Another reason to get rid of the silly monarchy: Prince Charles is a quack.
Professor Edzard Ernst criticised the heir to the throne for lending his support to homeopathic remedies and for promoting the Duchy Herbals detox tincture.
In a briefing with reporters at the Science Media Centre in London, Ernst warned that “snake oil salesmen are ubiquitous and dangerous”, and named the prince as “one of the most outspoken proponents of homeopathy”.
He later told the Guardian: “There are no official criteria for a snake oil salesman, but if they existed, I think Charles would fulfil them.”
What are these Duchy Herbals, you might ask?
Britain’s leading academic expert on complementary medicine has warned that the Duchy Herbals Detox Tincture – a food supplement, which combines artichoke and dandelion and promises to rid the body of toxins while aiding digestion – is based on notions which are “implausible, unproven and dangerous”.
It also doesn’t work.
So, you Brits, when are you going to get rid of these goofy parasites? They seem to get worse and worse every year.
I wonder if Chuck owns shares in Duchy Herbals.
Now, now, PZed.
It’s not nice of you to make Walton cry.
Why not just steam the artichokes and serve with aioli? You get even more of the active ingredient (whatever the hell they think that is) and you get a fantastic cooked vegetable dish.
Oh, wait — what am I thinking? The nostrum is probably tap water from a faucet in a county where somebody once saw a picture of an artichoke, an therefore bears the economic advantage of being entirely unencumbered by those horridly expensive thistles….
Cheers,
b&
Completely OT, but perhaps of interest: I whipped up some CSS to fix the formatting here to resemble the old site more, and sent it on to the TechSlave, who said he’ll link it in later today. Expect larger fonts, text in Georgia, some of the blueness to disappear, blockquotes that aren’t in italic but might be in Comic Sans, that sort of thing.
It’s old news that Prince Charles is a bit of a moron (or Moran?), but to be honest our population on the whole is pretty apathetic towards the monarchy. Bizarrely enough, the sooner QE2 dies, the better, as Charles won’t be allowed to endorse any of his crackpot herbal remedies as Head of State.
I’m absolutely in love with those little icons
lol
Sigh, I just spent a week with my inlaws out in Lost Wages, NV. My sis-in-law is a smart cookie…except when it comes to homeopathic woo. Tictures? She’s guzzling them. “Laser” acupuncture. She’s all over it. And if you challenge her, she takes it personally and accuses you of being closed minded.
What is so hard to grasp about “double-blind study”.
[OT]
I hope Mr. Gumby will be back, too.
Does anyone get the feeling that homeopathic medicine is just a way to allow doctors to administer plausible-sounding placebos? That’ll save on healthcare costs; water pills are the new sugar pills.
Here‘s an article where Hitchens attacks Ralphie Wiggum’s general woo.
Bonus non-detox points if this is an alcohol based tincture.
Big-ears (as he is colloquially known, after a character in Noddy books for children) reached his high point some time in (IIRR) the late sixties when he appeared in a dustbin in a Cambridge Footlights review. It’s been down hill all the way since then.
Homeopathy is not snake oil. Homeopathy is just water, snake oil does at least contain some sort of oil and trace amounts of snake.
Homeopaths do sugar pills, too. They take the magic water and put a drop on the pill. Then, presumably, it evaporates.
So the pills contain none of the water that contains none of the original “active” ingredient.
It’s so clean and white here, I’m almost afraid to swear.
I think a large part of the appeal of alternative medicine in general (and homeopathy in particular) is status and identity. For some reason quack remedies have acquired a certain cachet to them: they mark you as someone who is in tune with nature. You’re a free spirit, a sophisticated maverick, a person of sensitivity and class who’s not afraid to think outside the box and accept cutting-edge “natural” ancient wisdom.
A contradiction there? Oh, but that’s a feature, not a bug: you’re so liberal you’ll give all ideas a chance — especially those outside the dreaded mainstream. Try it for yourself. Everyone is different. Take what you need and leave the rest. Remember, the wonderful thing about science is there are no wrong answers. To think otherwise is fundamentalist scientism.
If the people in the group you want to self-identify with swear by some remedy, then you’ll either take it, endorse it, or see no harm in it by admitting that it “works” for the people who think it works, so it works.
Steve I’m stealing that.
To be honest, they’re fairly harmless compared with, say, a President Blair or Mandelson. But if we had a decent alternative, sure.
>>So, you Brits, when are you going to get rid of these goofy parasites?<<
Oh dear. I would point out that replacing our (UK) head of state has been tried before, and failed. The Lord Protector's reign was not a success, and we happily returned to a Monarchy as being far cheaper and less intrusive than suffering under some religious lunatics' imbecilities. We had earlier given the poop his marching orders and started to give the kiss of death to the power of the church – by nationalising it.
Many of the UK republican left would like the ilk of the modern Knight Templar, Tony B Liar in that position. This is/was a creature that pulled his forelock to his greediness poop beneficiary the sixteenth and his predecessors, and as ordered, duly had a vision of weapons of mass destruction. This allowed him to start yet another crusade. Along with fellow woomeisters. Of course, his geography was on a par with many North Americans, and we ended up in Baghdad, not Jerusalem.
His successor, Goering Brawnandnobrains was no better. This son of the manse stole screamed windfall tax, then stole the savings of our private industries work force to finance yet another half cocked crusade. He missed the target by an even bigger margin – Helmand province being even further off target than Baghdad.
And now, our politicos are trying again around Tripoli. Another expensive crusade, sigh, another miss. And from observation, most of our churchgoers are social attendees rather then committed believers.
No, please let's not replace one of our few regular money earners with one of a bunch of venal, corrupt and incompetent denizens of the Palace of Westminster.
If you want a parallel, Washington “only” wanted expenses as President 1 of the USA, but this was deemed too expensive by your two houses. And he was an amateur compared to European politicos – most of ours are far more creative at accounting (At least, that's what they call it). And the EC goons claim attendance allowances even when the EU parliament isn't sitting…
So if a bit of commercial woo helps keep the costs down, and whilst not exactly kosher, it is a lot cheaper than continual crusades. It's also probably better for the obese than the sugary drinks that are continually promoted by coca colanialists – we do seem to be becoming as obese as on the other side of the pond. And your solution is a Nixon or a brace of Bushes? People in glass houses shouldn't, they really shouldn't.
Perhaps Prof. Myers (borrowing an idea from the wholly babble) you should concentrate on the forests in the merkin political eye, and worry less about a dust mote in this small island. There are far bigger and more important fish to fry. To mix yet another metaphor.
>It’s not nice of you to make Walton cry.
Did I miss something? I can’t imagine that Walton supports the monarchy, homeopathy or herbal medicine. I know that many are down on him for being libertarian but that seems like a totally separate issue.
In any case, I once wondered how the homeopathic hospital in London managed to stay in business. I figured that if homeopathy were as useless as we say it is, they would have a line of hearses 5 blocks long at the back door. So I read through some of the material on their web site and discovered that they only use homeopathy for self-limiting diseases or as an adjunct to real medicine and medical procedures. It seems sort of dishonest.
What kind of name is “Edzard”? Is that a portmanteau of “Eddie Izzard”? Sure would be cool if it were.
Die Anyway
Wait.
What?
Ok Jackdaw, this may take a while.
The Lord Protector’s reign was not a success
So what? Cromwell dissolved Parliament – something which couldn’t possibly happen in this day and age – and effectively established himself as a monarch in his own right. If the monarchy were to be abolished now, I see no reason why there should be a protector-esque replacement – Parliament would continue as it is.
Many of the UK republican left would like the ilk of the modern Knight Templar, Tony B Liar in that position. This is/was a creature that pulled his forelock to his greediness poop beneficiary the sixteenth and his predecessors, and as ordered, duly had a vision of weapons of mass destruction. This allowed him to start yet another crusade.
There are so many things that are wrong with this; for starters, whatever you think of Tony Blair, it is ridiculous to assert that he was under the control of Pope Benedict – his papacy only started in 2005 and we captured Baghdad in 2003. So you’re a couple of years out, chum. Yes he was heavily influenced by Bush for many years, as Britain needs the USA far more than it needs us, but to assert that the UK left would like a modern Knight Templar situation is absurd. Maybe you need to reconsider your knowledge of what is “right” and what is “left”. The recent events in Norway are a good place to start (pssst: Breivik wasn’t a leftist…)
No, please let’s not replace one of our few regular money earners with one of a bunch of venal, corrupt and incompetent denizens of the Palace of Westminster.
Replace? Are you aware of how the UK is a constitutional monarchy, where the monarch wields no executive power?
It’s also probably better for the obese than the sugary drinks that are continually promoted by coca colanialists
Better for the obese? Wow, talk about your false dichotomies. It’s either woo or sugar. QUICK, CHOOSE ONE. Sheesh.
Die Anyway says:
As far as I know, Walton, the staunch monarchist, is generally agreed to be a staunch monarchist.
chigau () says: “Wait. What?”
So maybe I did miss something? But royalty seems way out of line with libertarianism. Monarchs imply coercion and supporting monarchs with taxes even greater coercion… by a ruling class no less. Definitely a non-libertarian condition.
BTW, Bonnie Prince Charles is close to my age (10/17/47 {me} vs 11/14/48 {him}) and when we were in our 30s we looked quite a bit alike. I have British and German ancestry so that may be a factor. We’ve aged differently though and not only in appearance. Too bad he didn’t follow the science, scepticism, atheism route that I took.
PZ Myers may not realise it, but the British Monarch is the head of state and sovereign of a great deal of the Commonwealth. It’s not up to the British only to get rid of the Monarchy. Canada and Australia (at least, as I know for certain that the head of the state is the Monarch -or a representative- in both countries) would have to be involved as well. Of course, we could, independently, re-script our constitutions (and pretty much every other document both federal and provincial/state) if there were any significant political will to do that.
That said, Prince Charles is still an idiot. I don’t suppose he’s given up on making pretty awful chocolate in favour of the woo, has he? No? Too bad.
Its because the information stays in the sugar! Because of quantum theory! Quantum Physics is a difficult subject and physicists are smart blokes. Stephen Hawkin is a physicist.
When you say, that homeopathy doesn’t work, you call Stephen Hawkins dumb!!!
/sarcasm
(Sad thing is, I’ve really heard such arguments.)
@a_ray_in_dilbert_spac: Tell you siter-in-law you’ve discovered how to make homeopathic vodka and then show her how it’s done: http://www.1023.org.uk/videos.php
Charles is a not particularly bright man whose sole purpose in life is to wait for his mother to die.
Homeopathic A&E
Charles is an ass. William maybe not so much. Maybe the nous has skipped a generation.
