By the way, I've delved deeper into that book, and am dying to tell you about Bell, CA. In a way it supports your theory that finance corrupts in the United States. In a way, it supports my theory that it has nothing to do with a presidential system. It is fascinating, nonetheless. One of those things that's quite sad but you cannot help but laugh at.

bbauska

Define "overwhelming majority"?

In this case I defined 92% as overwhelming majority.. (The source for that is earlier in this thread.)

Hacker

Is there never any obstruction from the minority in Canadian parliament?

What weapons do the minority in the House of Commons have to check the power of the majority?

If the majority invokes closure (debate time limits) none really. The can attempt delays at each stage of the process including wheni committee stage, but in a reasonably short period of time the matter comes up for votes.

And what about "minority governments"? Brad said that they happen from time to time and yet still have the right to govern, constitutionally speaking. (my Canadian buddy I frequently talk to online).

Minority governments are not uncommon. And can be very productive. Usually the ruling party has to acede to some input into legislation from one of the minority parties to earn their suport. Cooperation and compromise win the day. The national health insurance program was the fruit of a minority government.

The recent provincial goverrnment in Ontario was a three year minority government till this spring when their budget was voted down. Despite being plagued by scandal, the new leader won a majority in the election. We now have the first openly gay woman elected to head a provincial government.
And the budget that was voted down by both the Tories and NDP is about to be passed. (Polls showed it was a popular budget before the election.) Most think the NDP blew it when they forced the election. They ended up with the same number of seats as at dissolution.

hacker

In a way it supports your theory that finance corrupts in the United States

.

Its not my theory.
I just happen to agree with the many academics and political commentators and journalists who have documented the phenomenon.

Well again, it's not that I don't think the United States has some problems in its government, it's just that I am not running around--not saying you are, I am exaggerating here!--running around "the sky is falling!" about it. I think problems can be fixed, but no constitution is reparable when the People have decide to trample on it. That goes for parliamentary systems as well. Chief Justice John Marshall said in a ruling (might have been Marbury v. Madison, no less) that "the People made the Constitution, they can unmake it as well."

I also still don't think it's due to the form of government we have being presidential, and that our only fix would be to imitate the Westminster model, or something like Canada (or Germany, in the constitution you hypothetically designed). You understand what I am saying?

Question, you showed me two book reviews, but you didn't actually read the books, if I remember correctly, right? That's the reason I said your argument was weak. I have delved more into The Dictator's Handbook by Smith/Bueno, and yes, money can corrupt things horribly. But the authors of the book seem to look at politics in three dimensions, rather than in the context of a parliamentary vs. presidential structure. The correct expression is "The Devil is in the Details"...not "The Devil is in the General political Structure."

I can quote from another book I have (I've only read about 2/3 of it tho) which explains the Italian parliament and the problems it was having (as well as France in the 1950's) and why it ground to a halt, despite the fact that it's not a presidential democracy but a parliamentary one. Gridlock can happen in both forms of government. Again, details, details! What guarantees can you give the American people that your Bundestag-style Congress will not end up like the Italian Parliament? Or the French "Fourth Republic"? Or the Weimar Republic? Presidential governments aren't the only ones to fail throughout history.

Also, these "many academics, political commentators and journalists"...who have documented the phenomenon. Do all of these incredibly-enlightened people think that we need to replace the presidential with a parliamentary system in order to fix our problems? Or were they just commenting on things like campaign finance, the independence of state & local boards, and gerrymandering?

And how many is "many"?

Again, I TOTALLY agree with you on the gerrymandering and the fundraising and both corrupt. But I still do NOT agree that the only way to fix it is to scrap the Constitution of 1787 and replace it with one creating a parliamentary republic (or we could just join the Commonwealth, for Pete's sake).

Please please please, do not take this the wrong way, but I think that those of you who think parliamentary democracies are "superior" and less prone to failure than presidential ones, are trying to look at America through the lenses of your own societies, rather than, say, in an objective manner. If another American tried to argue with me that presidential government was the only way to solve problems, and parliamentary democracy is always horrible or automatically "dysfunctional", I would be just as quick to call that American a jingoist who can't see past his own country's borders or keep an open mind. Understand that I do see your arguments, I just don't agree with them all, and not all of the arguments that have been made are very sound. Not only that, Ricky and Sassenach, you two said you had political experience and therefore know what you're talking about. Was it in Washington? Certainly working in Washington doesn't make you an expert on Canada or the UK, does it?

