Beefy's Corner - The Off-Topic Chat Thread

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Status
Not open for further replies.
TheSecondStain said:
Joe. It doesn't bother me about the power or lack of power. An appointed ordinary person would do just as well. It's their position in society. It's the being waited on for their every need, that appals. Provided by the state, of course. There are people in this World who know nothing other than drudgery. This family know nothing other than luxury and it has never been been earned. Why do people simply overlook this obvious inequality..? Is it deliberate..?
Click to expand...

Don't you think a President would enjoy a life of luxury? Even worse, he'd have incentives to keep that life of luxury and would be willing to lie in order to do so. MPs do the same, don't they. The state would pay for him, too, and holding elections for the position would be another expense. Let the royal family keep their luxury; at least they don't have to side with political parties and deceive us in order to hang onto it. And it's true that they earn the country buckets of money anyway. That can't be denied.
 
Joe Steinberg said:
Don't you think a President would enjoy a life of luxury? Even worse, he'd have incentives to keep that life of luxury and would be willing to lie in order to do so. MPs do the same, don't they. The state would pay for him, too, and holding elections for the position would be another expense. Let the royal family keep their luxury; at least they don't have to side with political parties and deceive us in order to hang onto it. And it's true that they earn the country buckets of money anyway. That can't be denied.
Click to expand...

For pete's sake, I keep on about the system the Irish use. Read up.
 
It's all irrelevant anyway because as soon as Charlie takes over, he's going to give up power to the trees.

I've never really been over bothered one way or another about the continuation of the Monarchy. There are good things and bad things about having one and not having one. She should really where stripes more often though.

The arguments each way are just a vicious circle and in themselves, each argument easily countered by the other.
 
TheSecondStain said:
For pete's sake, I keep on about the system the Irish use. Read up.
Click to expand...

They hold elections for a ceremonial position. Why bother voting for a yes man? You'd be getting someone who does the same thing the Queen does (very little), but you'd be adding the expense of holding elections, and removing the income that the royal family brings in. Just seems like pissing away money on nothing.
 
Joe Steinberg said:
They hold elections for a ceremonial position. Why bother voting for a yes man? You'd be getting someone who does the same thing the Queen does (very little), but you'd be adding the expense of holding elections, and removing the income that the royal family brings in. Just seems like pissing away money on nothing.
Click to expand...

And the lap of luxury element..? The artificial hierarchical status The lack of ability to remove the Royal Family if you don't like them..? It doesn't wear, Joe. Sorry, I'm not convinced in the slightest.
 
I think Beefy's should be closed for good and a Government bitching thread opened up. :p
 
TheSecondStain said:
And the lap of luxury element..? The artificial hierarchical status The lack of ability to remove the Royal Family if you don't like them..? It doesn't wear, Joe. Sorry, I'm not convinced in the slightest.
Click to expand...

You're advocating removing the monarchy simply because they live a life of luxury, just so that we can elect a man to be paid loads to do nothing.
 
TheSecondStain said:
And the lap of luxury element..? The artificial hierarchical status The lack of ability to remove the Royal Family if you don't like them..? It doesn't wear, Joe. Sorry, I'm not convinced in the slightest.
Click to expand...

What you are, is jealous.
 
I favour the "man in the shack" approach to the question of having a head of state, or indeed any sort of leader at all. As Douglas Adams postulated, the only person capable of being entrusted with supreme political power is someone who has absolutely no desire for it. I have no idea how you would go about finding such a person, but it's got to be better than the shambles we have now.

On the question of the monarchy, as long as we have a class system where toffs who go to public schools are automatically groomed for power, either in Westminster or in the Civil Service, and we have a farcical political system which, to use the old phrase "whoever you vote for the government always wins", getting rid of the monarchy would be a waste of time. They are just a symbol of the rot that set in when Oliver Cromwell failed to set up a proper republic. I agree with TSS that their life of complete privilege and luxury is obscene, but if they were got rid of under the current system, they would be replaced by something possibly even worse, as political corruption and lust for power would be involved in selecting the head of state, which at least at the moment is now set out for the next three generations.
 
Bring back the Witan is all I can say. We would still have them if it wasn't for the bloody Normans who are still running the country today.

The Witan had the power to choose the king from amongst the extended royal family.

At least it would put paid to the system of primogeniture and stop all this stupid forelock tugging guff with this latest Royal brat.
 
ChilcoSaint said:
I favour the "man in the shack" approach to the question of having a head of state, or indeed any sort of leader at all. As Douglas Adams postulated, the only person capable of being entrusted with supreme political power is someone who has absolutely no desire for it. I have no idea how you would go about finding such a person, but it's got to be better than the shambles we have now.

On the question of the monarchy, as long as we have a class system where toffs who go to public schools are automatically groomed for power, either in Westminster or in the Civil Service, and we have a farcical political system which, to use the old phrase "whoever you vote for the government always wins", getting rid of the monarchy would be a waste of time. They are just a symbol of the rot that set in when Oliver Cromwell failed to set up a proper republic. I agree with TSS that their life of complete privilege and luxury is obscene, but if they were got rid of under the current system, they would be replaced by something possibly even worse, as political corruption and lust for power would be involved in selecting the head of state, which at least at the moment is now set out for the next three generations.
Click to expand...

I am the man in the shack and I happily volunteer to be head of state it looks like a cushy little number. I will do it for free and I promise to be impartial (well alright just a little bit impartial).
 
St Godders the Peacemaker said:
I am the man in the shack and I happily volunteer to be head of state it looks like a cushy little number. I will do it for free and I promise to be impartial (well alright just a little bit impartial).
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should set up an anarchosyndicalist commune.

Dennis, there's some lovely filth down here!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back