But in general, I’d take a ceremonial head of state over a political leader.
/@
PS. I still can’t login with my WordPress account.
Die Anyway, says
DA – this is Homeopathy. It is dishonest by definition!
The monarchy are a rubber stamp in terms of government, their main function is as a tourist attraction, in which role they are generally estimated to come in as a net profit to the national purse. I’m not a royalist, but I think it’s more important to reform the whole method of electing our representatives than to get shot of the official head of state with no real power.
Marcus Hill
If the monarchy were eliminated, wouldn’t the houses and properties that they currently inhabit (castles and palaces and stately homes) still offer similar tourist benefits without the absurd costs of subsidizing the family of (arguably) the richest woman in the world?
I’m of the opinion that the transition would be net positive in terms of income. Does anyone know of any studies that might shed some factual light?
I fully agree. Some form of proportional representation is needful. There are too many constituencies (!) being ignored or under-represented (and the last election highlighted the non-representative nature of FPTP once again)
Many of the UK republican left would like the ilk of the modern Knight Templar, Tony B Liar in that position. – jackdaw
Hi, Jackdaw, what planet are you from? Ours is called “Earth”, and on Earth, the UK republican left was pretty solidly against the illegal invasion of Iraq. I don’t know if you went to any of the meetings or demonstrations against it on your planet against your Tony B Liar’s war, but I did on Earth against ours: overwhelmingly left-wing participants. Of course you do get left-wing monarchists, but the further left you go, the more republican – and the more opposed to the Iraq war.
I would sympathize, but until you have states like Alaska, that wouldn’t even qualify for one Congressman if one weren’t the smallest number, getting three Electoral Votes—I can’t get too excited about it.
Hmm, why didn’t my
work?
And, I forgot to say, getting the same number of Senators as California…when representatives of 10% of the population can prevent any legislation from being passed, it’s time to tear down the whole system and start over. A Parliament with a figurehead King doesn’t sound so bad to me.
And she’s a not particularly bright woman who’s probably still bright enough to realise that Charles might well be a disaster for “the Firm”, and thus be grimly determined to outlive him!
In Canada, we get to watch the spectacle of the queen’s representative (the governor general) interfere with parliamentary procedure (see: 2009 proroguing of parliament or the “King-Byng Affair”). At least for the Brits their totally useless hereditary head of state is actually from their state. It’s high time for us commonwealthers to grow up and break this tradition.
The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge, re Alaska, Electoral College & Senatorial power
I fully agree. The US voting system may have made some sense at founding, when the population of ‘eligible citizens’ was dispersed and cross-country travel was both challenging and time-consuming. Today it is simply absurd.
As a (new) citizen who wishes to take full advantage of my franchise, I am appalled by how little impact I can have, even in local elections. At a State or Federal level, my vote is essentially meaningless since it is much too easy to game the system to ensure ‘dissenting votes’ are effectively worthless (Gerry-mander anyone?). (FYI – I live in North GA, so as a socialist I have practically no influence)
Re: I fully agree
with everything except the figurehead monarch. been there. paid for the t-shirt (worn by monarch!).
Serious question: has anyone ever seen something with “tincture” (or “elixir”) in the name that actually worked as advertised?
RPG consumables don’t count.
Le havre en chene
>>Ok Jackdaw, this may take a while.<>So what? Cromwell dissolved Parliament<>I see no reason why there should be etc.<> his papacy only started in 2005 and we captured Baghdad in 2003. So you’re a couple of years out, chum<>Maybe you need to reconsider your knowledge of what is “right” and what is “left”.<>Are you aware of how the UK is a constitutional monarchy<>Wow, talk about your false dichotomies.<>Hi, Jackdaw, what planet are you from? Etc<<
The elected German mentioned above ran a socialist party. Strange how they all change when they get power, isn't it? I'm sure that B Liar and Brawnandnotbrains have no further territorial claims in the middle east these days.. Strange that our troops are getting killed there if the lefties who got power didn't want it.
Ah but B Liar and Brawnandnotbrains are not True Lefties ™ are they? Where have I heard that sort of thing before?
Apologies for the cock-up above.
Le havre en chene
~Ok Jackdaw, this may take a while.~
Only for those with a limited attention span, and of a patronising nature.
~So what? Cromwell dissolved Parliament~
Quite – a parliamentarian getting above his station leading to disaster. My point exactly. And Cromwell was a Parliamentarian. A German leader also made the same transition from elected representative to dictator. Those that don’t know their history might find that they relive it.
~I see no reason why there should be etc.~
Except for the general venality of our lords and masters in the PALACE of Westminster – they all get delusions of glory. Comes with the territory – power corrupts etc. qv Lord Acton.
~his papacy only started in 2005 and we captured Baghdad in 2003. So you’re a couple of years out, chum~
Little word – predecessors – that you seemed to miss. The English language is tricky and exact compared to frog, which is only suitable for confusing the issue. (This is why they claim it’s good for diplomacy (or lying as we English speakers put it)). He only came out of the confessional closet when it would no longer would have affected his electoral chances.
~Maybe you need to reconsider your knowledge of what is “right” and what is “left”.~
Having survived every economically disastrous left wing government we have had in the UK except Keir Hardie’s, I suspect that my assessment is more accurate than yours. Please note that “many” does not mean “all”.
~Are you aware of how the UK is a constitutional monarchy~
Yes. My comment was on the financial implications. English is tricky n’est pas? (As a monoglot I have just exhausted my gobbledygook there.)
~Wow, talk about your false dichotomies.~
I sometimes find my tongue gets stuck in my cheek when making a point. I doubt if you would understand the point about Ian Bell not being run out either…
KG
~Hi, Jackdaw, what planet are you from? Etc~
The elected German mentioned above ran a socialist party. Strange how they all change when they get power, isn’t it? I’m sure that B Liar and Brawnandnotbrains have no further territorial claims in the middle east these days.. Strange that our troops are getting killed there if the lefties who got power didn’t want it.
Ah but B Liar and Brawnandnotbrains are not True Lefties ™ are they? Where have I heard that sort of thing before?
*sigh*
The Royal Family aren’t parasites, any more than the President of Ireland is a parasite. Pretty much all countries have a head of state, and they all cost money. You can disagree with the principle of hereditary succession, certainly, but that doesn’t mean monarchs are parasites. Indeed, the Queen does a far better job than any elected head of state I can think of.
(In point of fact, monarchs generally cost the taxpayer less than elected presidents do, since most monarchs are supported wholly or partly by the revenues from their hereditary estates. In the Queen’s case, the money paid to the Exchequer from the Crown Estate – the lands and other holdings associated with the Crown – vastly exceeds the amount of support the Queen receives from the Civil List. The Government is in the process of replacing the Civil List with a “Sovereign Support Grant” which will be appropriated directly from the Crown Estate, meaning that the Royal Family will, in future, receive no direct taxpayer support at all.)
Prince Charles’ support for homeopathy is idiotic. But that doesn’t mean that the institution of the monarchy is intrinsically bad, any more than the election of Michele Bachmann means that congressional elections are intrinsically bad. There is no foolproof system of government; every mechanism of selecting public officials will sometimes produce people with wacky ideas. (And we can all think of elected politicians who are far, far, far more idiotic than Prince Charles could ever be.)
The only realistic alternative to the monarchy is an elected president – in other words, yet another faceless party-political hack from one of our three imbecilic major parties. Abolishing the monarchy wouldn’t save any money; indeed, it would cost money, since it would necessitate the holding of a presidential election, on top of the cost of salaries for the president and his or her household, security, transport, etc. (As I observed above, the monarchy pays for itself, through the revenues from the Crown Estate.)
Basically, the monarchy works well; it is comparatively inexpensive; and getting rid of it would not be guaranteed to improve anything about British society. The idea of abolishing the monarchy is pure ideology, not pragmatism.
She’s not even close to being “the richest woman in the world”. See Forbes list of billionaires
Bear in mind that the properties of the Crown – which include Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle, the Crown Estate, the Duchy of Lancaster, etc. – are not owned by the Queen personally in her private capacity, but by the Crown, which is a legal abstraction (a “corporation sole”). There are other properties which the Queen owns personally – Sandringham and Balmoral, for instance – but she’s not even the richest woman in Britain, let alone the world.
And as I said, there are no “absurd costs of subsidizing” the Queen, or her family. The revenues to the Exchequer from the Crown Estate, which come to around £210 million, are far greater than the Civil List payments made to the Queen (about £7.9 million per year). So, strictly speaking, the monarchy costs the taxpayer nothing at all. In any case, all heads of state cost money; an elected president would incur costs for security, transport, staff salaries, etc., just as the Queen does. It’s also noteworthy that the only members of the Royal Family who receive payments from the Civil List are the members of the Queen’s immediate family who perform public duties on her behalf; other more distant royals (such as Prince and Princess Michael of Kent) receive no support from the Civil List, and work to support themselves like everyone else.
Walton:
At least they were elected and thus can be replaced.
(So such saving grace for the royal nobs)
A difference that makes no difference is sophistry; who are you trying to fool?
(The reason Crown money isn’t considered public money is that it’s a bloody monarchy!)
Walton:
Sigh.
Thanks for the figures, Walton—I knew they drew a lot of income from their estates, but I didn’t know the disparity between that and direct government payments was that large. We may be impatient with all the funeral-going and ribbon-cutting type events, but any first-world country is going to have to have a ceremonial head of state, and I think combining that job with the head of government, like we do in the US, is a bad idea. It turns it into a really killing job—well, unless you’re “What, Me Worry?” Reagan. Now it seems to me France has the worst of both worlds, but maybe I’m wrong….
Walton I’m still amazed with all of your intelligent comments and progress on many things since you’ve been here that you still cling to the Monarchy as some sort of nationalistic wubby.
Will that include comment numbering? I kinda miss that.
Hey it’s all totally worth it, because without the royal family we wouldn’t know about Pippa, and think what a desert life would be then.
It’s starting to feel more homey here.
The royal family is part of the UK’s entertainment complex. They’re even more popular than Eastenders, for similar reasons.
Plus, even as powerless in any practical sense as they are, they form a useful function in government in that they can’t be corrupted by anyone. Our next king will be an over-privileged fool, it’s true, but nobody’s ever going to buy him.
PZ, some of your minions seem to have been lost in the move. More comments at the old site!
Given Prince Charles is a blithering idiot, but he has and is never likely to have any serious power, unlike the wierd hydbrid Perry/Bachman/Palin monster you are likely suffer in a couple of years. Please keep a bag packed and memorise the way to the Canadian border.
