The UK General Election

1910111214

Comments

  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    edited May 2015 Posts: 10,591
    Ludovico wrote: »
    You do know Rob Ford is a conservative, a Christian and it is very likely that he is also a monarchist. But at least he's got the excuse to be on crack. What is yours?


    =))
  • edited May 2015 Posts: 3,327
    Thatcher didn't just want cleaner energy sources though. She hated the miners and the power of their trade union and she was determined to not have a repeat of the 70s strikes (which were successful). She didn't give a toss about the miners who were striking because they had no other way of putting food on the table for their families. No, they were "the enemy within", and she had the police using brute force to stop them. Yes the mines were unproductive and yes there are more environmentally friendly energy sources (although was clean energy really a big issue back in the 80s? And I've been told before by my uncle, admittedly not the most reliable source, that there are ways to make coal mining more environmentally friendly) but she still hated the miners and didn't give a toss about the entire communities she was destroying.

    I read that under Labour in the 70's, they closed more mines than Thatcher did in the 80's. I was quite surprised when I read that, but yes she did make it known that they were the enemy within, which is why she was very unpopular with the mining communities.

    I grew up in Hull, which is a real working class Northern traditional Labour city, but I'm not aligned to one party in particular. I have voted for Labour twice, and the Tories twice (including this time round).

    I have also read that Britain lost its way in the 70's due to the constant strikes, which is why production fell across various industries, and why we ended up importing from other countries because our labour force became workshy, whereas other countries didn't suffer from this striking culture.

    But like everything in politics, everything I read I take with pinches of salt, as most journalists tend to put their own biased spin on it, so its often difficult to know what the truth really is.


  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,184
    Politics on this forum never works...
    Guys, please calm down. Politics is the most ridiculous variety of human activity. Let's not get too worked up over it, shall we?
    Thank you.
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    Posts: 2,138
    I said this comments ago then it's turned to personal insults.
  • Posts: 15,125
    I said this comments ago then it's turned to personal insults.

    For the record, you did turn to use my origins for a personal and gratuitous attack. And you did ask me to shut up for no other reason than disagreeing with you while not being British.

    Oh and Delenda Carthago: the monarchy is a backward institution contradictory to the principles of a democracy.
  • Posts: 7,653
    As for democracy it is as grand as people want it to be, like in the US it becoming a plaything for the ultra-rich and companies. SO what objection should there be about a monarchy when compared to being taken over by a few who do restructure the democracy to w their wishes. I would say that monarchy is the lesser evil.
  • edited May 2015 Posts: 15,125
    SaintMark wrote: »
    As for democracy it is as grand as people want it to be, like in the US it becoming a plaything for the ultra-rich and companies. SO what objection should there be about a monarchy when compared to being taken over by a few who do restructure the democracy to w their wishes. I would say that monarchy is the lesser evil.

    This is non sequitur and a false dichotomy: getting rid of the monarchy would not force us to live in a disguised plutocracy. Especially since Monarchy does not protect us against the ultra-rich. In fact, often a monarchy, constitutional or otherwise, is a de facto plutocracy. It's not exactly like the Queen lives like a monk. Or that Cameron, Blair and all have never been in bed with the rich and powerful. No political system, democratic or not, exonerates the citizen from vigilance. There is no perfect systems either. But while perfection does not exist, the best does, however imperfect it may be.
  • Posts: 7,653
    I have no problems with a monarchy when the problem is the political landscape, it is like in the US a smokescreen to complain about. The modern European monarchy fulfills another role than it did 50 years ago while politicians have become the plaything of the rich and companies.
    Your priorities are aimed at what the real rulers want you look at, monarchy, Islam danger, gay marriage [somewhat funny title as I always assumed that marriages are supposed to be a gay affair], racism etc.

    I once saw the calculations of the costs and benefits of our own Royal house and even the opposed Republicans did admit that it made financial sense to keep them around, as did the corporate directors who made mint out of them. With the current ever richer growing little group of people and their offspring feeling entitled as well I fail to see the problem with a royal house which a large majority in my country feels far more comfortable with than those big companies trying to lay down rules.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,281
    How to deal with Red Ed in the PMQs:

  • edited May 2015 Posts: 15,125
    SaintMark wrote: »
    I have no problems with a monarchy when the problem is the political landscape, it is like in the US a smokescreen to complain about. The modern European monarchy fulfills another role than it did 50 years ago while politicians have become the plaything of the rich and companies.
    Your priorities are aimed at what the real rulers want you look at, monarchy, Islam danger, gay marriage [somewhat funny title as I always assumed that marriages are supposed to be a gay affair], racism etc.

    I once saw the calculations of the costs and benefits of our own Royal house and even the opposed Republicans did admit that it made financial sense to keep them around, as did the corporate directors who made mint out of them. With the current ever richer growing little group of people and their offspring feeling entitled as well I fail to see the problem with a royal house which a large majority in my country feels far more comfortable with than those big companies trying to lay down rules.

