It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ].
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I think most of us are Bored of this now So Can We Please Leave This Now Chaps Thanks.
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.