Off Topic Political Debate

Can we take it you are not in favour of the monarchy?

 

LOL!

 

Correction: Arthur was chosen from a divine test executed by Merlin

Get your facts right Man!!

 

"I'm not really a Republican either. I'm apathetic about the whole thing really. Mind you, as a more or less non- practising Anything, the idea of having the Pope back in charge again could be aaaaaaaaaaarrggghhhhhhh..

 

Let's get to elect our head of state, then people would be able to argue for ever about them not having a mandate because of the poor turn out. Sure that it would be the same if folks had to elect people to a second chamber. If it aint broke don't try and fix it. The head of state here appoints the prime minister to suit his whim. At least the Queen accepts the will of the people in appointing the person who leads the government.

 

I'm waiting for the day that someone comes back from the palace and says "I asked her Majesty if I could form a Government and she told me to take a running jump".

 

The Monarchy is just the apex of the system of land / property ownership and privilege that dates back a thousand years. Indefensible if you like. However it is what has formed our society for that 1,000 years. It is based on probably most of human history where tribes conquered and then vanquished the conquered. We are the unlucky descendants of the vanquished. The fact that we don't object more is probably a bit like Stockholm syndrome. We accept our cage and do not view it as that.

I cannot defeat the arguments of Bolton, Toby and Cologne because they are correct in my eyes. Unlike them I just accept the society I was born into largely as it is and only want to "tinker" with it. I almost ignore the few percent who own the vast tracts of land as I accept the rule of law. No non-revolutionary politics in this country will bring about the total reform of land and property ownership that in truth should occur. I fear the consequences of the revolution that would change it all more than I dislike the current system. Under the existing system I know what I own and can do with it - I feel my children and grandchildren are safe under this system of law. When I look at Russia, China or Cambodia after their revolutions I know what would happen to an "educated" person like me.

For 95% plus of the population things are broadly fair if not totally equal.

 

Try as I might, I simply cannot find any undeniable evidence that such tourism exists. Yes, tourists abound around Buck Palace, but they also abound around the UK as a whole - whose to say that tourism to the UK would reduce or stop if the monarchy ceased to exist? Where is there any evidence that tourists who 'take in the royalty' do that to the exclusion of all else, or that it is not just one part of an overall package? I know plenty of people who, like myself, have holidayed in the US without going to see the White House, have holidayed in Australia without visiting Uluru, have holidayed in France without seeing the Eiffel Tower, have holidayed in Italy without seeing the Colosseum, have holidayed in India without seeing the Taj Mahal. Of course Royalists would claim it to be so, but I simply doubt that the evidence exists to prove their claim.

As to the issue of Church of England vs Popedom - why should there be either? The numbers of both groups appear to be falling steadily, enough to make it an irrelevance.

 

Same here, but I wonder if you, like me, are more than a little worried & suspicious of this...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...eoples-lives-says-david-cameron-10246517.html

Carte blanche to snoop and interfere in the everyday lives of all within the UK? And all because they want to, not because they have good reason.

 

Don't like that at all. Screams of dictatorship and I hope its a poorly worded speech but yes looks dangerous. I'm all for changing the laws to outlaw extremism but censorship of peoples personal expressions is not something I can support. Getting rid of human rights act is essential but it must be replaced with a more fit for purpose UK act protecting the populace rights, not to terrorism and to provide a shield against the law but to protect the basic rights of non persecution, health, education, peace etc.

 

I agree Leo that tinkering can be dangerous because you never know what will come out afterwards. Actually I think that eg. the Green Party in England could maybe take advantage of Charles Windsor's greenness or his organic farming for their own use. In other words they could take a more pragmatic approach here rather than being shackled by their own ideological republicanism and distancing themselves from a lot of well meaning environmentalists in the process.
I have seen on here that people believe that the monarchy is somehow intrinsic to British history. OK. but this is a one sided history. As a kid I was not interested to learn that King so and so beat King so and so at the battle of so and so in whatever year - but was more interested in the daily lives of the thousands who died on either side - people who were, in effect, caught up in someone else's history. For me the Tolpuddle Martyrs have more connection to English history than some Duke whose only contribution was to win battles on some foreign field where Britain probably had no right to be. And so, if I had any influence, they would appear on banknotes and not the said Duke. If others on here had the power to say who should appear on the reverse side of the 5,10, 20 and 50 pound notes who would they choose ? Or maybe only animals and plants like the old Dutch banknotes ?

