Wishfull thinking maybe. But if the good ole US of A can re elect someone with less itellect than a bag of soiled undercrackers.......
Guess its TB and his little band of retarded domestic cleaning product salesmen!
I truly feel that the vote should not be given to every man and his pit bull terrier. When that happens, we get the common types thinking they can almost rule a nation. The Pie test has proven that the 'average' man cannot. Eton and Harrow may have its faults but at least they have an IQ test very early on in the leadership contest. Why do you think the class system lasted for so long?
Bit of a no contest really. You can take the tart out the council estate but you cant make Cherie Bliar look attractive after 19 bottles of Keisbartenfurtenbrau.
Once we accept there is a class divide again, we will accept that 'Yes Minister' is reality. Who wants the likes of Barry Grant and Bobby Grant leading us?
Some were born to lead, the labour party was born to fall over comically on the beach.
Do the UK not realise the irony? The Labour party were only ever meant to be 'the opposition'. You werent supposed to actually elect them. Its a bit like letting Garry Glitter look after your kids for a joke.
I am a strong believer in what is not earned is not valued. The policy of issuing a vote to any numb nuts in my eyes is ludicrous only in democracy can 6 idiots out vote and overrule 4 geniuses. If people had to earn the vote then they would give it the respect it deserves and would also I feel take longer making important choices like who is to run the country we could also get rid of the practise of people voting for candidate X simple because he/she has a nice smile or looks smart. To be eligible to vote every tom dick and Harry would have to attend a class on British politics at the end of which would be a test that assessed how much they new and understood only when they have displayed a competent knowledge on Politics and political parties would they be allowed to decide our nations future.
Flash you are so right and yet so wrong!
The Prime Minister came from an upper middle class family,
His father was a barrister and lecturer.
As well as a Socialist/Conservative/Labour man,
Okay not the best example.
His IQ is, unbelievably, genius,
I propose a citizenship test to determine the right to vote.
We simply impose certain restrictions.
1. You must be working, or of a recognised disability that prevents work.
This will be sub-sectioned for mental illnesses or those caused by PTSD.
2. You must have completed schooling to a level that if necessary would enable you to retrain at short notice to ensure you continue in employment if your job becomes redundant.
3. You must have MORE than a basic grasp of the laws and legalities of Government.
Well you get the picture.
The point is the only way to ensure those who govern us, are deserving of the job, as a nation is to stop the elective being as GG put it a 6:4 mix of idiots WE need to impose sanctions on the right to vote.
Bliar will lose, but not in the way that the US commentator thinks.
Liabour will take such a battering in the election - some forecasters have speculated their majority could even be reduced to 20 - that Bliar will be ditched by those left; his Bliarites are likely to constitute the brunt of the casualties.
The key to this is for voters to vote for the most effective anti-Liabour candidate in their constituency, whether Tory, Lib Dem or Scots/Welsh Nationalist.
This will make far more interesting politics where Parliament will no longer be an irrelevance.
What happens if Bliar's pal Berlusconi gets sent down - even though he has immunity whilst in office?
Berlusconi 'should get eight-year jail term'
By Bruce Johnston in Rome
The chief prosecutor in the corruption trial of Silvio Berlusconi yesterday requested an eight-year jail sentence for the media tycoon turned prime minister.
The request to a Milan court by Ilda Boccasini was for the maximum sentence possible, she said, to match the gravity of the charges faced by Mr Berlusconi, who is accused of bribing judges during a corporate takeover battle in the 1980s.
While elections are not due until June 2006 and Mr Berlusconi has immunity from serving a prison term while in office, he faced calls last night to step down should he be convicted on Dec 3.
In what amounts to the most serious of the many corruption charges so far levelled against him, Mr Berlusconi, 68, is accused of paying $436,000 (Â£240,000) to influence a Rome judge in 1985.
The alleged purpose of the payment, said to have been made through the prime minister's former lawyer, Cesare Previti, was to thwart the purchase by the Italian food giant Buitoni, of SME, a state-owned food group.
By using the courts to declare that a pre-contract between Buitoni and Italy's state holding, the giant IRI, was null and void, the way was paved for a counter bid by a consortium involving Mr Berlusconi, prosecutors allege.
But the consortium seemed less interested in securing SME for itself than in scuppering the other deal, and in the end, the food company remained in state hands for another 10 years.
By allegedly acting as he did, Mr Berlusconi is supposed to have done a favour to his friend, the then prime minister Bettino Craxi, an enemy of Buitoni's owner at the time, Carlo De Benedetti. The favour was said to have been in repayment for Mr Craxi's recent decision to pass two decrees legalising Mr Berlusconi's private broadcasting activities, at a time when these were breaking Italian monopoly laws.
Mr Berlusconi, who denies all wrongdoing and claims he is a victim of a plot by "communist magistrates" to oust him from office, was not in court yesterday.
As permitted under Italian law, he has in fact only attended one of the 125 hearings since the trial began four years ago. But while he has feigned indifference, his aides and MPs have tried hard to get the proceedings stopped.
Mr Berlusconi has already said that if convicted he will not resign. Technically, a sentence in Italy is only binding if reconfirmed at appeal supreme court level.
Except in the case of very serious crimes committed by hardened criminals, only after a final conviction would a person go to prison.
However, there were widespread calls last night for him to go if convicted. Antonio Di Pietro, a former anti-corruption prosecutor turned opposition senator, said that Mr Berlusconi should step down, but added: "He won't resign, because evidently he lacks a sense of ethics and political morals needed to do so.''
Last year, his coalition was at the centre of a row after pushing through a law giving him immunity from prosecution. But the constitutional court later struck down the new law, reviving the trial.
In the meantime, all but one of Mr Berlusconi's original co-defendants have been found guilty of perverting justice.
Summing up her case yesterday, Ms Boccasini argued that Mr Berlusconi should be convicted, since "through [his] Fininvest [business empire] and companies under its control, several magistrates in Rome were in his pay".
The prosecution said that documentation had established beyond any doubt that there had existed a "banking relationship" between Mr Berlusconi and the judges.