Thread: Prince of Wales costs us £3m!

Single Point

Most people can barely be bothered to vote for an MEP, just about manage to remember that they have to vote for a Counciller and sometimes make an effort to vote for a MP.

What makes you think that they are suddenly going to raise the energy to vote one more time every few years?

Chuck in some "cunning" plans to vote for a second chamber every 2 years and you are going to end up with 3 sad basterds voting and nobody else bothering.....

Originally Posted by Biped

Originally Posted by tattybadger

Originally Posted by Whiskybreath

Originally Posted by Biped

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

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...

Mmmm.

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.

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.

By extension, therefore, I assume you suggest that we do away with democracy?

Originally Posted by tattybadger

Originally Posted by Biped

Originally Posted by tattybadger

Originally Posted by Whiskybreath

Originally Posted by Biped

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

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...

Mmmm.

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.

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.

By extension, therefore, I assume you suggest that we do away with democracy?

No. I'm saying that our democratic system is patently incapable of doing the right thing in terms of coming up with better ideas/candidates for a national leader, as it is patently incapable of operating in a clear, open and honest manner. It fails to govern itself in a satisfactory manner, so we have no prospect of improving the system we already have with a hereditory Monarchy, ergo - leave it alone.

When there is a root and branch change in our democratic system that makes it truly democratic and representative of the wishes of the British people, along the lines of the Swiss system for example, then the people themselves can choose how to govern themselves, rather then BE governed by the likes of Brown, Harmon, Mandelson etc.

That is the crux of the matter. We are governed, we have bosses, and we are obliged to choose between those that are placed before us by those bosses, so there's not much to choose from. Sure, we can put people into the House of Parliament, but will they actually do any good there, or will they sit forever on the backbenches because they aren't shark-like enough? It's not much better than the Monarchy, whereas at least the Monarchy doesn't wield power, so no harm done.

So, where's the choice? We have lamentable choice with our democratic system, as proven by the fact that we are unable to remove those caught stealing, or stop the enoblement by the government and parliament of the one person who oversaw the theft. We can't recall them, we can't sack them, we have to give them another £100,000 in wages plus perks, moving costs and a big fat pension ONLY when they decide to call the next election. Call that a representative democracy? I don't.

You think that this is a 'representative' democracy that is an improvement on a powerless Monarchy, and you also seem to think that these same people in Parliament will grant us a better system with a 'president', that will make our democracy MORE representative?

If you think that, you are living in cloud cuckoo land.

Until our own democratic system is properly sorted out and made representative in the true sense of the word, from the ground up, our so-called representatives should stay well clear from commenting on, or tinkering with the idea removing the Monarchy, or installing a 'President'.

I'm all for representative democracy, I truly am. But such a democracy must be tightly controlled by the PEOPLE, not the executive, the legislature, government committees or anyone else. If that day should arrive, I doubt we would need a President. If that day should arrive, and we don't need a president, why not keep the titular head of state, for all the brilliant work that person does, for no other reason that it's their job, for life.

Originally Posted by tattybadger

...
By extension, therefore, I assume you suggest that we do away with democracy?

I've yet to be persuaded that demcracy's the best form of government in the long term. It's only been around for a few hundred years and hasn't really achieved much in that time; just a popularity contest in fact. Much better, perhaps, to have a state which responds to the needs of the people and environment rather than the greed of an electorate.

Originally Posted by Bell206

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

I thought the process was somewhat in limbo at the moment because, mutual distrust about what form of Presidential/Republican system will be put in place?

Originally Posted by Biped

Originally Posted by tattybadger

Originally Posted by Biped

Originally Posted by tattybadger

Originally Posted by Whiskybreath

Originally Posted by Biped

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

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...

Mmmm.

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.

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.

By extension, therefore, I assume you suggest that we do away with democracy?

No. I'm saying that our democratic system is patently incapable of doing the right thing in terms of coming up with better ideas/candidates for a national leader, as it is patently incapable of operating in a clear, open and honest manner. It fails to govern itself in a satisfactory manner, so we have no prospect of improving the system we already have with a hereditory Monarchy, ergo - leave it alone.

When there is a root and branch change in our democratic system that makes it truly democratic and representative of the wishes of the British people, along the lines of the Swiss system for example, then the people themselves can choose how to govern themselves, rather then BE governed by the likes of Brown, Harmon, Mandelson etc.

That is the crux of the matter. We are governed, we have bosses, and we are obliged to choose between those that are placed before us by those bosses, so there's not much to choose from. Sure, we can put people into the House of Parliament, but will they actually do any good there, or will they sit forever on the backbenches because they aren't shark-like enough? It's not much better than the Monarchy, whereas at least the Monarchy doesn't wield power, so no harm done.

