British Politics

[Pishy]

1 minute ago, Dazey said:

I don't get the appeal of royalty. They're like our version of the Kardashians only with slightly less full frontal nudity and venereal diseases. 

The 'royalty' are far more nefarious and diseased than the kardashisns. The kardashians are insufferable valley girls that allow poor Americans (which is the majority of the country) to feel it's possible to one day extricate themselves from merciless poverty and wear ugly sheer dresses that accentuate their enormous assess. In other words, it keeps the illusion going that "we are the richest and greatest!" A distraction to say the least.

But those lards never murdered anyone nor rained down death and destruction, occupied people's land nor went head hunting . The 'royalty' belong in the gulag, for eternity .

[SoulMonster]

10 minutes ago, Dazey said:

I don't get the appeal of royalty. They're like our version of the Kardashians only with slightly less full frontal nudity and venereal diseases. 

Kids learn about kings and princesses through movies and cartoons. It becomes very glamorous to them. I remember how disappointed my girls became when I showed them the drab royal castle in Oslo. That wasn't a castle out of fairytales with dragons and knights in shining armour! I also often tell them that it is possible to actually become a princess (!), you just have to marry the prince. Food for little thoughts.

[DieselDaisy]

Everything I know and like about royalty is contained in Shakespeare's history plays. 

Edited October 23, 2017 by DieselDaisy
Shit spelling

[SoulMonster]

16 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

I do not think this would happen in Britain somehow haha.  Most British families do not even sit at the table these days, and assuming they do, I cannot imagine newspapers diverting children's attention spans from their mobile phone devices while they eat their sugery cereals. Father would also be saying, ''shut up you little bastards - I'm trying to read the footy scores''. 

My girls don't have mobile phones yet and until they do I will enjoy our little morning tradition.

[Len Cnut]

3 hours ago, Dazey said:

I don't get the appeal of royalty. They're like our version of the Kardashians only with slightly less full frontal nudity and venereal diseases. 

Pageantry, history...they speak of a past, a documented past, that feeds into a sense of uniqueness and superiority, they are a common thread which ties our presents in with an illustrious past that, really, we have fuck all to do with in the modern day.  They carry a religious significance through the church of England as well as being remnants of days of empire and domination, when this culture led the world, or at least could lay claim to, in substantial fields of endeavour.  

[Graeme]

32 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

Pageantry, history...they speak of a past, a documented past, that feeds into a sense of uniqueness and superiority, they are a common thread which ties our presents in with an illustrious past that, really, we have fuck all to do with in the modern day.  They carry a religious significance through the church of England as well as being remnants of days of empire and domination, when this culture led the world, or at least could lay claim to, in substantial fields of endeavour.  

Hereditary succession has no place in a modern democracy.

[DieselDaisy]

5 hours ago, Graeme said:

Hereditary succession has no place in a modern democracy.

That is not really true though if, by hereditary succession you mean monarchical rule, as most monarchies today are constitutional monarchs meaning head of state is separated from the legislative, executive and judicial functions of their respective nations. Thus democracy basically functions independent of monarchy. In Japan, the reduction of the imperial family - the oldest royal lineage today - to a symbolic role has been the normative practice for the majority of Japanese history, power being excised through shoguns, regents and the (democratic) constitution (1947); it actually is highly unusual for the Tenno to have had any sort of power in Japanese history, and would be highly unusual today! In Great Britain's case she had already been a constitutional monarchy (1688 - c. 1701) long before democracy began to be implemented (1832 c. 1918): in other words, the unraveling/curbing of Stuart royal absolutism and the ascendancy of parliamentarianism (i.e. the House of Commons essentially) preceded enfranchisement by more than a century.

De facto constitutional monarchy and democracy are completely separate spheres. 

Where monarchy and democracy are antithetical is when royal absolutism exists and there is a general absence or abeyance of representative government. A good example would be ancien régime France or even the Personal Rule of Charles I.

 

[DieselDaisy]

7 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

Pageantry, history...they speak of a past, a documented past, that feeds into a sense of uniqueness and superiority, they are a common thread which ties our presents in with an illustrious past that, really, we have fuck all to do with in the modern day.  They carry a religious significance through the church of England as well as being remnants of days of empire and domination, when this culture led the world, or at least could lay claim to, in substantial fields of endeavour.  