    Which study/studies made the calculations? Who are these republicans who said it made financial sense?

    Even if it was financially sound (I am very skeptical about this claim, to say the least), there is a principle here: it is not only the money they get that is the problem, but the way it is gained (I wouldn't dare to say earned) and the power, even symbolic, they have. And holding power solely by bloodright is morally wrong and antidemocratic, no matter how you cut it, no matter how many postcards with a snapshot of the queen get sold in Windsor, London or what have you.
  • Posts: 7,653
    A few years ago a leftish newspaper together with some university [I forgot which one} did their calculations on the Dutch Royal family and their costs and it turned out that their representation for the Netherlands actually showed a healthy profit when they accompanied Dutch business interests on state visits. We are talking billions here......

    Those numbers and the popularity of the Dutch Royal family makes most Republicans back off, a large majority is positive about them anyhow. Even if the younger generations are more opposed but as they grow older they tend to look positive at the subject. It is after all the younger generation that should rebel against anything that is not left or conservative enough. As one grows older you find yourself more of a centrist.

    And morality is subjective in the eye of the beholder, I am quite pleased to be part of the Netherlands with their umpteen political parties and a monarchy. There is a party for everyone even for the like of extreme rightwinger Geert Wilders [who is a royalist by the way].

    The principle of heritage through family does not bother me, I do not fancy a royals job or position [except when they get to go to the premiere of the 007 movies :D ].
  • Posts: 15,125
    Actually no, morality is not subjective. It is not always absolute, but it is not subjective. And whether power through blood right bothers you or now is irrelevant. It is the institution that is wrong.

    And regarding the revenue a monarchy generates or money it saves, I wonder how these billions you mention are created. Public monuments, museums and official buildings would be visited whether there is a monarch or not.
  • Posts: 7,653
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Actually no, morality is not subjective. It is not always absolute, but it is not subjective. And whether power through blood right bothers you or now is irrelevant. It is the institution that is wrong.

    And regarding the revenue a monarchy generates or money it saves, I wonder how these billions you mention are created. Public monuments, museums and official buildings would be visited whether there is a monarch or not.

    It is customary that when a monarch goes on a state visit people of the various industries tag along, and during these visits a lot of business gets done during the various banquets and visits. Because generally people like kings & Queens and like to be associated with them. You undoubtedly call it ridiculous but it works very well. I am sure the same applies with the British royal family.
  • Posts: 15,125
    Something that can easily be done with any head of state or head of government for that matter.
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    edited May 2015 Posts: 2,138
    yes Ludovico that works well in courties where you have a heads of state like Putin and kim jun un.

    I think its better to have a force greater than a PM or President. In The US the president is master and commander. And yes he may have to make is case with congress for taking the US to war. But ultimately it is the preseidents decision.

    In the UK the the Queen veteod plans to transfer war powers to parliment in 2013. In the UK the PM must make his case in Commons, then the house of lords before seeking the queens permission to take our country to war. When it i such a big decision that affects so many I think that its better that it is not a politician making that decision alone.

    In history more damage has been done than good when you give one figure head full power over finance/milatary/policing and Spending even in countires that have a democtratic process.

    In the UK the Queen still swears in her approval of heads of senior civil servants such as HMRC. There is an accountability to the Queen which gives our government accountability.
  • Posts: 15,125
    You are building a strawman again. of course I don't mean a dictator. But hey, why address the comment when you can invent your own? And again you are creating a false dilemma. Nothing that can be done with a monarch cannot be done with a democratically elected head of state or one nominated by a democratically elected body.
  • Posts: 7,653
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Something that can easily be done with any head of state or head of government for that matter.

    I disagree, if any of our recent prime-minister had half the charisma and class our recent monarchs had/has we would have been lucky. They are politicians and nobody really trusts them and perhaps rightly so.

    It is the monarchs that have a reputation and are the welcome guests, even Obama would sooner make time for our King & Queen than our prime-minister.
  • Posts: 15,125
    SaintMark wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Something that can easily be done with any head of state or head of government for that matter.

    I disagree, if any of our recent prime-minister had half the charisma and class our recent monarchs had/has we would have been lucky. They are politicians and nobody really trusts them and perhaps rightly so.

    It is the monarchs that have a reputation and are the welcome guests, even Obama would sooner make time for our King & Queen than our prime-minister.

    How charismatic is Elizabeth II? Or Prince Charles? Charisma is all well and good but you don't build a system of government on it. Some politicians are and some are not.
  • Posts: 7,653
    Ludovico wrote: »
    SaintMark wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Something that can easily be done with any head of state or head of government for that matter.