I’m glad you have open comments over here, and I hope you will keep it so, as I can never remember passwords and by the time I reset it I usually can’t be bothered commenting.
I’ve been following your site for quite some time but usually only lurking. I’m not a great fan of these portmanteau sites but I’ll be following you here – you’re well worth it.
@Schism, re working tinctures
Tincture of cannabis?
Back at the Royal family, one thing I don’t understand is that the generally pretty sound Stephen Fry, who knows Charlie, thinks him pretty well informed generally.
As a Brit, I actually see a certain sense in keeping the crown as head of state, as it would avoid having undesirables like a putative President Bliar.
I just don’t see why anyone needs to wear the crown.
Having parliament opened in the presence of the crown, brought in on a velvet cushion by some flunky, or perhaps the speaker of the house, and laws being enacted with a Royal seal, the sealer being the speaker, or someone drawn by lot, or whatever, would serve its ceremonial purpose, avoid a President, save money, and not have someone who sells snake oil and want to be a defender of faith as head of state.
Still waiting for that little chunk of CSS to be installed. Patience! The priority for the TechGuy right now is performance, performance, performance.
No, sorry, it doesn’t add comment numbering. That requires actually modifying the php templates, all I’ve got is some light appearance changes, nothing more.
Actually, you can get quick & dirty comment numbering with one tiny change to the CSS:
.commentlist li {
list-style: none outside none;
}
.commentlist li {
list-style: decimal outside none;
}
However, It’s client-side numbering done by the browser; so if you delete any comments, everything below will get renumbered. (Server-side numbering will indeed need code changes.)
As jackdaw correctly points out, we did do this in 1649. However, his comment rapidly descends into nonsense and name-calling, so I will ignore it from here on. I think the Restoration was the most outstanding collective failure of will in history. I agree that the Commonwealth and Protectorate did not work well, and Cromwell was a nutcase who would probably have got on well with the Taliban. But once he died, and Tumbledown Dick rapidly decided not to continue his Dad’s legacy, could we not come up with anything better than inviting the same silly buggers back? Apparently not, and so it’s been downhill ever since, through a few changes of dynasty and name. They did at least manage to provoke the only witticism attributed to Wilhelm II, who is supposed to have said he’d been to see “The Merry Wives of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha”, and found it quite amusing. I suspect he had a speechwriter. I, for one, hope they’ll just die out from general incompetence, but it seems they are fairly successful at reproduction, if nothing else.
Why can’t we get rid of the monarchy? In ptinciple, only parliament can do this. However, MPs have to swear an oath of loyalty to the Queen before they can enter parliament. Therefore, MPs can’t get rid of the monarchy. The system protects itself.
And to all of those who consider Prince Charles to be a bit thick, remember that he is a Fellow of the Royal Society. He is also in the Order of Merit, an honour only awarded to real leaders in their fields (think Tim Berners-Lee).
This remarkable man is also a General of the British Army, an Admiral of the Royal Navy and an Air Force Marshall of the RAF. His intellectual might has been recognised via honorary doctorates by universities throughout the world.
True, his actual military and academic career was pretty mediocre, but certainly others have recognised his true genius.
Iono. Not to be too disparaging of the humanities, but the kid took a fine-arts degree.
The Danish puppets are at least required to take classes in political science, and the current crown prince got a masters in it (first Danish royal to get a degree, I think). (Masters, incidentally, is the usual stopping point here, rather than Ph.D. Very few settle for the bachelors.)
He also completed the navy seal training, but I have no idea if he was ever actually deployed (prolly not).
/Walton
On the positive side, things may be looking up for reducing homoeopathy in Australia.
Cosmo Magazine, Diluted Logic
I guess this is me no longer lurking. May adjust nickname a bit later.
As has been mentioned, a signifiacant advantage in this particular context of having the purely ceremonial head of state is that, by custom and practice, the monarch can’t express any real opinions on anything. No monarch would, for instance, express an opinion that Creationism should be taught in schools (unlike some heads of state I could mention).
hinschelwood says:
Phew! You had me worried for a second there, hinschelwood. I was starting to formulate my “WTF now?” response, but you restored sanity in the final paragraph.
Marcus Hill says:
I have to challenge those assumptions. Charles is very keen to have a say in politics and policy. For a revealing insight into the amount of woo crammed into Charlie-boy’s noggin, and how determined he is to be more than just a “figurehead”, have a read of this Guardian article: Prepare for the reign of Charles the Meddler.
He’s proper bat-shit nutty, and to say that he (or any other of his ilk) wouldn’t support Creationism is to seriously underestimate how nutty he really is. I’m not suggesting that he does, but to asset that he wouldn’t is unsupportable.
Tincture of iodine and tincture of opium.
Well, if that’s all you’re aiming for, why not just market a liver cozy? It would promote an ideal environment for your natural detoxification and digestion aid, and serve the added benefit of not drawing attention, as it would look deceptively similar to a sweater.
Drawing Business – I draw stuff for money. says:
I barely started. Wikipedia has a big long list of titles that he has acquired over the years. I think it says a lot for his mentality that he thinks that all these titles make him an Important Person, while not realising that if you haven’t earned it, it’s worthless. He presumably thinks he has earned it, which is precisely the problem.
His mother – bless her, she’s the only thing keeping Charles from the throne – is just as bad. She went from subaltern to Commander-in-Chief of the British armed forces. Not bad.
Drawing Business: You’re right that Charles is a nutter, and that he tries to influence public policy. The remedy for that is to point out that he’s wrong, and most people seem to rank his views along those of any other celebrity with limited contact with reality. The point is that he is doing so as the Prince of Wales. When he’s king, all that shit will have to stop. Whilst we can guess at his mother’s views on a whole range of things, whenever there is any political disagreement over something, she never expresses her view in public.
Don’t get me wrong, I wouldn’t lose any sleep over losing the monarchy. What would concern me would be if its replacement was even more broken.
PZ,
You’re making a mistake of thinking that we Brits see Prince Bigears as being anything other than other than a tool. He has little influence has been widely considered a joke for as long as I can remember.
As for tossing out the monarchy completely, there was I time when I was a staunch anti-royalist, but as time has gone on I’ve become fairly apathetic. The royals are good for generating tourist revenue, doing ceremonial stuff so our elected government can focus on actually governing, and providing unintentional humour. Pragmatically I see no difference between a hereditary head of state and an elected (ceremonial rather than executive) president.
Do they? That might be true for the hoi polloi, but I’d be prepared to bet that he has considerable influence amongst the governing classes. And becoming monarch isn’t going to suddenly suffuse him with reason and stoicism. It’s just going to give him a higher seat to babble his nonsense from.
jackdaw says:
Walton? Is that you?
Jackdaw,
About the predecessors bit, I missed it. My apologies.
As for the rest, I second KG’s post about what frickin’ planet you’re on.
You talk about “Parliamentarians getting above their station” as if Parliament somehow isn’t in charge today. The role of the monarch is purely ceremonial, so no executive power would change whatsoever. Your point about Cromwell is completely bunk – no-one would replace the monarch and the government would carry on exactly as it has done, just without a ceremonial Head of State, as it were. Not a tricky concept to understand.
What’s with the random dig at French? It seems to be completely apropos of your points apart from to try to land a few cheap shots about how English can be more nuanced than frog. Congrats – you really bolstered your argument there.
Having survived every economically disastrous left wing government we have had in the UK except Keir Hardie’s, I suspect that my assessment is more accurate than yours.
You’re jumping around all over the place here. KG rightly says that the left didn’t support Blair over Iraq; furthermore, the majority of Tories voted in support of the Iraq war, so what’s your point?
I don’t see a solution presented anywhere here. Under your system, if we keep the monarchy, nothing changes. If we lose the monarchy, nothing changes. There are perfectly valid economical and social reasons why the monarchy in the UK can be beneficial, but you’ve failed to spot them here. Instead you’ve presented a completely lopsided view of British politics – it genuinely sounds as if you’d prefer an outright monarchy to an elected Parliament…
I understand the Ian Bell thing perfectly, thank you very much, though I doubt a detailed conversation as to what exactly “The Spirit of Cricket” entails is particularly appropriate to this setting.
We’re trying
Ah, no, you’re missing the bit that the Glorious Revolution added to the oath. I’ll quote the attestation version, because it’s the version I would use (and in honour of Charles Bradlaugh):
“I, Richard Gadsden, do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law.”
The critical words that were added in 1689 are “according to law”. Many MPs will say a few prefatory words before taking the oath; I know that several Labour MPs, including Paul Flynn and Jeremy Corbyn have chosen “As a convinced Republican and under duress”, but I would prefer to emphasize the nature of Parlimentary sovereignty and preface it with:
“Recalling that the Parliament of which I am now a member makes the law”
which rather makes the point that the Glorious Revolution made: “we decide who the successor is, and we decide when you get replaced by a successor”.
No, I am not “jackdaw”, and I don’t agree with much that s/he has been saying. I’ve posted under my own ‘nym above, and have not been using any others.
Btw, why doesn’t this newfangled site have a number on each post for ease of reference, like the old one did? *grumble*
====
I’d like the anti-monarchists to give me a specific, concrete, evidence-based explanation of how they believe that the abolition of the monarchy, and its replacement with an elected presidency, would actually improve British society. As I explained above, it wouldn’t actually save any money (indeed, a president would probably cost more, given the expense of holding presidential elections, in addition to the cost of salaries, transport, security, etc. for the president and his or her staff). And it wouldn’t be likely to make any significant difference to our system of government or to public policy, in itself.
I don’t think it can be said that republics are, on average, any more fair, just, equal or prosperous than constitutional monarchies. France, the USA, Portugal and Greece are not notably better in any of these respects than Norway, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark or Spain, say. There’s zero evidence that switching from a monarchy to a republic leads to better governance, better public policy outcomes, or more social equality. The reality is that whether one’s head of state is a monarch or a president doesn’t make much difference to everyday life; and there isn’t a lot of gain in switching from the former to the latter.
How about not bowing to a religiously inspired figurehead that exists purely for the propping up of tradition and whose members have done nothing but be born lucky to achieve their position.
Walton:
The reality is that whether one’s head of state is a monarch or a president doesn’t make much difference to everyday life; and there isn’t a lot of gain in switching from the former to the latter.
Agreed. My one concern is that the total cost to the taxpayer is covered by the OSA, meaning the true figures are not exposed to the public for scrutiny. On the whole I think that the monarchy adds a lot to our culture and heritage, and serves as a means to boost tourist revenue. I’m generally ambivalent about the Royals, but I see no point in changing the system unless it can be proven that there would be a demonstrable improvement to replace the monarchy with an elected President. Give me QE2 over Sarkozy and Berlusconi any day – at least she has no say over matters of policy.
