pastitche

SC ... is an option Portobello by the Sea?

That's located at Dicky Beach QLD.

Darn cold here now though ... so there is shrinkage for tourism numbers from us locals on Dicky Beach.

However, the number of crazy Scotsmen who find this weather just like Summer at home do tend to populate the Beach.

You sir, are a charlatan and a mountebank - there is nowhere in the colony of Queensland where the temperature approaches that of the Firth of Forth when the haar rolls in from the North Sea.

I had a former colleague, a sailor and a member of North Berwick Yachting Clubwho once said to me that he had "sailed in the Mediterranean Sea, the Black Sea, the Caspian Sea and, having been in a regatta around Portobello, have now sailed in the WC". They have built a sewage facility since that time, I should add

@pastitche

So either you are really ignorant to your surroundings ore you are really naive thinking these things never occur but I think you know what I mean and I have no intention of satisfying your crave for a needless debate. Either prove me wrong or don't comment at all.

Prove you wrong about what - your nebulous statements that I asked you to explain?

This thread was apparently about age differences between farang men and their Thai wives/gfs; are you introducing the darker and more sinister reasons why some deviants come to Thailand? If so you should make that clearer because I really had no idea what you were trying to say in your initial post.

If all the old codgers come to Thailand to get a young wife/gf that they would have no hope of getting in their own country, please tell me why the young guys come here? The fact of the matter is that most of you are here for exactly the same reason. The difference is us old guys are restricted because of our age in our own countries, what's the young guys excuse? Let me guess, lack of social skills, ugly as a hatful, dumb as a post? Judging by the young guys responses to some of these posts, it's pretty obvious that at least two out of those three apply.

You got it backwards.... the reason the old folks don't take their barely legal girls back home is because there are consequences for that and they wouldn't be looked upon as idols as they think they are in Thailand. I think lack of social skills is what brings that kind of delusional group of men here in the first place. Because back home some of the things the men do to the women here would be considered barbaric and close to slavery, but here well money talks more than honoring the basic humanitarian principals. So whatever illusion you have built up, dream on, because by the time the middle class has reached its peak, people with that archaic thinking will just be a memory.

What on earth do you mean? Are you suggesting that marriages in Thailand involving a farang man and a Thai woman where there is a significant difference in age involves barbarism, pseudo-slavery and a deprivation of humanitarian rights or principles (to spell it correctly)? I would love to hear your reasoning.

As a matter of interest, how can something be "barely legal"

The fact you start the argument by being a grammar nazi kind of proves the point that you are taking this rather personally. To close to the heart perhaps?

Not at all; I am pedantic on occasion especially when I encounter what I consider bombastic hyperbole. Would you perhaps now explain what you meant by your references which I highlighted?

If all the old codgers come to Thailand to get a young wife/gf that they would have no hope of getting in their own country, please tell me why the young guys come here? The fact of the matter is that most of you are here for exactly the same reason. The difference is us old guys are restricted because of our age in our own countries, what's the young guys excuse? Let me guess, lack of social skills, ugly as a hatful, dumb as a post? Judging by the young guys responses to some of these posts, it's pretty obvious that at least two out of those three apply.

You got it backwards.... the reason the old folks don't take their barely legal girls back home is because there are consequences for that and they wouldn't be looked upon as idols as they think they are in Thailand. I think lack of social skills is what brings that kind of delusional group of men here in the first place. Because back home some of the things the men do to the women here would be considered barbaric and close to slavery, but here well money talks more than honoring the basic humanitarian principals. So whatever illusion you have built up, dream on, because by the time the middle class has reached its peak, people with that archaic thinking will just be a memory.

What on earth do you mean? Are you suggesting that marriages in Thailand involving a farang man and a Thai woman where there is a significant difference in age involves barbarism, pseudo-slavery and a deprivation of humanitarian rights or principles (to spell it correctly)? I would love to hear your reasoning.

As a matter of interest, how can something be "barely legal"

Scandinavians are most popular.

Where ever I go all the girls call me hundsom.

I'm afraid bar girls will talk like that to all farang, a real Thai girl are reserved and won't talk like that

Ohh, I forgot the

Yes seems we have another all knowing Thai culture farang on the prowl talking through his bottom

But i am curious to know how a bar girl who happens to be of the Thai nationality is not a real Thai girl, maybe the posters only experience is with Katoy's hence the reference to Not real Thai girls...

