Home Politics & Debate
At The Mix, we want to make our services as helpful as we can. To do this, we’d love to ask you a few questions about you, your visit to The Mix and its impact. It should take only about 5-10 minutes to complete. Take this survey and get a chance at winning a £200 Amazon voucher​.
Free Wednesday evening? Come along to our safeguarding co-design session from 6-7:30PM. sign up here
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

Labour candidate calls Queen a "parasite"

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
http://news.uk.msn.com/uk/articles.aspx?cp-documentid=150911624
...and this is why I will never vote Labour. Despite the polish and the spin, they are still class warriors at heart. They hate the monarchy, the aristocracy, the honours system and all that these things stand for. Mention a party in Lizzie's honour and they are all like "ooh, what a waste of money". Yes I know there are babies dying in Africa but why can't we do something fun once in a while? America sends rockets into space, North Korea has massive parades, we get an old lady in a gold hat to wave from a carriage. Parasite? I reckon the Queen is a national treasure.
«13

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Seeing that the government has reduced us to a nation of 'hospitality' rather than 'manufacturers', getting rid of the Queen will get rid of one of the main reasons why overseas tourists might come to this country. She is iconic. Getting rid of her would make the country a poorer place in more ways than one.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The monarchy is one of the most enduring and well-recognised symbols of our country and one that makes me truly proud to be British.

    I think that unless your name is George Monbiot, the concept of the monarchy is almost free from political considerations.

    Even the most hardened republican flag-waving Americans that come over here love all the pagentry and the pomp and circumstance of the monarchy. Slightly anachronistic it may be, but it's what gives us some sense of individuality. Long may it continue says I.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    i think hes quite right
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    A great many people in this country do think the Royals are parasites. I count myself as one of them.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    A great many people in this country do think the Royals are parasites. I count myself as one of them.

    Do you think the same, being a Spaniard, about Juan Carlos II? Not a loaded question, merely curious.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The queen is not such a big touristr attraction.
    Most tourists that come to the UK don't even go to London.
    This is the twenty first century and here we are still stuck with frogs and princes.
    The queen should be the last of them.
    Why the fuck would any sane person want charlie to represent this country?
    Why should these undeserving people be handed everything on a plate?
    Doesn't matter if it only costs me ten bob a week ...thats not an issue for me.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Do you think the same, being a Spaniard, about Juan Carlos II? Not a loaded question, merely curious.
    To a lesser degree (and not because I'm Spanish, but because I acknowledge the role Juan Carlos played in planting the seeds of democracy in Spain) but yes, I believe pretty much all monarchies are parasitic.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Do those who think that the royalty are parasitic think that the cost of a Presidential system would be cheaper? Every country needs a Head of State and I'd prefer the system we have - where the person is prepared for it their entire life - than the US one where they change on a regular basis.

    Consider this: President Thatcher or a UK version of President Bush...

    As for the candidate, it would be interesting to see them elected just to see how their principles stand up when they have to swear an oath in the House.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MoK wrote: »
    Do those who think that the royalty are parasitic think that the cost of a Presidential system would be cheaper? Every country needs a Head of State and I'd prefer the system we have - where the person is prepared for it their entire life - than the US one where they change on a regular basis.

    Consider this: President Thatcher or a UK version of President Bush...

    As for the candidate, it would be interesting to see them elected just to see how their principles stand up when they have to swear an oath in the House.

    The cost isn't the issue for most people MOK ....and welcome and hello ...:wave: what on earth do you mean a uk version of an American president?
    I think you've lost the plot a bit.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    why is that the only alternative. Whats wrong with just having a government?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    what on earth do you mean a uk version of an American president?
    I think you've lost the plot a bit.

    The alternative to Monarchy is elected Head of State - the US approach. You still end up with the extended family, the need for security for life plus the fact that there will be a number of former HoS alive at anyone time - all needing a high level of protection.

    I really fail to see what benefits this brings.

    Oh, and the expression "parasite", suggests a cost concern.

    NB Good to be back, nice to see you still around.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    why is that the only alternative. Whats wrong with just having a government?

    There will always be a Head Of State. Whether you call them President, King, Queen, Prime Minister, General... or A.N. Other there will always be a HoS.

    Like I said, I'd rather have the person born into it, raised into it and possibly resenting it than someone who *wants* that power.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    whats wrong with having a head of state thats democratically voted in, who wants the job, rather than a useless old biddy, born into wealth, does nothing, takes everything.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    whats wrong with having a head of state thats democratically voted in, who wants the job, rather than a useless old biddy, born into wealth, does nothing, takes everything.

    I think that we only have to look at politicians across the world for the answer to that one ;)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    yeah but we have politicians anyway.
    At the moment we have both systems. A complete waste.

