I am British, I am a Royalist but I am also a Socialist, but with examples like Kinnock / Blair / Brown / Corben in charge what hope have I got of seeing a decent Socialist Government? As for a Republic, would you want a Trump or a Putin as your leader? Be careful of what you wish for. For now the Status Quo will do, I haven't got long to enjoy this planet, I am not too bothered how things go after I have shuffled off this mortal coil! I just hope to see some improvement in the Saints fortunes, I don't ask for a lot.
I don’t see why we need a political head of state, merely a ceremonial one. The Irish President, although a politician, doesn’t have the same kind of power that POTUS does, for example. Why can’t we go a step further, and choose someone to open bridges and launch boats and live in a nice house for a few years, but who has no role in politics at all? As I suggested the other day, someone whose qualifications are merely being a nice bloke or a decent woman. Michael Palin or Darcy Bussell, or anyone you like. The point is, that the monarchy represents the pinnacle of the class system, which has ruined the ordinary people of this country since 1066. In order to get rid of the class system, the lords, the knights, the county squires and sheriffs, you have to get rid of the monarchy too. Chuck them all out, every one of the bloodsucking parasites. Let us be ruled by a true democracy, with a lower and upper chamber all elected by PR, and joined-up communication between all the layers of government from parish councils to the Senate.
I guess there are many that would disagree with you and all in different ways. There have been many attempts to rid us of the Monarchy, but for many reasons all have failed. For all of their faults they are the reason we have never been overun by something that could be a lot worse. Surely the overwhelming numbers that reacted to the loss of the Queen tells you something about the population and what they believe in. It is going to take something massive to effect any kind of change and would probably even lead to a Civil War, we don't know the affect of Charles III reign yet, there maybe a subtle change, one way or another.
I agree with the principle, but I in no way trust our politicians and population with Head of State reform, high chance of blowing up in our faces. The only viable alternative is a ceremonial President and we would probably end up with God Emperor Johnson instead. I’m not a major Royalist but the process of removing them would risk something worse as things stand. Commons and Lords reform are vastly more important, impactful and imo more realistic. They must be prioritised first to avoid giving a Tory majority any kind of influence over the Head of State position should it be remodelled.
I’m sorry but there will never be a true democracy, as the people that vote are never given the true facts. You would need to change human nature for this to occur. There’s so much bias in this world which social media has made worse, and we’re in the era of social media which warps facts and blurs opinions to make them factual. It’s nice to dream about a utopia, but as Adkins said, control the controllables.
^^This. I disagree but on different levels than some of you. I am a Monarchist and love the Royalty and all that it brings to the country. I don’t worship them or feel they are better than me though. I think the Queen acted like that too - she was Queen by birth, but the UK is made up of all of us. The sum parts of the UK make it what it is and I feel the Royals (I mean the Queen and King Charles here) feel privileged to represent us rather than the other way round. The hanger ons in the Royal family give the good a bad name. Don’t get me started on the Markle…..
I think in fairness sections of the media greatly assist with, in many cases, a ridiculous outpouring of royal news rubbish. I'm with you a Royalist and have no problem with the present system as the total overthrow of what we know, from a historical point of view in other countries, China, Russia etc, will not be the outcome most would like to see. I have no desire to lend any support to something as dangerous and unpredictable a process. I accept others will disagree, they have that right and I defend that right, not the case in many countries though.
With Corbyn we had a realistic chance of a socialist government. God we could do with him now. I don’t know why the option is an unelected monarch or a dickhead president (trump) or a dictator (Putin). These are not the only choices.
Honestly I dont think if Labour won in 2019 he would still be PM now, the press would have absolutely blitzed him over Covid and even if he managed to get past that there is no way the party itself wouldn't have turned on him over Ukraine if he maintained his relationship with the Stop the War coalition. By that point he probably wouldnt have been able to make any real progress and Labour would be wounded for another decade at least. The country has suffered especially over the last few years but there is some potential that we might be turning the Tories over for a more prolonged period in the longer term than we would have otherwise. Fingers crossed. Re the Head of State choices, you are right that those aren't the only options, but we aren't the ones that would get to make the choice regarding the Monarchy's replacement, that is the concern. Imagine the Monarchy is abolished at a time when the Conservatives have a majority, the consequences could be horrific.
Agree with that. He would have done ok with brexit, not sure about covid. But his approach to Ukraine would have been terrible. Yes the media hated him, they misrepresented him so much. He just isn’t a natural modern politician. (That’s what I liked about him)
I think his principles are admirable and his domestic plans were definitely a step in the right direction. Unfortunately he was politically naive and had an absolutely untenable foreign policy position for a leader of the UK to have, it is almost certain that he would have refused to send military aid to Ukraine as PM and I suspect that would have destroyed his leadership. If the left of Labour wants to get someone in power it needs to move on and seek out his successor, there does seem to be a lot of focus on him still but there is no more he can do re broader party politics. There must be someone out there who can combine socialist ideals with a Blairesque political savvy, they just haven't shown themselves yet.... or for the last 45 years.
Yes, some great principles but so, so naïve. I don’t think he is an antisemite but his persistent failure to distance himself from people who hold those views was alarming. And yes his foreign policy is a joke. Thinking the whole world can just get along with diplomacy must be a wonderful way to live, but the world just doesn’t work like that.
Not even the supposedly left leaning press - basically The Guardian and The Independent - were prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt. The anti Semitism stuff really stuck in places like London and Manchester (it cost Labour Finchley and Golders Green for example), and I still believe that was generally an orchestrated smear.
Yup. He didn’t help himself though, writing a forward for a reprint of an antisemetic economics book and opposing the removal of an offensive mural without knowing its contents. Jesus.
Yeah, that mural was indefensible when you looked at it closely, but I genuinely believe the anti Semitic symbolism went over his head. What was the book he wrote a forward for? Not heard that story.
I do feel there was a smear element to it, his behaviour clearly wasn’t intended to be anti-semitic and there is evidence that he was an active campaigner against anti-semitism. But he just couldn’t help but fall into every single trap the media set for him every time and he just didn’t learn. A Labour leader will always have about 75% of the mainstream press in this country acting against them whether you are Corbyn or Starmer, the leader of the party needs to know how to manage this and he didn’t. Edit - Forgot this wasn’t the Politics thread!
Depends on what you mean by Democracy, if you mean everyone being equal, some more equal than others, that's Communism! The real issue is "the people that vote", who don't when they are needed the most. That's why you don't get a true democracy.
