Inherent politics of the average Squaddie?

Boxes, every day.
Full of state papers.
You dork.
My wife and I had a conversation last evening about the Royals. I have a lot of time for Liz, she has worked her backside off, put up with a lot of nonsense both within the family and the body politic. Always remaining calm, courteous, occasionally funny, and obstinately correct. I get the feeling that William and Kate would perform a similarly exemplary role, but I have little time for 'big ears' and would gladly see him relinquish his claim - even though it has been his predominant quest for most of his life.

I can live with William and Kate asap, but I also think Buck house has had its day. It would make an excellent site for a new parliament (second only to York or somewhere else in the norf), but I suspect QE2 might leave it to the nation, a park perhaps, and a museum come gallery.

In all, Liz has been somewhat unlucky with her family - but despite this, she has stuck to her guns, performed her duty, and promoted all of the people of this country and the commonwealth. Good luck to her. But I would support a reduction of some extent in the state sponsorship of the extended family. They should show their loyalty to the crown pro bono, support the post holder and move on.
 
Boxes, every day.
Full of state papers.
You dork.

What does that even mean? The queen plays absolutely no role in government whatsoever. And even if she did - it would be nothing that couldn't equally well be done by an average civil servant on an average civil servant's pay.

Honestly you people are like a cult.
 
D

Deleted 139028

Guest
What does that even mean? The queen plays absolutely no role in government whatsoever. And even if she did - it would be nothing that couldn't equally well be done by an average civil servant on an average civil servant's pay.

Honestly you people are like a cult.
I'm so far off being a Royalist you would find it difficult to believe, but I have to agree with those posting supportive comments on HMTQ.

If you can't see that she isn't involved in politics (my bold above) then you are either deluded (there's more than enough evidence to prove she is, even on the BBC), blind or one of those of the anti-Royalist cult that whatever is put in front of them would steadfastly deny it (bit like a Momentum activist really).
 
bit like a Momentum activist really

Steady on there fella!

I should have said day-to-day role, obviously things like reading "the queen's speech" is a government role, although anyone who can read aloud could do it. None of it is such a rare and valuable skill that it can only be done by someone who lives in palaces.
 
What does that even mean? The queen plays absolutely no role in government whatsoever. And even if she did - it would be nothing that couldn't equally well be done by an average civil servant on an average civil servant's pay.
Er, on the contrary, as Head of State she has a very significant role. And probably not one that Doris from the Department of Work and Pensions is going to get to grips with very quickly.
 
Shocked and stunned this Sunday lunch time. Began a further conversation with my dear spouse....not that, that in itself was shocking...we do occassionaly converse....specially when I want something. But, nay, I digress. She made what I thought was a an outstanding point of order in support of the monarchy in that while we have a resident, non powerful head of state that is not a politician, we effectively exclude the adolfs, the Stalins, the Francos and the Machiavellis from gaining the position.
 
Steady on there fella!

I should have said day-to-day role, obviously things like reading "the queen's speech" is a government role, although anyone who can read aloud could do it. None of it is such a rare and valuable skill that it can only be done by someone who lives in palaces.
You sir, have grabbed my attention. I can't stop imagining Dianne Abbot reading the speech.....it would have to be shortened considerably, but it would almost certainly begin with "Aye..fink........."
 
Shocked and stunned this Sunday lunch time. Began a further conversation with my dear spouse....not that, that in itself was shocking...we do occassionaly converse....specially when I want something. But, nay, I digress. She made what I thought was a an outstanding point of order in support of the monarchy in that while we have a resident, non powerful head of state that is not a politician, we effectively exclude the adolfs, the Stalins, the Francos and the Machiavellis from gaining the position.
Indeed whilst the present system has its flaws what would we replace it with?

A Head of State either as the gift of the encumber PM for failed fellow politicians, just imagine who might be given the role, Mandelson, Prescott, Abbot, Mellor, Atkinson, Archer et al. Or if elected by popular vote knowing this country we would end up with KingyMcKingface or QueenyMcQueenyface.

Whilst what we have got is not ideal I am not sure any of the alternatives would be any better and we would run the risk of something far worse.
 
Shocked and stunned this Sunday lunch time. Began a further conversation with my dear spouse....not that, that in itself was shocking...we do occassionaly converse....specially when I want something. But, nay, I digress. She made what I thought was a an outstanding point of order in support of the monarchy in that while we have a resident, non powerful head of state that is not a politician, we effectively exclude the adolfs, the Stalins, the Francos and the Machiavellis from gaining the position.