And by the way, isn't 225 years a hell of a long time for a dysfunctional constitution to last? Honestly, if it were in truth "dysfunctional" I would not bother to engage in my, how did you put it, "low level activism"? I would just not give a damn, not vote, and have another drink, if it were truly falling apart at the seams and needed to be replaced entirely. But it doesn't, so I'm going to hold off on that drink for a while. Taking the attitude of Louis XV--"Apres moi, le deluge!"--does not fix problems or even bring credible attention to them. It certainly didn't work for Louis XVI, now did it?!!

Does anybody at least understand where I'm coming from with this?

The problem is that you're arguing against a strawman. I haven't ever said that I think parliamentary systems are inherently superior and in fact if you read back through some of my earlier posts you'll see that I explicitly stated that the American system has been a great success by many measures. What I've said (and I can't speak for Ricky) is that there are flaws in the American system which are beginning to become more obvious now that bipartisanship is breaking down. I don't think anybody could really dispute that. You're the only person in this thread who sees it as some kind of battle between presidential and parliamentary democracy.

All systems have their advantages and their drawbacks. You'll find plenty of people in the UK who regard the Westminster model as being inherently undemocratic because it allows a majority to form with only a plurality of the votes, which almost never amounts to over 50%. It's a perfectly valid criticism, although in my view there isn't really an alternative that doesn't have equally glaring drawbacks that are arguably worse. The nature of democracy is to be messy and imperfect.

It wouldn't be possible to move away from a presidential system in the US, so there's really no point in trying to propose an alternative. I can think of a few reforms which might improve things though. Some states have removed politicians from the drawing of the electoral boundaries (I know California has done this, and there may be others). To my mind this is pretty much essential if you ever want to begin fixing the flaws in your polity, but obviously it isn't enough on its own. It would be a big step in the right direction though. Sorting out the gerrymandering would bring a lot more districts into play in every election. It would force candidates back towards the centre in those districts and remove a little bit of the ideological extremism that has come to dominate the parties. There would still be a lot of safe seats of course, but even if as little as 10-20% more seats switched from being nailed on safe to being competitive then it could have a profound influence.

Beyond that, there are a couple of other possible changes that I think might be worth looking into. It may be worth thinking about doing away with midterms in the House. Have every Congressman elected for a 4 year term at the same time as the Presidential election. This wouldn't be any kind of panacea and could well have unforeseen consequences that wouldn't all be good ones, but I think it would be more likely to result in the same party controlling the House and the Presidency, which would give greater scope for that party to actually achieve something. The same couldn't be done with the Senate of course, given that they have longer terms, so there'd still be the potential for changes to the political balance in the midterms, but the scope would be much reduced. Part of the proboem you have in the US right now is that the electoral cycle lasts for only 2 years, which creates instability.

Campaign finance reform is another issue that has to be looked into. I'm not sure how easy that would be, but the influence of big money needs to be reined in somehow. Some kind of spending limits should be imposed, and caps on donations brought in. This may require a constitutional amendment of course, given recent USSC rulings.

I'm sure there are all kinds of other ways that your constitution could be tinkered with to improve the functioning of your government without having to throw out the essence of it, these are just a couple of ideas from off the top of my head.

sass

What I've said (and I can't speak for Ricky) is that there are flaws in the American system which are beginning to become more obvious now that bipartisanship is breaking down.

I would go a little farher in saying that the ability of rather small minorities to use the many "checks and balances" has created the current gridlock. Although gridlock is a potential outcome in any democracy, i think the American system has greater potential. That there hasn't been enormous gridlock often hostorically, speaks to the past loose party affiliations that today are not tolerated. Today, party discipline more typical of a parliamnetary system, within the American system, seems certain to create gridlock.

sass

Campaign finance reform is another issue that has to be looked into. I'm not sure how easy that would be

Since Scotus has essentially made corporations people.... good luck.

I understand the points you gentlemen have been trying to make, but I think you have missed the key truth, here. It seems that some of you believe that a legislative "majority" is a sacrosanct force that does not need to be whittled down (strength-wise) or even stopped entirely at times. What you seem to think of as "the democratic mandate" is not necessarily in itself, democratic. Naturally, it all comes down to how you define democracy. But you know something that I have noticed in countries that America has graciously given democracy? It still has not dawned on their "democratically-elected" leaders that, just because they are democratically elected by a majority of voters, does not equate to having a Mandate from Heaven...not the same thing as a Mandate from the People.

