The Royal Baby

[I am Rod Hull]

What void? There is no void as far as I can see.

 

As far as "you" can see 

 

70% approval rating says otherwise

[Mike the Metal Ed]

Huge fan of history and tradition.

Firmly believe a constitutional monarchy is the best form of government out there.

They make us a hell of a lot of money.

After spending the last few days in London it also makes you very proud to be British the way you see how jealous and envious the tourists are of us having them.

 

Other than the first point, I can't believe I agree with a MattP post. I would hate to politicise any office above the Commons, which is why I'm also against a wholly elected upper chamber... even as a "leftie".

[Harry - LCFC]

As far as "you" can see 

 

Check their approval ratings 

 

Meh, there might be a few years of crying from a few but it'll subside eventually, the monarchy's importance has been shrinking in society for decades so the last little boot they need won't hurt that much. I retain the view that there isn't much of a void, it'll close over time. The 'wounds' will heal.

[I am Rod Hull]

Meh, there might be a few years of crying from a few misguided individuals but it'll subside eventually, the monarchy's importance has been shrinking in society for decades so the last little boot they need won't hurt that much. Not much of a void in my view, it'll close over time. The 'wounds' will heal.

 

Are they lyrics from the new JayZ album? 

 

The monarchy as never been more popular than it is today. Massive fail on your behalf 

 

Give me stats, Harry... give me stats 

[Harry - LCFC]

Are they lyrics from the new JayZ album? 

 

The monarchy as never been more popular than it is today. Massive fail on your behalf 

 

Give me stats, Harry... give me stats 

 

Nor has it been less important than it is today. They do nothing, there's nothing to be missed. I expect a brief period of mourning from some but eventually people will see that they've not lost anything. No-one's life will life suffer from their absence and this will be realised eventually and when it is realised opinions will change.

[I am Rod Hull]

Nor has it been less important than it is today. They do nothing, there's nothing to be missed. I expect a brief period of mourning from some but eventually people will see that they've not lost anything. No-one's life will life suffer from their absence and this will be realised eventually and when it is realised opinions will no change.

 

 

You need to research more on said topic instead of guessing/copying off LargeAl.

 

E- 

[Harry - LCFC]

 

You need to research more on said topic instead of guessing/copying off LargeAl.

 

E- 

 

You've done that quite a lot in this argument, just state things that you want to be true: "E-" "massive fail" "guessing/copying of LargeAl" all these assertions that you want to believe. I've tried to put my points across but you always respond with  's as if they further your argument somehow.

 

While I might not agree with MattP I know I'll get a well though out response from him rather than childish insults. I really don't know what else to say to you, you'll only try to laugh it off rather than argue back.

[I am Rod Hull]

You've done that quite a lot in this argument, just state things that you want to be true: "E-" "massive fail" "guessing/copying of LargeAl" all these assertions that you want to believe. I've tried to put my points across but you always respond with  's as if they further your argument somehow.

 

While I might not agree with MattP I know I'll get a well though out response from him rather than childish insults. I really don't know what else to say to you, you'll only try to laugh it off rather than argue back.

 

 

[hairy]

How Taiwan see the birth

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYmQk3Avyxc#at=117

[MooseBreath]

Meh, there might be a few years of crying from a few but it'll subside eventually, the monarchy's importance has been shrinking in society for decades so the last little boot they need won't hurt that much. I retain the view that there isn't much of a void, it'll close over time. The 'wounds' will heal.

Could apply these cold bloody, efficiency-focussed principles to a lot of things, and a lot of the time you'd be branded the worst kind of Tory for doing so.

I'm largely indifferent on the monarchy. But in the absence of any compelling argument outlining what we stand to gain from their abolition, I see no reason to pick a fight. Historical/cultural arguments in favour are stronger than the hollow and often spiteful and jealous arguments against.

Choose your battles wisely.

[Guest Bilo]

 

That video is genius!

[Guest Bilo]

A two word ripose to those who want a republic.

 

President Cameron. 

 

Indeed; President Blair, Brown, Cameron or Miliband are all fairly nauseating prospects.

[leicsmac]

A two word ripose to those who want a republic.

