A Voice of Reason

At what point does an elected politician cease to be a Member-Elect and can officially call themself an MP?

Is it after the returning officer finishes their declaration?

Is it when Parliament is told to meet?

Is it when they take the oath to Her Majesty?

Is it at some other time?

I receive a text message regularly from Virgin Mobile (UK) advising me that I can top up £10 to get free rewards. I have repeatedly asked them to opt me out of these messages, but they say these are "system message" and I cannot opt out.

I wish to raise this with a regulator, and would like to know who is responsible for regulating this in the UK?

If I bought an open ticket from London Euston to Birmingham New Street, it would be valid on services operated by two different companies (London Midland and Virgin Trains). When I use this ticket and it simply leaves the station in my pocket (there are no ticket barriers there), how do they know which TOC I used and to which my fare will go?

I believe the following would actually require a Constitutional Amendment as it affects eligibility to sit in Congress and stand for President.

Amendment XXVIII: Budget Appropriations

1. The House of Representatives and the Senate both shall, no later than one month prior to the start of the fiscal year, pass a bill to appropriate funds for the entire upcoming fiscal year.

2. If the House of Representatives and the Senate cannot agree on an appropriation bill to pass before the deadline set out in Paragraph (1), then all sitting members in both Houses of Congress shall

(a) be required to vacate their respective offices at the end of their present term, and

(b) become ineligible for re-election to any public office for a minimum of ten years following the completion of their present term.

3. If the President should veto the appropriation bill, and no appropriations bill should subsequently become law prior to the start of the fiscal year, then all sitting members in both Houses of Congress, in addition to the President and Vice-President, shall

(a) be required to vacate their respective offices at the end of their present term, and

(b) become ineligible for re-election to any public office for a minimum of ten years following the completion of their present term.

4. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Now I know the odds of this kind of amendment being adopted are slim to none, but hypothetically, would it be enough to bring competence back into Congress?

The last couple of major terrorist attacks we have seen, specifically in Algeria last year and in Kenya this week, there were reports that the terrorists were trying to let all Muslims go and kill all non-Muslims. They reportedly did so by asking questions that Muslims would be expected to know, and killing those who could not answer.

If, heaven forbid, I should ever find myself in a similar situation, what are the things I would need to know in order to put on a good enough act to save my life?

Angela Merkel's CDU/CSU bloc has finished with 311 seats in the Bundestag, which is five seats short of what is needed for an overall majority.

Can she govern as a minority government, or does she have to find a coalition partner to get her above 316?

Is there anything that can legally stop someone from staying in the transit area of an airport indefinitely? Say, for example, one arrives on a flight and refuses to either go through passport control or use an onward ticket. Can they legally be arrested or otherwise removed from the airport, and if so, by whom?

It's been reported within the last hour that Edward Snowden's passport has been revoked by the US government. How would this prevent him from traveling, considering there will be nothing on the document itself indicating such a revocation?

The role of Secretary of Defense is to lead the armed forces. I don't see how one's position on Israel is particularly relevant.

I can see it perhaps for Secretary of State, but I'm curious why it matters for defense.

And if not, what needs to change, keeping Second Amendment rights in mind?

Best answer will go to the best justified answer, even if I disagree with it.

The parents of a girl who survived the Sandy Hook massacre are reportedly applying to sue the state of Connecticut for $100 million. Is there any legal justification for this?

I accept that there are reasonable arguments on both sides of the gun control debate. In light of the 13th multiple murder this year, should America's leaders at least have an adult debate on the subject, come out of it what may?

We know that, in this case, the House will elect the President, which would almost certainly lead to a President Romney. But what about the Senate's election of the VP?

If the Senate is tied, by normal rules, this would leave VP Biden with the tie-breaking vote on determining his own job. Would this rule still apply, or would the clear conflict of interest force him to give up this vote (either by some rule or sheer public pressure)? If it does, does President Romney simply nominate a VP and hope to get him approved by the Senate? Or would America simply go for four years without a VP?

The mayor of London was born in New York, which technically makes him eligible.

Is this perhaps the reason he's not interested in the leadership of the UK Conservative Party? Perhaps he has greater ambitions?

When placed in context, it doesn't really seem that bad to me. Why am I wrong?

We're now at the point in the election campaign where the main topics of conversation are a big yellow puppet and binders full of women. Both of which are, to me at least, absurd.

Would this still be the case if the election campaign were a slightly more reasonable duration (say, two months instead of two years), or would America be talking about something meaningful instead?

1. American politicians

2. American public

3. American public as seen by American politicians

I support the _____ Party. Our party has advocated for ______, but over the past four years, we have decided that a deal without it is better for the country than no deal at all.

The US debt is nearly as large as its entire annual output, and is growing at a rate of over a trillion dollars a year. Neither party has any credible plan to bring this deficit, much less the total debt, down. The government was actually within inches of defaulting on its legal obligations last year, and doing so by choice.

Despite all this, people are still willing to lend to the US government for less than 2% interest over a ten-year period. Why are they willing to do this, and how long can they keep kicking the can down the road before they start paying interest rates similar to Spain or Italy?

I want to know why one should vote for Romney instead of simply against Obama.