Jump to content

UK Politics- A Taxing Transition


polishgenius
 Share

Recommended Posts

29 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Saying now is not the time to discuss a valid topic and then layout how you cannot avoid said topic is saying the quiet part out loud. You have no interesting in ending the monarchy which is a super weird position to have in 2022. I’ll never understand you right of center types that love being conned by incredibly wealthy people who are going about it rather lazily.

Why?  The world is full of monarchies in 2022. Their level of power ranges from highish to zero.  Granted, they don't have the same profile as the British monarchy, but so what.  I understand that most people on here equate anything traditional with conservatives [and there is something to that], so they reflexively despise all types of tradition.  But, maybe, just maybe something that generates hundreds of thousands of people to stand in line for 12 hours has something good about it.  That is worth preserving. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

But, maybe, just maybe something that generates hundreds of thousands of people to stand in line for 12 hours has something good about it.  That is worth preserving. 

People use to queue to see hangings. Popularity has never been a measure of worth. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like someone to come up with something, anything other than 'tourism', that is objectively a good thing about having these parasites sitting at the top of our social tree.

Seems to me we can never hope to have anything remotely like an equal society with these inbred wankers in situ.

Edited by Spockydog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

I'd like someone to come up with something, anything other than 'tourism', that is objectively a good thing about having these parasites sitting at the top of our society.

Provides an outlet for patriotism besides elected officials, thereby reducing partisan demagoguery a la the US?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Fez said:

Provides an outlet for patriotism besides elected officials, thereby reducing partisan demagoguery a la the US?

In theory, but in practice our politicians use the actual Royal Family much like US politicians use the flag.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

I'd like someone to come up with something, anything other than 'tourism', that is objectively a good thing about having these parasites sitting at the top of our social tree.

Seems to me we can never hope to have anything remotely like an equal society with these inbred wankers in situ.

@SuperHans I think they play a role in maintaining a sense of collective national unity and pride as well as projecting soft power for Britain across the globe.


A connection to British history and sense of shared national identity is something I believe is important, something that we have attempted to remove with our move towards globalisation and a global ‘anywhere’ society, and attempts to collate any form of nationalism with nazism or something.

As for the second point, the idea that if you removed the royals tomorrow we’d be any more equal or the poorer would be any richer is just bollocks. That’s why I generally don’t buy into ‘envy politics’ of the left.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, mormont said:

In theory, but in practice our politicians use the actual Royal Family much like US politicians use the flag.

So let's say if I became British PM (Tory obviously). Do I get to grab Meghan Markle like the 45th President of the US used to grab a flag? Just asking for a friend here obviously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Heartofice said:

It’s weird because that’s not what I said. I said having that conversation last week was inappropriate, doing it now is probably counterproductive to any republican cause, and that if you actually wanted a serious change in the role of monarchy then the point to do it is when people have gotten a bit more used to Charles as the reality. 

Having it last week was as good of time as any because it should have happened decades ago. And you did say you wanted to punt on the conversation for a while with the hopes that William became King quickly because that will hurt the republican's chances of succeeding. 

Quote

You are not a Brit so it’s going to be very hard for you to understand but for a lot of people their national identity is quite heavily associated with the royal family, we’ve had the Queen as a national figure for pretty much everyone’s lifetime, and losing that feels pretty weird. I know a lot of people here are basically the sort of liberal college educated sorts that despise any kind of national identity and think themselves above it, but that isn’t the case for a lot of people. 

:rolleyes:

Snark aside, it's actual fairly easy to understand because the monarchy is an institution, and like many other institutions, people can develop what I would call unhealthy attachments to them. You'll still have a sense of national identity without this one figure or family and if you feel like you won't doesn't that suggest your attachment to said identity wasn't that strong to begin with?   

Quote

That doesn’t mean that I don’t think the size and role of monarchy shouldn’t be examined and scaled back, and I think that is coming. It’s just that I do believe there is a function for their existence which is hard to quantify or even comprehend for those for whom it means nothing.

You can't exactly scale back the claim of superiority through bloodlines and god. For the most part you either accept it or are offended by it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Heartofice said:

think they play a role in maintaining a sense of collective national unity

You can Get a better symbol than a monarch.

Hell you can boot the person wearing the crown and keep the crown.