 

President Cameron. 

 

Indeed; President Blair, Brown, Cameron or Miliband are all fairly nauseating prospects.

 

Pretty much this. You look at the monarchy, then you look at the alternative. It's a pretty damn sadistic choice (I hate all that better-than, forelock-tugging shite), but given the choice between that and a probably corrupt elected official? 

 

Devil and the deep blue sea again, but I'd choose what we have.

[Zingari]

A two word ripose to those who want a republic.

 

President Cameron. 

 

Indeed; President Blair, Brown, Cameron or Miliband are all fairly nauseating prospects.

You mean  like a head of state that we can actually get rid of if they ain't up to it?

Sounds OK to me 

 

The prospect of loopy Charlie being head of state doesn't exactly fill my heart with joy.

But no doubt the lackey media with portray as some sort of demi-god in the same way they've done with Betty

[Harry - LCFC]

Could apply these cold bloody, efficiency-focussed principles to a lot of things, and a lot of the time you'd be branded the worst kind of Tory for doing so.

I'm largely indifferent on the monarchy. But in the absence of any compelling argument outlining what we stand to gain from their abolition, I see no reason to pick a fight. Historical/cultural arguments in favour are stronger than the hollow and often spiteful and jealous arguments against.

Choose your battles wisely.

 

If there's nothing to be missed then people won't miss it. That's all I'm saying.

 

I wouldn't say jealousy is the reason for my arguments against the monarchy either, a desire for my head of state elected to be on merit perhaps. I suppose I could be described as spiteful for detesting the privileges that the royal family are afforded but I'd hardly say I'm being unreasonable.

[leicsmac]

 

You mean  like a head of state that we can actually get rid of if they ain't up to it?

Sounds OK to me 

 

The prospect of loopy Charlie being head of state doesn't exactly fill my heart with joy.

But no doubt the lackey media with portray as some sort of demi-god in the same way they've done with Betty

 

 

Problem with that is the replacement is some smooth-talking barsteward who then ends up just the same. 

 

Truth is we're hosed either way.

[ADK]

Surely the head of state would just be someone that was universally liked by the populace, ie not a politician. Could see Beckham doing it.

[Zingari]

Problem with that is the replacement is some smooth-talking barsteward who then ends up just the same. 

 

Truth is we're hosed either way.

true, i suppose i'm just an annoying peasant 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAaWvVFERVA

[Guest MattP]

 

 

I personally prefer my head of state to be in office on merit i.e. where the best (in theory) candidate is selected. Out of the points you've made I really struggle to see how one could think that a monarchy, where individuals are given power simply for being part of a specific family, could be considered the best form of government that exists today - Could you explain that a bit further please?

 

Tradition, yes, it's perfectly reasonable to want to be proud of your country's history. Although many traditions have since become outdated so I don't accept that we should continue with something purely because we've done it for many years previously. Money, yep, hard to argue with that. Although I imagine we'd still do okay if we kept the castles, beefeaters etc. and just got rid of the monarchy. Wouldn't be the same admittedly.

 

I also find it amusing that tourists are jealous of the royal family, I find it rather embarrassing myself as I explained in a previous post. (http://www.foxestalk.co.uk/forums/topic/89487-the-royal-baby/#entry2670687)

 

 

Problem here with democracy is about 60% turn out to vote at GC's and 70% probably know nothing about politics, having a elected head of state might sound good but you'll be crying for the Queen back when President Beckham is in the chair in 30 years.

 

I see it as the best form of government as it has an elected house laying the laws and then a sensible body watching over them who they also know they are resposible to, I can't even begin to imagine the pisstake on expenses, wars, etc if people like Blair and Brown or Cameron were a head of state with a licence to do anything and everyhing.

 

I don't believe any royal tradition has become outdated, people love tradition and the monarchy in the last few years is more popular than it has ever been, I hope you really don't believe people would spend 'a few years crying' were it abololished, me and millions of others would see them as our leaders and would be fighting to return them to there righful place and those people will still be fighting for that a long time after me or you are here.

