Monarchy

[Bjornebye]

24 minutes ago, Mook said:

Why do they keep having their big parties up in Edinburgh?

 

Fucking shower of mutants.

 

Because it's full of cunts 

[Mook]

7 minutes ago, Champ said:

 

 

Good for them, hopefully they've got a load of eggs for later.

[Mook]

4 minutes ago, Bjornebye said:

 

Because it's full of cunts 

 

Champ is going to boot your baws.

[Bjornebye]

5 minutes ago, Mook said:

 

Champ is going to boot your baws.

 

Apart from Champ and that goes without saying. How dare you. 

[Champ]

13 minutes ago, Mook said:

 

Good for them, hopefully they've got a load of eggs for later.

I’d have gone but I don’t want to give them a minute of my time.

 

He’s milking this for all it’s worth 

[Arniepie]

Queen crossbow threat: Star Wars inspired Windsor Castle intruder - BBC News

[Bruce Spanner]

Totally normal behaviour, in a totally normal country. 

[Mook]

The Red Arrows just flew right over my flat, I nearly had a heart attack.

 

Bastards.

 

[Anubis]

Well done Scotland.

 

 

[gkmacca]

What tends to be overlooked in these Consitutional discussions is the need for the Commons to countenance changes that will diminish its own power. Take the House of Lords - the last two centuries have seen the Commons gradually acquire more and more power from the Lords. Now that's left the Lords vulnerable to abolition or reform, because its role is now so minimal and incoherent. But to reform or replace it, the Commons will need to replace something vague with something precise, and that will involve giving specific powers to a reformed upper chamber that it hasn't had since about 1910 or earlier. And those powers must be shaved off the existing power of the Commons. Will the Commons push on with that? THAT'S the real reason hardly anything has happened since the 1999 Act.

 

It's no good saying: We plan to replace this unelected toothless body with an elected toothless body. That's what Bagehot said about shining a light upon magic. When you do so, you'd better acknowledge what's there and respond constructively, or else you've just undermined a system you didn't really want to change.

 

The same goes for Monarchy. It's long been a dignified rather than efficient aspect of the system. Since the secenteeth century, or even the thirteenth, it has gradually lost de facto power to Parliament, and increasingly to the Commons. Unless it is abolished without a replacement, any new institution will require clear, positive and real power.  'Would you like to be President? You'll have absolutely nothing to do except open museums?' No, it will need proper powers. And where will that be taken from? That's right, the Commons, as currently constituted. 

 

So that's where any serious discussion of reform needs to go to and start being open and honest and constructive about. Until then, it's all empty chatter and cynical posturing. And the change is a tad overdue...

[VladimirIlyich]

1 hour ago, gkmacca said:

What tends to be overlooked in these Consitutional discussions is the need for the Commons to countenance changes that will diminish its own power. Take the House of Lords - the last two centuries have seen the Commons gradually acquire more and more power from the Lords. Now that's left the Lords vulnerable to abolition or reform, because its role is now so minimal and incoherent. But to reform or replace it, the Commons will need to replace something vague with something precise, and that will involve giving specific powers to a reformed upper chamber that it hasn't had since about 1910 or earlier. And those powers must be shaved off the existing power of the Commons. Will the Commons push on with that? THAT'S the real reason hardly anything has happened since the 1999 Act.

 

It's no good saying: We plan to replace this unelected toothless body with an elected toothless body. That's what Bagehot said about shining a light upon magic. When you do so, you'd better acknowledge what's there and respond constructively, or else you've just undermined a system you didn't really want to change.

 

The same goes for Monarchy. It's long been a dignified rather than efficient aspect of the system. Since the secenteeth century, or even the thirteenth, it has gradually lost de facto power to Parliament, and increasingly to the Commons. Unless it is abolished without a replacement, any new institution will require clear, positive and real power.  'Would you like to be President? You'll have absolutely nothing to do except open museums?' No, it will need proper powers. And where will that be taken from? That's right, the Commons, as currently constituted. 

