Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
 Share
bovril

Unpopular Opinions You Hold

By bovril, in General Chat

Recommended Posts

Jon the Hat

Jon the Hat

Posted
Posted

 

On 25/09/2019 at 10:30, Finnaldo said:

Seeing as we're on the topic: let the Queen see out her reign, as I do think she has been a good civil servant over the years, then disband the monarchy.

 

Most claims they bring in what they earn is false, Buckingham Palace gets less visitors than the Palace of Versailles and might get increase if it was a fully public space/museum, the weddings cost us a fvcking bomb, the crown lands could be put to more industrious uses and that's without factoring how much bloody benefits that whole family gets.

You can argue that we should have a different constitution and hence head of state, but you aren't are you?  You are chucking discredited financial arguments at the existing structure without addressing what a replacement would look like.  On the financial point my guess is if you actually look at a current and future system you would find that as most of the money actually either maintains some very important buildings or pays for activities which a head of state would do anyway then you would likely increase costs not reduce them.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
z-layrex

z-layrex

Posted
Posted
On 25/09/2019 at 10:30, Finnaldo said:

Seeing as we're on the topic: let the Queen see out her reign, as I do think she has been a good civil servant over the years, then disband the monarchy.

 

Most claims they bring in what they earn is false, Buckingham Palace gets less visitors than the Palace of Versailles and might get increase if it was a fully public space/museum, the weddings cost us a fvcking bomb, the crown lands could be put to more industrious uses and that's without factoring how much bloody benefits that whole family gets.

 

Also, fvck Charles being King.

 

Here's a good video on the topic:

 

 

I believe the pressure group 'Republic' is planning, following the Queen's death, mourning period and funeral, but before Charles' coronation, to mount a campaign for a referendum (:ph34r:) to abolish the monarchy. Fingers crossed.

Nah.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted

I can see where the arguments for abolishing the monarchy are coming from - not elected, so where's the accountability?

 

That being said, the governance of elected officials and the people who put them there has hardly been stellar recently either, so perhaps it isn't a bad idea for both to exist as a check and balance against each other?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sampson

Sampson

Posted
Posted (edited)
19 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

An unpopular opinion with me, I'm afraid.......pending further information, at least.

 

If we didn't already have a hereditary head of state, there's no way I'd advocate it as the way forward.

But we do, it doesn't seem to work too badly......and I'd seriously want to know what sort of head of state & constitutional system we'd replace them with, if we ditched the monarchy.

 

What would you like instead?

 

The US has a combined head of state / head of government in the President, who is then held accountable by Congress as the legislature.

But they seem to have plenty of problems - and not just because of Trump. There seems to have been institutionalised conflict & gridlock between White House & Congress dating back decades.

 

France has a powerful, highly political head of state (President) focusing on foreign policy & major issues, plus a PM, appointed by the President, who governs domestic issues.....again, plenty of President/PM clashes, suggestions that the President is too powerful & the PM too weak etc.

 

Germany, Italy & Ireland have heads of state / presidents who have little involvement in politics. The PM dominates politics, while the head of state does ceremonial stuff, addresses constitutional issues & maybe the odd grand moral issue.

That seems to work OK.....but, if we opted for that and replaced the monarch, would we elect someone or appoint someone? If we elected someone, I'd see a big risk of them becoming powerful and politicised, rivaling or even eclipsing the PM in the public imagination.....and it's not as if the power of the aristocracy is a major problem now; the problem is the power of global capital & the excessive influence of its interests and lobbyists.

 

Until someone comes up with a comprehensive new constitutional settlement under a republic, I'd say "if it ain't (too) broke, don't fix it!"

Agreed Alf.

 

I used to be anti-monarchy, but over the years I've seen it as a much better option as a head of state.

 

Making the PM head of state is too fraught with issues from a diplomatic/foreign policy point-of-view and causes too many conflicts of interest.

 

Electing or appointing a President always carries the risk that they will become too political and try to get involved with the PM and parliment.

