The glint in her eye brooked no argument and the subject was never raised again.Anthony Hayward. The private member's Bill that comes before the Commons for its second reading today hardly rejoices in the snappiest of titles. But the Armed Forces (parliamentary approval for participation in armed conflict) Bill, tabled by Clare Short MP, has an objective that is both clear and laudable. It would require the prime minister of the day to seek parliamentary approval for the dispatch of British troops and for the declaration of war. There is no need to look far for the genesis of this Bill. As an opponent of the Iraq war - whose resignation from the Cabinet, alas, came too late to exert maximum political effect - Ms Short wants to ensure no government can take this country to war without the endorsement of MPs She wants the voice of the people to be heard.. Those dealing with the aftermath of the south Asian earthquake are faced with a logistical nightmare of unprecedented proportions And the situation grows more desperate by the day.
The quake itself killed an estimated 79,000 people in Pakistan, India and Afghanistan. But this calamitous death toll is certain to rise dramatically unless survivors receive food, medicines and shelter urgently. Some three million people have been made homeless by the tremor and have no protection against the bitter Himalayan winter Hypothermia will kill thousands unless help comes Medical supplies for the injured are urgently needed, too Some are already beginning to die of tetanus. Many urgently need to be evacuated by air from their cut-off villages.. Under the Royal Prerogative, the power to declare war or commit British forces to military operations is vested in the Prime Minister. The reason for this is that the powers of our Parliament are the result of Parliament clawing power from the monarch. But the monarch would not give up the power to make war and therefore this is now vested in the Prime Minister.
It follows that the Prime Minister could argue that the way in which he secretly gave his word to President George Bush in April 2002 that he would support him in an attack on Iraq was within his power. And the way the legal advice was manipulated, the risks of weapons of mass destruction exaggerated, and the position of France misreported, was legitimate as a way for the Prime Minister to keep the public on-side for a decision he had already made.. Given their taste for hilarious vengeance, it's a safe bet that the makers of The Simpsons are already working on ways to punish the Arab world for its impertinent bowdlerising of their magnificent creation. The last time anyone tried to interfere with America's first family, it was the patriarch of America's second family, George Bush Sr; or "41" as he's known within the clan in reference to his presidential number, to distinguish him from his son (as in Barbara telling George W: "43, go call 41 in from the woodshed and tell him supper's on the table"). In 1990, 41 expressed his desire that the American public be "closer to the Waltons than the Simpsons". Whether this was a greater error of judgement than his failure to march into Baghdad a year later and save the world from the subsequent calamity wrought by his first-born is one for the historians, but let's be charitable and ascribe it to spousal loyalty. Barbara, after all, had described probably the greatest show in TV history as "the dumbest thing I have ever seen" - an insane piece of hyperbole, many will think, from a sighted woman who reared 43. Anyway, Matt Groening and the Simpsons team wasted no time in punishing the Bushes.