2 hours ago, Heartofice said:

and pride as well as projecting soft power for Britain across the globe.

Ah you can just say imperialism instead of trying to couch things in more flowery language.

Hey does it bother you at all theres a real possibility your monarch can literally be a child or thereabouts?

2 hours ago, Heartofice said:

A connection to British history and sense of shared national identity is something I believe is important,

Goddamn the way you speak it sounds like the only thing allowing that is the old inbred aristocracy.

What a low opinion you have of your country.

2 hours ago, Heartofice said:

our move towards globalisation and a global ‘anywhere’ society, and attempts to collate any form of nationalism with nazism or something.

If you’re nationalism relies on a prerequisite of seeing a select group of people as best/entitled to positions to rule based on their blood well…

Also what you’ve just said kinda repudiates the very weak financial justification for the monarchy 

2 hours ago, Heartofice said:

As for the second point, the idea that if you removed the royals tomorrow we’d be any more equal

That is certainly true.

No one would be entitled to the position of head of state.

 

Edited by Varysblackfyre321
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Having it last week was as good of time as any because it should have happened decades ago. And you did say you wanted to punt on the conversation for a while with the hopes that William became King quickly because that will hurt the republican's chances of succeeding. 

Listen  They need at least thirty years to grieve and get accustomed to the new monarch before they can seriously even think about having a discussion on the weirdness of having an unelected head of state.

/s

Seriously though the person you’re talking to probably knows that right now/before the the funeral is the perfect time to talk about shunting the monarchy. 
 

Hench the concern trolling  about republicans having bad optics by protesting when hospitals are canceling doctors appointments out of tribute to a woman whose biggest accomplishment was being born.

Edited by Varysblackfyre321
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, A wilding said:

Easy to say, but what symbol would get chosen? All too likely we would end up with a President Boris Johnson or the like.

democracy allows idiots to run and even win.

And the symbol could literally just be the current crown once it’s taken from Charles 

Edited by Varysblackfyre321
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

democracy allows idiots to run and even win.

And the symbol could literally just be the current crown once it’s taken from Charles 

Monarchy is when idiots don't even run and still win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Even Charlie seems to be accepting of the fact that there needs to be a much smaller monarchy, just the immediate family rather than the extended hangers on who most people would barely recognise.

Wait that’s worse.

That’s Literally just compounding the elitism and sense of purity.

 

Edited by Varysblackfyre321
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, A wilding said:

Easy to say, but what symbol would get chosen? All too likely we would end up with a President Boris Johnson or the like.

Yeah, but you can't have it both ways.

If the monarch is essentially just a powerless figurehead with no real power, a celebrity President with the same non-powers could be no worse and do no harm. People might make an embarrassing choice. But we have an embarrassing choice on the throne right now. You can't tell me Charles is a better figurehead than Boris.

And in any case we wound up with Boris as Prime Minister, so that rather ends that argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once someone's elected, it gives them legitimacy and increases the likelihood that they start using whatever powers they have; even if it's just the power of the bully pulpit to influence public opinion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Fez said:

Once someone's elected, it gives them legitimacy and increases the likelihood that they start using whatever powers they have; even if it's just the power of the bully pulpit to influence public opinion. 

This is missing the point.

A primary defence of the monarchy is that they don't have any powers, or don't exercise the ones they do have. Again, you can't have it both ways. Either the head of state is best left to be a figurehead with no power, in which case you might as well elect one, or you give them powers in which case they should be elected.

And if you don't think the Royal family have been using the bully pulpit all along, it's likely because you weren't the target of that. They have used it to maintain their personal status and power, the social order and political infrastructure they prefer, and sometimes even at the behest of the PM of the day to advance a political agenda (carefully chosen, of course).

Liz was careful not to overdo it. Charles will be less so.

Either way: the Royal family are just rich celebrity Presidents. It's just that you have to be born into the family to get the job.

ETA - even if the above weren't so, I'm puzzled about this idea that constitutionally, it's so important to have the head of state be this absolute blank space. I know, we were all told in school (I know I was) that this was A Good Thing. But is it, though? Why is it? What's wrong with having a head of state that has a bully pulpit? The Prime Minister has one. Should they be the only person allowed to have one?

Edited by mormont
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...