 

Having someone who you can take from a young age and educate into their role and into being apolitical is far from perfect, but I think it's a better option for the head of state role to try and separate it from parliment and the actual political decision making. And the head of state role seems to work better here and in other constitutional monarchies like Sweden and the Netherlands than the French/Germany style split roles or the US style joint role really.

 

For the head of state to stay apolitical, you want someone who has to do it, not wants to do it - anyone who wants to do it and climb the ladder to get there is very likely to have political motives.

Edited by Sampson
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Finnaldo

Finnaldo

Posted
Posted
19 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

An unpopular opinion with me, I'm afraid.......pending further information, at least.

 

If we didn't already have a hereditary head of state, there's no way I'd advocate it as the way forward.

But we do, it doesn't seem to work too badly......and I'd seriously want to know what sort of head of state & constitutional system we'd replace them with, if we ditched the monarchy.

 

What would you like instead?

 

The US has a combined head of state / head of government in the President, who is then held accountable by Congress as the legislature.

But they seem to have plenty of problems - and not just because of Trump. There seems to have been institutionalised conflict & gridlock between White House & Congress dating back decades.

 

France has a powerful, highly political head of state (President) focusing on foreign policy & major issues, plus a PM, appointed by the President, who governs domestic issues.....again, plenty of President/PM clashes, suggestions that the President is too powerful & the PM too weak etc.

 

Germany, Italy & Ireland have heads of state / presidents who have little involvement in politics. The PM dominates politics, while the head of state does ceremonial stuff, addresses constitutional issues & maybe the odd grand moral issue.

That seems to work OK.....but, if we opted for that and replaced the monarch, would we elect someone or appoint someone? If we elected someone, I'd see a big risk of them becoming powerful and politicised, rivaling or even eclipsing the PM in the public imagination.....and it's not as if the power of the aristocracy is a major problem now; the problem is the power of global capital & the excessive influence of its interests and lobbyists.

 

Until someone comes up with a comprehensive new constitutional settlement under a republic, I'd say "if it ain't (too) broke, don't fix it!"

 

54 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

 

You can argue that we should have a different constitution and hence head of state, but you aren't are you?  You are chucking discredited financial arguments at the existing structure without addressing what a replacement would look like.  On the financial point my guess is if you actually look at a current and future system you would find that as most of the money actually either maintains some very important buildings or pays for activities which a head of state would do anyway then you would likely increase costs not reduce them.

 

Thanks for the response gents.

 

To be honest Jon, I was going to mention the constitution but I was actually put to work (:mad:) so sent it as it was, just to get the ball rolling. When I was watching Parliament Wednesday or Thursday, Caroline Lucas did bring up the idea of a written constitution after the last 3 years has shown how fragile the current one is (a viewpoint  and the Attorney General said he shared sympathy with the idea, so the groundwork is there for constitutional reform at least.

 

I doubt it's a immediacy, but its an opportunity in the future. I disagree financially as well, I understand your argument re: maintenance, but I can't see a Presidential budget matching that we give to the Royal Family, alongside the other royal expenses, like the Weddings (I understand in part they pay for themselves but I doubt it equalises the whole expense). Crown Lands as well can be put to better uses in my opinion.

 

In terms of the Presidential role, Alf, one thing I do like about the current system is the apolitical side, so it would go to the Irish system. A long term, towards 10 years probably, with power vested in Parliament to seek removal from office if any wrongdoing is discovered.

 

34 minutes ago, Sampson said:

ver the years I've seen it as a much better option as a head of state.

 

Making the PM head of state is too fraught with issues from a diplomatic/foreign policy point-of-view and causes too many conflicts of interest.

 

Electing or appointing a President always carries the risk that they will become too political and try to get involved with the PM and parliment.

 

Having someone who you can take from a young age and educate into their role and into being apolitical is far from perfect, but I think it's a better option for the head of state role to try and separate it from parliment and the actual political decision making. And the head of state role seems to work better here and in other constitutional monarchies like Sweden and the Netherlands than the French/Germany style split roles or the US style joint role really.

