बरु पार्टी डुबोस् तर क्षेत्री बाहुन को ठाउँ मा न आइपुगोस्
काँग्रेस का मधेसी सभासद ले सही संसोधन प्रस्ताव ल्याए कुरै सकियो
काँग्रेसी हरु भन्छन Westminster, Westminster, हामी प्रत्यक्ष निर्वाचित प्रधान मंत्री को पक्षमा छैनौं। हामी त Westminster सिस्टम मान्छौं।
हो त्यो Westminster सिस्टम मा यस्तो भएको:
Margaret Thatcher - How She Lost Power (Video)
Premiership of Margaret Thatcher: Fall from power
मार्गरेट थैचर ले संसद भंग गरिनन। जॉन मेजर त्यसै पार्टी बाट प्रधान मंत्री बने।
गिरिजा ले आफ्नो संसदीय दलको विश्वास गुमायो। तर उसको पार्टी ले संसद मा बहुमत गुमाएको थिएन। Westminster सिस्टम मा उ हट्नु पर्ने थियो। उ पछि स्वतः कैंडिडेट महेंद्र नारायण निधि थिए।
तर गिरिजा पर्यो लोकतान्त्रिक चरित्र नभएको मान्छे। बरु पार्टी तहसनहस होस, त्यो गिरिजा लाई मंजुर। पार्टी केही समय का लागि तहसनहस पार्यो पनि। Power politics बुझेको democracy नबुझेको मान्छे गिरिजा। Power politics त महेंद्र ले पनि बुझेको, जंग बहादुर ले पनि बुझेको।
अहिले सुशील ले त्यही गर्दैछ। शेर बहादुर ले पार्टी सभापति लान्छ भनेर सुशील ले त्यस पार्टी को अस्तित्व नै समाप्त गर्न लागेको छ। यो Westminster सिस्टम हो?
महेंद्र नारायण निधि लाई गिरिजा ले ठ्याक्कै यही गरेको हो।
मैले गिरिजा लाई तर थैचर संग तुलना गरेको होइन। मैले गिरिजा लाई नेपाली राजनीति को फर्नीचर भन्दा बढ़ी कहिले केही मानिन। साक्षरता कम भएको देशमा लोकतंत्र मा शायद यस्तै गिरिजा, सुशील, केपी ओली जस्ता एसएलसी बैक लागेका हरु प्रधान मंत्री हुने हो।
काँग्रेस का मधेसी सभासद ले सही संसोधन प्रस्ताव ल्याए कुरै सकियो
काँग्रेसी हरु भन्छन Westminster, Westminster, हामी प्रत्यक्ष निर्वाचित प्रधान मंत्री को पक्षमा छैनौं। हामी त Westminster सिस्टम मान्छौं।
हो त्यो Westminster सिस्टम मा यस्तो भएको:
Margaret Thatcher - How She Lost Power (Video)
Premiership of Margaret Thatcher: Fall from power
Thatcher's political "assassination" was, according to witnesses such as Alan Clark, one of the most dramatic episodes in British political history. The idea of a long-serving prime minister — undefeated at the polls — being ousted by an internal party ballot might at first sight seem bizarre. However, by 1990, opposition to Thatcher's policies on local government taxation, her Government's perceived mishandling of the economy (in particular the high interest rates of 15% that eroded her support among home owners and business people), and the divisions opening in the Conservative Party over European integration made her seem increasingly politically vulnerable and her party increasingly divided. A Gallup poll in October 1990 showed that while Thatcher remained personally respected there was overwhelming opposition towards her final initiatives — 83% disapproved of the government's management of the National Health Service, 83% were against water privatisation, and 64% were against the Community Charge, while various polls suggested the party was trailing Labour by between 6 and 11 points.[134] Moreover the prime minister's distaste for consensus politics and willingness to override colleagues' opinions, including that of Cabinet, emboldened the backlash against her when it did occur. .......... On 1 November 1990, Sir Geoffrey Howe, one of Thatcher's oldest and staunchest supporters, resigned from his position as Deputy Prime Minister in protest at Thatcher's European policy. In his resignation speech in the House of Commons two weeks later, he suggested that the time had come for "others to consider their own response to the tragic conflict of loyalties" with which he stated that he had wrestled for perhaps too long. Her former cabinet colleague Michael Heseltine subsequently challenged her for the leadership of the party, and attracted sufficient support in the first round of voting to prolong the contest to a second ballot. Though she initially stated that she intended to contest the second ballot, Thatcher decided, after consulting with her Cabinet colleagues, to withdraw from the contest. On 22 November, at just after 9.30 a.m., she announced to the Cabinet that she would not be a candidate in the second ballot. Shortly afterwards, her staff made public what was, in effect, her resignation statement: "Having consulted widely among my colleagues, I have concluded that the unity of the Party and the prospects of victory in a General Election would be better served if I stood down to enable Cabinet colleagues to enter the ballot for the leadership. I should like to thank all those in Cabinet and outside who have given me such dedicated support." ........ Neil Kinnock, Leader of the Opposition, proposed a motion of no confidence in the government, and Margaret Thatcher seized the opportunity this presented on the day of her resignation to deliver one of her most memorable performances: "... a single currency is about the politics of Europe, it is about a federal Europe by the back door. So I shall consider the proposal of the Honourable Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). Now where were we? I am enjoying this." ....... She supported John Major as her successor and he duly won the leadership contest, although in the years to come her approval of Major would fall away. After her resignation a MORI poll found that 52% agreed with the proposition that "On balance she had been good for the country", while 48% disagreed thinking she had been bad.[136] In 1991, she was given a long and unprecedented standing ovation at the party's annual conference, although she politely rejected calls from delegates for her to make a speech. She "all but shunned" the House of Commons after losing power, and gave no clue as to her future plans.[137] She retired from the House at the 1992 election, at the age of 66 years. ......... Political economist Roger Middleton summed up the economic record of the Thatcher era in the following terms: :There was no economic renaissance but a once-and-for-all catch-up exercise in labour productivity; governments have been responsible for two of the deepest depressions of the twentieth century; the experiment has generated costs which have done incalculable harm to the social fabric; and there is very little evidence that a sustainable new market order has been constructed since 1979. Long-standing problems of market and non-market failure remain." ...... Ironically, as The Economist acknowledged, albeit prematurely, at the close of her premiership: "One certain beneficiary of Mrs Thatcher's radicalism has been the Labour party. She hoped to kill it, and, by 1983, it indeed seemed close to death. Instead, fear chastened it into accepting the disciplines of its new leader, Mr Neil Kinnock. True, Labour's 1983 humiliation owed much to the defection of right-wingers to form the Social Democratic party; but, in a sense, that too was her doing. Now, after years of gloomily watching her reverse the socialist "ratchet", the Labour party has transformed itself. It has ditched unilateralism, hostility to the European Community and zeal for nationalisation. Labour as socialism is dead; as a political machine it is alive and well—and justifiably optimistic."
मार्गरेट थैचर ले संसद भंग गरिनन। जॉन मेजर त्यसै पार्टी बाट प्रधान मंत्री बने।
गिरिजा ले आफ्नो संसदीय दलको विश्वास गुमायो। तर उसको पार्टी ले संसद मा बहुमत गुमाएको थिएन। Westminster सिस्टम मा उ हट्नु पर्ने थियो। उ पछि स्वतः कैंडिडेट महेंद्र नारायण निधि थिए।
तर गिरिजा पर्यो लोकतान्त्रिक चरित्र नभएको मान्छे। बरु पार्टी तहसनहस होस, त्यो गिरिजा लाई मंजुर। पार्टी केही समय का लागि तहसनहस पार्यो पनि। Power politics बुझेको democracy नबुझेको मान्छे गिरिजा। Power politics त महेंद्र ले पनि बुझेको, जंग बहादुर ले पनि बुझेको।
अहिले सुशील ले त्यही गर्दैछ। शेर बहादुर ले पार्टी सभापति लान्छ भनेर सुशील ले त्यस पार्टी को अस्तित्व नै समाप्त गर्न लागेको छ। यो Westminster सिस्टम हो?
महेंद्र नारायण निधि लाई गिरिजा ले ठ्याक्कै यही गरेको हो।
मैले गिरिजा लाई तर थैचर संग तुलना गरेको होइन। मैले गिरिजा लाई नेपाली राजनीति को फर्नीचर भन्दा बढ़ी कहिले केही मानिन। साक्षरता कम भएको देशमा लोकतंत्र मा शायद यस्तै गिरिजा, सुशील, केपी ओली जस्ता एसएलसी बैक लागेका हरु प्रधान मंत्री हुने हो।
