Jump to content

UK Politics- A Taxing Transition


polishgenius

Recommended Posts

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.

 

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.

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.

 

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, here we go. Bankers get more money. Companies get support for the energy bills. Customers get support for their energy bills. But when it comes to poor people on benefits, got to balance that budget! They need to work more! The best motivator is to starve the buggers.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-62989572

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What’s the objection to it? That there is no such thing as people claiming benefits when they could just have gone out to work instead?

No, In principle I have no issue with this at all, the priority for people should be to go out and earn your own money, not just rely on handouts. If there is a lot of work to go around, as extra vacancies points to, then you will need a good reason why you shouldn’t be taking those jobs to support yourself. 
 

Whether it works or not or is well designed or implemented is another matter, but in principle I have no problem with it. I grew up on a working class london estate where the norm was to claim your benefits, not take work, and supplement your income with ‘other’ methods. I don’t have a rose tinted view of peoples behaviour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...