Perhaps he is not capable of understanding the subtlety of "hundsom"

thai girls are obsessed with thai dramas, these programs play to there fantasy's.

why are there no old farang in these shows.

I don't see them much, not having a wife who is obsessed with Thai dramas; but I don't recall seeing any young farangs much either, particularly not young farang pro fighters or even farang body builders. Why might that be?

In fact there are quite a few of us around; what activities are you interested in?

Even got married in a kilt - I think the monks thought me strange as did all the family and guests

Nice photo mate

You ARE the one standing up aren't you?

Well there were thirteen blokes with shaved heads wearing voluminous orangey- brown dresses.... I didn't think I looked out of place

If integating means eating blood,intestines,liver and chickens feet,you can count me out.

I am Scottish - black pudding and haggis I always enjoyed. Mind you chicken feet ....no

, but you are tilting at those windmills much harder today.

Tilting at windmills is an English idiom which means attacking imaginary enemies. The word “tilt”, in this context, comes from jousting.

The phrase is sometimes used to describe confrontations where adversaries are incorrectly perceived, or to courses of action that are based on misinterpreted or misapplied heroic, romantic, or idealistic justifications.

Thank you for your comments and I like your cat in a tinfoil hat BTW

I wish some people comments were imaginary here, unfortunately I have learned though the hard way here that if you ignore insults here (bigot/not a woman/racist/crazy/insane /etc) they just stay there.

And not only do they stay there but the ones who proffered them tend to think they can get away with it, so they come back again and again.

It is always the same 4 or 5 people and it's been 3 months now and yes I am starting to get fed up with it.

Tilting at windmills is not English - it is in fact from Cervantes's Don Quixote.so is really Spanish.... sorry

they hate it when i burp loudly and fart in bed....

but i heard her fart one night, i felt the vibration, but she flat out denied it.

inequality and racism ..

Sent from my tin cup with string

Yep, same here.

My Thai stepdaughter (who farts quite frequently) is convinced, because I told her so, that falangs do not fart.

If we are having a contest, I was born there and lived there until 2004.

I have no idea why you are harping on about this, apart from you want to score a few points against another member, guess what, you haven't.

There is no correlation that can be made about the UK parliament and the Thai one, the UK parliament serves the country and all its people, not just the ones that voted for the party that ended up with most seats, the leader of that party is open to question by the entire house, and they have to be there to answer those questions, if they are not, bigger questions will be asked, if that leader was found to be acting in a self serving way instead of attending a parliamentary meeting, then there would be real trouble for them, not only would they not be the leader of that party any longer, their involvement in politics would be ended, never to be reinstated, ever.

Compare that with the Thai parliament, chalk and cheese.

You managed to pick up one little point when a poster referred to the UK parliament as the English parliament and started picking fault with just that.

Stop it, it's childish, and scores nil point.

I suspect that Yunla is as amused as I am by the Knight on a white charger riding to her rescue. I pointed out an error which she has repeatedly made and she responded attempting to justify the same error. I should not have responded to that?

I made no comparisons with the Thai Parliament, why did you?

Sorry, what point are you trying to make now?

Is it the old one about someone making a mistake, or is a new one? I never claimed that you had made a comparison between the UK parliament and the Thai one, I did that, me, I made a statement in the vain hope to tempt some sort of response out of you that didn't include the original error, you know, something constructive about the Thai topic at hand.

Didn't work did it.

Nope, just the original error, and it's still nil points.

The original error? Pray tell me master

It's very noble of you to try to defend HelloDolly's ill-researched post but he was apparently talking about the election of the President of France ie head of state, not the Prime Minister, and attempting to apply it to Thailand for selection of Prime Minister. The Prime Minister of France is not elected in that way but perhaps someone with a US-centric view might think that is how the system works.

What happened in France has no bearing on, or relevance to Parliamentary procedures and the role of Prime Minister in a constitutional monarchy; I am sure that you are well aware that France is a republic.

Run-off elections for MPs are completely irrelevant to what I was disputing, viz HelloDolly had misunderstood what happened in the French Presidential election.

I was not "defending" hellodolly. I was just asking how run off elections for MPs (since Thailand doesn't elect their head of state) mean a change from a constitutional monarchy.

And then I pointed out another method of election.

