Re: [kent-grads] Chemistry

[huge@xxxxxxxxxxx (Huge)]

> From: "Tim Roll-Pickering" <T.C.Roll-Pickering@xxxxxxxxxx>

> From: "Huge" <huge@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> > Your statement is wrong in so many ways I hardly know where to begin.
> > For starters, "we" did not elect him. At all. The Prime Minister is
> > selected by the party that wins the most votes - among a minority of
> > the electorate. There has not been a majority party in this country for
> > over 50 years. And even if Blair were elected, I didn't vote for him so
> > your "we" is triply incorrect.
> 
> Actually the Prime Minister is appointed on the basis that they are 
> acceptable to a majority in the House of Commons. Which party got the most 
> votes is irrelevant (look at the elections in February 1974, 1951, 1929, 
> 1923, both in 1910 and quite a few more).

Hair-splitting 101 is down the corridor a ways. No matter what arcane,
opaque and secretive method used, you can be damn sure "we" did not
elect him.

(And I'd be prepared to wager that the "acceptable to a majority in the
House of Commons" clause goes through on the nod, these days.)

> I didn't vote for Blair or his local muppet - I campaigned against them and 
> intend to do so again at the next election. But that is the way the system 
> works.

Indeed, but "we" still did not elect him. (I note you have deleted the OP's
text where the assertion was made.)

> Oh and the last government with a 50% + majority of the votes cast was the 
> National Government (more than a party) in 1935.

A mere 69 years ago. And I wasn't talking about votes cast, but a
majority of the electorate. When was the last Government elected (if
ever) that had a majority of a reasonable electorate (IOW, one that
postdates the emancipation of women.)

> > It is interesting to
> > note that the country which sends the highest proportion of it's
> > population to University is the one which you doubtless regard as the
> > root of all evil, one in which universities are free to charge economic
> > fees for their courses; the USA.
> 
> And also a country which has one of the best rates of alumni donations to 
> universities, helped by a culture and tax system that encourages and 
> congratulates donations. Whilst not the solution to all the problems I can't 
> help but feel that UK universities would be doing better if they could get 
> alumni contributions on a comparative proportional rate. 

Hear, hear. I'd certainly be happier to give away more money if the
State weren't already confiscating 50% of my income ostensibly in order
to provide the very things that seem to need money given to them.
Whilst at the same time thwarting my efforts to provide for myself,
particularly in old age.

Regards,

H.

-
To unsubscribe, send email to list-manager@xxxxxxxxxx containing just the
text: "unsubscribe kent-grads" (without the quotes).
For further information email "help" to list-manager@xxxxxxxxxx