UK Politics - Democracy for the 0.27% - Worst Past The Post edition

[polishgenius]

Fucking hell Sky. 

[Heartofice]

29 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

Fucking hell Sky. 

They made a correction later

[ljkeane]

5 hours ago, DanteGabriel said:

I think what people are missing in this discussion is the amount of butthurt a royal eviction would create in your population of authoritarians. 

I think the discussion in this thread is rather over representing the amount of republican sentiment in the UK. People generally don’t care. I suppose if Charles does a terrible job that might change but there’s really no prospect of any Royal evictions anytime soon.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Are Corbyn and his compatriots actively trying to sink the Labour party?

 

[Which Tyler]

Sorry - wrong thread

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 hour ago, ljkeane said:

People generally don’t care.

Which is still bad and dangerous for a democracy 

[Varysblackfyre321]

9 hours ago, Heartofice said:

It’s a decidedly unimpressive building on its own.

Goddamn it sounds like you genuinely besides having some fancy people who are very incest oriented your country has nothing to bring people over.

Also you get the Royals can still call themselves kings and queens and wizards even without getting millions from the government and the political power to override democratic decisions.

[ljkeane]

4 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Which is still bad and dangerous for a democracy 

Not really. It’s a ceremonial head of state, whether it’s a monarchy or whatever isn’t particularly important to democracy in the UK. I’d be more concerned if we replaced it with a President with actual power to be honest.

[Varysblackfyre321]

6 minutes ago, ljkeane said:

I’d be more concerned if we replaced it with a President with actual power to be honest.

From what I understand in theory the monarch has the ability to dissolve parliament and pick people to run government.

10 minutes ago, ljkeane said:

Not really. It’s a ceremonial head of state, whether it’s a monarchy or whatever isn’t particularly important to democracy in the UK

It is. Like you’ve already agreed to the notion it’s acceptable to grant individuals political power—even if not used independently—without any democratic check for them. 

[Which Tyler]

10 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

From what I understand in theory the monarch has the ability to dissolve parliament and pick people to run government.

Not in reality - these things are done in his* name, but he can't actually do so.

 

*that was REALLY weird.

[Varysblackfyre321]

11 minutes ago, Which Tyler said:

Not in reality

Hence I qualified *in theory*

[Maltaran]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Are Corbin and his compatriots actively trying to sink the Labour party?

 

Corbyn is still suspended from the PLP

[Derfel Cadarn]

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Which is still bad and dangerous for a democracy 

To be fair, when you consider the British people voted for Brexit, for a ship to be named Boaty Mc Boatface, and for successive Tory governments, there’s maybe a reason why there’s no great push to replace the system relying on blind luck and genetics

[Zorral]

Is it true what someone just emailed me -- that Charles is going on tour to Wales, Ireland and Scotland with Truss?

[SeanF]

12 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Are Corbyn and his compatriots actively trying to sink the Labour party?

 

There must be a good chance that the war will have stopped, by the time of this fringe meeting.

It just won’t have stopped in the way the Stop The War Coalition wanted it to.

I expect they’ll end up talking about their favourite subject - Palestine - at the meeting, anyway.

[Denvek]

10 hours ago, Zorral said:

Is it true what someone just emailed me -- that Charles is going on tour to Wales, Ireland and Scotland with Truss?

Yes. It was always the plan that he’d do this to receive condolences from each of the devolved governments, and it seems that they’ve decided given the circumstances that the new PM should come along as well.

[SuperHans]

On 9/9/2022 at 10:20 PM, Denvek said:

Probably no logic other than that it’s always been done that way.

Well, no. It was that old cunt, Longshanks. A purely punitive measure to punish and humiliate the Welsh. 

 

[SuperHans]

On 9/10/2022 at 7:42 AM, Heartofice said:

Thing is, Tourists are mostly interested in the members of the royal family, you remove them then something like Buckingham Palace just becomes a historical curiosity ( and not even all that historical). 
 

 

I'm guessing you've never visited Stratford-upon-Avon. 

[SuperHans]

21 hours ago, Heartofice said:

They certainly do more to project the British image globally than May, Boris or Truss 

And Mrs Brown's Boys trumps them all. 

[mormont]

13 hours ago, ljkeane said:

Not really. It’s a ceremonial head of state, whether it’s a monarchy or whatever isn’t particularly important to democracy in the UK. I’d be more concerned if we replaced it with a President with actual power to be honest.

We've got one of those, by default. The problem is they also hold the office of Prime Minister.