Prince of Wales costs us £3m!

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Queensman, Jun 24, 2009.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Doylie45

    Doylie45 Swinger

    He should be boiled in his own snot!
  2. Whiskybreath

    Whiskybreath LE

    Interesting point. My loyalty isn't to a piece of land (although there was once a very pretty hill...) ; the thought of loyalty to a political party I find grotesque, and when I walk to my sometime lodgings in 'Soweto' (Elephant and Castle) or listen to the BBC NI news I lose most of my love for what Great Britain has become.

    So to what should my ultimate loyalty be given? My family and friends, then my employer (but only so long as the bonus comes in), then the constitutional head of state, seems to be the answer (if I went further than that I would almost certainly be in contravention of the Race Relations Gibberish of whenever).

    Anyway, I believe that as a credible head of state HM the Q outshines every single other candidate throughout the civilised world; a lot of that credibility has assuredly rubbed off on Chuck. Even if his choice of squeeze has been dodgy on occasion.

  3. Dunservin

    Dunservin LE

    The equivalent cost of just three cruise missiles? Bargain!
  4. Kitmarlowe

    Kitmarlowe LE

    I know....and to think you can only use each missile once.....

    HM, The Prince of Wales, just keeps on touring....

    Just think, half a dozen Royal visits in quick order and some smaller Countries would be broke...... :) Much nicer than bombing them...
  5. rickshaw-major

    rickshaw-major LE

    Shut the door behind you w@anker :evil:
  6. StickyEnd

    StickyEnd LE

    You are only saying that because you agree with him. Billy B's arguments have been almost entirely emotional so far. Show me the rational ones.

    What is rational about wanting to change a system because you dont like the name "subject" to a system that you haven't argued how to implement or know the costs/consequences because a word offends you?

    What is rational about getting rid of a head of state that makes us a profit to one that will cost a fortune?

    Oh yeh, all rational so far. It is mere form over substance.
  7. tattybadger

    tattybadger LE

    I think that your penultimate paragraph slightly misses the point about government. Additionally, the evidence for that comment is debatable. But regardless of the costs the economics of the two systems is irrelevant to the debate.

    It is clear that BB advocates replacing the current system with a form of representative democracy with a head of state that is elected and has executive power. He mentions accountability and the liberal beliefs that every man is born equal and should have an equal chance of reaching high position in this country which is hardly an emotional and irrational perspective. I would regard those sentiments as commendable and I assume that you would have a similar position on those beliefs - or do you really consider that one of the highest positions in this country should be the preserve of one family and exclusive to every other indivdual, regardless of their merit or ability?
  8. Biped

    Biped LE Book Reviewer

    At no point has he so far rationalised the elected president argument. Why would it be better? Can he or you provide examples of where a presidential system outperforms ours in terms of delivery?

    I have at various points throughout this wibbly-wobbly PMT'd right up debate cited examples to show why a presidential system is fallible, why it does not necessarily deliver, and given names of miscreants.

    Where is the counter to that? I'm still waiting for someone to validate their argument with something better than 'Well, it's democratic in't it, which means it's better'.

    The only difference I can see is that we still have this mawkish, bum-licking desire for a strong-man or woman to lead us, and we'd like to choose that person out of a bunch of people who've slimed and back-room-dealed their way before us - not on merit of being really good for a nation, merely by dint of being the slimiest, with the biggest money backing them. Then, and only then, do the plebs get to decide between them.

    Better than the Monarchy - someone please, please justify the argument for me.
  9. tattybadger

    tattybadger LE

    Where is your evidence to validate your point that every politician is as you describe? you suggest tha every individual who chooses to go into politics has an odious charcter - I doubt that is the case and you are, I think, presenting a case that Ms Wade would be proud of in the latest edition of her journal.

    Of course - the obverse of that is equally applicable - better than government of the people, by the people and for the people? Please justify a monarchy.

    You forever bleat on about today's politicians - take a look at the Royals wil you? They are as fallible as the rest of us - they have had broken relationships, adulterous affairs, dabbles with drugs, scandal and et al. It happens that the incumbent is (as far as I am aware) untouched by this and I have the utmost admiration for her as an individual. I would even vote her in to the position as head of state, given the choice but (and here's the nub of it) - I don't have that choice. I love choice - it gives me power - not a great deal I admit - but I am an old fashioned megolomaniac and I need that.

    Education and communication has given all of us in this country the ability to be able to think about the issues and, if we so choose, to run for positions of power at any level in government - why should the (arguably) top job be excluded to those of us who have the ability to do the job well?
  10. Whiskybreath

    Whiskybreath LE

    Can't do that, I'm afraid, but if you look at the problem in light of the fact that if we were so stupid as to go down that route right now, one of the principal candidates for President would be Blair...

  11. tattybadger

    tattybadger LE

    Doubt it - he'll be presidento of the Federal States of Europia soon. I agree - he's a cunt, as is Brown and an awful lot of the rest of the current crop of poiticoes. Fortunately we are a country of 61 million, which ought to give us plenty of choice for our first president.
  12. cpunk

    cpunk LE Moderator

    Couldn't agree more. If you're going to have a non-executive Head of State, the argumentum ad Roy Hattersley (or Shirley Williams/John Major/Tony Blair/Margaret Beckett/Paddy Ashdown/David Steel/Michael Portillo etc etc etc) has always struck me as a good reason to go with a monarchy. Actually, I think that Australia, Canada, New Zealand and co get the best end of the deal, because they don't have to pay for it.
  13. tattybadger

    tattybadger LE

    Thought the Aussies were on the cusp of severing that link? And I'll give the Canadians about two more decades and the Kiwis another 5 more deades before they divest themselves of this archaic link.
  14. Bell206

    Bell206 Clanker

    The Rudd government in Australia are commited to giving us a republic but the Global financial crisis has put it on the back burner.

    Leader of the country by Birth and then pass it on to your kids, I can't believe people still go for it. Next you will be telling me a great being created the earth, NAH no one would believe that, WOULD THEY?

    Rickshaw-Major. Great retort big fella, you must have been up all night thinking about that one, now run along and don't forget to cower and grovel to those that you consider above your station. I will crack a beer and go sunbake on my boat, the weather and lifestyle here is second to none. You should visit one day and then you may have an opinion.
  15. Biped

    Biped LE Book Reviewer

    Then we get down to who chooses the candidate. The same people that chose Gordon Brown or others like him will insist, as is their democratic mandate that they get to choose the new 'president' - and they'll say he or she has to come from their numbers.

    After seeing the debacle about MP's expenses, and the subsequent appalling cover-up, and their choice of speaker, and their reasons for going to war . . . . . er, well, erm, I'm a little confused as to why I should not think these people are in the majority waster, liars, cheats and thieves - for most actions, such as starting a war, or 'modifying' the expenses system to suit themselves requires the MAJORITY of the house to back them - thus, the majority are scumbags.

    Can you honestly say that your megalomaniac needs are fulfilled by electing these cretins into office (only one of them mind you, you only elected one of 650 odd of them), and having them select the best person to be the head-shed? Of course, they might allow us to do it a different way - this being where we get to choose from a list of candidates . . . . DOH . . . . selected by the same House that tried to get around a high court order by 'redacting' lots of thievery.

    You place FAR too much trust and faith in an electoral system and its elected members who have let us down, lied to us, stolen from us and sent people to die in an illegal war with ill-funded supplies and kit - never mind though, it's better than a monarchy.