    I dont see any point at all to having the queen as a head of state
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    IMO the main advantage of an elected Head of State is precisely that- they are elected, and can be removed by the electorate if they are not deemed worthy or competent.

    As opposed to a monarchy, where the post is inherited and we end up with an rather dysfunctional family, most of whom haven't done an honest day's work in their existence, living it up at taxpayer's expense.

    I also object to the medieval approach we still have today towards monarchs: they are still somehow superior to normal human beings, and we are expected to look up to them as if they're demi gods and behave accordingly (bow or curtsy, don't turn your back on them when you live the room, etc). I mean, what the fuck????
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You do realise that the same/similar etiquette rules apply for every Head of State don't you? Even elected ones...

    I like the idea that an elected Head of State is better purely on the basis of an election - and not their suitability to do the job. Hitler was elected, Stalin was elected (by his party!)... hell Bush was elected. Twice.

    An election doesn't bring you a better leader, nor does it bring you someone who is more representative of "the people". It brings you the person who was best able to say the right things to the right people at the right time. It brings someone who is beholden to the lobbyists or their financial backers - no matter how immoral those people are.

    It brings you the person who is going to call on the name of religion to garner votes, call on their buddies in the legal system to support them on political lines rather than just ones or call on the army to back them up with force when the next election looks like going against them.

    Sure we have a dysfuntional family, wouldn't you be with the pressure. But inspite of that they do pretty much what we ask of them. Anyone of them could walk away at any moment - the Queen could easily abdicate and keep the lifestyle that she has. But she doesn't, does she? Why do you think that is?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    To a lesser degree (and not because I'm Spanish, but because I acknowledge the role Juan Carlos played in planting the seeds of democracy in Spain) but yes, I believe pretty much all monarchies are parasitic.

    Remember, it was this country, with a monarchy, that introduced modern day democracy to the world. The Queen and the institution of monarchy is part of our history and although there have been many black moments, this country has a proud history.

    MR's post about Prince Charles : At least he's interesting and starts debates. The people that 'don't like him' is because they don't agree with him - which should not be a reflection on the man himself. His views aside, he has done a huge amount of good for the country including The Princes Trust and as an investment ambassador overseas. Can you imagine a John Major-type figure as our representative in his place? What a boring world.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MoK wrote: »
    You do realise that the same/similar etiquette rules apply for every Head of State don't you? Even elected ones...

    I like the idea that an elected Head of State is better purely on the basis of an election - and not their suitability to do the job. Hitler was elected, Stalin was elected (by his party!)... hell Bush was elected. Twice.

    An election doesn't bring you a better leader, nor does it bring you someone who is more representative of "the people". It brings you the person who was best able to say the right things to the right people at the right time. It brings someone who is beholden to the lobbyists or their financial backers - no matter how immoral those people are.

    Sure, but an election gives you the possibility of easily replacing the Head of State after 4/5 years.

    Try replacing this lot... It can be a crime to even advocate it in public ffs.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    so theres people whove been elected who havent been great.
    So theres been no non elected leaders who havent?

    The queen does nothing
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    So theres been no non elected leaders who havent?

    I never said that, nor would I. But you are aguing for something different, therefore you need to demonstrate how the replacement would be better than what we already have...
    The queen does nothing

    She does exactly the same as any other Head of State would.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Sure, but an election gives you the possibility of easily replacing the Head of State after 4/5 years.

    Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown. That's just UK Prime Ministers since 1979.

    Only one has, so far, lost an election.

    How many of them would make a good head of state Aladdin? How many would you have voted for? How many had a majority vote?

    How many looked after the interested of those who voted them in, how many could you accuse of being corrupted by power or money? Can you say that about the Queen?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    so theres people whove been elected who havent been great.
    So theres been no non elected leaders who havent?

    The queen does nothing

    Apart from her significant constitutional functions, including opening the new session of parliament and reading out her government's programme, performing her duties as commander in chief of the armed forces, signing the laws (which number more than 3,200 during her reign), she grants an audience to the prime minister every Tuesday evening. Since she acceded to the throne in 1952, 10 have served her, from Winston Churchill through Margaret Thatcher to Gordon Brown.

    She has undertaken over 256 official overseas visits to 129 different countries, from China to the minuscule Cocos Islands, an Australian territory in the Indian Ocean of some 629 inhabitants.

    She has thrown 91 state banquets, presided over 540 investitures, invited more than a million people to her summer garden parties and visited thousands of schools, hospitals and community centres.



    She is the patron of over 620 organizations or charities. Etc etc .... the list goes on.



    Hardy 'nothing' (although she does less functions these days because of her age which is understandable. She is 84 after all).
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MoK wrote: »
    Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown. That's just UK Prime Ministers since 1979.

