On 10 Oct 2016 at 1:17pm Dave wrote:
OMG I've just spotted real police in Lewes.
They were confronting one of the Landport lot begging in English passage.
Could this be coincidence or have they been reading this forum?
On 10 Oct 2016 at 3:13pm Larry wrote:
Confronting them ?? Hope they moved them on. Sick of all the beggers in lewes. People need to stop giving.
On 10 Oct 2016 at 4:52pm Jonny wrote:
Do you view Liz, Phil and their inbred brood as parasites too?
On 10 Oct 2016 at 5:11pm Tortoise wrote:
Jonny - whatever you think of royalty, it's hardly fair to call them parasites when their list of engagements is as long as your arm. When she was younger, the Queen had hundreds of engagements a year, many of them very dull. Imagine 50 years of the Royal Variety Performance. I wouldn't swap with her for all the tea in China. No, I think the real parasites can be found in boardrooms - those people who make silly money out of other people's hard work, like the CEO of Vodaphone, who takes home six million a year, or the bankers who gamble with our pensions.
On 10 Oct 2016 at 5:29pm Jonny wrote:
So where do we apply for a life of dullness? Mmm thought so, it's not a job if the only attribute that counts is your genes.
On 10 Oct 2016 at 5:29pm Hare wrote:
100% with you Tortoise
On 10 Oct 2016 at 5:41pm Jonny wrote:
The people at the top set the tone.
On 10 Oct 2016 at 5:51pm hmm wrote:
Jonny no one used the word parasites. Tortoise is quite correct in stating that our present monarch has worked bloody hard, and while you may raise objections to the system, your sweeping judgement shows a lack of education and nuance about the subject.
You don't have to be a full throttled monarchist to see she brings in much more money than she uses and provides a source of unity and cohesion for the country above our confrontational system of party politics.
On 10 Oct 2016 at 6:09pm Jonny wrote:
Why don't we give it a try without them for a bit and all the arse licking be that goes along with it. That old cobblers about how much money they bring into the economy, just try and think bit more with your own brains and not what you've been told to think from day one. I agree we need no more of the adversarial system, they've had their chance and look where it's got us. BTW realistic estimates say Liz is worth 100 billion. I wonder if she'd do 60 years for 30 grand a year and live in a three bed semi? Thought not.
On 11 Oct 2016 at 8:21am Harry wrote:
I walked along English Passage in the early evening a couple of days back and saw several coins on the ground where they beg. If they don't pick up everything they are given, can they really be that hard up?
On 11 Oct 2016 at 9:28am Pedro wrote:
@jonny. I'm a republican (the do-away with the monarchy kind, not Donald Trump/Ronnie Reagan bible thumper kind), but its impossible to have any kind of sensible adult discourse about it in Britain without facing rebuke and dogma from hysterical loyal royalists. She (they) are here to stay for the time being, because for whatever reasons, they have the majority of the population on their side who justify their existence without scrutiny. This hasn't always been the case, and certainly isn't in every country where Elizabeth II is the head of state, but in Britain at least, they're a secure institution.
So us republicans are probably best off just being privately smug in the knowledge that eventually we'll be on the right side of history (probably long after we all die), and the outdated, over-sentimental royal family will eventually be phased out as that is what happens when humanity evolves to become more egalitarian and grown up.
Cue about 15 instant dislikes, enforcing my point about having any kind of sensible discussion on this topic.
On 11 Oct 2016 at 12:32pm andymac wrote:
So Pedro, you believe that abolishing monarchy leads to an egalitarian society. Talk us through your examples of this.
I disagree with every aspect of your post save one. I completely go along with your description of yourself as smug.
On 11 Oct 2016 at 12:45pm Boffin wrote:
So it's not a sensible discussion unless we agree with you Pedro.
On 11 Oct 2016 at 12:56pm Pedro wrote:
AndyMac - I didn't say that abolishing the monarchy leads to an egalitarian society, but society can't be entirely fair and equal with an undemocratic institution as the head of state, so I would suggest its merely a step in the right direction.
