Jump to content

UK Politics- A Taxing Transition


polishgenius
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Pebble thats Stubby said:

hmmm   I guess the proper British thing to do would be to cut the Dimond in half before handing it back.

Funnily enough, the original diamond was essentially cut in half per Prince Albert's orders (and polished etc.) since it didnt have enough 'lustre' during its original viewing. Not sure what he did with the remnants, hopefully didnt give himself a ....Prince Albert.

1 hour ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Deal?

Best I can do is 24 carrots.

Anyhoo, sorry for derailing the UK thread, everyone. Good luck with the new Liz.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Heartofice said:

you can question how appropriate it is to be making these protests at the place of mourning of someone who died

Eh depends on who died.

A monarch in the 21st century in a developed nation doesn’t deserve respect even in their passing.

5 hours ago, Heartofice said:

No more than other types of celebrity. Republicans tend to behave in a lot of infantile behaviour too though so maybe there is something in it.

I disagree—besides the bunk tourism argument, monarchists tend to retreat back into the insane idea there needs to be an strong, wise, noble individual who doesn’t  get their power from democratic means but by bloodline to insure the people don’t go too far with the whole democracy thing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Eh depends on who died.

A monarch in the 21st century in a developed nation doesn’t deserve respect even in their passing.

I disagree—besides the bunk tourism argument, monarchists tend to retreat back into the insane idea there needs to be an strong, wise, noble individual who doesn’t  get their power from democratic means but by bloodline to insure the people don’t go too far with the whole democracy thing. 

England is still pretty classist I believe, though I wonder if the higher up the class system one goes the stronger one adheres to the concept. So in such societies there does remain a non-negligible % of the population who actually believes some kind of blood right to position and status.

Strangely, Lords have more power than the monarch, since they get to vote on legislation, whereas when the PM presents a Bill to the monarch they must sign it. Yet lords have no more democratic legitimacy for being lords than does the monarch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

Best I can do is 24 carrots.

 

That statement is horsist. Just give the horse a bunch of carrots as reparation for his loss. Do you also think you can convince Calrence Thomas to resign for a bucket of KFC? :spank:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Yet lords have no more democratic legitimacy for being lords than does the monarch.

While I wouldn't in any way advocate for the lords - at least in theory most of them are installed by democratically legitimated governments to further their hopefully legitimate agenda. So at least on paper this could be deemed acceptable 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Strangely, Lords have more power than the monarch, since they get to vote on legislation, whereas when the PM presents a Bill to the monarch they must sign it. 

Oh, my sweet summer child.

Royals vetted more than 1,000 laws via Queen’s consent

Queen lobbied for changes to three more laws, documents reveal

Queen’s secret influence on laws revealed in Scottish government memo

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Lords are a good example of why the arguments for constitutional monarchy are nonsense, actually. 

The biggest problem we have in the UK constitutionally is that the Executive is over-powerful and has basically no checks on it worth mentioning. The head of state is literally a figurehead who doesn't intervene on anything (that doesn't affect them personally, anyway). The revising chamber can be ignored and is filled with Executive appointees. The legislating chamber has an disproportionate majority for the Executive and can be bullied, bribed or circumvented. 

Yet the biggest argument against an elected President is usually that this would lead to conflict with an elected Prime Minister. That's exactly what we need! It's not a problem, it's a solution! 

Anyway. My FB feed is getting a bit out of control now, normally sane people commenting that anti-monarchy protestors are being arrested for their own good because otherwise the crowd would 'kick the shit out of them' (stated approvingly). I'm talking about a lifelong Labour voter making that comment. We're officially in the 'country gone mad' stage. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m largely of the opinion that laying into the Queen a few days after she died is a bit distasteful but it seems Sky cut whatever John Oliver said about her from his latest show. I’m sure it wasn’t particularly nice but come on, does it really need to be censored out of the show?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, mormont said:

The Lords are a good example of why the arguments for constitutional monarchy are nonsense, actually. 

The biggest problem we have in the UK constitutionally is that the Executive is over-powerful and has basically no checks on it worth mentioning. The head of state is literally a figurehead who doesn't intervene on anything (that doesn't affect them personally, anyway). The revising chamber can be ignored and is filled with Executive appointees. The legislating chamber has an disproportionate majority for the Executive and can be bullied, bribed or circumvented. 

Yet the biggest argument against an elected President is usually that this would lead to conflict with an elected Prime Minister. That's exactly what we need! It's not a problem, it's a solution! 

Anyway. My FB feed is getting a bit out of control now, normally sane people commenting that anti-monarchy protestors are being arrested for their own good because otherwise the crowd would 'kick the shit out of them' (stated approvingly). I'm talking about a lifelong Labour voter making that comment. We're officially in the 'country gone mad' stage. 

Is it defend the rapist because his mum who treated him far better than women who married into the family died time?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mormont said:

 

Anyway. My FB feed is getting a bit out of control now, normally sane people commenting that anti-monarchy protestors are being arrested for their own good because otherwise the crowd would 'kick the shit out of them' (stated approvingly). I'm talking about a lifelong Labour voter making that comment. We're officially in the 'country gone mad' stage. 

Ah, the old 'arresting someone for their own good' defence. That's not remotely a slippery slope. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SuperHans said:

So they get to lobby on matters that directly affect them? How is that different from anyone else rich, powerful and connected? I guess the is a unique element, being that the Royal family is permanently rich, powerful and connected. But there are wealthy business dynasties in republics that have loads of clout along similar lines over the last 70 years. And those dynasties have multinational reach. One example being Disney extending copyright time limits every time Mickey's copyright is about to expire. Mickey's older than the Queen, and not like to die any time soon.

They don't get to veto a law once it's passed the House and Lords.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...