The countries that are new to democracy, you can always tell. The leaders equate the Mandate from the People (expressed via majority vote in free & fair elections) with a Mandate from Heaven: We the government have won the election, therefore, we can do whatsoever the **** we want to, excuse my vulgarity. But in an advanced democracy the leaders know that, even if they have the backing of the majority, they cannot go too far with the minority. I remember someone (forget who) saying, quite a while back, on Redscape that the principle of the "tyranny of the majority" was a concept as outdated as "manifest destiny".

Total B.S.

Why do we have a Bill of Rights? Why does Canada have a Declaration of Rights in its Constitution? Or Australlia? Or a lot of countries we consider to be democracies and have a written constitution also have a bill of rights or some sort of list of them in their constitutions. Are these bills of rights written to protect the majority?

Hell no. The majority, friends, have safety in numbers on their side, especially when they are a substantial majority. I will not say that they do not need a bill of rights, but your personal liberty is far less in danger when you are on the side of the majority; the side having safety in numbers. It is always easy to be on the side of the majority, always easy both for politicians and private citizens alike to say what is popular. But why else would it be "brave" or "outspoken" or "determined" to speak the minority side of some issue? It's ballsy for a reason: because you are in danger of the majority trying to repress what you are doing, inside or outside of a legislature.

An advanced democracy MUST have some sorts of mechanisms and weapons with which to check the immense power of a majority in a legislative body, be it a parliament or a congress. The idea that the rights of the majority must always be respected, even at the expense of the minority; or that, once it has been elected by majority vote of the people to the legislative body in question, the majority in it has the right to act as a strong government with the power to push through whatever the majority so demand; is not only pure nonsense, it is dangerous to Liberty---and not just individual liberty.

Democracy is therefore a double-edged sword. And something must be in place which dulls the sword a bit or, sometimes even, another sword with which to stop the immense power of the force of the majority. The ancient Greeks put great stock in majority rule. The majority ruled, and everyone respected its wishes and complied, yet there was no court of appeal of the majority, even in the courts. We could say that the ancient Greeks had democracy, but very little personal liberty as a result.

Is it "undemocratic" for the minority to try to obstruct the forces of the majority? You bet your a$s it is. If a "strong government with the ability to act" is what you gentlemen desire, you are entitled to it. Just don't bring such a government here. I'd rather have a government that can be obstructed in such a way that the majority is forced to alter its plans sometimes.

I agree that the majority has a right to act, but it also must have a point at which it can be stopped or slowed down. After all, if the majority were always obstructed, there would be little point in voting. And I disagree that the United States Government an always thwart the minority. The reason you might believe that, Ricky (if I understand you correctly) is because you only see on TV and the internet the crap that is more interesting to the press. When bills pass successfully, you do not hear about it unless it is a slow news day. Quite a bit of what you hear around the world, from those I have talked to online, about America is either exaggerated or seen through the eyes of a reporter or journalist who is far from objective. After all guys, you ever met a reporter without an opinion? Far more interesting to report on a budget crisis than a bill that is passed successfully (usually). It's more newsworthy than praising the cooperation of politicians on this or that.

Obamacare was passed by a majority, in fact, it was more or less railroaded through. GOP senators and representatives were helpless to stop it. I believe the Democrats in that Congress had a filibuster-proof Senate (until the death of Ted Kennedy, but that seat remained GOP only for a short while). So helpless were the GOP in the first years of the Obama Administration, when Congress passed Obamacare, that they did the last resort of taking it to the courts afterward (and lost). It was democratically passed, right? The Democrats had a pretty good majority in the House those two years and Nancy Pelosi was Speaker. If the government were as dysfunctional and majority-obstructing as some of you seem to believe, it could not have happened.

But it did.

No disrespect Hacker, but it would be preferable if you didn't try to lecture me on the concept of tyranny by majority. You can take it as a given that it's a concept I'm familiar with (I alluded to it in my last post, although you appear to have missed it), and it's a little patronising to have it explained to me. I've also on more than one occasion freely conceded that there's a trade off between legislative efficiency on the one hand and checks and balances on the other, and that how highly you value the one relative to the other on the scale will go a long way to explaining what kind of a democratic system you prefer. I've pointed out a number of areas of controversy in regard to my own country's political system, this really isn't a battle of the polities here, why are you so keen to make it one ?