If I suggested an election method that the School Parents Association used, is that suggesting that Thailand should be run by school parents? (not that that would necessarily be a bad thing)

So ... the question still stands. How does a run off election for MPs affect the constitutional monarchy?

Come on, you know that's silly. You responded to my post by introducing completely irrelevant run-off MPs in Australia. I was attempingt to encourage Hellodolly to seek information beyond his limited horizon of North America. I said that since Thailand does not have a president as head of state, he was wrong and he is still wrong.

Using your favourite tactic, where did I suggest that run off elections would affect the constitutinal monarchy?

Allegedly, the den has been operating for 20+ years.

Pehaps some additional questions should be asked;

How does a gambling den run during multiple Democrat and military controlled governments?

How does an alleged "Thaksin" controlled gambling den operate in the Democrat stronghold of Bangkok where the governor detests all things Thaksin?

If the gambling den has been around for 20+years, then surely the Democrat regime under Abhisit, which was no friend of the Thaksin family, would have done something, since Mr. Abhisit was so "clean".

The gambling den might or might not be run by a Thaksin relative. If it is, that doesn't mean the Thaksin relative might not be one of the family outcasts.

Gambling dens in Thailand do not survive for 20 years unless there are powerful protectors and those protectors would have been around long before a man named Thaksin was elected PM.

Of course, this all assumes that there is even a gambling den. To date, Chuvit has made all sorts of accusations, yet he is never able to back it up with actual evidence.

Before, the Nation broke the story, why didn't someone go and take pictures of the valet parking, or the vehicles? Why didn't one of the Nation's journalists knock on the door and ask if there was gambling inside?

Lots of allegations, but no evidence presented.

And before anyone says, you go knock on the gambling den door, I say, Nationmedia has its own media facilities, why not run with the story, as it would have embarrassed the government had the story been substantiated.

Your post was just a attempt to drag the Democrats and the Army Governments down.

The following is a quote from you

"Mr. Abhisit was so "clean". You are right he was clean. And he was also not that petty to go after one person because he didn't like his relatives.

For a fellow who tries to post intelligently you sure miss the mark. Do you really think the buerocasy and all the Government officials were honest when Thaksin got thrown out. That the Army got rid of all the honest people and hired only people who were corrupt.

Wake up and smell the coffee The Army and the Democrats inherited a pack of thieves just the same as the PT has inherited them.

Do you really think those two governments were that petty that they would go looking for Thaksins relatives? The only relatives they were interested in were the ones helping Thaksin steal money from the people Here is another quote from you

"multiple Democrat and military controlled governments" You forgot to mention that they were in power for only 5 of the 20 years the den had been running. But what the heck why mention a small fact like that. It might make people think that Thaksins government had overlooked them to. We can't make him look bad now can we.

The Dem's and the Army were more interested in running a country.

You are confusing them with your current friends in Dubai power.

You are incorrect.

Let's start with your basic math skills;

The allegation is made that the gambling den has operated for 20+ years. I'll use exactly 20 years ok 2012 - 20 = 1992

"multiple Democrat and military controlled governments" You forgot to mention that they were in power for only 5 of the 20 years the den had been running

Now let's go look at who was in power during that period and the length of their rule;

3 ½ Years - Military; 1992, 2006-2008

11 years - Democrat Party Party 1992-1995; 1997-2001, 2008-2011

31/2 + 11 = 141/2 not 5.

Now let's look at your two claims ;

"Mr. Abhisit was so "clean". You are right he was clean. And he was also not that petty to go after one person because he didn't like his relatives

Mr. Abhisit's rule was characterized by multiple corruption scandals. Do you deny that? Mr. Abhisit was more like Mr. Teflon..

Mr. Abhisit also came to power in large part because the Democrats aided and abetted the PAD's harrassment and sabotage of a democratically elected government. You have no idea if Mr. Abhisit's government did or did not go after anyone. What is known is that the Democrats declared former PM Thaksin enemy number 1 and did everything they could to get at him and that included hitting out at anyone they though was part of Mr. Thaksin's entourage.

The Dem's and the Army were more interested in running a country

Your statement speaks for itself and needs no rebuttal as its assininity is self evident.

To a died in the wool red shirt it would seem to be like that. I noticed you omitted the part of the Army and the Democrats inheriting the band of thieves. You still want every one to think they were the only Government to have corruption. You over look quite conveniently that It was not the Democrats who brought charges and convicted Thaksin. They did how ever make half hearted attempts to get him. Because in typically cowardly fashion he skipped the country does not mean he was not public enemy number one. If he was to come back and face all the charges against him you would understand. A person does not have to be convicted of a crime to be public enemy number one.