So, where's the choice? We have lamentable choice with our democratic system, as proven by the fact that we are unable to remove those caught stealing, or stop the enoblement by the government and parliament of the one person who oversaw the theft. We can't recall them, we can't sack them, we have to give them another £100,000 in wages plus perks, moving costs and a big fat pension ONLY when they decide to call the next election. Call that a representative democracy? I don't.

You think that this is a 'representative' democracy that is an improvement on a powerless Monarchy, and you also seem to think that these same people in Parliament will grant us a better system with a 'president', that will make our democracy MORE representative?

If you think that, you are living in cloud cuckoo land.

Until our own democratic system is properly sorted out and made representative in the true sense of the word, from the ground up, our so-called representatives should stay well clear from commenting on, or tinkering with the idea removing the Monarchy, or installing a 'President'.

I'm all for representative democracy, I truly am. But such a democracy must be tightly controlled by the PEOPLE, not the executive, the legislature, government committees or anyone else. If that day should arrive, I doubt we would need a President. If that day should arrive, and we don't need a president, why not keep the titular head of state, for all the brilliant work that person does, for no other reason that it's their job, for life.

You have a bee in your bonnet about the current issues with parliamentarians and I agree with you - the current crop of politicos are largely either incompetent, dihonest, underpaid (which, therefore, does not attract the creme of British intelligentsia into politics) and have been caught up in a convulted, poor system of remuneration.

I almost agree with you on most of your points. To summarise; develop a truly democratic system that is truly transparent, robust and accountable. Have a balanced parliament and a head of state - here our paths diverge. I would have an elected one, you would allow the Windsors to keep that role. Parlaiment should have regular and invasive scrutiny from non-aligned and impartial organisations to police it on behalf of the people and to weed out the scrotes. Parliament would soon become a house of repute and dignity again, where sound legislation is passed after proper debate and thought. And that would be at the core of the new system that I would like to see in place, alongside a truly representative President and houses. And it's not beyond the wit of man to produce that.

Originally Posted by Whiskybreath

Originally Posted by tattybadger

...
By extension, therefore, I assume you suggest that we do away with democracy?

I've yet to be persuaded that demcracy's the best form of government in the long term. It's only been around for a few hundred years and hasn't really achieved much in that time; just a popularity contest in fact. Much better, perhaps, to have a state which responds to the needs of the people and environment rather than the greed of an electorate.

How does that state find its executive etc? I hope you are going to say that they are elected and that we don't go back to feudalism?

Originally Posted by rampant

Originally Posted by Bell206

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

I thought the process was somewhat in limbo at the moment because, mutual distrust about what form of Presidential/Republican system will be put in place?

Exactly. If you leave it to a parliament you'll get something less than you had before as a voter, while they have more. You'll have less representation, but the appearance of more; a sop to the plebs, while the troughing moves up a gear and the bills get bigger - the cult of personality will take off, and take our eyes off the ball.

Originally Posted by Biped

Originally Posted by rampant

Originally Posted by Bell206

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

I thought the process was somewhat in limbo at the moment because, mutual distrust about what form of Presidential/Republican system will be put in place?

Exactly. If you leave it to a parliament you'll get something less than you had before as a voter, while they have more. You'll have less representation, but the appearance of more; a sop to the plebs, while the troughing moves up a gear and the bills get bigger - the cult of personality will take off, and take our eyes off the ball.

I don't get this - how do you expect the members of any system to get into parliament (and they have to be there)? You keep banging on about how people sudenly become dishonest as soon as they enter any parliament and you suggest that every parliamnetarian is on the fiddle etc. The only other way of getting people to legislate is to allow the aristocracy to take over in perpetuity and they've troughed on steroids for the last few centuries.

Originally Posted by tattybadger

You have a bee in your bonnet about the current issues with parliamentarians and I agree with you - the current crop of politicos are largely either incompetent, dihonest, underpaid (which, therefore, does not attract the creme of British intelligentsia into politics) and have been caught up in a convulted, poor system of remuneration.

I almost agree with you on most of your points. To summarise; develop a truly democratic system that is truly transparent, robust and accountable. Have a balanced parliament and a head of state - here our paths diverge. I would have an elected one, you would allow the Windsors to keep that role. Parlaiment should have regular and invasive scrutiny from non-aligned and impartial organisations to police it on behalf of the people and to weed out the scrotes. Parliament would soon become a house of repute and dignity again, where sound legislation is passed after proper debate and thought. And that would be at the core of the new system that I would like to see in place, alongside a truly representative President and houses. And it's not beyond the wit of man to produce that.

We do agree on most points. I want the Monarchy to continue, but with perhaps a little more freedom to speak out on matters of conscience - the Monarchy has nobody to whip it into the party line, so could do so more than most in our democratic system. You want someone voted in.

My bold: It is WAY beyond the wit of Parliament to produce that.