Also, I knew you weren’t Jackdaw. You actually make rational arguments…
Edit: Berlusconi’s the Prime Minister, not the President. But you catch my drift.
Berlusconi is not a head of state.
Again, this is just ideological grandstanding. Yes, hereditary succession is in itself arbitrary, and doesn’t offer a reliable guarantee of intellectual merit. (Neither, of course, do elections: I see your Prince Charles and raise you a Michele Bachmann.)
But I’m asking for some evidence of specific ways in which the monarchy is actually causing harm, and some evidence that these harms would be reduced or eliminated by switching to an elected presidency. So far, no one’s been able to offer any. Replacing the Queen with a President wouldn’t save any taxpayers’ money, and there’s no evidence that republics are, in general, any more fair, just, equal or prosperous than constitutional monarchies. So what exactly would be the point?
Walton,
In the case of the UK getting rid of the Monarchy would put a stop to Charles’ campaign of writing hundreds of letters to Government ministers complaining about everything.
Of course a simpler option to solve that problem would be to tell him to stop, and that in future his letters will be put in the bin unread.
That Hitler ran a socialist party is of course a barefaced lie. The “Socialist” in the Nazi party’s name was as much a con as the “Democratic” in the official name of East Germany. It is easy to confirm this by considering the allies in Germany who helped him into power and collaborated enthusiastically once he was there – the nationalist right, the Catholic Church, the military, and big business; his allies abroad, where they came more or less exclusively from the right until the Nazi-Soviet Pact, which was completely opportunistic on both sides; and his actions at home, where many thousands of leftists and trades unionists were imprisoned, tortured and murdered, while big business remained enthusiastic collaborators throughout his rule – see Adam Tooze The Wages of Destruction: The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy.
If you weren’t a stupid or dishonest right-winger – but I repeat myself – you would recall that Bliar determinedly removed the remaining socialist commitment from the Labour Party constitution, kow-towed to Rupert Murdoch, enthusiastically continued privatisation and financial deregulation, and found his foreign friends on the right – Bush and Berlusconi, to name two. Brown went along with all this, and made little change in it when he became PM. So it is a simple factual observation that these two are not left-wing. As noted previously, opposition to the Iraq war came almost exclusively from the left. Trying to pretend that that war can be pinned on republicans is beyond stupid.
Matt,
Hence my correction. The point is much the same as Walton’s Michele Bachmann point though.
Once Charles takes over from Liz, he won’t be in a position to write those letters, being Head of State. He’ll have far less influence as King than he has had as Prince of Wales (I wanted to shorten that to PoW but that might be misleading…)
Ah, I retract the previous. Walton would get his history right.
Tentacular greetings to Ophelia. I have a completely OT question for you, if I may.
Meanwhile:
-+-
Declareth the Pffft!:
-+-
It’s been a while since Walton fitted that description, at least in the USAnian sense.
Yeerrss, tried that one, didn’t stick. Good luck though.
-+-
AFAIK, there’s no impediment to HRH remaining Queen of Australia if she is no longer Queen of England. The two titles are only connected in the person. The implementation details could get tricky, sure.
So why not have a popularly elected or appointed one?
They could continue to fill that role, retaining their titles, properties etc, without being head of state. I don’t think anyone is proposing executions at dawn.
Walton has cited figures elsewhere indicating that the Royal family are a net earner for the state. I’m not going to add my weight to that view, but he should be along any minute now }:->
Intriguing. However, I’ll see you and raise you.
-+-
Tincture of iodine.
-+-
Oh FFS, you’re one of those idiots. *yawn*
… o_-
… -_-
… o_O
Fuck me, he’s not very bright this one, is he?
/ looks around for killfile, finds it still absent.
-+-
Walton says:
Yay, right on time :)
/ popcorn munching sounds
-+-
What’s the point of someone who can’t be corrupted who also can’t do anything?
Also … / glares pointedly in the direction of Fergie and Andrew
There’s a middle ground between a purely ceremonial HoS and the POTUS. The German presidency for example.
Best suggestion yet :D
Why not go all the way and have an actual Royal Seal? The tank and fish expenses should be fairly minimal, and the cycle of succession far more rapid. And just personally I would find Hir Royal Sealness far more entertaining. Especially with the Crown :)
See! There you go! :D
Eeeexcellent. [/Monty_Burns]
Walton, and others:
WHY would the UK Parliament require a specifically distinct head of state upon the removal of the Monarchy? The PM has been the de-facto head, from a policy and management perspective, for many decades.
The current procedures for removal, transition, and selection of the PM are quite adequate, in my opinion.
So, perhaps one of you folks with immense noggins capable of supporting personal satellites would assist a poor, wee, cox’n.
Hmm? Pretty please?
And please don’t rely on circular logic to do so…
ta much.
Well it seems that he thinks his position as heir to the throne means that Government ministers should pay attention to him. It is certainly the case he thinks his letters deserve more attention than those written by ordinary members of the public.
So if he abuses his position now, I am not convinced he will do not do so a monarch.
One role the PM does not have is to decide who to invite to form a Government in the event of an inconclusive election result. You need someone outside of parliament to do that.
It’s been claimed that when (or if) Charles becomes king he won’t be allowed to continue his woo-ing. Who is it supposed will stop him, and how?
I don’t agree: whoever leads the largest party gets first go. If two or more parties have exactly the same number of members elected, whoever’s party got more total votes. If the total votes are also exactly equal, nude wrestling to the death between the party leaders!
But if you were right, I think this would be a strong argument against the monarchy. These can be crucial decisions (as in Australia, where the Governor-General effectively mounted a coup against Gough Whitlam), and whoever makes them should be accountable, which a monarch is not. Besides which, do we really want Prince Tampon making these decisions?
Continuing to give credence to a traditional position based on nothing that some long dead relative of theirs claimed a throne because god said so?
I’ll take reason as a reason.
‘smee:
In theory, there’s no reason why there has to be a Head of State in the UK. However, were a President to be instated, he/she would have far more power to act as a check/balance for Parliament than the Queen currently does (for example he/she could have taken more political action over the recent expenses scandal). Furthermore, in the case of a hung Parliament, the President could act as a diplomatic tool to help bring parties together to ensure the smooth running of government. Of course these duties are not absolutely essential, but should the monarchy be taken away, there is certainly a case for why a President would be a good option. Either you’d go down the route of 2 elected houses (given that the House of Lords is becoming more and more accountable) similar to the American system, with no overseeing Head of State (a possibility), or you have 2 elected houses with an overseeing Head of State. Whether option 2 is more viable/cost-effective than the monarchy is still open for debate. As I said earlier, I’m relatively ambivalent towards the royals, but I’d only want them removed if it can be proven that their removal would benefit the country significantly.
Matt:
Potentially. Charles is a bit of a pain in the arse, and he could certainly attempt to get uppity as King. Is that enough of a reason to revoke the entire system along with the accompanying heritage though?
that = than
Ah, I retract the previous. Walton would get his history right for starters.
Walton says:
Course not, Walton, you’re clearly not a blithering rage-filled idiot. That was just a bit of friendly ribbing, and no offense intended.
Previous post held for moderation, too many links. Pardon me if any of the following is redundant.
Tentacular greetings to Ophelia.
-+-
Declareth the Pffft!:
-+-
It’s been a while since Walton fitted that description, at least in the USAnian sense.
Yeerrss, tried that one, didn’t stick. Good luck though.
-+-
AFAIK, there’s theoretically no impediment to HRH remaining Queen of Australia if she is no longer Queen of England. The two Crowns are quite separate and are only connected in the person and her successors. The implementation details could get tricky, sure.
So why not have a popularly elected or appointed one?
They could continue to fill that role, retaining their titles, properties etc, without being head of state. I don’t think anyone is proposing executions at dawn.
drbunsen:
Wait a minute; you mean you’re not proposing that we guillotine them? I had been brushing up on my Marseillaise for just such an occasion.
(continued)
Intriguing. However, I’ll see you and raise you.
-+-
Oh FFS, you’re one of those idiots. *yawn*
… o_-
… -_-
… o_O
Quel espece de connard est-ce la?
/ looks around for killfile, finds it still absent.
-+-
Walton says:
Yay, right on time :)
/ popcorn munching sounds
-+-
What’s the point of someone who can’t be corrupted who also can’t do anything?
Also … / glares pointedly in the direction of Fergie and Andrew
There’s a middle ground between a purely ceremonial HoS and the POTUS. The German presidency for example.
Best suggestion yet :D
Why not go all the way and have an actual Royal Seal? The tank and fish expenses should be fairly minimal, and the cycle of succession far more rapid. And just personally I would find Hir Royal Sealness far more entertaining. Especially with the crown :)
See! There you go! :D
Eeeexcellent. [/Monty_Burns]
:D
Come on everyone, you all know the words!
Qu’n singe impur…
Le Havre en Chene
Thanks for the apology, we all make mistakes.
~As for the rest, I second KG’s post about what frickin’ planet you’re on. ~
One where left wing ideas just do not work. Indeed, leftism seems to be another nutty religion. It has it’s holey books, and it has split into many competing sects – marxists, bolshevicks, socialists, troskyites etc. ad nauseum. It has prophets who make claims such as “When we build our wonderful state, we will have to build a wall round it to keep the downtrodden others out”. (Well, they built the wall, but to keep the downtrodden in.)
Then in spite of all the promises of a new millennium, in practice it turns out to be an economic disaster. Compare the effects of planned economies to see the effect with a few case histories.
Wasn’t Italy a basket case under a left wing government? Well, we can’t expect them to be any good, can we? (sarcasm for the record) Which has the better life for it’s people, Burma or Thailand? All right, they have different histories, so lets improve the experiment- keep it to one people. Where was the economy better, China or Taiwan (or Hong Kong)? (China is taking off economically now it’s moving away from a planned economy.) O.K., let’s take a country, make the north socialist, and the south free. Which got the better living standards, N or S Korea? Well, perhaps northerners are not as good as southerners, so let’s divide a country into east and west. Which of the Germanys was an economic success?
Now name me one socialist state which actually worked. There’s no balm in Gilead is there?
Of course the excuses have already been trotted out – “they were not True Lefties ™” or “Nyah, Nyah I can’t hear you, don’t confuse me with the facts, I’ve made up my mind”.
To mix a metaphor or three, leftism’s got yellow feathers and a bill, webbed feet, waddles and swims, and goes quack. In short, it’s another religion, and it’s proponents use the same techniques as any other religion. It promises glory at some time in the future, whilst it’s leader live high on the hog now. It has the same success rate at explaining anything. It usually only survives under a repressive regime, and needs continuous indoctrination as well.