 

We have a lot of workers making industrial inaction. Some medical type staff and district lawyers who have not been working from april, the SGS is not working nexrt week for two days and then from 27 mai with no enr, nurses from 27 mai. Also LÍV, VR and Flóabandalagið between 29 mai and 3 jún and again on 6 jún.

There will be no air travel, public transport on the land and sea, no hotel staff, food sales or producting, hospital workers and more.

These are all after failed salary raise demands.

 

Everyone can be both, you cannot legislate for thought, however well intentioned your ideals might be.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...she-is-an-ethnic-minority-woman-10244520.html

You cannot claim not to be sexist because you are female or racist because you are from a minority group. What rubbish is this woman speaking?

 

I would not like to get into a debate on whether Kings or Tolpuddle Martyrs are more connected to English history -to me both are. I can understand finding some aspects of history more personally relevant or more interesting but cannot favour one over another.
If we were born into a society that was broadly equal there is no way we would try to create the kind of society that we now live in. We would have no aristocracy,nobody thinking they were somehow superior to me because their blood is blue or their great great x10 grandfather chose the right side in a battle. However we are where we are and I cannot see how people who want to tax the super-rich and so on would define where that starts. All of us would be regarded as super-rich by 90+% of the world's population. Forget the top 3% or whatever and build a society where there is graduated tax at sensible rates that mean those in a slightly better off position contribute a fair extra share. Work out how much tax that will give you and then set a list of spending priorities and go as far down that list as your tax income will allow. Borrow for long term projects but make sure interest payments on those borrowings are covered by current taxation and encourage both new, small and high tech projects to thrive. Try to make sure that every citizen is offered employment at a good minimum wage or apprenticeship so that they know they are valued in society. No need in any of this to attack or hate scroungers at the top or bottom- just make sure public opinion is kept informed so that people like Ken Dodd (for us oldies) and Jimmy Carr are under as much scrutiny as those on silly programmes like saints or sinners.

 

Difficult to think that only this time last week most of us were wondering what sort of deal parties were going to make for a coalition

 

Difficult also to think that the Tories vote percentage actually went down (compared to 2010) yet they gained in seats - Labour was the reverse, despite losing voters to the SNP, the Greens, and some to Ukip their percentage actually rose yet their number of seats went down. This is why I am sceptical about the claim that Labour 'lost' badly because it was too far left. Cameron won because of a mathematical fluke.

 

I was trying to explain Fawlty Towers to someone in the office the other day. Depressing really!

 

Thankful for small mercies. We can have a proper government now without weakening comprimises.
Labour, Lib Dems, UKIP all falling apart.

 

Ask Labour if they think they "won" or the Conservatives if they "lost" In fact don't ask just look at their faces.
Not a mathematical fluke at all. You are simply falling into the common non mathematicians' / statisticians' error of picking one starting point which has no specific basis or importance. In first past the post all parties know that winner takes all - they focus on marginal seats. The Tories in 2010 did worse than they expected because the Liberals successfully targeted Tory marginals on the back of Clegg's popularity (that sounds odd today doesn't it. It did not take much for the Tories to regain their marginals. A small number of votes meant a large swing there. Tories got 2 million more votes than the next largest party. They think that makes them winners.
Under first past the post the Greens, UKIP and LibDems will always struggle. Tough - until they make a real breakthrough like the LibDems did in 2010 their seat count will always be tiny.
Tories won the election as they polled both the highest number of votes and got the highest percentage of %. We all knew we were not under PR so know the outcome will be most takes the pot. No other party can claim to have done better in the UK.

 

I'm not disputing any of this Leo. What I am saying is that the assumption that Labour moved too far to the left and must now return to something like Blairism is much too simplistic, why ? Because they lost most of their votes to parties further left of themselves. If Scotland had voted in the way in normally does (as would probably have been the case had they not had their referendum), and the shadow of fear had not been introduced into English voters minds (of Labour being dependent on the SNP) then I believe that this election would have had a completely different character.