    I disagree, if any of our recent prime-minister had half the charisma and class our recent monarchs had/has we would have been lucky. They are politicians and nobody really trusts them and perhaps rightly so.

    It is the monarchs that have a reputation and are the welcome guests, even Obama would sooner make time for our King & Queen than our prime-minister.

    How charismatic is Elizabeth II? Or Prince Charles? Charisma is all well and good but you don't build a system of government on it. Some politicians are and some are not.

    As said before modern monarchs are no longer a big part of the governmental system, they are mostly figureheads and representatives. They spend their whole lives doing that and most of them are pretty good at it.


  • Posts: 15,125
    You don't base a system of government on charisma. Or the capacity to shake hands or be amicable. Nor is it a good reason to give a series of privileges to a person. That said charisma is NOT what makes someone a sovereign. Blood right is.
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    edited May 2015 Posts: 2,138
    Ludovico wrote: »
    You don't base a system of government on charisma. Or the capacity to shake hands or be amicable. Nor is it a good reason to give a series of privileges to a person. That said charisma is NOT what makes someone a sovereign. Blood right is.

    who said anything more about Government as you have been told time and time again. The Royal family have no direct dealings in Government those powers to run a country are parliments and the MP's who vote to pass legislation are put there by the people in a democratic vote.

    The Royal family already hold their wealth and land which they run like a business as well as a hell of a lot of charity work. Your making it out like our system if based on the Queen is running the country. They simply exist as part of our tradition the UK could decide any day to become the Democratic Peoples republic of the UK but there is simply no point. The Queen will still be the Queen she already has all her land and wealth it make no difference to our political system. They remain because the majoirty still want them as a force of good. The Queens speech pulled in 7.8 million viewers in December 2014. Do you think thats 7.8 million chewing their turkey saying "She has got to go!"? I think your in a minority who struggles to understand that the people of the UK took strength from the royal family and great British front during war time Britan.

    You talk about birth right like they sit counting coins Charles served in the Navy as well as activly working for the princess trust which helps young people from impoverished backgrounds start their own business and provide funding. His son Harry fought in front line in Afghanistan and now flys in Apache helicopter and William until recently an active search and resuce pilot. They live ordinary lives alongside ordinary people. Your perception of our Monarchy is misguided and small minded.
  • Posts: 15,125
    Actually part of the queen properties belong through her as national properties, not private ones.

    I know most of her powers are symbolic. But I do consider symbols to be very important.And even so: why have a monarch? You mention charities as if it was a royal prerogative. You can have charities without kings and queens. A country has an army whether or not it has a monarchy. Charles might have been to war that is absolutely non sewuitur. Harry even more so: he was more famous at a time for behaving like a drunkard and making the disgusting crass decision of dressing up as a Nazi for a party than being a brave soldier. Even if his behaviour had been beyond reproach... that does not make monarchy Right.

    As for your appeal to popularity it is another fallacious argument: I know they are popular. I'm not disputing it. The institution is still backward.
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    edited May 2015 Posts: 2,138
    Countries ruled by a monarch government have less corruption. Rulers know that their leadership is not for a term period, so they have no lust for money. They do not have the intentions to misuse their authority for corruption as they have nothing else to gain.

    Since the King or Queen is in power until there death this allows for more continuity and there is also a great level of respect given to the ruler of the monarchy. The ruler is seen as important and is respected by the people in a way that is not seen of the ruler in other governing systems.

  • edited May 2015 Posts: 15,125
    That is a bold statement and a wide generalisation. Any evidence to back up this claim?

    Quick Google search for you: Lise Thibault. Represented her Majesty the Queen as lieutenant governor in Quebec. I know I'm an arrogant French Canadian therefore should not have an opinion on anything according to you but here's a bit of fact that contradicts your claim: she was not corrupted in spite of being the representative of the Queen, she was corrupted because of it. And a devout Christian on top of that.
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    Posts: 2,138
    Bored of you now. Cya!
  • Posts: 15,125
    I know easier to claim than to demonstrate. I didn't start the hostilities.
  • MrcogginsMrcoggins Following in the footsteps of Quentin Quigley.
    Posts: 3,144
    Bored of you now. Cya!
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I know easier to claim than to demonstrate. I didn't start the hostilities.

    I think most of us are Bored of this now So Can We Please Leave This Now Chaps Thanks.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,281
    Order! Order!
  • edited May 2015 Posts: 4,619
    Countries ruled by a monarch government have less corruption.

    According to the 2014 Corruption Perceptions Index, 12 of the 20 least corrupt countries are monarchies, while only 1 of the 20 most corrupt countries is a monarchy. But let's not forget that correlation does not necessarily imply causation.
  • Posts: 1,552
    One of my friends sent me this, which I think is a worth cause to get behind - https://www.change.org/p/nicky-morgan-mp-introduce-basic-political-education-into-the-education-system
Sign In or Register to comment.