~You talk about “Parliamentarians getting above their station” as if Parliament somehow isn’t in charge today.~
That is one of the problems – it’s almost impossible to get rid of the parasites once they’ve found a comfy rotten borough, sorry “safe” seat. Just watch them trying to grab a “safe” seat when one comes up so that they can have many years with their snouts in the trough.
(Unfortunately, proportional representation would only exacerbate the situation, there is an outside chance of dumping a senior MP under the present system. There would be none under that alternative unless the party concerned lost all it’s credibility.)
The reform we badly need is to take a leaf out of the US book, and restrict the buggers to 2 terms in the Palace of Westminster. That way they wouldn’t be so keen to introduce stupid policies as they would have to spend most of their life putting up with the effects of said policies. They would lose their priveleges once their terms finished. Oh, and don’t tell me that they need experience, they couldn’t do any worse without it.
~Your point about Cromwell is completely bunk~
My point Is that there is always they danger of a putsch – an elected head of state is the most likely to succeed. It’s happened more than once (try old Benito Mussolini for one of the 30’s leaders to make the transition (fact or bunk?) – and that was under a Monarchy as well. There are others, perhaps one will come to mind). It’s “Not a tricky concept to understand.” to return your remark.
~What’s with the random dig at French? & I understand the Ian Bell thing perfectly,~
Le havre en chene isn’t french? Live and learn. If you choose a frog title, expect to be treated as one. You must realise that patronising comments can be replied to in kind, it’s not cricket here on the blogosphere y’know.
~You’re jumping around all over the place here. KG rightly says that the left didn’t support Blair over Iraq;~
“No true leftie ™ ” again.
~furthermore, the majority of Tories voted in support of the Iraq war, so what’s your point?~
Ah, the tories are the devil incarnate in the socialist religion, so they are expected to support wars and evil things in general. Why, some of them might even be royalists! Imagine, the horror of it!
~I don’t see a solution presented anywhere here.~
That was because I didn’t present one. You did the religious bit and invented one for me assuming I was under the control of the anti-marx. One of my ideas (on electoral reform) is given above.
~it genuinely sounds as if you’d prefer an outright monarchy to an elected Parliament…~
Another invention. Running with it, there would only be ONE hand in my pocket, and it would only takes one bullet to effect a change. Much cheaper than 650 so it’s cost effective. On reflection, perhaps YOUR idea has some merit after all…
btw, I’m not Walton and am a he.
Our monarchy is really an embarrassment. I’m always terrified that people in other countries might think we take the royal family seriously. We really don’t, for the most part.
And then a royal wedding happens and EVERYONE LOSES THEIR MINDS.
Charles Windsor has done a lot of work for charity and so on. But that’s effectively his job, not something he should be especially praised for. He has every advantage there could possibly be and he uses it to endorse and promote stupidity. His history in this regard goes far beyond this particular jollop. He has a record of saying stupid things about pretty much everything and building stupid pretend hospitals staffed by criminals.
I doubt we could get rid of the royals right now (a royal wedding every now and then will achieve that), but isn’t it getting harder to find monarchists?
As for Charles Windsor, someone needs to get him in a headlock and parade him about for everyone to ridicule. It’s the only way he’ll learn.
jackdaw:
You really are a nutter, aren’t you? You’ve somehow managed to turn people who have reasonable concerns about the monarchy and who are presenting viable alternatives into rapid socialists intent on destroying freedom and economies. At no point has anyone brought up socialism as a potential replacement – indeed the American model has been users by several commenters as an example both for and against, and one could hardly say that the USA is a socialist country.
Re the French name – quite a few of us have them. I, for one, just like the sound of the language. Saying “expect to be treated as one” exposes you for the nasty little xenophobe you appear to be, as if having a French moniker makes me somehow inferior to you.
You did the religious bit and invented one for me assuming I was under the control of the anti-marx
This is where you lose the final bit of credibility you might have had. Have you not read my other comments on here? I’ve said perfectly clearly that I’m neither pro- nor anti-royal, and that to remove them may not be the right thing to do. I’m not a Marxist; I’m not a Socialist – I’m a realist. Pay attention to what people actually say and stop erecting bizarre strawmen in order to have a go at your pet hate for the month.
I took my dead porcupine out of the fridge a little while ago and it’s started to fester.
Edit: Rabid socialists, not rapid.
latsot says:
You’ll get 16 months in the nick for much less than that.
So you believe, that you have the right to treat non-anglophones as inferior? Or are just certain kinds of non-anglphones Untermenschen to you?
Bunk, you ignorant dolt. Mussolini was not elected. He seized power through the “march on Rome” in 1922 – the king of Italy responded to this by handing power to him.
In the case of the Iraq War, they did support it, while effectively all opposition came from the left. Squirm all you like, but these facts remain, and expose your lies.
As a Brit who has been campaigning to get rid of them for years I would say the sooner the better. The only problem being that The House of Windsor appears to have the majority of the population of the United Kingdom under some sort of a voodoo spell. If we were to put it to the vote us republicans (note to Americans – small r) would lose, and as believer in democracy I have to accept that.
There is the additional problem of what exactly we replace them with. The American/French/Zimbabwean model of Excecutive presidency does not appeal to me. Probably something more along the lines of the Irish or German model would suit us better.
“Prince Tampon”? – oi, watch it! That’s his greatest (and perhaps only) redeeming feature!
Well, of course it’s currently the Queen who formally appoints the Prime Minister. Normally this is a straightforward task, since the party leader whose party wins a majority in the Commons is automatically invited to form a government. However, if we ever switch to a proportional electoral system – as I think we should; I favour the Mixed Member Proportional system used in NZ – there will be more hung Parliaments and more coalitions, and the monarch will likely have to take on a bigger role. (The experience of the Netherlands, Germany and Belgium in recent years shows that the formation of a government, in a country with a proportional electoral system, can be a lengthy and complicated process.)
I’d far rather have a non-elected, non-party-political figure fulfilling this role. Likewise, there is also a symbolic benefit to having a head of state who is outside party politics, and who can be a uniting figure for the whole country, something an elected party politician can never be. Of course, such a uniting figure doesn’t have to be a monarch – Mary Robinson and Mary McAleese both did an excellent job as President of Ireland, for instance – but since the British monarchy does its job well, I see no reason to replace it.
Walton,
How about an elected but non-political figure, such as in Ireland ?
Hold on, Walton. Like you I favour a move to PR, but if we were to do that, and if this meant a greater role for the head of state, wouldn’t this be an argument against having the monarch fill this role? The royals are tolerable simply because they do not wield any significant political power. If a change in the political system required the HoS to be more involved in the political process, we (the electorate) would need a way of removing that person from office should s/he prove unable to discharge his/her duties satisfactorily.
What makes you think that people would find the monarch worth uniting behind? Just consider what happen if the blithering idiot Charles took the those. Would you want to unite behind him? I certainly wouldn’t. He’s an embarrassment.
Why could an elected politician never be a uniting figure? Are you saying representative democracy is inherently and unavoidably divisive?
Le Havre en Chene
~You really are a nutter, aren’t you?~
No, I don’t support any religion, leftism included.
~You’ve somehow managed to turn people who have reasonable concerns about the monarchy and who are presenting viable alternatives into rapid socialists intent on destroying freedom and economies.~
Others on this thread such as KG have repeated the canard that “they were not true lefties ™ “ I’m just going with the flow, and pointing out the similarities between these “not true lefties ™ “ from our recent past and others from around the world.
The problem I see is not Buckingham Palace, that’s well sorted, but the Palace of Westminster which needs a thorough overhaul.
~At no point has anyone brought up socialism as a potential replacement – indeed the American model has been users by several commenters as an example both for and against, and one could hardly say that the USA is a socialist country.~
All I did was draw parallels between the actions of our parliamentarians, and other war mongers. The monarchy did not contribute to these actions, hence it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
~Re the French name – quite a few of us have them. I, for one, just like the sound of the language. Saying “expect to be treated as one” exposes you for the nasty little xenophobe you appear to be, as if having a French moniker makes me somehow inferior to you.~
Nope – I mocked myself for a monoglot, and pulled your leg about your use of the language on a forum where you cannot hear accents. Unfortunately, you are quite willing to hand out patronising insults such as “Ok Jackdaw, this may take a while.”. Like many bullies, you are not so keen on getting repaid in kind. This of course also allowed you to retreat to the last redoubt of the religious, “Oh you are not capable of understanding the soothing effect of cerise codpieces on the king’s yellow polka dot pantaloons” & “your false dichotomies” when pointing out that sugary drinks ex the US are probably worse for health than extremely dilute di-hydrogen monoxide. Didn’t you see the crack about glass houses and coca colanialism?*
~This is where you lose the final bit of credibility you might have had. Have you not read my other comments on here?~
Yes. For example ~~ I second KG’s post about what frickin’ planet you’re on. ~~ Mine were answering the “no true leftie ™ “ comment by KG, which you appear to endorse, about a character who started a pile of public works programs building motorways galore to demonstrate his socialist credentials. Well, there was another election to win… So if I paint you left, you only have yourself to blame.
~~ – I’m a realist. Pay attention to what people actually say and stop erecting bizarre strawmen in order to have a go at your pet hate for the month. ~~
Hold up a mirror to see an inventor of strawmen. And what isn’t real about pointing out that our lovely socialist leaders started a couple of wars recently, pray? Are you telling me that the invasions of Iraq and and Afghanistan were straight out of “Dallas” and only a dream?
~~I took my dead porcupine out of the fridge a little while ago and it’s started to fester.~~
Not surprised. Logically, you should have put it in the freezer. But logic isn’t your strong point, is it?
*The origin of coca-cola was as a patent medicine and a counter example of woo of the US variety – perhaps I am a bit too subtle for some on this forum. I’m sure PZ got the point, though.
KG
~~Bunk, you ignorant dolt. Mussolini was not elected. He seized power through the “march on Rome” in 1922 – the king of Italy responded to this by handing power to him.~~
From his biography –
“On March 15th 1921, Mussolini along with 35 other Fascists were elected to the Italian Chamber of Deputies.”
Get someone to show you how to enter “mussolini elected” in the google search box, and then how to follow the links.
The coup in 1922 (the following year) failed, but nevertheless he was invited to form the government. Now who is the ignorant dolt? You are using religious technique number 4 – if you don’t know make it up and insult your opponent for not knowing your brand new fairy tale.