I am not disputing this but you have to remember there have been 66 monarchs of England (and Britain from 1603)  and only around 20 of them presided over anything that could be called 'empire' as a modern term - taking Elizabethan colonisation of Ireland and Virginia in the late 1500s as a loose starting point. Much of the pageantry and institutions associated with English monarchy preceded empire by many years. The Royal Coat of Arms for instance (Lion rampant) dates from the reign of Richard the Lionheart. The practice of declaring a heir apparent 'Prince of Wales' originated 1301. The Order of the Garter was founded 1348. Most of the great officers of state originated during the Normans and Plantagenets. 

Regarding imperialism, the English (ironically perhaps) were laggards in European imperialism until at least the mid 18th century, paling in comparison to the Portuguese and Spanish, and later again The Dutch who carved out a spice emporium in the East Indies. The Spanish conquistadors were destroying these massive Mesoamerican empires, the Aztec and Inca, and carving out their own massive empire in place while transporting bullion back to the old world. England during a similar period was launching farcical piratical expeditions against Spain while settling belts of inhospitable terrain along the eastern American seaboard.

Even in British India (1612 - 1947), British rule until the Battle of Plassey (1757) consisted of a few trading enclaves and shaky Nawab alliances, locked in a, sometimes declared, sometimes otherwise, war with the similarly situated French. Even after Plassey, British rule was far from foregone. 

Edited October 24, 2017 by DieselDaisy

[Len Cnut]

2 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

I am not disputing this but you have to remember there have been 66 monarchs of England (and Britain from 1603)  and only around 20 of them presided over anything that could be called 'empire' as a modern term - taking Elizabethan colonisation of Ireland and Virginia in the late 1500s as a loose starting point. Much of the pageantry and institutions associated with English monarchy preceded empire by many years. The Royal Coat of Arms for instance (Lion rampant) dates from the reign of Richard the Lionheart. The practice of declaring a heir apparent 'Prince of Wales' originated 1301. The Order of the Garter was founded 1348. Most of the great officers of state originated during the Normans and Plantagenets. 

Regarding imperialism, the English (ironically perhaps) were laggards in European imperialism until at least the mid 18th century, paling in comparison to the Portuguese and Spanish, and later again The Dutch who carved out a spice emporium in the East Indies. The Spanish conquistadors were destroying these massive Mesoamerican empires, the Aztec and Inca, and carving out their own massive empire in place while transporting bullion back to the old world. England during a similar period was launching farcical piratical expeditions against Spain while settling belts of inhospitable terrain along the eastern American seaboard.

Even in British India (1612 - 1947), British rule until the Battle of Plassey (1757) consisted of a few trading enclaves and shaky Nawab alliances, locked in a, sometimes declared, sometimes otherwise, war with the similarly situated French. Even after Plassey, British rule was far from foregone. 

I was more citing Empire as one of a few qualifying factors, I was actually trying to be mindful of some of the above, hence the ‘at least could lay claim to’ bit.  

[Len Cnut]

9 hours ago, Graeme said:

Hereditary succession has no place in a modern democracy.

One dont really seem to effect the other in England.  She just has her big house and shiny hat and the government crack on with running the country.

Edited October 24, 2017 by Len Cnut

[DieselDaisy]

2 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

One dont really seem to effect the other in England.  She just has her big house and shiny hat and the government crack on with running the country.

That is basically what I meant but it took me a historical essay to say it haha. 

[Len Cnut]

5 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

That is basically what I meant but it took me a historical essay to say it haha. 

If it makes you feel any better it took reading your essay to come up with my post

[DieselDaisy]

3 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

If it makes you feel any better it took reading your essay to come up with my post

You should have said ''and the government crack on with making a dog's dinner of the country'' though.

[Len Cnut]

1 hour ago, DieselDaisy said:

You should have said ''and the government crack on with making a dog's dinner of the country'' though.

You'd be hard pushed to find a dog that'd swallow the dinners they been cooking up lately.

[Graeme]

5 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

One dont really seem to effect the other in England.  She just has her big house and shiny hat and the government crack on with running the country.

Any place. Even if it's just born to rule in a symbolic sense. I was fully aware of the content of Dies's post about constitutional monarchy when I made my initial statement, and I stand by it.

[Len Cnut]

6 minutes ago, Graeme said:

Any place. Even if it's just born to rule in a symbolic sense. I was fully aware of the content of Dies's post about constitutional monarchy when I made my initial statement, and I stand by it.

I wouldn't argue with ya mate.  The right, divine or otherwise, of kings and queens to rule, load of cobblers innit?  But at the same time when they're there and in a sense functionally impotent and a majority wish them to continue doing so then I wouldn't stand in their way, not ahead of a million other more pressing matters.  I do agree with you though really but I'm apathetic about the whole thing more than anything.  I guess they're symbolic of class structure and stuff like that too so it all depends on how you take what they symbolize.  I'm not sure as a second generation immigrant I have the right to be pontificating about what should or shouldn't be torn down from the nations history, I prefer to be a discreet observer in such situations. 

