against whoever was ruling France at the time in a silly hat.

I think you are correct sir

 

[Dandyman]

Now, I know f*ck all about history, but I did study the Glorious Revolution briefly when I was under the control of Communist State of East London Polytechnic doing a Marxist Interpretation of the United Kingdom.

Very interesting stuff - makes the whole Orange nonsense in Ireland look a little bit silly.

Wasn't William of Tangerine actually allied with the Pope against whoever was ruling France at the time in a silly hat.

The Pope did back King Billy for the reasons you state.

 

[Gwylan]

My mistake on James but Charles among other repression measures aimed against the working people of Engalnd introduced the Clarendon Code which consisted of several acts:

Corporation Act: Everyone in public office had to renounce the Solemn League and Covenant, and had to take the Sacrament has give by the Church of England.

Act of Uniformity:
Any preacher not ordained by an Anglican bishop had to be re-ordained and was not recognized as a preacher until he did so.

Anyone in public office had to assent to everything in the Anglican Common Book of prayer, and give an oath of obedience to church bishops

No one in public office could resist the King in even the smallest matter. Complete obedience was required.

With a stab at puritan and Reformed beliefs the Act of Uniformity was passed on the anniversary of Saint Bartholomew’s days, when the French Huguenots were fooled into a false sense of security and in doing so 36,000 of them lost their lives.

Penalties for non-compliance:

The non-conformists were deprived of home, church and livelihood.

2,000 preachers would not bow to the King over the act of Uniformity, and they were driven into utter poverty.

5 Mile act:
Any preacher who didn’t conform was banned from living or visiting any place he use to teach as a preacher.

Conventicles were outlawed and this was first imposed and carried out on the Quakers. A conventicle was designated any meeting with five or more persons.

The first offence you were fined five pounds and jailed for three months.
Second offence fined ten pounds and jailed for six months.
Third offence banished to a penal colony.

Five thousand Quakers were imprisoned within a short period of time. There were sixty thousand arrests all told for refusing to conform.

Yes, yes but those were the times. Compared to the reigns of Henry VIII, Mary and Elizabeth - where dissenters could end on the block - or James 1 and Charles I where the king's authority was even more rigorously enforced, Charles II must have been a bastion of tolerance

And don't bring James into this, he repealed many of those measures - that's why he was deposed. The trial of the seven bishops (who opposed more freedom) was seen as the final straw.

Of course, I'm not saying either was perfect -I'm anti-monarchy for one thing - but compared with the some of the despots, tyrants, bullies and psychopaths we've had on the throne, they weren't Premier League.

PS And the Huguenots were let in after the revocation of the Edict of Nantes - something that's in James' favour. My ancestors were some of the people who came over from France and settled in Sussex.

 

[RexCathedra]

Whatever you do, separate the person of your Head of State from the leader of the government of the day. Our failure over here to keep the two roles separate has played hob with the institution of the Presidency over the years.

Whether the HoS needs to be a monarch, is an exercise left to the reader.

 

[Stoo82]

Surely being able to get rid of a government is the very definition of political power ?

Well Ok yes. But, would she/they really ever do it? No. Not unless it was really nessasery. Which was my point.

 

[coventrygull]

Well Ok yes. But, would she/they really ever do it? No. Not unless it was really nessasery. Which was my point.

What get rid of democraticaly elected government?

 

[Stoo82]

Bit of a fascist are we stoo

Sometimes Democracy does not work.

I have defended the rights of the BNP to essist as a party on here before and should have used someone else. I am a democrate. BUT sometimes Marshell Law should essist if needs be.

 

[coventrygull]

Sometimes Democracy does not work.

I have defended the rights of the BNP to essist as a party on here before and should have used someone else. I am a democrate. BUT sometimes Marshell Law should essist if needs be.

But if a party is democraticaly elected,then for the head of state to prevent them from taking power. Would lead to civil unrest.

 

[Stoo82]

What get rid of democraticaly elected government?

If it is not the "right" party yes.
It will never happen.

But - if for example the government decided that everyone who did not have a red front door should be shot and some how because they have the most MPs this new law goes through parleiment. Of course, our political system is so complicated, now this law has to go through the upperhouse but I hope you understand what I mean. Lets just say, If Hitler or Starlin or Tony Bl..shit, get in I would like the army to 'free' the country.

Do you think this 'elected government' should stay in power? Or should the head of state who get the armed forces away from people like this, shut down the government and force an election?

 

[Stoo82]

But if a party is democraticaly elected,then for the head of state to prevent them from taking power. Would lead to civil unrest.

I agree. It would not be popular. But, in some very unlikely avents it may need to happen and for this reason I would like to keep control of the Armed forces away from people with the power. Now I know this can lead to a miltary dictatership, but, with the laws we have - a new election would be forced. Until the right one gets in. As in this non-existant politcal party does not get in.

It will never happen though...

 

[coventrygull]

I understand what you are trying to say but for a head of state to undermine democracy is a no no.