~~while effectively all opposition came from the left. Squirm all you like, but these facts remain, and expose your lies.~~
“No true leftie ™ “ repeated. Leftism only works in opposition, perhaps? Change the record please, there’s a good incompetent ignoramus. See, I can insult and patronise too.
jackdaw,
Consider using blockquote tags next time. Your comments are already painful to read without all the mingling.
*deep breaths*
As soon as you start shouting about how “leftism” (whatever that means) is another religion, we’re done. It’s the same as shouting that atheism or humanism are religions. It’s completely bunk. It reminds me of that Charlie guy on The Atheist Experience a while ago who kept saying “You’re just like Christians” whenever someone disagreed with what he said. It’s boring and trite – stop it. You’ve taken what was a pretty sensible debate on the merits of the Royal Family remaining as Head of State and turned it into a diatribe against socialism – something that wasn’t being discussed whatsoever. Your assertion that there would be potential for Putsches makes no sense whatsoever, as the existence of a monarchy would make no difference in practical terms, given the complete lack of executive power they wield.
But of course you ignored that, and carried on spewing whatever was on your chest, because the problem is of course all these evil little socialists running around and messing up the country, while right-wing pillocks like you are completely innocent of any wrongdoing whatsoever. Mussolini’s Putsch was under a monarch – fine. Hitler’s was under von Hindenburg – an elected President. Na fucking und? All you’ve succeeded in doing here is Godwinning yourself. Congratulations.
Oh that’s definitely it…subtlety is clearly your strong point.
Off you pop now.
Yes I get it now.
Socialism=evil
+I am good
=>everything I hate=socialism
Um.. no.
Well, while I have enormous respect for Mary Robinson and Mary McAleese, most of their predecessors in the Irish presidency were party-political hacks. In reality, if we had an elected president in Britain, the most likely candidates would be semi-retired ex-ministers and the like. It’s almost certain that the winning candidate would be from one of the major political parties (even if the presidential election were to be officially non-partisan).
Anyway, my question is this: what’s the point? What good would be served by replacing the Queen with a ceremonial President? The President would do the same job the Queen currently does, at probably about the same cost (plus the additional cost of running a nationwide presidential election, etc). And it would be an enormous legal and administrative mess: what would happen to the Crown Estate and the Duchy of Lancaster, for instance, and the other properties of the Crown (Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle, the Tower of London, the Royal Collections, and so forth)? Not to mention the expense of re-badging and re-designing much of the legal and constitutional system.
Personally, I like the monarchy. And, so far, its critics have failed to offer any evidence that replacing it with an elected presidency would make Britain any more of a fair, equal or prosperous country. It would just be a pointless change for change’s sake.
No, not at all. I think it’s good to have someone who is above party politics making these decisions. Any elected president with a party affiliation would inevitably be open to accusations of political bias.
Of course it is! And in some contexts, this is a feature, not a bug. In a democracy, parliamentary politics should be “divisive” – insofar as a range of opinions on controversial issues should be represented, and every issue should be open to free debate.
But it’s also good to have some parts of the constitution which are not open to party-political influence. I’m strongly against having an elected judiciary, for instance, as I believe that the judiciary need to be able to administer justice impartially and to protect the civil rights of all people, even in situations where doing so will be unpopular with the majority of voters.
Similarly, I feel that there’s a strong argument for insulating the office of head of state from party politics, so that no elected politician, however powerful, can ever set him- or herself up as sole leader of the nation. The offices of head of state and head of government should be separate. Of course there are two ways to accomplish this: a ceremonial presidency, as exists in countries like Ireland, Israel and Germany, or a constitutional monarchy. I’m arguing that the latter works perfectly well for Britain, and, as they say, “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”.
Agreed… as long as we’re sticking with FPTP but you mentioned proportional representation and the need for a more active role for the Head of State under PR.
I understand your concern about party political bias. However, I fail to see how a solution that gives right to make critical decisions about the formation of a new government to someone by virtue of birth can be in any way just. What if that person is an inbred dolt (*ahem*)? Or as is likely with the British royal family biased towards the established social order to the detriment of ordinary people? What if, for any reason, the monarch is unfit perform the duties of Head of State? How would the people remove the monarch from office? A person with that kind of power must be impeachable.
A king was impeached as recently as 1937. The political authorities saw that it wouldn’t do to enter the obviously approaching war with Nazi Germany with a Nazi sympathizer on the throne, so they removed him. Now it’s true that he was nice enough to offer them an easy excuse—he wanted to marry a (divorced) commoner, so all they had to do was make up an “ancient” law prohibiting that. I have complete confidence that some equally hallowed law could be invented for whatever occasion it might be necessary.
Oh, and Jackdaw, you’re an idiot.
Walton:
“Again, this is just ideological grandstanding.”
I think I have put my finger on what has troubled me about your argument for some time.
You are presupposing the normalcy of status quo, not working from the null (no head of state) to the optimum – and demanding everyone else justify any change from a condition you take for granted!
You want a rigidly defined, pounds and pence, cost-benefit analysis of any alternative, and dismiss arguments no more specious than yours above as irrelevant. You’re trying to have your rhetorical cake and eat it too.
The Crown properties are not the personal property of Elizabeth Saxe-Coburg Gothe, no – they’re owned by a legal fiction called the “Crown”. So no, not the world’s richest woman, just the world’s richest trust fund baby. But whatever paper-thin figleaf you wrap around their ownership, they’re not the property of the people. (Unless l’etat, c’est Moi. (Exuse lack of accents))
And why not? (NO, “because they’re just not” is not an acceptable answer) Because they were
stolenobtained in “time immemorial” – by the biggest thug in the schoolyard.And it is entirely circular reasoning to claim that the monarchy doesn’t cost a cent – based on income from assets the monarch owns by dint of being the bloody monarch!
And yes, I agree with RevBDC – not accepting a just-so story because of fairy tales nor because Tradition! is kind of what we do around here. Especially in the face of a reasoned argument that it not only represents – but is – undemocratic entrenched injustice.
Pfeh.
Well, of course. Since changing a political system costs money and is disruptive, any change from the status quo has to be justified. If there is no compelling reason to change, the default should be to leave things as they are, and concentrate on other matters of public policy which are more important.
I remain unconvinced that abolishing the monarchy would do any kind of good for British society. There are many other political changes which would do far more good (say, proportional representation, legalizing cannabis and other soft drugs, and so forth). As I said, the opponents of monarchy would be more convincing if they could offer a rational, evidence-based cost-benefit analysis which shows that abolishing the monarchy would, on balance, be good for Britain. At the moment, no one has done that.
Why do you implicitly equate democracy with justice? Tyranny of the majority is as bad as any other form of tyranny, after all, and “the people” are capable of making oppressive and stupid decisions, just as monarchs, oligarchs and dictators are. (See also: Proposition 8, the Swiss ban on minarets, popular support for xenophobic far-right parties and for the return of the death penalty, and so on.) There is no form of government which guarantees fairness, justice or decency.
Making a political system more democratic doesn’t always make it better; sometimes it makes things worse. An elected judiciary would be “more democratic” than the current arrangements; it would also be an utter disaster. So, too, government by referendum and initiative (as tried in California) is very democratic, and is consistently utterly disastrous.
Thus far, the arguments of the anti-monarchists mostly boil down to “hereditary succession is arbitrary and unfair” (which it is, of course, but so are all forms of government), “the monarchy costs a lot of money” (so would a president), and “monarchy is traditionally bound up with religion” (true, and having an Established Church is silly, but it makes little difference to our lives in practice and isn’t really a major issue).
Walton:
Of course, any person, or any government composed of people, is capable of being unfair or unjust. You make a similar point here:
This isn’t a substantive defense. It’s completely trivial, and I don’t think anyone was claiming otherwise.
Now, to the main points I’d raise, hereditary monarchy is anti-democratic and anti-egalitarian. It’s not hard to see. Let’s compare rights. I can vote for a head of state, but you cannot. I can run for office as head of state, but you cannot. The descendants of my heads of state aren’t necessarily granted the position in the future, whereas that is by definition what happens for yours. For my case, the term limits are well-defined and elections are regular, so the head of state’s political views, alliances, or any other traits will not necessarily become entrenched for a great length of time, making the system much more flexible and adaptable to societal and other changes.
Does none of this make a difference at all? If so, perhaps you still don’t want any of it to change, or to be socially equal to the royal family, but what about everyone in the country who does? Why do you think everyone else shouldn’t have those rights, but only a particular family? Why should your nation’s leadership and identity be bound up with a particular family?
There’s just no good reason for doing it in the first place. Of course, it would cost money to change the system so dramatically, and of course, there are more important issues to worry about. I agree on that much, but those are just excuses for maintaining the status quo, not justifications of it; and they’re not even convincing as excuses, considering how utterly absurd the system is. It’s just so much apologetics for a ridiculous institution, and I don’t say that to piss you off. It’s just that I don’t think you realize you’re doing it. It’s odd. You’ve agreed it’s arbitrary and unfair, so how can you consistently claim it’s good for your society? Or is that no longer the claim? You just think it’s not enough of a problem to merit change, or is it not a problem at all? How many times will the argument shift back and forth?
Walton, you claim the Monarch is outside politics.
I suspect that the potential power* that yet remains plays a part in UK politics and indeed throughout the Commonwealth realms.
Here’s an interesting snippet from Wikipedia:
—
* For example, do you deny that if the monarch called on that allegiance (not that QE2 has needed to), it would respond?
Of course hereditary monarchy is undemocratic. I’m not denying that. Rather, I’m questioning the assumption that making an institution more democratic always necessarily makes it better.
Most Americans can vote for judges, prosecutors and sheriffs, too, whereas I cannot. But I’d argue very strongly that electing these officials makes the justice system worse, not better; it leads to more idiotic-but-popular “tough on crime” policies, more miscarriages of justice, and weaker protection of the civil rights of unpopular minorities. Similarly, Californians have the right to change state law by popular initiative, whereas I do not; yet I vastly prefer the British political system over that of California.
Giving the people more democratic rights doesn’t always make government better. Sometimes it makes things worse. I don’t know why you’re assuming that more democracy will magically improve outcomes in all cases. As a sceptic, I apply the same scepticism to democracy that I do to any other ideological construct. Sometimes democratic institutions work well, but there are other contexts in which democracy is inappropriate.
If we’re going down that road… all forms of government are arbitrary and unfair in themselves, including democratic ones. The nation-state itself is an arbitrary and unfair concept, as is the concept of “government”. In principle, why should the people who happen to live on the same arbitrarily-defined landmass as me get to dictate to me how I should live my life, and use coercive force to compel me to comply? And why should the people who happen to have been born as “citizens” of a particular state have the exclusive right to live, work and vote on a particular part of the Earth’s surface?