On the subject of Obamacare, it was railroaded through during Obama's first term in a brief window where the Dems had control of all three branches of Congress. Since then what has he achieved ? Name one actual standout piece of legislation that your President has passed in the last 2-3 years. Obama is habitually described as the most powerful man in the world, and yet he's mostly powerless to enact any kind of significant legislation and even a simple thing like passing a budget or extending the nation's credit limit causes governmental paralysis. While I recognise that checks and balances are important and that majorities shouldn't have carte blanche to rule as they see fit, surely there comes a point where you have to step back and question whether a more efficient government might be a good thing.

hacker

Why do we have a Bill of Rights? Why does Canada have a Declaration of Rights in its Constitution? Or Australlia? Or a lot of countries we consider to be democracies and have a written constitution also have a bill of rights or some sort of list of them in their constitutions. Are these bills of rights written to protect the majority?

I thought you went to University? Your diatribe is meaningless.
You're confusing the constitutional protection of individual rights and freedoms with legislative balance.
Constituional guarantees for an individual freedoms mean that laws can't be written that abridge these freedoms.
Period. How Scotus interprets your rights has constantly changed over time by the way. So don't think of it as a permanent unchanging document...

But the ability to write and pass into law legislation that conforms to constituional law, is today far more difficult in the US than in any democracy that has a majprity. And not only because of your form of governance constituionally but also because of legislative rules passed by Congress, the evolution of your poliitical system (primaries) and cultural evolution.

hacker

An advanced democracy MUST have some sorts of mechanisms and weapons with which to check the immense power of a majority in a legislative body, be it a parliament or a congress

Do nations like germany, the UK, Canada, France, Japan, Israel, India function?
What we've been discussing is how the forms of government are susceptible to disfunction. And how representative they are all. etc.
All of these nations and more, have healthy democracies. Few nations have had the kind of legislatve gridlock that the US is currently in. (You may think this is a mirage. In that case I think you need to expand your reading. Try googling gridlocked government washington. You'll find 5,900,000 various sources that confirm my contention that the Washington gridlock is real, a fairly new phenomenon, a complex problem, and perrhaps insoluble for some time)
But I'll bite. Find me one academic or even news article that says that the current situation in Washington is normal and healthy....

hacker

Obamacare was passed by a majority, in fact, it was more or less railroaded through

And the ACA does offer an incremental improvement on a situation that is appalling. The level of health care for many Americans and the cost for all should be a fundamental embarressment for the most powerful richest nation in the world. But, the fact that the ACA managed to pass a fairly weak bill when the President was in an unusual position of legislative strengh is one thing. The fact that your governemnt has grappled with and never offered a workable solution for 3 decades is the real problem.
And that because the minority, and certain corporate interests, could stall all previous attempts. Despite the fact that, given a choice, the majority of Americans would have chosen a solution like Medicare in Canada. (Not that its the best alternative by any means.)
If democracy is supposed to represent the wishes of the majority, protecting the rights of the individual, then most democracies function quite well Hacker.
And if you really want to understand where the US fits in relation to other democracies here's a few academic "lists". The US is behind a lot of nations... 17th in the list of economic freedoms, which i bet you are surprised by ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_F ... orld_Index
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_in_the_World

Sassenach, if I sounded lecture-y in my most recent post, I do apologize for that. It certainly wasn't meant to be a lecture, simply an argument. And certainly no disrespect was meant, either. If I got a little Plato-y with it, I'm sorry. But of course, you're not the only one to whom I am presenting the argument I just made. Don't take it the wrong way, buddy, it was not meant to be anywhere near patronizing. And when I said "Total B.S..." well yeah that was inappropriate, but it was directed at a particular argument involving the "tyranny of the majority"; not at a particular person or some sort of lack of intelligence on their part. If that's what I thought of you I wouldn't have bothered past page one.

Of course, Ricky was kind enough to respond in kind with:

I thought you went to University? Your diatribe is meaningless.

