Home Politics & Debate
Ongoing maintenance - the boards are undergoing some ongoing, intermittent maintenance. Pages might load slightly slower than usual and there may be very short periods where the boards are offline.

Queeeenie

2

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    didn't know you were in the job as well? I won't ask where because that would be unfair. What do you do?

    (sorry for the thread hijack peeps!)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Army.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    forgot you guys get one too!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    WTF? You got medals? Erm. Why?

    Also if medals are being given out, shouldn't all public sector workers (who ultimately work for her) get one? Better still, don't give them out at all.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    PS Australia is one of the most visited countries in the world, as is India. And they, er, have a monarch: Betty.
    I don't know where you get your information from, but India isn't even in the top 10 in Asia (5.78 million tourists per year), never mind the world. Australia is number 10 in the Asia Pacific region, with just under 6 million visitors a year. Just to compare, the People's Republic of China gets 55 million and the French Republic gets 76 million. To describe either as "one of the most visited countries in the world" is simply wrong. Or perhaps it's just a different opinion? ;)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    WTF? You got medals? Erm. Why?

    Also if medals are being given out, shouldn't all public sector workers (who ultimately work for her) get one? Better still, don't give them out at all.

    I can see the Army (and the Navy and I suppose if pushed the RAF) because of their closeness to the monarchy. I can't really see why the police should get them, probably not their support staff and PCSOs as well and certainly not all public sector workers
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    How about all public sector workers, but only if you've also been in the job for the past 60 years?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    WTF? You got medals? Erm. Why?

    Also if medals are being given out, shouldn't all public sector workers (who ultimately work for her) get one? Better still, don't give them out at all.

    All frontline officers got one, including pcsos and specials. No idea what the decision making process behind it was. Support staff got a commemorative medallion.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I can see the Army (and the Navy and I suppose if pushed the RAF) because of their closeness to the monarchy. I can't really see why the police should get them, probably not their support staff and PCSOs as well and certainly not all public sector workers

    Yeah, I could make an allowance for the Armed Forces but that's about it. It should also be all current serving (like G) if we are giving them out at all. IMHO though, medals should be earned in combat rather than handed out, but what do I know?!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You had to have served 5 years or more by 6th feb this year if you were in the armed forces.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ambivalent. they seem to be a good target for reverse snobbery and who wouldn't miss the *wise* words of phillip?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Can't be arsed with the royal family.

    I am my own queen... And king, respectively.

    But hey, I got a day off work, so I sat at home getting pissed, watching the concert and following some brilliant tweets.

    Tweet of the night?

    @Dianainheaven
    Go on Elton - do my song. Fuck this shit up.


    Seriously... I think the royal family are a royal waste of time... But then so is a lot of stuff.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm as ambivalent about the monarchy as I am about grade listed buildings. On the one hand, it's nice to preserve history, but, on the other, why the fuck should we impede modernisation and enforce antiquity on people?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Because sometimes serving Queen and country is all we have that keeps us going.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm as ambivalent about the monarchy as I am about grade listed buildings. On the one hand, it's nice to preserve history, but, on the other, why the fuck should we impede modernisation and enforce antiquity on people?

    But modernity isn't an aim in itself, it's only an aim if modernisation improves what went before. And that seems to me where the argument for Republicanism fails, in that it never seems to be able to produce a strong case for why we'd be better off...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    G-Raffe wrote: »
    Because sometimes serving Queen and country is all we have that keeps us going.
    Maybe for you...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    But modernity isn't an aim in itself, it's only an aim if modernisation improves what went before. And that seems to me where the argument for Republicanism fails, in that it never seems to be able to produce a strong case for why we'd be better off...
    Maybe it depends though... On what kind of state you'd want if the monarchy were removed. Reublicanism would be different from a socialist perspective (or one of the many socialist perspectives), than under say... A different economic and/or social system.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Namaste wrote: »
    Maybe for you...

    Yeah thats what I meant, specifically for us lot out in the desert.
  • Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Warming up? Posts: 16,688
    G-Raffe wrote: »
    Because sometimes serving Queen and country is all we have that keeps us going.
    Would it really be a lot different if it was just country?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm as ambivalent about the monarchy as I am about grade listed buildings. On the one hand, it's nice to preserve history, but, on the other, why the fuck should we impede modernisation and enforce antiquity on people?

    In fairness, the image and attitude of the Royals has increased a hell of a lot since they bumped off......erm I mean since Diana died. I'm a royalist however I probably won't be bothered either way when Charles gets voted in. But when William becomes King, I reckon I'll have a feeling of pride. He and Kate have been marketed the right way IMO.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    But modernity isn't an aim in itself, it's only an aim if modernisation improves what went before. And that seems to me where the argument for Republicanism fails, in that it never seems to be able to produce a strong case for why we'd be better off...

    I'm not all full of piss and vinegar over the royal family as I think largely they're an irrelevance, but if push came to shove I'd get rid of them; if we're to aid the slow march of progress and move towards a more egalitarian, secular and democratic nation then the royal family are gonna have to go.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm not all full of piss and vinegar over the royal family as I think largely they're an irrelevance, but if push came to shove I'd get rid of them; if we're to aid the slow march of progress and move towards a more egalitarian, secular and democratic nation then the royal family are gonna have to go.

    See, I've never got that argument as Sweden, Denmark and Norway are regularly trumpeted as much more egalitarian than the UK, but all are monarchies (whilst the US, of course, is a Republic)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    See, I've never got that argument as Sweden, Denmark and Norway are regularly trumpeted as much more egalitarian than the UK, but all are monarchies (whilst the US, of course, is a Republic)
    But are they more equal because of the fact they have a monarch? Or in many cases, a history of colonialism?