If the Monarchy had more power, the Monarchy could bring about the constitutional change that would see a 'proper' system, approved of by the electorate brought in to replace the shambles we have now.

The Monarchy is the only group that I would trust to be honest, impartial, and to bring about something that allowed the word 'great' to be used in the same sentence as 'UK Democracy'.

Originally Posted by Biped

Originally Posted by tattybadger

You have a bee in your bonnet about the current issues with parliamentarians and I agree with you - the current crop of politicos are largely either incompetent, dihonest, underpaid (which, therefore, does not attract the creme of British intelligentsia into politics) and have been caught up in a convulted, poor system of remuneration.

I almost agree with you on most of your points. To summarise; develop a truly democratic system that is truly transparent, robust and accountable. Have a balanced parliament and a head of state - here our paths diverge. I would have an elected one, you would allow the Windsors to keep that role. Parlaiment should have regular and invasive scrutiny from non-aligned and impartial organisations to police it on behalf of the people and to weed out the scrotes. Parliament would soon become a house of repute and dignity again, where sound legislation is passed after proper debate and thought. And that would be at the core of the new system that I would like to see in place, alongside a truly representative President and houses. And it's not beyond the wit of man to produce that.

We do agree on most points. I want the Monarchy to continue, but with perhaps a little more freedom to speak out on matters of conscience - the Monarchy has nobody to whip it into the party line, so could do so more than most in our democratic system. You want someone voted in.

My bold: It is WAY beyond the wit of Parliament to produce that.

If the Monarchy had more power, the Monarchy could bring about the constitutional change that would see a 'proper' system, approved of by the electorate brought in to replace the shambles we have now.

The Monarchy is the only group that I would trust to be honest, impartial, and to bring about something that allowed the word 'great' to be used in the same sentence as 'UK Democracy'.

I think you are confusing the Queen as an individual with Monarchy as a system. Imagine, for a second, that Edward was King or Diana or Fergie were Queen - not sure that I would trust any of them to make sound decisions; poor educational results, no life experience, questionable mental stabiity etc etc etc lead me to that conclusion. Or that you fundamentally disagreed with something that King Charles (or Reginald I, or whatever he wants to be called today) decreed. I can now picture a shambolic system imposed by them with absolutely no recourse or appeal for you and me.

Originally Posted by Bell206

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.

1. Nope - took me about 1 second. I can spot a kn0bber a mile away and you came up in the radar like the QE2 in a swimming pool.

2. I don't cower and grovel and neither (when I was Commissioned) was I expected to.

3. I have visited - I live in Brisbane for 6 months and travelled all over - at the Companys expense. My opinion hasn't changed. Some of the Old Veterans I spoke to wouldn't like you though.

4. When you go on your boat don't forget to slip slop slap! Otherwise mummy will get cross.

5. How has the global financial crisis put back the decision? Has the price of an email to the Palace gone up suddenly or has Rudd realised it might all be a bit more complicated than he suggested to his equals. Surely not - he is a politician and they never lie.

6. You have an inferiority complex. Which is good - because you are!

Rickshaw, well done.

Like the biggest barra i've caught.

Good on ya for being a Officer, I really am impressed. You had to tell me that didn't you, I wonder why? Stroker!

6 months in Brisbane. Legend. You must Know all about Australia then!

I have no idea about the Vets you spoke with, Australia has changed alot since WW1 and WW2. We respect the Diggers, come over here on 25 April and you will see the public out in force paying thier respects to the Digs that served. Not alot of them hold much regard for Mother England.

You're a knob and YOU KNOW IT. Anyway you made my night, I'll crack a Coopers for you, SIR.

Regards

Originally Posted by Bell206

Rickshaw, well done.

Like the biggest barra i've caught.

Good on ya for being a Officer, I really am impressed. You had to tell me that didn't you, I wonder why? Stroker!

6 months in Brisbane. Legend. You must Know all about Australia then!

I have no idea about the Vets you spoke with, Australia has changed alot since WW1 and WW2. We respect the Diggers, come over here on 25 April and you will see the public out in force paying thier respects to the Digs that served. Not alot of them hold much regard for Mother England.

You're a knob and YOU KNOW IT. Anyway you made my night, I'll crack a Coopers for you, SIR.

Regards

Carry on!

Originally Posted by tattybadger

Originally Posted by Whiskybreath

Originally Posted by tattybadger

...
By extension, therefore, I assume you suggest that we do away with democracy?

I've yet to be persuaded that demcracy's the best form of government in the long term. It's only been around for a few hundred years and hasn't really achieved much in that time; just a popularity contest in fact. Much better, perhaps, to have a state which responds to the needs of the people and environment rather than the greed of an electorate.

How does that state find its executive etc? I hope you are going to say that they are elected and that we don't go back to feudalism?

You mean: " ...forward to feudalism", don't you?