Franco wasn't in the same sewer as Hitler and Stalin. He kept the Commies out, the Lefties firmly down, and ditched the Fascists at the earliest opportunity. He then transformed his country with the 'Spanish Miracle'.

Franco was a Catholic fundamentalist with a regal disdain for the democratic process. Religion aside, he's possibly the kind of leader that Thatcher might have privately dreamed of being...
 
Indeed whilst the present system has its flaws what would we replace it with?

A Head of State either as the gift of the encumber PM for failed fellow politicians, just imagine who might be given the role, Mandelson, Prescott, Abbot, Mellor, Atkinson, Archer et al. Or if elected by popular vote knowing this country we would end up with KingyMcKingface or QueenyMcQueenyface.

Whilst what we have got is not ideal I am not sure any of the alternatives would be any better and we would run the risk of something far worse.

Yes the strongest argument for the queen is that her existence prevented the possibility of President Blair.

The DT reports a rumour (which is a good as mainstream news gets these days) that Phillip blocked Blair's knighthood but not over the war crimes, the breakup of the UK or anything that matters but simply out of petulance that the royal luxury yacht was scrapped. They might do the occasional royal "duty" to throw us plebs a bone but they are first and foremost concerned only with the preservation of their opulent lifestyle and privilege at our expense. The present royals would be acceptable in their blocking the head of state from politicians role, if they were brought down to Earth, palaces and estates all transferred to the National Trust would be a start, and all of them living in a 3-bed semi.
 
Last edited:
What does that even mean? The queen plays absolutely no role in government whatsoever. And even if she did - it would be nothing that couldn't equally well be done by an average civil servant on an average civil servant's pay.

That's pretty descriptive of Keir Starmer.

Edit: It's also pretty descriptive of the shadow cabinet.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Back to the thread.

When I served 71-87, most of the troops voted Conservative.
Mainly because they felt that Labour were the party of defence cuts and it would be foolish to vote yourself out of a job.

A few years ago, I did one of those online surveys.
To my surprise it said I to the left of centre. I thought that my leaning was to the right.

Me, I just vote for who I feel will hurt me and the country the least, As no party will do me any favours.
I have no idea, who I will vote for at the next election.
I was the instigator of some of those tests, I think, as it addresses the Hard Left’s assertions about XRW.

This country has pretty much always been centre-left (stand ready for the usual site trolls with their unsubstantiated rebuttals…).
 
I am one of those that should be a big Left Wing supporter, joined up not for politics or the glory but to get a job that paid a regular wage, and offered a way out of the farm labourer career to which I was destined.

Spent 12 years enjoying myself and not giving a toss about who was in power as long as I had beer tokens and food, when I left I could see that Labour are all about keeping the working class just where they are, they have no ambition in allowing the working class to better themselves. This is why they appeal to the affluent middle classes as they can see the benefits of not allowing someone from the lower echelons of society to make a better life for themselves.

Maggie and the Conservatives on the other hand understood that the more an individual could do to improve themselves, the more that person is going to contribute to society in general through taxes and spending power. The more pride they will have in their achievements and the better their aspirations for the next generation.

Blair really screwed up with the education, constantly banging on about degrees and how everyone should have one, this has lead to a section of society that feel worthless as they were abandoned by the education system to pursue league table results. No thought was given to the Artisan trades and giving the kids that were not academic a chance to push into these careers. This led to the massive influx of East Europeans to fill a massive void led by an ill thought out education policy.
 
I am one of those that should be a big Left Wing supporter, joined up not for politics or the glory but to get a job that paid a regular wage, and offered a way out of the farm labourer career to which I was destined.

Spent 12 years enjoying myself and not giving a toss about who was in power as long as I had beer tokens and food, when I left I could see that Labour are all about keeping the working class just where they are, they have no ambition in allowing the working class to better themselves. This is why they appeal to the affluent middle classes as they can see the benefits of not allowing someone from the lower echelons of society to make a better life for themselves.

Maggie and the Conservatives on the other hand understood that the more an individual could do to improve themselves, the more that person is going to contribute to society in general through taxes and spending power. The more pride they will have in their achievements and the better their aspirations for the next generation.

