From: Gene McAloon 

On Mon, 9 Aug 2004 21:51:06 -0400, "Dave Ings"
 wrote:

>That's a bit dogmatic. They are different from the American system, but they
>are very real. Just ask Margaret Thatcher, who was deposed from within once
>she overstayed her welcome. Or any leader in Canada who has had to govern
>with a minority in Parliament (as Paul Martin is doing now).

As I say, there are no checks and balances in the Brit parliamentary
system. The experience of Thatcher doesn't in any way suggest otherwise.
She was thrown out of her leadership position by her own party and for no
other reason than that the majority of the party members at the party
conference thought she couldn't win another general election.

How can there be a system of checks and balances when everything,
legislative, executive and judicial functions, are all exercised by
parliament? Without separate branches, there can be no checks and balances
and the Brit parliamentary system has none.

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5