The world is losing monarchies with progress (and what power they had, is thankfully diminishing including "our" own), not gaining them. Currently, the UK population, for whatever reasons (which I don't wholly agree with) wants to cling on to it, but I certainly can't see them lasting forever. The few commonwealth countries left won't always desire a british monarch as their head of state either, which is why, as "lovely" as Liz is, will have a dwindling number of people she reigns over (and her sons that follow her). This seems fairly logical, but like I said before, I don't expect any kind of sensible discussion on this topic with british people, as you commit treason in their eyes for merely questioning the monarchs legitimacy and standing. Its another embarrassing display of fanboyism.
On 11 Oct 2016 at 1:01pm Pedro wrote:
@boffin - no, we can have the discussion, and you have every right to disagree with me, but don't scream at me or be overly sentimental about it because I dare challenge an archaic system.
On 11 Oct 2016 at 1:48pm Andymac wrote:
You can argue with the theoretical logic of monarchy as a system, but in pragmatic terms it offers a much more attractive solution to the question of defining a head of state who can realistically claim to represent the nation. Anyone elected as president by popular vote will be either politically divisive (France, US) or a complete nonentity (Germany, India), depending on how much power they wield. In a constitutional monarchy, the absence of an elected head of state creates a broadly perceived lack of political partiality on the part of that head of state, and hence a greater ability to provide a unifying symbol for the country as a whole (aside from the readership of the Guardian, obvs). The simple fact is that huge swathes of our society is undemocratic, in many cases in areas of much more importance in people's day to day lives (why can't I vote for judges or chief constables or heads of NHS trusts?) so I'm not sure why this particular question remains such a bugbear for the left. The monarchy pretty much works as a solution in the UK (particularly when the alternative is more politicians, which is precisely the reason why the Aussies, when given the option a couple of years ago, decided to stick with what they had) and I haven't yet heard any suggestions for a better system.
On 11 Oct 2016 at 2:20pm Boffin wrote:
I don't see anyone screaming...except yourself
On 11 Oct 2016 at 2:43pm Pedro wrote:
I am not sure this is a left/right issue, since I know right wing republicans as well. The preference for a monarchy is often a personal one, not always a political one. Its worth noting that before the sixth form politics insults get wheeled out in this discussion.
We already have a prime minister who represents the nation, why do we need the Queen for that purpose? (and one that is shared with a few other countries as well, although clearly, her main loyalties lay with the UK, rather than the former parts of the empire). I'm pretty sure Queen Elizabeth II doesn't represent Australia as their head of state at the same level (lets face it, she's known globally to most as the "queen of england", despite the title being centuries out of date), and that would be instead down to Malcolm Turnbull. I take your initial point of a head of state that doesn't have any political bias, but there are clearly divisions about her role and her value from her "subjects", hence why we have this conversation, and it has been going on for a few decades (and yes, outside of the Guardian readership which you might show contempt for).
There is a danger of over-complicating her role here (by all of us). "Representing the nation" in reality comes in the form of every individual in the country, not a select few who happen to either have been born into power, nor those who managed to get into the top cabinet. The perhaps arrogant claim/suggestion that our system (and presumably other constitutional monarchys) is the best form of government and democracy just doesn't make sense to me. There are plenty of countries out there who operate perfectly fine without an unelected king or queen as their head of state. Lets face it, the sky won't fall down if the monarchy stays or goes and the royal family will always be an important part of British history either way, and always good for tourism (just as it for France, now a republic - the #1 country in the world for tourism, UK in a respectable 8th).
On 11 Oct 2016 at 4:06pm trooper wrote:
It is incredible that so many people both civilian and soldiers have given their lives to maintain our monarchy and our way of life, so that some mouthy numpty ie Pedro can come along and rubbish who we are and what we stand for.A period of silence on your part would be acceptable, but I doubt it will happen,he does after all have to justify his (Left Wing) University education or his Trade Union credentials. Try working for a living, it really broadens the mind!!!!