    Because colonialism does play a part as to how some countries are so affluent... And the foreign policies of some countries interfere with other countries to keep in shitty governments because of business interest. If you look at a lot of countries which have the least equality, or single party states, they were previously British, French, or Dutch colonies. You can't honestly say that if they had a monarch, things would be better? As it's so much more complex than that.

    Note: Nepal was a kingdom until fairly recently and has a lot of human rights and income issues. Papau New Guinea also has a monarch, North Korea may as well have as it's a single party state and the current leader was chosen on his bloodline.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Namaste wrote: »
    But are they more equal because of the fact they have a monarch? Or in many cases, a history of colonialism?

    Because colonialism does play a part as to how some countries are so affluent... And the foreign policies of some countries interfere with other countries to keep in shitty governments because of business interest. If you look at a lot of countries which have the least equality, or single party states, they were previously British, French, or Dutch colonies. You can't honestly say that if they had a monarch, things would be better? As it's so much more complex than that.

    Note: Nepal was a kingdom until fairly recently and has a lot of human rights and income issues. Papau New Guinea also has a monarch, North Korea may as well have as it's a single party state and the current leader was chosen on his bloodline.

    No, I'm saying that having a (constitutional*) monarchy is irrelevant to them being more equal, it neither leads to it or obstructs it.

    On you colonialism point isn't one of the biggest one-party states China (and its also pretty unequal, communism in practice you could say) and it was never part of any Empire - it's less equal than Brazil that was. And the parts of Empire include vibrant democracies such as Canada and less vibrant, but still pretty good democracies such as India and given that much of the world outside Europe (and come to that inside Europe) is an ex-colony of somewhere you can say many ex-colonies are either fantastically succesful (USA, Australia), middling (Kenya, Mexico) or complete basket-cases (Somalia), so if you're looking for why some countries do well and others don't colonialism is only part of the story (and not all bad).

    Which of course is still a long way away from whether the UK should have a monarchy or not.

    * and to be clear I'm arguing that the UK is better off with a constitutional monarch, not that we'd be better off having an absolutist feudal monarch. So the argument that Nepal was better off getting rid of its feudalist king and replacing it with a (flawed) republic is as much one I'd agree with as that North Korea would be better off getting rid of its current leadership (or come to that Cuba or dozens of other states where one man or small group of men hold unelected power)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Would it really be a lot different if it was just country?

    Yes, because we are her/his majesties armed forces.
  • Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Warming up? Posts: 16,688
    G-Raffe wrote: »
    Yes, because we are her/his majesties armed forces.
    Are you saying that if it was called "The United Republic's* armed forces" instead, you wouldn't be in it?

    * Would it be called "kingdom" without a monarchy?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    See, I've never got that argument as Sweden, Denmark and Norway are regularly trumpeted as much more egalitarian than the UK, but all are monarchies (whilst the US, of course, is a Republic)

    I'm not arguing that having no monarchy means you're guaranteed a more egalitarian society, obviously that's ridiculous. I am saying for the most egalitarian society having no monarchy is a piece of that jigsaw.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm not arguing that having no monarchy means you're guaranteed a more egalitarian society, obviously that's ridiculous. I am saying for the most egalitarian society having no monarchy is a piece of that jigsaw.

    I see where you are coming from, which (and correct me if I am wrong) is that you can have the egalitarianism of social democracy within a monarchy (such as Sweden), but that the pure egalitarianism of communism/socialism cannot exist within a monarchy - and I'd certainly agree in theory as an argument against the monarchy it works.

    However, given that the evidence seems to be that the British people don't want a society even as egalitarian as Sweden and they certainly don't think that an even more egalitarian (communistic) society would be a good thing I don't think its the monarchy which is the stumbling block and it doesn't work as an argument in practice.

    I'm still going to hold to my position I've never heard a good argument for republicanism in the UK
  • Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Warming up? Posts: 16,688
    I'm still going to hold to my position I've never heard a good argument for republicanism in the UK
    How about preventing Pascal Sauvage from turning it into a huge prison? :p
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    On you colonialism point isn't one of the biggest one-party states China (and its also pretty unequal, communism in practice you could say) and it was never part of any Empire - it's less equal than Brazil that was. And the parts of Empire include vibrant democracies such as Canada and less vibrant, but still pretty good democracies such as India and given that much of the world outside Europe (and come to that inside Europe) is an ex-colony of somewhere you can say many ex-colonies are either fantastically succesful (USA, Australia), middling (Kenya, Mexico) or complete basket-cases (Somalia), so if you're looking for why some countries do well and others don't colonialism is only part of the story (and not all bad).
    It depends on what you call 'success'. There's economics and distribution of economics.

    What I'm arguing is that I think any monarch is unnecessary and it doesn't make a country better or worse, there are so many factors. I was replying to your comment on arguments for Republicanism failing. I see our monarchy as one of the many wastes of cash and time in this country. I come from Wales originally and I don't think I met many people who gave a toss about them to be honest.
    * and to be clear I'm arguing that the UK is better off with a constitutional monarch, not that we'd be better off having an absolutist feudal monarch. So the argument that Nepal was better off getting rid of its feudalist king and replacing it with a (flawed) republic is as much one I'd agree with as that North Korea would be better off getting rid of its current leadership (or come to that Cuba or dozens of other states where one man or small group of men hold unelected power)
    Evidently. I just saw the word monarch, but agree that context plays a part.
Sign In or Register to comment.