Of course, abolishing the nation-state and replacing it with chaos would probably be a disaster; it hasn’t worked out so well in Somalia. Which is why I’m not advocating the revolutionary overthrow of governments. Because although the nation-state is an arbitrary and unfair concept, it’s better than the alternative.
My point is that all forms of government, whether monarchies or republics, are inherently arbitrary and unfair; yet, in practice, we have to have some kind of government, because the alternative is worse. With this in mind, monarchy is no more arbitrary and unfair than any other kind of government. If you want to convince me that it would be a good idea to switch from a monarchy to a republic, therefore, you have to show me some evidence that doing so would actually make life better for the inhabitants of Britain.
Walton,
But these examples you brandish are a consensus form of meritocracy (voting implied but restricted to experts), and has nothing to do with hereditary membership requirements. IOW, a red herring.
So, you assert that it is in principle impossible to conceive a form of government that is not arbitrary and unfair in itself.
Hm.
Is the head of state one of those cases? Why?
I’m hardly dogmatic about it, and I think you’re being more contrarian than skeptical. Indeed, the whole idea of hereditary monarchy is farcical, so I’m not sure how a skeptic could support it.
I might at least partially agree with your irrelevant examples of electing judges, prosecutors, sheriffs, as well as some popular initiatives, but they are just that: irrelevant. Is the Queen a sheriff? No.
I will say that the consequences of each particular initiative, or electing each kind of official in a given society, have to be examined. It’s not something that ought to be decided a priori, because you fear the “tyranny of the majority” or because it goes against some other deep-seated distrust of government you may conjure up. Beyond that, as I said before, they have nothing whatsoever to do with the issue at hand.
So you claim. What metric are you using to make it?
How many of the inhabitants? How about just all the inhabitants who aren’t royalty? Wouldn’t they benefit in at least some of the ways I mentioned and which you didn’t address? I haven’t done the math, but I suppose they would be a significant proportion.
Le Havre en Chien
On the ‘net, the indiscriminate use of upper case is considered “shouting”. Kindly point out where I breached this etiquette. Or are you, like KG, lapsing into the typical religious trick of making things up as you can’t provide any facts?
If you really want to destroy my hypothesis that leftism (shorthand for the many varieties of rubbish (such as marxism, socialism, trotskyism etc) is a religion all you have to do is cite half a dozen countries where a centrally planned economy has worked. There are more than a few to choose from, such as N Korea, um er, Cuba, er um anywhere?
The god botherers have the same problem in producing any evidence for their claims, and they’ve have centuries to come up with any evidence. They keep failing too. As a result, you will excuse me if I don’t hold my breath waiting. I still think it’s a duck.
Which I haven’t done – that you accused me of using strawmen comes to mind here, it’s supposed to be my failing. Or have you forgotten already?
Berating all the denizens of the Palace of Westminster as a pile of greedy goons, I also moaned about the Tripoli crusade. Seems all of the buggers love playing with their military toys. For your information, (getting used to your poor English comprehension), all includes the right as well as the left wingers. The head of state doesn’t need fixing, it is the other place.
I have a vision of you hold a Fabian tract in one hand, making the secret socialist sign with the other, whilst intoning “Avaunt thee Dubya!” at my writings. I’m not any wing, just anti warmongering, greedy and incompetent politicos of all hues (which covers pretty much every one of them once they get power.)
And failed. He was invited to take power. Having once got it, he made himself dictator.
Kindly point out where I directly mentioned the name “Hitler”. That you got there from my hints underlines the point I was making about “no true leftie ™ “
Oh, and ~Na (epithet) und~ doesn’t appear anywhere in the Greater Oxford – you know I’m a monoglot. Perhaps you could have translated the Na and und for me? Or is it part of the sacred and secret leftie ™ cant, hence not for the profane such as I?
The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge
And going by your knowledgeable, closely reasoned, expertly argued, logical and factual demolition of my words, you consider yourself a genius, I suppose? I’ve been insulted by adults and experts, y’know. You will have to do better than that if you ever want to be let out of the kindergarten.
Phalacrocorax, not a particularly smart avian
Happy now? I would have used them earlier but kept making a silly mistake so they didn’t work. Sigh. I am still very much a tyro at html.
Walton it’s embarrassing the amount of intellectual gymnastics you’ll perform in order to rationalize your subject crush on the Monarchy.
Well they are very fast
Jackdaw the fuckwitted idjit:
You make the claim, you supply the supporting evidence, or shut the fuck up. Welcome to science, where the burden of proof is on the claimant, not the refuters. So, either play the game by the rules, or fade into the bandwidth.
Oh so this is the definition of religion now?
The inability to make a centrally planned economy work?
No, but the examples illustrate that more democracy does not always make things better. Democracy is not an a priori good. Rather, democratic institutions are only good if they produce, on balance, better results than non-democratic institutions – which is something that should be decided on a case-by-case basis. My argument is that there is no evidence to suggest that switching from a monarchy to an elected presidency in Britain would actually produce better results.
Rev, you need to keep up. Webster’s sent out a memo about it last week.
Whilst the Bashing the Monarchy stuff is all right, well and good, it puts me in mind of another debate…well, I say “another debate” but it’s the same thing really.
Are demonstrably “irrational” ideas and systems necessarily “bad”? And yes, I realise that there is a lot to unpack in the words in quotes. The essay that I always come back to is Douglas Adam’s Is There an Artificial God?.
Maybe it’s because I’ve been reading/listening to a lot of Alain de Botton’s work, but I’m finding myself thinking a bit more widely than I used to. Not that I have any great sympathy for irrational institutions like monarchies or ideas like the divine right of kings or zombie Jebus or magic virgin births or any such tommyrot. Rather that underneath these ideas and institutions exists something that actually does work perhaps. Something evidence based, open to proper scientific scrutiny and development. Perhaps it’s my (limited?) background as a physical scientist that means I’m only realising this NOW! ;-)
I don’t say this to advocate keeping the monarchy, far from it. Or to slow the pace of change whilst we study something. All comedy aside I am a republican in principle and practice. As long as, as Walton says in his far more monarchist-than-I posts, the evidence supports republics as being an improvement I’m all for them. This quote of Marx about religion always makes me think:
This is the sort of thing I want to apply to the monarchy/republic argument, for it is essentially the same argument, i.e. do we replace an objectively irrational system with an objectively more rational one. I’m interested in the consequences of such things, not to argue against them, but to understand them.
Obviously, in the quest to understand our universe and the quest for the truth (whatever that might be), the removal of irrational ideas matters. We should cut these things out ruthlessly wherever they are found. However, if we think we are purely rational beings, then we are committing ourselves to an unevidenced and irrational claim. One counter to the available facts.
Remove and destroy the monarchy by all means. I’ll even help. But make sure what it is replaced with retains what works about monarchies (if anything), discards what doesn’t and improves on the whole system generally. Tragically, I am not informed enough about social science/politics to really know the ins and outs of it all. Happy to learn though. What irks me is unexamined ideological commitments in favour of or against things like this. Ironic though it might be to use anything from Marx as an example of something without an ideology, but look again at the familiar quote. It mentions removing the flowers from a chain of oppression, not to keep the chain unadorned but to allow us to remove the chain itself. I look at removing the monarchy (and other such ideas) as removing the flowers. What concerns me is that certain forms of republic either leave the chain in place unadorned or merely replace the monarchist flowers with flowers of their own. It’s the chain I want rid of.
Louis
Jackdaw:
I’ve pointed out on several occasions that I’m not a socialist and I can think of several good reasons why keeping the monarchy could be a good thing – none of which you presented; likewise, I can think of other reasons why it would be a bad thing. It’s not a massively long thread and I’ve interacted with others on it as well so it can’t be all that difficult to work out what my position is.
“Na und?” just means “so what?”
To repeat what Nerd and Rev have said, the onus is on you to prove that socialism is a religion, not vice versa.
Just one last thing:
You said before that you haven’t presented any viable alternatives – if you think that nearly all “politicos” are greedy and incompetent, what exactly do you propose to do about it? Because the implication you seem to be making is “As soon as anyone (with a potential few exceptions) gets into power, they become greedy and incompetent”. It was for exactly that reason that I suggested earlier that it seemed like you’d prefer a pure monarchy, after which you decided that that was an “invention” on my part.
I’m done with you. Nerd and Rev, feel free to take over if you can be bothered to put up with this individual.
I see we have a RWSH* in residence. Well I’m sure my quoting of Marx will amuse it!
Louis
*Right Wing Shit Head.**
**John Stuart Mill hit the button:
Walton:
This is something about which I’ve been thinking a lot lately. It is generally understood by American free-thinkers (and for anyone with a brain, for that matter) that the USA is a better nation for it not being a pure democracy, insofar as it has a pre-defined constitution that was decided upon by its founders in order to protect the rights of minorities. A country that ruled by pure democracy alone would be a complete nightmare, especially given the human tendency for intransigence – a recent example being the AV referendum.
What seems to work best is a democratic model which is underpinned by core principles that cannot (except for in extreme or necessary cases) be overruled by the public. Where your problem lies is that, while it is possible to gain this underpinning from something like a Royal Family (though I’d say your point about a non-elected judiciary is better), there is no logical reason why the non-democratic installation of a Head of State should necessary come from a family predestined to rule. Especially if certain members thereof are woefully incompetent.
I made no such claim. We’ve been over this before. Would you be able to say the same about hereditary monarchy, and actually mean it?
This is basically the point I was just trying to make, though I don’t think it’s necessarily meaningful to speak of it so generally, at the level of “institutions” (depending on how the term is applied).
This is why I didn’t enter the conversation earlier, and I why I regret it now. It would appear you’re not willing to consider the abundant evidence that democratic governments are consistently better for the populace than non-democratic ones. It’s staring you in the face. If you want to offer special pleading for Britain or its royal family, that’s a claim you have to defend, not me.
Walton,
Even though I’m a republican philosophically and in practise, I think this:
Contains the kernel of a very good point. Crap, I just damned with faint praise didn’t I? Didn’t mean to! (Congrats on Harvard btw, if I forgot to mention it before)
As a political naif I’m not sure of the answers, and certainly willing to learn and explore.
The monarchy in the UK is essentially an anachronism. A relic, like castles and museum exhibits it’s a (relatively harmless) bit of colour that so long as it does no/little harm, or at least less than what would replace it/the cost of replacing it, I have little issue with it. However, should it be demonstrated to be harmful, it goes. I’m not sure I agree with the implied (or at least inferred by me) sentiment of the Dear Old Rev above when he says:
Even though I agree 100% with his words. The ideas and systems surrounding the monarchy are inherently false and utterly ridiculous. I just wary of babies leaving with bathwater. Hence why I a mention the religious angle above. We in the UK (for example) are a much less religious society than we were, but I would strongly question that we were more rational or scientific leaning in our outlook to anything like the same degree.