Look at the states when Dillinger was public enemy number one. He was not convicted of any crimes to merit that ranking just suspected.

Do you think that the band of crooks the army and the Democrats inherited disappeared when the PT came to power. That would be delusional thinking. But I see you don't comment on that.

And Dillinger was killed by FBI agents although he had not been convicted of any crime. Is that acceptable to you?

Your idea of a "dyed in the wool redshirt" appears to mean anyone who does not accept your interpretation of events.It might be more appropriate to explain why the army and Democrats could do nothing about the "pack of thieves" you mentioned as justification for the Democrats failure.

Blair was the PM of the UK, you have many times talked about the "English Parliament" which ceased to exist in 1707.

Have you ever watched PM's Question Time in the House of Commons? Nothing is unscripted, the PM, or in other debates, the appropriate Minister, has a sheaf of notes with answers researched and rehearsed well before the debate

England has a parliamentary democracy, with an parliament, parliamentary-questions and houses of parliament etc. Having lived in England since 1971, and studied politics/sociology at University there, I watched PMQ hundreds of times, and as anybody else who has watched it will know, Prime ministers and other MP's in the cabinet, have to answer questions by Opposition speakers as well as backbenchers and since nobody except the questioner knows what they are going to ask (beyond a basic topic title) - how can it be scripted as you say? In addition the question is responded to and then branches into other areas of related debate which the PM must speak on without scripts.

The sheaf of notes are numbers and facts and figures and points of order, for reference since most humans can not remember long lists of figures.

I realise you are deliberately misunderstanding my point for some reason, but you are infact wrong in your assertions. To defend the despatch box in PMQ takes quick-thinking, debating skills, intelligence and most importantly a solid understanding of the workings of politics. Blair had all those abilities, even though he was also a scoundrel. Yingluck has none of those skills or qualities, and that is why she avoids debate like the plague and she would survive less than a week in English debating chambers. But she doesn't even show up for work in parliament anyway except on special occasions, so her political ignorance and ineptitude are masked by silence.

If we are having a contest I lived in the UK from long before 1971 and for a long time thereafter. There is no English Parliament.

If we are having a contest, I was born there and lived there until 2004.

I have no idea why you are harping on about this, apart from you want to score a few points against another member, guess what, you haven't.

There is no correlation that can be made about the UK parliament and the Thai one, the UK parliament serves the country and all its people, not just the ones that voted for the party that ended up with most seats, the leader of that party is open to question by the entire house, and they have to be there to answer those questions, if they are not, bigger questions will be asked, if that leader was found to be acting in a self serving way instead of attending a parliamentary meeting, then there would be real trouble for them, not only would they not be the leader of that party any longer, their involvement in politics would be ended, never to be reinstated, ever.

Compare that with the Thai parliament, chalk and cheese.

You managed to pick up one little point when a poster referred to the UK parliament as the English parliament and started picking fault with just that.

Stop it, it's childish, and scores nil point.

I suspect that Yunla is as amused as I am by the Knight on a white charger riding to her rescue. I pointed out an error which she has repeatedly made and she responded attempting to justify the same error. I should not have responded to that?

I made no comparisons with the Thai Parliament, why did you?

If I was an Ant in a previous life it would be complimentary but as one in the next life, BUDDHISM would see it as a severe downgrade. I would rather come back as a cockroach or a Saltwater Crocodile. Thanks for sharing.

I want to come back as an oak tree... ideally next to a village green with a cricket team

Beware of what you wish for - it could turn out be an oak tree in Australia.

What is her Salary? Should be reduced to a percentage close to the percentage of times she voted, down to 3% of what it is, sounds fair.

Not that it impacts on a billionairess, but AFAIK, it's 122,000 baht per month for the PM, which would mean 3,660 baht or $115 for her.

btw, her MP's are upset by their salaries

Pheu Thai MPs still unhappy with their salaries

BANGKOK, 28 September 2011 (NNT)- The ongoing flood crisis not only puts flood victims under stress but is also causing Pheu Thai MPs to land into financial trouble.