Edited October 24, 2017 by Len Cnut

[DieselDaisy]

Remember a 'democracy' and a 'republic' are not the same thing. The Romans invented a republic (res publica) as a form of government when they deposed the last of the Tarquins and it was, and always remained, far from democratic - it was heavily timocratic in fact, much like Great Britain before parliamentary reform.

[AtariLegend]

Conservative party escapes punishment for 'unlawful' telephone campaign

The party is "warned" over market research that framed questions in a way to gain support.

 

The Conservatives have been censured for an "unlawful" marketing campaign during the 2017 general election.

The party conducted a telephone campaign, purporting to be market research, that was ruled on Monday to have "crossed the line".

It was criticised for using a company that called voters to quiz them on their voting intention - but framed questions in a way to gain support.

This "fell outside the bounds of (legitimate) market research", the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) said.

t ruled: "Two small sections of the written scripts used by those making the calls crossed the line from legitimate market research to unlawful direct marketing.

"The law protects people from this kind of marketing because it can be intrusive.

"As part of our investigation, we studied scripts and call recordings and were satisfied that, in general, the questions reflected a valid market research campaign.

"But we did have concerns about two sections which we believe fell outside the bounds of market research. These paragraphs referenced both Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn in relation to policy choices."

The Tories escaped any legal or regulatory action, the ICO said, because "the overall campaign was genuine market research".

It said the two concerning sections were "not enough to trigger formal enforcement action when considered along with the campaign as a whole".

The ICO said it had only given the party a warning and "been clear about what we expect in the future", after Channel 4 News presented it with evidence on allegations of illegality.

A party spokesperson was asked for comment but none was received at the time of publication.

Source: http://news.sky.com/story/conservative-party-escapes-punishment-for-unlawful-telephone-campaign-11095928

What's the point of the electoral commission?

[Len Cnut]

Poor Theresa, thats all she fuckin' needs eh? Wouldn't fancy her job at the moment as it is.

[DieselDaisy]

I think Atari has a crush on Theresa May

[AtariLegend]

If you're wondering why half of them matter, alot are affairs;

@DieselDaisy Is Kkwasi Kwarteng your new hero? A hard right wing Brexiteer, who looks like he's going to throw up every time he sees the poor and is apparently banging half the female Tories?

American websites are publishing it, but UK ones are picking/choosing what to redact. 

Edited November 1, 2017 by AtariLegend

[DieselDaisy]

14 hours ago, AtariLegend said:

If you're wondering why half of them matter, alot are affairs;

@DieselDaisy Is Kkwasi Kwarteng your new hero? A hard right wing Brexiteer, who looks like he's going to throw up every time he sees the poor and is apparently banging half the female Tories?

American websites are publishing it, but UK ones are picking/choosing what to redact. 

Never heard of the bugger however I did instantly take a liking for that Labour ginger, O Mara I think he was called, who - well I'll quote a snippet from The Guardian,

Quote

 The comments included jokes about having an orgy with members of Girls Aloud, a claim that Michelle McManus had only won Pop Idol “because she was fat”, and a suggestion it would be funny if the jazz star Jamie Cullum were “sodomised with his own piano”.

Absolute legend.

[Ace Nova]

NHS won't allow you to get a surgery if you're overweight or smoke?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/17/nhs-provokes-fury-indefinite-surgery-ban-smokers-obese/amp/

 

Knock it off, UK....we are trying to move towards a single payer system in the US and stuff like this is just ammunition for those opposed.  Smh.

 

[DieselDaisy]

4 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

NHS won't allow you to get a surgery if you're overweight or smoke?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/17/nhs-provokes-fury-indefinite-surgery-ban-smokers-obese/amp/

 

Knock it off, UK....we are trying to move towards a single payer system in the US and stuff like this is just ammunition for those opposed.  Smh.

 

You cannot even get an antibiotic from the NHS now unless you are elderly. My mother steals them from her workplace so we have them stockpiled in case a family member gets the flu severely - no, we don't abuse them before anyone says.

[Ace Nova]

Just now, DieselDaisy said:

You cannot even get an antibiotic from the NHS now unless you are elderly. My mother steals them from her workplace so we have them stockpiled in case a family member gets the flu severely - no, we don't abuse them before anyone says.

That's horrible.