Yes what the Rev says above is true, but government does not necessarily involve the quest for truth in the same way that science does. I’m not saying it shouldn’t, or that we shouldn’t try to make more evidence based policies and more evidence friendly governments. Of course I favour more evidence in government, duh! I’m just saying that if we try to apply our hammer to every problem instead of just the nails, we’re in the shit up to our eyeballs.
Yet another caveat, because this is the internet and well…you know anyone who disagrees or argues with anything however mildly is immediately a donkey raping shit eater or worse, a stupid person {gasp}, none of this bears on the “truth value” of monarchist claims. They’re crap. What I am (badly) trying to advocate is a kind of knowing irrationality. We aren’t perfect rational beings and treating us as such is counter factual, perhaps in our governance a little bit of knowing irrationality is no great crime (so long as it does no genuine material harm). The tough question is where we draw the line and what line do we draw.
Louis
Dear FSM. The Great GDO of Clerical Errors, TYPO, has smitten me hard in the above.
Bastard.
Louis
Nerd of Redhead
It is a socialist article of faith that it will bring about a financial millennium, – to each according to their needs, from each according to their ability. So it’s up to you lefties to provide the evidence that it works. None of you can name even one state where a centrally planned economy succeeded. Everywhere it has been tried, it failed. For example N Korea, Russia, Cuba etc. In none of these did a planned economy provide economic success. Unless of course you lapse into to the “no true leftie ™ “ routine.
I’ve shown the failures of the doctrine, but as you point out, it’s really up to it’s supporters to produce evidence of a successful socialist state. If you can’t, take your own advice and fade away, because you have no evidence to back the claims of leftism. Meantime, I’ll continue mocking the socialist gospel.
Rev. BigDumbChimp
Nope, it’s the book, the sects, the reward in the far future, and the reliance on faith. It has never been known to work and there is no evidence to support the claims made for it. Just like the religions of old, but without a god or gods, but still with all the rewards in the future. Except for the priesthood of course, who get the special shops, the limos, the special lanes on the roads, and the Dachas. See above and earlier for more.
Le Havre en Chene
I hadn’t in my original post. I replied to your earlier crack :- The reform we badly need is to take a leaf out of the US book, and restrict the buggers to 2 terms in the Palace of Westminster. and then gave my reasons.
Have you got memory problems? Because as well as poor comprehension you appear to have a very limited memory span. Or are you just a barefaced liar? That’s religious doctrine too isn’t it – it’s OK to lie for the faith.
Bye.
Jadaw the fuckwit:
Fuckwit, you can’t talk your way out of your need for proof, cite the literature, as you are considered a liar and bullshitter who requires third party evidence to back up their inane claims. Or, shut the fuck up.
Oh my! lots of things to get my noggin around… where to start.
Regarding meritocratic versus purely democratic.
Walton appears to be arguing for meritocracy [or at least agin’ democratic elections] re sheriffs and the like, but is still blinkered regarding the monarchy – which is nether meritocratic nor democratic.
Since this seems to reflect a US/UK divide, I’ll focus on some of those points:
I do agree that voting for the dog catcher is a totally dumb action – but makes perfect sense from a historic perspective (lots of small towns, with limited communication and long travel times)
Note however that federal judges in the US are appointed, not elected — IMHO in a partisan process which is worse than a purely meritocratic approach (one adds ‘societally sanctioned polical flavoring’ the other maintains a grasp on ‘status quo’)
regarding the cost of monarchy versus another Head of State
The Crown costs the UK quite a penny – if you take into account the non-taxable status of the crown estates (by definition) as well as the cost of maintaining security and support for such a potentially large group of people.
EITHER
the country owns the Crown Estates (in which case queenie is NOT the richest woman in the world) which makes them a source of funding for the transition to a republican state (or at least, one without the monarch as HoS)
OR
the Queen owns the Crown estates, making her exceedingly rich, and with a rather large tax-bill due on transition to republic (again – offsetting many/all of the costs!)
Lastly: one head of state (plus retinue) will cost significantly less than the current family of leaches that enjoy the status of Royal.
Kinda like supply side economics?
religion, this word does not mean what you think it means.
Jackdaw, any discussion of a political ideology being a religion must include liberturdism. Compared to the socialist ideologies, which have real world evidence, liberturdism must be taken on pure faith, as there isn’t used by any first world country to provide present day evidence it really works. In fact, historical evidence says it doesn’t.
FYI to Jackdaw the fuckwit.
The term limits are not universal in the states…. and in fact are as follows
POTUS*: Limited to being elected to a total of two 4-year terms (except that a President who has already completed more than 2 years of an unfinished term may only be elected in his own right once), theoretically may succeed to the office an unlimited number of times. Making 10 years the maximum.
Senate: Unlimited 6-year terms
HoR: Unlimited 2-year terms
Supreme Court: No term limits – Appointed to serve “during good Behaviour” (in practice, this is effectively a life-time appointment)
Apparently another area where you say words but don’t really have a clue what they mean.
* per wikipedia… Franklin D. Roosevelt was the first and only American President to successfully break Washington’s tradition of 2 terms followed by voluntary withdrawal from office. He died in office a few months after starting his fourth term. This gave rise to a successful move in Congress to restore the two-term tradition in the Presidency. As ratified in 1951, the Twenty-Second Amendment states that “no person shall be elected to the office of President more than twice…”
Nerd of Redhead
There hasn’t been any. If you define religion as an unsubstantiated belief in something that has rewards at some indefinite time in the future but does not exist or work,, then it is a religion.
How can I quote the literature of a successful miracle? I’ve pointed out places where it failed, yet folk still believe.
Nerd of Redhead
The purpose of government is to clamp down on the excesses of groups within a society. Monopoly Capitalism is not a good thing either, and I have never advocated that. Once again I am accused of something that I do not advocate. You might like to consider that nationalised monopolies are a disaster for the same reasons that private ones are, they are run solely for the benefit of the folk at the top of the monopoly and can ignore any other considerations
‘smee
I merely advocated a leaf out of your book to suit our system, not the whole damn thing. This is not the forum for a complete overhaul of the British political system.
Summary
These criticisms continue to follow the same pattern. They open with a gratuitous insult, continue by inventing ludicrous things that I do not advocate, and ignore the really difficult question that I posed:
Name me a country where socialism (a centralised planned economy) actually works?
You can’t do it, hence your apparent incandescent fury, and your wild accusations of anything that I never said that paints me as an evil thug. These are the debating tricks used by the religious – I am the Anti-Marx and will be transported to the Gulag.
Here’s another question to tax your blood pressure – why did the Labour Party abandon the original Clause 4? Perchance, even they noticed that nationalisation didn’t work?
Rev. BigDumbChimp
The short answer is that I take it to mean belief in woo that doesn’t work.
Speaking of things people do not advocate, I think you’re mistaken that most of us here are socialists. We’re mainly liberals, and liberalism isn’t socialism. Your question isn’t difficult at all, but since I haven’t given you any gratuitous insults yet, here you go: you’re a pompous ass.
You can invent your own personal language if you like, but you can’t very well expect others to understand.
More generally, religion is a belief in supernatural agents or forces, which are claimed to be essentially or fundamentally immaterial/non-natural. Religion doesn’t mean “believing stuff that doesn’t work” or “believing stuff that jackdaw thinks doesn’t work.” Even if liberalism didn’t work (whatever that’s supposed to mean) or if it were worse than some other social philosophy, it doesn’t require belief in supernatural agents or forces. Thus is not a religion. The way you’re using the term is little more than a cheap insult. That would be fine, I guess, but it isn’t true, and makes you look even more idiotic.
consciousness razor
As I am continually accused of “right wing” evil ways, it seemed reasonable to assume that my accusers were left wingers. If it has yellow feathers etc. So simple, do not accuse me of being the Anti Marx and I won’t make any assumptions in return.
I am surprised – it was expecting “You eat babies for breakfast”!
I explained my reasoning. (I put astrology, spiritualism, Tarot and reading Tea Leaves all in the same basket too.) If you don’t like my definition, fine. But don’t accuse me of not explaining it. That is how the religious act, ignore the facts, the context and the explanations.
And the tirade of invective aimed at me were expensive insults, I suppose. That makes them OK in your book? Here’s a surprise for you, if you gratuitously insult me, I reserve the right to reply in kind. If you don’t like that, tough.
Best argument against monarchy so far: jackdaw supports it.
Fixed that for you Jackdaw. I don’t define religion like you. Nor will I even give your inane stupidity anything other than the word BULLSHIT!
But the, you need to say something and back it up with reality not be considered a bullshitter and troll.
Phalacrocorax, not a particularly smart avian
Oh, you flatterer you! I’m so important that my every word has far reaching power and effect. I must really be the Anti Marx in your theology.
Nerd of Redhead
I’ve pointed at several countries where a centrally controlled economy failed. You have yet to cite even one where it proved to be a success. This makes you the bullshitting troll,
You seem to believe that a monopoly run by incompetent time-servers who only look out for themselves and their capitalist bankers and mates in the government, and whose organisation is too big to be allowed to fail is an evil system. Whilst a monopoly run but incompetent time-servers who only look out for themselves and their socialist bankers and mates in the government, and whose organisation is too big to be allowed to fail is the epitome of benign profit for the people. Change a word and it works, what a miracle!
In short, whether or not it can be considered a religion, socialism doesn’t work. Monopolies should be kept to the eponymous board game.
jackdaw said:
(and, oh, how desperately we need the creationist class back)
Sorry, I forgot that anybody who disagrees with jackdaw automatically becomes a Marxist-Leninist-Trotskyist-Stalinist… I guess I’ll have to get used to my new identity now.
But I’m a little confused. Am I also a Kenyan-born anti-imperialist? Should I hate the Western world? Maybe I’m a secret Muslim, too. Could you please clarify these other aspects of my personality for me? Thanks in advance.
Meanwhile, I’ll sing some songs of praise to my new leader, chairman Mao.
Phalacrocorax, not a particularly smart avian
Why, do you want to learn some more of their techniques?
Nope, it’s those that use the religious technique – lordly dismissal without any facts or explanation ( viz Best argument against monarchy so far: jackdaw supports it), I’m going to assume a religious mindset and snark back. As for your ethical questions, take them up with your Kommissar, you will automatically dismiss any suggestions that I could offer.