On 11 Oct 2016 at 4:22pm Pedro wrote:
@ trooper. Why would I be silent and just let you heckle me without response? Especially when its all baseless crap which bears no relevance to the discussion or even me. Then you bring some jingoistic nonsense about "our way of life" - holy cow you'll be using other trite slogans soon like "lets put the 'great' back into britain again", and yet have the cheek to suggest I'm not broadminded!
Its not a crime to use critical thinking. Please try to bear that in mind before you once again resort to sixth form insults, which I had already predicted would be involved. Thanks for not letting me down!
On 11 Oct 2016 at 4:46pm Andymac wrote:
But there is no reason to change what we have just for some untested notion that somehow it is vital for the future political health of this country that we have an elected head of state. If you perceive the role of such as person as relatively unimportant (""Representing the nation" in reality comes in the form of every individual in the country, not a select few who happen to either have been born into power, nor those who managed to get into the top cabinet.") then why is it such a big deal to have a monarchical system here which is broadly accepted and respected (you may not like it, but it is)?. Other countries like Canada and Australia will make their own minds up - as the Aussies had the chance to do a few years ago. Nobody's trying to claim as you allege, that our system of government is the best - but it kinda works for us. And if you really think that the Prime Minister (regardless of political affiliation) is someone to whom the population as a whole looks as a national symbol, then I just think you are profoundly wrong. And I restate my point of earlier - still haven't heard anyone come up with a better alternative specific system.
Oh, and yes - my contempt for the readership of the Guardian is unlimited.
On 11 Oct 2016 at 5:22pm Pedro wrote:
@ andymac - What "alternative" do you need? Theres about 170 countries with varying different "systems" who don't have any form of monarch as their head of state. You either want a monarchy or you don't. There are "only" about 25 monarchies left in the world, so a fraction of all the countries in the world. Some are not great places to live, some are - whether its because they have someone who lives in big palaces and wears funny clothes, with no question about their place and authority, seems unlikely to have much of an impact. Unless they have absolute power, which is now very rare thankfully, they are usually not important and the people we look up to and respect in other countries are their democratically elected statesmen/women leaders, their talented sporting heroes, scientists, inventors, icons etc....these are the true representatives of their country and positive symbols, and same with ours. We shouldn't depend on the bloodline of one posh family.
I'm not doubting that, currently, the British monarchy enjoys general popularity with the public, but this hasn't always been the case, nor is there any guarantee it will continue. My point from the outset was that one often gets greeted with animosity if you dare suggest you dislike the monarchy and insults are thrown as displayed in this thread. My opinion that its outdated, over-sentimental, undemocratic doesn't need to be met with personal and childish insults. You and I can have a reasonable discussion about it, but not everyone on this forum can, sadly.
On 11 Oct 2016 at 6:46pm Gerty wrote:
Ignore him trooper. If it was down to him we'd all being sitting round a camp fire smoking pot. A leftie wind bag. I expect he loves Corbyn.
On 11 Oct 2016 at 8:00pm Jonny wrote:
Great debate friends, shame we NEVER hear any of these views in ANY mainstream media. I'm really looking forward to Chaz being called in front of the historic abuse inquiry to tell us all about his friendship with Sir Jimmy and how the entire British secret service and police never suspected he was Britains biggest nonce. Something we all suspected long before he died.
On 14 Oct 2016 at 1:24pm Clifford wrote:
trooper wrote: 'It is incredible that so many people both civilian and soldiers have given their lives to maintain our monarchy and our way of life...'
Was that really it, do you think, trooper? Dying to save the monarchy? Your kind of patriotism would see you as a loyal support of the Communist system in the old Soviet Union, of the Nazi regime in Germany, of the fat boy in North Korea. Just blind obedience to whoever you're told is your master.