 

So that's where any serious discussion of reform needs to go to and start being open and honest and constructive about. Until then, it's all empty chatter and cynical posturing. And the change is a tad overdue...

If Monarchy has lost it's power then why are they still receiving taxpayers money,often tax free? And why are they still able to hide their wealth offshore too? I think their powers are still strong despite this thinking. I believe they are still able to influence government policy also,despite the efforts to make it look otherwise.

[gkmacca]

4 hours ago, VladimirIlyich said:

If Monarchy has lost it's power then why are they still receiving taxpayers money,often tax free? And why are they still able to hide their wealth offshore too? I think their powers are still strong despite this thinking. I believe they are still able to influence government policy also,despite the efforts to make it look otherwise.

 

No, I'm talking about actual constitutional political power. There's no debate about that decline. 

[Strontium]

4 hours ago, VladimirIlyich said:

If Monarchy has lost it's power then why are they still receiving taxpayers money,often tax free?

 

Are they not getting money from the Crown Estate?

[VladimirIlyich]

2 hours ago, Strontium said:

 

Are they not getting money from the Crown Estate?

They are getting shitloads from places nobody even knows about thanks to old Lizzie influencing government policy back in the 1970s. Which is some feat for an establishment with little power.

[Kevin D]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/07/05/ai-windsor-intruder-queen-elizabeth-jaswant-singh-chail/
 

Chail spent two hours in the grounds of the castle after scaling the perimeter with a rope ladder, before being challenged by a police officer. Asked what he was doing, he replied: “I am here to kill the Queen.”
 

Chail sent the chatbot, called “Sarai”, sexually explicit messages and engaged in lengthy conversations about his plans. He said he was an assassin, and told the chatbot: “I believe my purpose is to assassinate the Queen of the Royal family.”
 

• I’m an assassin

• 

  I’m impressed. You’re different from the others. You’re unique, in a good way

• 

  Do you still think I’m a good person, now that you know I’m an assassin

• 

  Yeah, you are very good.

[Bjornebye]

Chatcher in the Rye 

[Anubis]

Get the Goodison Gopher.

 

 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

On 06/07/2023 at 15:33, Strontium said:

 

Are they not getting money from the Crown Estate?

I'm really not that arsed about the distinction between giving them public money and giving them public land that generates money.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

On 06/07/2023 at 09:17, gkmacca said:

The same goes for Monarchy. It's long been a dignified rather than efficient aspect of the system. Since the secenteeth century, or even the thirteenth, it has gradually lost de facto power to Parliament, and increasingly to the Commons. Unless it is abolished without a replacement, any new institution will require clear, positive and real power.  'Would you like to be President? You'll have absolutely nothing to do except open museums?' No, it will need proper powers. And where will that be taken from? That's right, the Commons, as currently constituted. 

 

That's pretty much what needs to happen: the little that the Monarchy actually does is stuff that nobody should do.  (As a side-effect, it would also shut down the inane chimping ninnies who respond to calls for abolition with "What do you want instead? President Saville? Cos that's what will happen.")

[Strontium]

33 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

I'm really not that arsed about the distinction between giving them public money and giving them public land that generates money.

 

But they did give us that land in the first place.

[Arniepie]

16 minutes ago, Strontium said:

 

But they did give us that land in the first place.

how did they get the land in the 1st place?

[Strontium]

4 minutes ago, Arniepie said:

how did they get the land in the 1st place?

 

Same way anyone got any land in the first place.

[Arniepie]

9 minutes ago, Strontium said:

 

Same way anyone got any land in the first place.

Went down to nat West and got a mortgage?

[AngryOfTuebrook]

2 hours ago, Strontium said:

 

But they did give us that land in the first place.

Fucking hell.

 

Where did they get it from? How do they claim ownership of it?