Yes I did. I thought you did, too, Rickyp. However, other than the use of the expression B.S., which I have already agreed was over the top, how was it a diatribe? I expected a better counter argument than that (or counter-counter argument, whatever, who's counting anyway...) from you.

this really isn't a battle of the polities here, why are you so keen to make it one ?

I don't know, S., but I've felt that in general it kind of took on that shade, on the U.S. instead. But it wasn't so much particular arguments that did it. Not blaming anyone particular, but with the word "dysfunctional" flying around quite a bit, (and I know you are not the one who said it Sassenach) it sort of annoyed me more than anything that, for the last few elections, I've gone through at least some effort to work with this system of ours and someone comes along and tells me--though not in these exact words--dude, why are you bothering? It's all going to go to hell tomorrow. Especially when whoever threw out the patronizing remark involving "low level activism"...I should have said nothing to that one, as it really didn't merit a response (and I admit I was dumb enough to give it one)...I'm sorry if I sounded patronizing but---though this isn't an excuse---there's been enough to go around. Understand where I am coming from?

...But the title of the thread ends in the words "OR NOT!"---and that's directed at my own government, not someone else's. I hate it when Americans make arguments that do get that jingoistic, so trust me, the point of the thread and my comments herein have been against one system being better than the other. The meaning of the title of this thread--and you can read back to the first post to gather my original intent in posting this thread---was that I firmly believe whichever system, with whatever details within it, works for a country depends on its history and its own unique political culture. If you said that and I didn't notice, then that particular thing is my fault. Fair enough?

I figured you would have felt gratified at least, that I was giving you a degree of deference due to your knowledge of your system not as "the average voter" but as someone who has participated in it to a pretty involved level. Hopefully you have, at least at times. And I thank you because I learned a boatload. I hope we can continue to do so, not just on this thread but anywhere on Redscape.

And as far as University, I miss college, actually. Do you want to know the truth? All right...with about 80 or 90 (I don't remember precisely) out of 120 credits needed to graduate I had to drop out, and "postpone indefinitely" my college education. It does not look as if it will be resumed any time soon, sadly enough. Money had nothing to do with it. But I *did*, before things "went pear shaped", take some international relations and comparative politics courses and did quite well in them. Not enough to be an expert in the field, but enough to peak my interest and leave me grasping for more. My major was originally poli sci as I have said, but then I had changed it to BTA (Business Technology Administration) some time before dropping out. I was a part time student...jeeze it felt like I was there forever but I hung in as long as I could. I was actually put on Xanax after having to drop out; that's how incredibly devastated I was....

But that's a personal problem, and I won't get all martyr-y about it.

As far as the "more efficient government" well, let me think about that one before I respond. Right now I am in sort of a hurry.

And Ricky, I think you mean 5,900,000 "hits" not "sources", right? Actually, you can add the word "Whorehouse" to "gridlocked government Washington" and you'll get 3,220,000 hits, so I think that's meant to narrow it down. Now I am not trying to mock you, whatsoever...just making the point that, as far as the number of Google hits you can get on anything online, is not in itself meaningful in most cases.

You are incorrect that the gridlock is a "new" problem. I forget what year it was, but I remember seeing a scan of a famous drawing or lithograph on the http://www.house.gov website. The congressmen (and everyone watching in the gallery) are jumping up and throwing their hats into the air and cheering...because they finally elected a compromise Speaker of the House after two months of unproductive gridlock. It was quite a while ago I saw this; but I'll try to find the image (and the description) online, if it is still there. I do know it was PRIOR to the civil war, quite prior, because it's the Old House of Representatives chamber they're in, not the much larger, present one. And apparently, this happened more than once.

Look, I've really enjoyed this thread on the whole. You're a breath of fresh air in this place and the thread has been much more interesting to take part in than the hyper-partisan minutiae that usually gets analysed ad naseum round these parts. The fact that you didn't finish your degree is completely irrelevant. I have one but very little of what I know was picked up from it. I certainly don't respect your opinion any more or less because of your qualifications, the quality of an argument stands for itself. All I've been objecting to is the weird way you've kept drifting into a confrontational stance that I didn't think was warranted. It would be a shame if this thread ended up going the same way as so many of the others. We've already lost Dan from it, and this sort of subject is meat and drink to him...

And for the last time, the 'low level activism' thing was never intended as a slight on what you do. It was a simple statement of fact with no value judgement attached. I have a lot of respect for you for getting involved in politics and I think your direct experiences from that are worth far more than the 30 credits worth of extra courses you'd have gotten from finishing your degree.

hacker

I hate it when Americans make arguments that do get that jingoistic

And yet you said this...

