On Jun 6, 12:42*pm, Sam Wilson wrote:
In article
,

*77002 wrote:
On Jun 4, 11:14*pm, Dave Jackson wrote:
On 04/06/2012 21:36, Railsigns.co.uk wrote:

Do you think so? Whatever you may think of Mr. Blair (or any other
politician), the fact
is he was democratically elected to serve in public office, whereas we
get no say in
appointing the monarch*whatsoever*.

How long would a directly elected president last before being in total
disagreement with the directly elected Prime Minister.

France encounter this from time to time.

So does the USA where it's been quite common recently for the elected
Head of State and Head of Government to be opposed to the elected
Government of which he is head. *And which party has a majority in the
London Assembly?

There was a time in the not-too-distant past when federal politics in
those United States were conducted with a certain decorum. This was
such they they rose above their differences as they conducted the
Union's affairs. Tip O'Neil and Ronald Wilson Regan were politically
at opposite poles. And, yet they always behaved with a certain
dignity.

Sadly this is a thing of the past. Now US politics are very much
"war
by other means".


London: I am not sure that a directly elected head really fits in the
British system. Moreover, since when have counties (or regions!) had
mayors.