 

For the head of state to stay apolitical, you want someone who has to do it, not wants to do it - anyone who wants to do it and climb the ladder to get there is very likely to have political motives.

 

We run the same risks with the Monarchy really, we're soon to see Charles become King; he's not been apolitical particularly throughout his life. Both William & Harry have shown progressive viewpoints recently, which while I tend to agree with, aren't exactly apolitical.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sampson

Sampson

Posted
Posted (edited)
55 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

It's a bit weird that some of the people who've been telling us they deplore 'unelected' officials in Europe are defending the British monarch.

I'm pro-EU but thats not really weird.

 

EU officials make political decisions that change laws, economic policies and people's lives and therefore need to be held to account. The Queen doesn't do that.

 

You don't really want to get the head of state involved in actual politics, because they are essentially a diplomat-for-show and should be seen as a neutral figure really, separate from political and foreign policy regarding other nations so they can still be a useful intermediary and point of contact with them. There's usefulness in the prestige of the royal family and other world leaders and diplomats wanting to visit them.

Edited by Sampson
Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Sampson said:

Agreed Alf.

 

I used to be anti-monarchy, but over the years I've seen it as a much better option as a head of state.

 

Making the PM head of state is too fraught with issues from a diplomatic/foreign policy point-of-view and causes too many conflicts of interest.

 

Electing or appointing a President always carries the risk that they will become too political and try to get involved with the PM and parliment.

 

Having someone who you can take from a young age and educate into their role and into being apolitical is far from perfect, but I think it's a better option for the head of state role to try and separate it from parliment and the actual political decision making. And the head of state role seems to work better here and in other constitutional monarchies like Sweden and the Netherlands than the French/Germany style split roles or the US style joint role really.

 

For the head of state to stay apolitical, you want someone who has to do it, not wants to do it - anyone who wants to do it and climb the ladder to get there is very likely to have political motives.

We often disagree on other issues (like the value of the future :P) but on this one I think you are spot on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ajthefox

ajthefox

Posted
Posted
23 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

An unpopular opinion with me, I'm afraid.......pending further information, at least.

 

If we didn't already have a hereditary head of state, there's no way I'd advocate it as the way forward.

But we do, it doesn't seem to work too badly......and I'd seriously want to know what sort of head of state & constitutional system we'd replace them with, if we ditched the monarchy.

 

What would you like instead?

 

The US has a combined head of state / head of government in the President, who is then held accountable by Congress as the legislature.

But they seem to have plenty of problems - and not just because of Trump. There seems to have been institutionalised conflict & gridlock between White House & Congress dating back decades.

 

France has a powerful, highly political head of state (President) focusing on foreign policy & major issues, plus a PM, appointed by the President, who governs domestic issues.....again, plenty of President/PM clashes, suggestions that the President is too powerful & the PM too weak etc.

 

Germany, Italy & Ireland have heads of state / presidents who have little involvement in politics. The PM dominates politics, while the head of state does ceremonial stuff, addresses constitutional issues & maybe the odd grand moral issue.

That seems to work OK.....but, if we opted for that and replaced the monarch, would we elect someone or appoint someone? If we elected someone, I'd see a big risk of them becoming powerful and politicised, rivaling or even eclipsing the PM in the public imagination.....and it's not as if the power of the aristocracy is a major problem now; the problem is the power of global capital & the excessive influence of its interests and lobbyists.

 

Until someone comes up with a comprehensive new constitutional settlement under a republic, I'd say "if it ain't (too) broke, don't fix it!"

 

3 hours ago, Sampson said:

Agreed Alf.

 

I used to be anti-monarchy, but over the years I've seen it as a much better option as a head of state.

 

Making the PM head of state is too fraught with issues from a diplomatic/foreign policy point-of-view and causes too many conflicts of interest.