    Only one has, so far, lost an election.

    How many of them would make a good head of state Aladdin? How many would you have voted for? How many had a majority vote?
    I'm not sure I get the point you're driving at. The way I see it it is all about accountability. Elected heads of State can be easily removed, unelected ones cannot.

    That is a fundamental flaw that has no place in modern democracies in the 21st century.
    How many looked after the interested of those who voted them in, how many could you accuse of being corrupted by power or money? Can you say that about the Queen?
    I know I'm not a British subject but even if I were I doubt I could say the Queen was looking after my interests at all.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teagan wrote: »
    Apart from her significant constitutional functions, including opening the new session of parliament and reading out her government's programme, performing her duties as commander in chief of the armed forces, signing the laws (which number more than 3,200 during her reign), she grants an audience to the prime minister every Tuesday evening. Since she acceded to the throne in 1952, 10 have served her, from Winston Churchill through Margaret Thatcher to Gordon Brown.

    She has undertaken over 256 official overseas visits to 129 different countries, from China to the minuscule Cocos Islands, an Australian territory in the Indian Ocean of some 629 inhabitants.

    She has thrown 91 state banquets, presided over 540 investitures, invited more than a million people to her summer garden parties and visited thousands of schools, hospitals and community centres.
    Every single one of those activities can be performed by an elected Head of State. In any case, they should expect to do something in return for the unparalleled privileges and wealth they inherit by simply being born into the family.

    I certainly wouldn't mind the 'ordeal' of throwing parties for foreign dignataries and travelling the world for little happy get-togethers with other rulers in the upmost luxury myself...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    And also with that having every single detail of your under constant scrutiny, never being able to lead any part fo a normal life, knowing that every little fuck up you make or any of your family make is going to be front page news, and this is for rest of your life? No thanks, i'd give it a miss.

    Anyways i think the point was just refuting the fact that the queen does "nothing", not that she does a particulalry unique role.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    I'm not sure I get the point you're driving at. The way I see it it is all about accountability. Elected heads of State can be easily removed, unelected ones cannot.

    I think that the point I am trying to make is that, in the past 30 years, only once has an "elected" leader been removed by the populous in the UK. Even then less than 50% of the population voted for the new guy - Tony Blair. A man who took us into "illegal war" and was still reelected. So, bad elected officials are accountable? Are replaced by the people?

    Do you remember George W. Bush being removed, or indicted by the process of democracy?

    Elections aren't perfection. What we have in the UK isn't absolute monarchy, nor is it absolute democracy. It's a combination and so we get the best of both worlds.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Every single one of those activities can be performed by an elected Head of State. In any case, they should expect to do something in return for the unparalleled privileges and wealth they inherit by simply being born into the family.

    I certainly wouldn't mind the 'ordeal' of throwing parties for foreign dignataries and travelling the world for little happy get-togethers with other rulers in the upmost luxury myself...

    So the true question is, would *you* do the job she has? I know I wouldn't.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Every single one of those activities can be performed by an elected Head of State. In any case, they should expect to do something in return for the unparalleled privileges and wealth they inherit by simply being born into the family.

    I certainly wouldn't mind the 'ordeal' of throwing parties for foreign dignataries and travelling the world for little happy get-togethers with other rulers in the upmost luxury myself...

    hmm since someone will assume the role of head of state, i don't want the head of state to be involved in law making, i know the queen can technically refuse royal assent, but it's not happened in a long time - and the queen got the governer of australia to refuse to sign off a law like 30 years ago

    an elected head of state isn't worth it in my opinion, a good democracy can function without, as spain shows these days

    i say make a random on the electoral register the head of state for a year or a few years at a time, they won't serve any purpose but to do what duke of edinburgh does make embarassing times abroad LOL beats the cost of elections lol
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm not exactly in favour of the monarchy, but there really are more important issues. I have less of a problem with the queen than the Lords, for example. I mean seriously, we still have unelected people voting on policy in the 21st century? Are you absolutely shitting me!?

    I think the queen can be a valuable diplomatic resource, if I'm honest. I don't buy for one second this bullshit about her bringing tourists in though. The Taj Mahal isn't doing to badly without any royalty. People still visit Paris and China. Nobody visits Japan to see the emperor, they visit to see the buildings. But the most irritating thing about the monarchy is that we have these endless hangers on, educated at our expense at the best schools in the country, going backpacking in Cambodia with two fucking bodyguards travelling first class and staying in 5-star hotels, while most of the Dutch royal family are seen cycling around the city and taking public transport. Nobody can justify that, surely?

    So like I said, the queen is the last in a long list of unelected parasites that need to be taken off the public payroll first and told to get a job. Starting with absolutely everyone in the House of Lords.
Sign In or Register to comment.