 

No idea how you can't fathom why people from a country that elected George Bush twice and are universally despised wouldn't be jealous of our Monarchy that our universially loved.

One last thing btw, if people think removing the Royals will stop them "being rich" as people have put then actually think about it ffs Kate and Wills could do a 12 month tour of the USA on it's own whilst selling their merchandise as a private company and they would earn more money than they will take out the state in their lifetimes. So it's probably smart we actually take that money into our own coffers rather than not.

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

Huge fan of history and tradition.

Firmly believe a constitutional monarchy is the best form of government out there.

They make us a hell of a lot of money.

After spending the last few days in London it also makes you very proud to be British the way you see how jealous and envious the tourists are of us having them.

Well said indeed sir. That sums it up in a nutshell.     

[BoneDog]

HAIL SATAN!

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

Nor has it been less important than it is today. They do nothing, there's nothing to be missed. I expect a brief period of mourning from some but eventually people will see that they've not lost anything. No-one's life will life suffer from their absence and this will be realised eventually and when it is realised opinions will change.

Poppycock!. Did you  find this quote in some communist rag?

[Alf Bentley]

Huge fan of history and tradition.

 

Other than the first point, I can't believe I agree with a MattP post. I would hate to politicise any office above the Commons, which is why I'm also against a wholly elected upper chamber... even as a "leftie".

 

Come on, Matt, you're a "huge fan" of tradition, but history? Tudor/Stuart religious strife, land enclosure, Cromwell's deposition of the monarchy, German-speaking monarchs, the slave trade, Peterloo, the Chartists, the Great Reform Acts, the rise of trade unions, WW1, the dismantling of the British Empire, mass immigration, EU membership, the miners' strike, the poll tax riots, the 2008 financial meltdown....that's all part of our national history - and history doesn't stand still, which is a lot of its fascination. Some of that change and struggle ends up becoming part of "tradition" and "the constitution", I suppose....

 

Completely agree with Mike the Metal Ed. If there was a referendum tomorrow, I'd join the queue of lefties voting to keep the constitutional monarchy, even if I'd like to see a republic with devolved powers and strong democratic checks and balances, eventually. Rather than have some personally corrupt, self-promoting President Blair/Cameron, hand-in-glove with business interests and spouting gut-churning populism, I'd much rather have Good Queen Brenda and her stiff upper lip. I even enjoy Philip and his non-PC sense of humour ("tartan knickers"!) and that awkward, jug-eared son of theirs....though it would be a problem if he started voicing his opinions too much when/if he eventually becomes king (what are his opinions, though? seem to be a cross between UKIP and Greens!). Might work if he limited it to raising important non-party-political issues, like the Irish Presidents seem to do....

 

That seems to be a model for head of state that works quite well, the Irish one - keep electing intelligent, measured Presidents to counter-balance the corrupt and venal politicians in parliament. Dangerous to have too many competing sources of political power, though, as the Americans (President v. House v. Senate) and the French (President v. PM) already know.

 

Like Mike Metal Ed, I'm dubious about an elected House of Lords for that very reason. How about a "House of Experts"? Rather than hereditaries or elected politicians, how about appointed representatives of major institutions/groups with some real expertise in issues subject to legislation: NHS, experienced headteachers/academics, Bank of England, regulators (OFSTED, OFCOM etc.), CBI, TUC/trade unions, HMRC, police, universities, Liberty, Amnesty International, senior lawyers, representatives of big/small business, National Trust, representatives of all major religions & Humanist Association....might be a crazy idea, but if the Commons is supposed to retain political sovereignty and the role of the 2nd chamber is to examine the viability / consequences of legislation, not to challenge its political direction, why not?

[ADK]

The "house of experts" idea is a good one. I do think the other house should be unelected as otherwise there is no real point in having two houses.

[Rincewind]

Why can't we go back to the old times when kings and even queens used to fight for the throne on the battlefield?

If they are not doing their job or eating too much of the country's wealth somebody could challenge the monarch to a duel to the death.

I am sure there are a few living in a mortgaged-to-the-hilt semi in Surbiton that would gladly swap it for a cosy 500 up 500 down dwelling.and be exempt from bedroom tax.