 

Electing or appointing a President always carries the risk that they will become too political and try to get involved with the PM and parliment.

 

Having someone who you can take from a young age and educate into their role and into being apolitical is far from perfect, but I think it's a better option for the head of state role to try and separate it from parliment and the actual political decision making. And the head of state role seems to work better here and in other constitutional monarchies like Sweden and the Netherlands than the French/Germany style split roles or the US style joint role really.

 

For the head of state to stay apolitical, you want someone who has to do it, not wants to do it - anyone who wants to do it and climb the ladder to get there is very likely to have political motives.

I'm not a fan of the monarchy but I must admit you have made good points as to the benefits of keeping it until a better option is presented.

 

Not voting on something so significant until we have fully established the pros and cons of both options seems like a good idea to me. It's a good job we haven't made any drastic political decisions that have very wide ranging effects without a comprehensive evaluation first...

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Stadt

Stadt

Posted
Posted

I've never really been really pro-monarchy but I've certainly never been against it, most of the issues I think people have are about the funding it receives. From memory The Crown Estate basically pays for most things and that was essentially donated to Government/public and the royals receive funds back from that. If funding was more transparent and eventually subsidies less I don't really see how anybody could feel really affronted by it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
st albans fox

st albans fox

Posted
Posted

It’s pretty inconceivable that you could have an elected of state who didn’t have some political baggage ....what we currently have seems to work on many levels ....

 

the issues we have constitutionally are pretty well all related to a hung parliament ........ if we are entering an extended period without decent working majorities then I reckon a written constitution is going to be unavoidable .....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
UniFox21

UniFox21

Posted
Posted
45 minutes ago, Livid said:

I don’t get the love in for Chris Wilder, I think he’s a bit of a dick. 

It's appreciating the great job he's doing up there, especially given the board arguments over who owns the club. 

 

He also doesn't toe the line in interviews, and is quite interesting to listen to.

 

And he gets his cb's to overlap, what more can you ask for 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fox92

Fox92

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Livid said:

I don’t get the love in for Chris Wilder, I think he’s a bit of a dick. 

I've always liked him given the progress he's had through the divisions. He's also honest which I can't fault him for.

 

It's nice when Blades fans start "you didn't deserve to beat us" considering Wilder said the exact opposite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Facecloth

Facecloth

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, l444ry said:

If Atlantis resurfaced fully populated and started looking around for a system to run itself by, does anyone seriously think they'd go for a Monarchy?

Do you think they'd look at any country and go with their current leadership set up, or electoral structure?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest BlueBrett

Guest BlueBrett

Posted
Posted

 

3 hours ago, l444ry said:

If Atlantis resurfaced fully populated and started looking around for a system to run itself by, does anyone seriously think they'd go for a Monarchy?

Depends who the king was gonna be.

 

Western democracy is turgid, ineffective, laughably unrepresentative and almost defined by hypocrisy. The only thing it's good for is providing corporations and elites with fig leaf.

 

I think Machiavelli said the optimum political system is one with a 'benevolent dictator' or something along those lines which I suppose is pretty much the same as the traditional ye olde English conception of a virtuous/honorable monarch. As I get older I'm increasingly inclined to agree with him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Finnaldo

Finnaldo

Posted
Posted
15 hours ago, Nalis said:

I know Qatar is a shite world cup venue but I can see the benefits of a one off winter world cup.

 

Basically a pre-Christmas boozing session and runs into christmas party season. Sounds good to me!

 

I'd get the notion but I feel that'd only be the case if you could go to the host nation and feel a Christmas vibe, like if it was held in Germany. 

 

I won't feel very Christmasy watching football in the pissing desert.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jattdogg

Jattdogg

Posted
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, Finnaldo said:

 

I'd get the notion but I feel that'd only be the case if you could go to the host nation and feel a Christmas vibe, like if it was held in Germany. 

 

I won't feel very Christmasy watching football in the pissing desert.

Isnt it dry and hot as hell there?

Edited by Jattdogg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...