Radio 4’s question time is being held at school this evening (going out at 8pm) and my eldest and his Dad may have a chance to ask a question of the team- Michael Portillo and Shirley Williams will be there tonight, as well as Charles Clark and Daniel Finelstein
If you had a chance, what would you be asking?
Boadicea's Chariot 
No Charles Clark: Lord Faulkner instead.
What will they be doing to create more jobs in the North, how are they going to sort out the mess of state education, and lastly – from a purely selfish point of view – are they going to reintroduce academic subjects like languages into secondary schools?
Thank you, Claire.
Mine, obviously, relates to the health service, but tonight I feel it would not be allowed as it will focus on the results of the election and how that will resolve itself!
Yes, there are so many questions…
When I was teaching my sixth formers today, another English teacher came in and started waffling on about the divine right of the Queen to decide, if it goes on too long. I said, really? No way!
Then one of the lads looked at me and said; ‘Miss, no offence, but English teachers and politics sort of like, don’t mix, do they?’
Oh the shame…!
Depends on the English teacher, right, Claire?
Shirley Williams! Now there’s a blast from the past. The Gang of Four and the birth of LibDemism.
I can’t think of any questions at this point, Nym. I just want to know how and when this economic and political mess is going to be resolved. All else pales into insignificance really.
Question: Why doesn’t Cameron just insist on forming the next (minority) government? He won the most votes/seats and is only 20 short of an absolute majority which can be overcome pragmatically, case by case, with the support of the minor parties.
Janus: He can’t insist, although he may just get away with it. Brown has to throw in the towel first; he is still PM until he resigns.
It has been announced recently that homo sapiens interbred with homo neandertalis before the later’s extinction. That today’s homo sapiens genome contains genetic material inherited from Neanderthal man as a result of this interbreeding. As further analysis is made do you believe that the British people will be discovered to contain a higher percentage of Neanderthal genes than any other nation?
Made; I don’t hold any truck with wide sweeping generalisations on nationality, be it British or otherwise…
However, I for one do believe that French politicians do conduct themselves, and the whole business of managing their country, with far greater integrity, rigour and self awareness than in Britain. They have to; there’s noway the French would let them away with anything less…
Jaime: yes, you’re absolutely right. My students think I’m mad anyway; they can’t believe how obsessed I get with fronted clauses… 🙂
The best question, apparently, was the warm up one which didn’t get broadcast. Who would make you dream cabinet?
Well, Claire, the divine right of royalty is a somewhat, um, retro idea. Now that I’ve looked up fronted clause, I can say I’m not a big fan of them either.
MoO. There was a massive amount of gene swapping in France between 1939/45. Do you think it could have accounted for the increased number of square headed French people? 🙂
Hi, Claire.
With the utmost respect, the French are on their Fifth Republic (written exclusively for De Gaulle), having gone through a couple of Empires as well since the fall of the ancien regime in 1789. Most of the histories of those various attempts at working out some sort of political system have been classic examples of venality, corruption, expediency, compromise and downright incompetence, in my opinion.
Our unwritten constitution has evolved and thrived throughout that entire period and from long before then, in my opinion.
Not that I ‘ hold any truck with wide sweeping generalisations on nationality, be it British or otherwise…’ either, of course. Smiley thing!
Hi John.
Yes, I don’t disagree. And nor do I deny that there is also corruption – Chirac, and a fair amount of bling bling in the Sarkozy government.
However, speaking as one who has lived in both places, I have to say that I think that French politicians do seem to take their duties far more seriously, perhaps because the people are genuinely involved and take political issues seriously. You just don’t see the American style campaigning over there; nor do you see some of the ridiculous antics that turn our general elections into something of a circus.
Just my gut feeling. Smiley thing with lippy on 😉
Touché Claire.
In all fairness, I was just looking for an excuse to flaunt my class medal for Comparative Constitutions in First Year Law at Embra University in the late 1960’s.
FFR and antecedents thereof were one’s special topic.
Smiley thing with Scots attitude (so not very Smiley at all, when I think about it).
I’m more than happy to be British.
Jaime; yes, I can’t believe divine right of royalty still exists…
I’ve had to teach all that stuff as part of an A level English language this year – fronted clauses, adverbials etc etc – mainly because no other English teacher would do it. At first it was major hassle but now I am turning into a linguistic train spotter… 😉
John – good for you! You sound much cleverer than me! But you don’t get to wear lippy…
Pseu – that is a good question. Dream cabinet. Drinks ones excluded, I take it…?
I’ll have to think about that one.
My question would be:-
“Bearing in mind that the SNP’s and Plaid Cymru’s price for supporting a coalition government would be the insulation of Scotland and Wales from the global economic crisis at the expense of the English taxpayer, at what point, exactly, would they anticipate the English taking to the barricades?”
OZ
Excellent question OZ.
I see that John is unhappy to see our constitution evolve 5 times over the years in a transparent manner, whereas the British constitution that is in permanent mutation is apparently acceptable.
De Gaulle, a great patriot, gave a great nation an excellent written, transparent, communicated, constitution that called on a 150 years of experience.
MoO, good evening.
I am never unhappy, for the avoidance of doubt. Not often very serious either, to be fair.
Anyhow, this post, moy comments, and your response sent me back to re-read my course book on the subject – ‘The Fifth French Republic’ by Dorothy Pickles, published by Methuen & Co in 1960 (3rd edition 1964). So old it does not even have an ISBN number.
Anyhow again, only had to get as far as the second sentence of the first paragraph of Chapter 1.
‘For in the field of constitution-making the French hold a world record. It has often been said that, since 1789, France has changed her Constitution on average every 12 years.’
So, not ‘evolved’ 5 times but rehashed 14 times since 1789. To be fair, the FFR has lasted another 46 years since then so the average must be up to about 16 years or thereby. I suppose it’s progress of a sort but not as we know it, Jim.