But you know something that I have noticed in countries that America has graciously given democracy?

The US foreign polciy have not been all that kind to democracies in the last 100 years hacker... From the Phillipine American War, to the CIA central role in deposing the democratic govenremnt of Iran, there's not a strong argument that democracy was promoted consistently. And given democracy? Tell that to central Americans.
Democracy grows from within a society and changes and evolves freedoms over time. The first modern democracies are not comparable today to what they began as...

I called you post a diatribe, because you based iyour arguement upon the protection of minority rights and brought up Constitutional Bill of Rights. Protection of minority rights is provided by these constituional rights and has nothing to do with legislative checks and balances. That fatal flaw in your reasoning disqualifies your post as a supported arguement.

Sassenach wrote:We've already lost Dan from it, and this sort of subject is meat and drink to him...

I thought he was just on vacation. Did he quit?

I meant from the thread, not from Redscape altogether. Can't imagine he'd have quit.

The US foreign polciy have not been all that kind to democracies in the last 100 years hacker... From the Phillipine American War, to the CIA central role in deposing the democratic government of Iran, there's not a strong argument that democracy was promoted consistently. And given democracy? Tell that to central Americans.
Democracy grows from within a society and changes and evolves freedoms over time. The first modern democracies are not comparable today to what they began as...

Um....the "graciously given" bit was a rather large dose of irony. A LARGE dose. I am well aware of:

the CIA shit show orchestrated by Kermit Roosevelt and the execs of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (later to become British Petroleum) to oust Prime Minister Mossadeq after his nationalization of the aforementioned...

And the CIA/White House-supported coup against Chilean President Salvador Allende, putting Gen. Augusto Pinochet in power (the word "wow" doesn't even cover this one)...

And the very badly-planned assassination and overthrow of "Prime Minister" Brigadier General Abdul Karim Qassem [1962?] (by a very famous but then little known CIA-paid operative with active ties to the Iraqi Ba'ath Party)...one of whose chief lieutenants claims CIA is responsible for the coup that brought them to power in 1968 (though I hadn't heard about it and something about that makes me doubt it...plus the critical 1958 coup was the Iraqis rolling their own, not via a sugar daddy). Even for the particular person we paid to do it, it was quite a circus, however...he ended up having to swim the Tigris

And the November 1963 coup against President Ngo Diem of the Republic of Vietnam (though CIA really only had to cut funding and look the other way while the ARVN generals did it)...as well as the coup in the 1950's (do not recall the date and year) which brought Diem himself to power

One of the Brazilian coups, if not exactly "ours", was funded or assisted by CIA (if I am not mistaken); Brazil did have a long history of military rule, from the 60s through 1982, if I have the year right...

Anyone that pissed off United Fruit Co. got it...period...

But you get the idea. That's just what I can think of off the top of my head.

And thank you S., that actually makes me feel a lot better about the whole mess (the college thing). I definitely appreciate what you said. If I sounded a little whiney sometimes on this thread, I hope you also don't take anything I said personally, I would never have asked you all that stuff about UK politics unless I had respect for you as well. Sounds like we're both the sort who cares enough to participate and help. Also it's sometimes hard to keep track of who said what here, especially when the thread gets a little long and there's more than two or three members making comments to various posts. I've actually had a pretty good time on the whole.

By the way I wanted to start another thread (but not yet) on something I think is really, really broken: U.S. foreign policy. But I'll have a thread on that within the next couple of days...need to have my ducks in a row for that one.

In the mean time...does anybody remember how long Tony Blair was prime minister for? (i could look it up myself but this iPad screen and keyboard are beginning to annoy me. grrrrrrrrrrrrrr) All I can remember is that it had to be 1997...and a while after the Iraq War he stepped aside in favor of Gordon Brown. Then Brown lost the 2010 election right? I'm sure I missed it, but I couldn't find "past prime ministers" on the no10 website.

I read that Blair is now a global political (geopolitical, whatever) adviser to JPMorganChase...probably makes ten times his salary as PM!

Oh that reminds me....I think I said I was going to mention Robert Rizzo & the city of Bell CA. I'll save that juicy tidbit for the next post tho. It's sad but almost funny.