Blair really screwed up with the education, constantly banging on about degrees and how everyone should have one, this has lead to a section of society that feel worthless as they were abandoned by the education system to pursue league table results. No thought was given to the Artisan trades and giving the kids that were not academic a chance to push into these careers. This led to the massive influx of East Europeans to fill a massive void led by an ill thought out education policy.
Very much the same Down Under. For Maggie read John Howard. For Labour read every recent Labor PM. We now have a glut of unemployable graduates and a shortage of tradies.
 
Last edited:
Someone recently posted, 'Right wing poster gets more likes than left wing poster on ex squaddie website:eek:', which made me question what must be the logical assumption that Squaddies (you don't get to be an 'ex' without being one...) are naturally Right Wing by definition.

Dunno about you lot but in the late 80's and 90's, I went through basic and served with a load of working class lads, mostly from major industrial areas and big cities - I was even considered a bit posh because my parents had dragged us kicking and screaming out of our one bed council flat into the lower levels of the middle classes - and their natural political state, should they have been so inclined, would likely have been to vote for the Monkey with the Red Rosette.

So I'm struggling to see the obvious link to Squaddies being right leaning.

My only thoughts are that we're of a certain age here and general wisdom tends to crush left leaners, but also that a lot of us would have seen the cold hard realities of human nature that we in the West are cushioned against and there's the realisation that the softy liberal (new version) lefty world dream is deluded at best, extremely dangerous at worst.
Because it's really hard to be left wing these days, used to be about the working man and making his life better, now it's all about not singing the rent boy song when we're playing Chelsea and some university educated white twats relating to my skin colour and oppression. FuXK 'em all.
 
Indeed whilst the present system has its flaws what would we replace it with?

A Head of State either as the gift of the encumber PM for failed fellow politicians, just imagine who might be given the role, Mandelson, Prescott, Abbot, Mellor, Atkinson, Archer et al. Or if elected by popular vote knowing this country we would end up with KingyMcKingface or QueenyMcQueenyface.

Whilst what we have got is not ideal I am not sure any of the alternatives would be any better and we would run the risk of something far worse.
There was a bit of a kerfuffle a few years back when tcb's hag was referred to by a Yank as Britain's 1st lady.

The utter retard.
 
Because it's really hard to be left wing these days, used to be about the working man and making his life better, now it's all about not singing the rent boy song when we're playing Chelsea and some university educated white twats relating to my skin colour and oppression. FuXK 'em all.
It is a bit outdated (and misleading) to talk of 'the working man' and making assumptions based on skin colour or education status. Most people of working age are employees and thus are 'working men/women'. There is certainly a 'ruling elite', but the rest of use are merely competitors in the race for the crumbs. Nevertheless, you won't be alone in making assumptions about 'class'.

But you need to be aware of just who is making the assertion: The Orwellian approach would focus on 'culture'; the Social Scientist would apply 'socio-economic' group; and the Marxist would base his/her assessment on asset ownership.

In sum, 'working men' (and women) are 'most of us', and most of us made our own life better by identifying and taking advantage of 'opportunity' (Cultural I guess, in that a measure of education had to exist; Marxist to the extent that we had access to it; and Sociological in terms of the outcome.......albeit in changing socio-economic groups at different points in the lifecycle). So, it's complicated.

Yours sincerely
Ex-serviceman and university-educated white twat (who doesn't give a monkey-feck what colour your skin is). As for your 'oppressors'............well I am inclined to agree, FuXK 'em all.
 
Softy liberal (new version) lefty world dream is deluded at best, extremely dangerous at worst.
Responding to the above quotation.

You mean, turn their left wing, war-is-bad-and-anyone-in-uniform-is-a-gammon-fascist, nose up to on one day and insist that you go fight for the oppressed women in sandbox land whom they are socially motivated to post about on social media, albeit that they are not, in reality, 'empowered' enough to themselves pick up a gun and join the liberating?

The latest mutation of this is the gushing over photographs of Ukrainian women in uniform stood smartly in squads on pre-invasion drill squares, and adding comments such as "How women are making all the difference to Ukraine's combat units."
Other than some paramilitary female that the press was following, and she was carrying just an AK while the men were loaded down with kit, I do not recall seeing any Ukrainian army or defence force female fighters, and certainly no female units to justify those posts?
More than happy to see evidence to the contrary (of female combat soldiers), btw.
 

MoleBath

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
We have had female combat types centuries earlier

1649671224662.png

Motorists will notice the lady driver is turning right while signalling left , little changes down the years.
 
Top