A source for the Pheu Thai party has revealed that Pheu Thai MPs have just begun to receive their salaries. Constituency MPs are paid 100,000 THB a month, twice as much as the amount paid to Pheu Thai MPs when they were Opposition members. Party-list MPs meanwhile are paid 50,000 THB a month.

Despite the higher wage, the source said 100,000 THB was still disappointing for Pheu Thai MPs who expected to get 200,000 baht a month, now that many of them had already spent much of their own cash helping flood victims in their constituencies.

http://thainews.prd....id=255409280002

Interesting post, Buchholz. Colabamumbai makes a comment that could be regarded as just about on topic since it's a thread about Yingluck's voting record and her salary. What is the relevance of your contribution?

What a load of crap

" said the prolonged conflicts are actually a struggle between two paradigms - guided democracy and popular democracy. Unless we can agree on which way Thailand is going, the problems will not go away."

1 guided democracy In other words Thaksin calling all the shots

2 popular democracy in other words the people doing the deciding who is going to be the leader. This type of Democracy would depend on the people voting for who they think will do the best job. Not who will pay them the most for their vote.

All the fighting going on now has nothing to do with Ideology it is about white washing Thaksin and his henchmen. If they under Thaksin's guidance had followed the rule of law there would have been no armed terrorism movement.

But the rule of law was not going to achieve Thaksins aim's so he resorted to terrorism.

Under the rule of law Abhist was the legal PM.

In a democracy the people would pick the leader by a majority vote. Look at France they could not get a majority vote so they took the two candidates with the most popular support and made them run off against each other thereby having a leader with the most popular support.

France had a run off for the position of President ie head of state. Are you suggesting that Thailand should change its constitution in such a manner and no longer be a constitional monarchy - or are you just lacking in knowledge?

Having run-off elections for MPs doesn't mean a change from a constitutional monarchy.

A similar process is preference voting, which Australia uses, and its a constitutional monarchy also with the Westminster system.

Sent from my shoe phone

It's very noble of you to try to defend HelloDolly's ill-researched post but he was apparently talking about the election of the President of France ie head of state, not the Prime Minister, and attempting to apply it to Thailand for selection of Prime Minister. The Prime Minister of France is not elected in that way but perhaps someone with a US-centric view might think that is how the system works.

What happened in France has no bearing on, or relevance to Parliamentary procedures and the role of Prime Minister in a constitutional monarchy; I am sure that you are well aware that France is a republic.

Run-off elections for MPs are completely irrelevant to what I was disputing, viz HelloDolly had misunderstood what happened in the French Presidential election.

Blair was the PM of the UK, you have many times talked about the "English Parliament" which ceased to exist in 1707.

Have you ever watched PM's Question Time in the House of Commons? Nothing is unscripted, the PM, or in other debates, the appropriate Minister, has a sheaf of notes with answers researched and rehearsed well before the debate

England has a parliamentary democracy, with an parliament, parliamentary-questions and houses of parliament etc. Having lived in England since 1971, and studied politics/sociology at University there, I watched PMQ hundreds of times, and as anybody else who has watched it will know, Prime ministers and other MP's in the cabinet, have to answer questions by Opposition speakers as well as backbenchers and since nobody except the questioner knows what they are going to ask (beyond a basic topic title) - how can it be scripted as you say? In addition the question is responded to and then branches into other areas of related debate which the PM must speak on without scripts.

The sheaf of notes are numbers and facts and figures and points of order, for reference since most humans can not remember long lists of figures.

I realise you are deliberately misunderstanding my point for some reason, but you are infact wrong in your assertions. To defend the despatch box in PMQ takes quick-thinking, debating skills, intelligence and most importantly a solid understanding of the workings of politics. Blair had all those abilities, even though he was also a scoundrel. Yingluck has none of those skills or qualities, and that is why she avoids debate like the plague and she would survive less than a week in English debating chambers. But she doesn't even show up for work in parliament anyway except on special occasions, so her political ignorance and ineptitude are masked by silence.

If we are having a contest I lived in the UK from long before 1971 and for a long time thereafter. There is no English Parliament. Had there been the "West Lothian Question" would not have been such a cause celebre. Remember that? Tam Dalyell asking why he could vote on legislation that applied to England but, in the event of Devolution, English MPs could not vote on Scottish legislation?

Given your timescale you must remember that the Callaghan government was brought down on a no confidence vote because of an amendment requiring not a majority vote but a large percentage of the electorate infuriated the SNP who had until then supported them

Your opinion of what happens in PMQ is IMO naive; politicians rarely answer the question that is asked and that has been obvious in British politics both in the House and on television political programmes for decades. There is a legion of civil servants and political advisers whose remit is to provide evasive answers; I have met some of these people and they are very clever at deflecting

I have never offered an opinion on Yinglucks abilities; my post was merely to point out what I believed to be errors in your interpretation of events in my native land - completely off topic, of course

What a load of crap

" said the prolonged conflicts are actually a struggle between two paradigms - guided democracy and popular democracy. Unless we can agree on which way Thailand is going, the problems will not go away."

1 guided democracy In other words Thaksin calling all the shots

2 popular democracy in other words the people doing the deciding who is going to be the leader. This type of Democracy would depend on the people voting for who they think will do the best job. Not who will pay them the most for their vote.

All the fighting going on now has nothing to do with Ideology it is about white washing Thaksin and his henchmen. If they under Thaksin's guidance had followed the rule of law there would have been no armed terrorism movement.

But the rule of law was not going to achieve Thaksins aim's so he resorted to terrorism.

Under the rule of law Abhist was the legal PM.

In a democracy the people would pick the leader by a majority vote. Look at France they could not get a majority vote so they took the two candidates with the most popular support and made them run off against each other thereby having a leader with the most popular support.

France had a run off for the position of President ie head of state. Are you suggesting that Thailand should change its constitution in such a manner and no longer be a constitional monarchy - or are you just lacking in knowledge?

Put it into context please. PMs in most countries don't have stellar voting records, mostly because of travel demands. Brit PMs, for example, average between 20-40% turnout in parliamentary votes... Blair got that down to 6% for periods. IN this case, we're looking a brief one-month period. We're foolish to be criticising her within such a short timespan. If I recall correctly, during May she was in the middle-east, Australia, and Singapore. Maybe China too? This is the life of a PM. But of course, people will take any chance they can to take a crack at her, and some will even stoop to outdated and unfunny sexist remarks....

Your comparison with Blair is appropriate in the sense that he is now looked back on as one of the most wasteful, inept, deceptive and unpopular English PM's of all time. Even working-class Labour voters can't stand him.

Re; Yingluck, it is not only her lack of voting, it is the fact she doesn't attend Parliament unless its a special occasion. But perhaps more importantly in a parliamentary democracy, she does not engage in unscripted debates as a matter of course. Blair, rodentlike though he certainly was, attended PMQ's and stood there defending his policies in an unscripted and spirited manner. Yingluck has neither the conviction nor the debating skills to defend her party's scant policies, instead reading from scripts written by others, and ducking out of free-form Q&A whenever possible. She is one hundred percent out of place in a parliamentary democracy where open unscripted debate is the very lifeblood of the whole system, and is the only way to produce consensus and positive outcomes for the electorate.

Blair was the PM of the UK, you have many times talked about the "English Parliament" which ceased to exist in 1707.

Have you ever watched PM's Question Time in the House of Commons? Nothing is unscripted, the PM, or in other debates, the appropriate Minister, has a sheaf of notes with answers researched and rehearsed well before the debate

Tracy? Milbourn? Doesn't sound British.

Well, a William Tracy was one of the murderers of Thomas a Beckett so they must have been around long enough; a Milburne in Westmorland was mentioned in the Domesday Book....

Only one side of politics has been talking about violence confrontation, and it's not the side that were elected by the majority of the voters

Jump in your time machine and travel back to the time of the elections where it was the majority that voted against the PT and there hanger on parties.

Hint 52% anti Thaksin

You repeatedly use this mantra that 52% voted against Thaksin. Given the political structure in Thailand, there will always be votes for minority parties because they are seen by their voters as being good for their own fiefdoms; that does not mean they voted against Thaksin since they realised that their representatives would seek coalition with the majority party which was unlikely to be other than PTP. Nor does the PTP's 48% mean that they all voted for Thaksin's rehabilitation.

Yours is a simplistic approach that ignores the political reality - PTP are in power, for better or worse. "Their hanger on parties" would mean that they do in fact have a parliamentary majority and a majority of the votes.

It really is a strange concept to think that the electorate vote against rather than for a party.

I have to tend towards neutrality on this one - my grandson's Australian though genetically pure Scottish. Means I can't really lose either way