Britain - The Official Thread
- Thread starter Ross
- 13,359 comments
- 616,653 views
- 87,575
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
It almost certainly also contains a massive lie.
Truss only lived in Roundhay from 1988-1994, and was a secondary school pupil throughout.
If she actually saw Savile regularly, at the height of his abuses, while she was exactly his kind of thing, there's next to no chance she'd be floating postmortem platitudes...
HenrySwanson
(Banned)
- 2,942
- United Kingdom
Amazing.
She has made a u-turn before even becoming PM
news.sky.com
And in a new poll Conservative members would vote for Johnson over the two contenders if he were on the ballot paper.
She has made a u-turn before even becoming PM
Liz Truss U-turns on public sector pay plan after backlash from Conservatives
The leadership hopeful rules out introducing regional pay boards to set wages less than 24 hours after announcing her latest pitch to party members.
And in a new poll Conservative members would vote for Johnson over the two contenders if he were on the ballot paper.
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,734
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
It would be hilarious if we didn't live here...Amazing.
She has made a u-turn before even becoming PM
Liz Truss U-turns on public sector pay plan after backlash from Conservatives
The leadership hopeful rules out introducing regional pay boards to set wages less than 24 hours after announcing her latest pitch to party members.
And in a new poll Conservative members would vote for Johnson over the two contenders if he were on the ballot paper.
- 437
- Merseyside
- merseyxshore
So all polling etc points to Labour cleaning up at the next general election, provided Miss Pork Markets can find the exit after a spell of Thatcher cosplay. I know Labour seems to promise various good progressive changes should they come into power, but I can’t help but feel like in Starmer we are getting our own Joe Biden; a spineless ghost of a leader full of unkept promises whose only real electable quality is that they’re not “the other guy”. Mick Lynch has done more for working people in the last couple of months than Labour has in years. These two party systems are an absolute sham and merely present the illusion of choice, and that choice is “exactly how right would you like your wing?”. Starmer's right-of-centre Labour is simply not an effective opposition beyond potentially being elected on the strength of their opponents' weakness. In fact, Starmer has spent much more time and energy in smearing and stamping out the left-wing true Labour element in his own party than he has actually opposing the Tories.
I’m sort of at the point now where I’m convinced that radicalism is the only effective route to change. Energy, transport, health, social care and education need to be fully nationalised. UBI must be introduced. Wealth must be taxed. Energy prices must be capped. Lobbying must be outlawed. The monarchy must be abolished. The house of lords must be abolished. MPs having second jobs must be banned. Any kind of call for gradual change in 2022 is as ridiculous and insulting as the fable of trickle-down economics.
I was hopeful that following the covid pandemic that there would be a massive rethink of how the country, and the world at large, is run and how resources are shared out, but no. Corporate greed has just tightened it's bond with those in power and kept the game moving in their favour. Perhaps the alarmingly escalating inflation, interest and energy costs will finally snap thing into focus for us all, and maybe we will begin to join the French ‘surrender monkeys’ in actually standing up for ourselves and burning a police car or two.
Sorry for the angry incoherent ramble I’m just fuming at the state of this miserable island and the rest of the world.
I’m sort of at the point now where I’m convinced that radicalism is the only effective route to change. Energy, transport, health, social care and education need to be fully nationalised. UBI must be introduced. Wealth must be taxed. Energy prices must be capped. Lobbying must be outlawed. The monarchy must be abolished. The house of lords must be abolished. MPs having second jobs must be banned. Any kind of call for gradual change in 2022 is as ridiculous and insulting as the fable of trickle-down economics.
I was hopeful that following the covid pandemic that there would be a massive rethink of how the country, and the world at large, is run and how resources are shared out, but no. Corporate greed has just tightened it's bond with those in power and kept the game moving in their favour. Perhaps the alarmingly escalating inflation, interest and energy costs will finally snap thing into focus for us all, and maybe we will begin to join the French ‘surrender monkeys’ in actually standing up for ourselves and burning a police car or two.
Sorry for the angry incoherent ramble I’m just fuming at the state of this miserable island and the rest of the world.
Last edited:
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,734
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
The only point I personally would have a minor issue with is, while I agree that the House of Lord's needs to go, we 100% still need a second house/chamber; oh and I would add that we also need to move to a proportional representation system of voting.
Last edited:
- 437
- Merseyside
- merseyxshore
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
I'm astonished at the BoE's anemic attempts to deal with inflation. It may be with you, as well as recession, for years to come.
As for anger and fire being an appropriate response, a stiff upper lip and phlegmatism might do as well, but go ahead with it and see where it gets you. You really do need to do something different.
- 13,077
- United Kingdom
- 437
- Merseyside
- merseyxshore
Please expand. My rationale is that I don't believe we should have a truly pointless unelected family of taxpayer-funded inbreds, degenerates and pedos with no grounding in the realities of daily life representing our country. I don't believe some melted BFG lookalike should be sat draped in gold, next to a multi-billion pound crown in its own gold chair, telling the rest of us that there's no money for heating. I don't believe that our plastic head of state should be using taxpayer money to buy her pedophile son out of sexual assault cases. There is zero practical application for this archaic and outdated system in 2022.
Also, if you're coming with the tourism argument, then we can still abolish the monarchy, seize their assets and simply open up all of the historic royal residences for tourists. It's not like American holidaymakers ever actually see the queen when they stand outside Bucky Pal-Pal, so what's the difference?
Last edited:
- 13,077
- United Kingdom
Yes, clearly the solution to a governmental problem is to throw a massive amount of history and profit out of the window.
A family that "costs the taxpayer" 70m a year and generates 1.7bn a year is really a massive drain on our economy isn't it?
If your view is that they have "zero practical application", why is abolition the solution to a governmental problem you are so passionately worried about? The Royals are one of the largest reasons the Commonwealth is still together and hasn't fragmented yet, and in the age of post-Brexit trade deal flops, a group of countries to trade to with Britain as the figurehead is what we need.
Removing the royals won't exactly be a cheap or easy process. What do we do with Royal Charters? How expensive will it be to redesign all the money? What do we even call the country?
Do you really want someone incompetent as Boris to have the chance to be the President of the country?
A family that "costs the taxpayer" 70m a year and generates 1.7bn a year is really a massive drain on our economy isn't it?
If your view is that they have "zero practical application", why is abolition the solution to a governmental problem you are so passionately worried about? The Royals are one of the largest reasons the Commonwealth is still together and hasn't fragmented yet, and in the age of post-Brexit trade deal flops, a group of countries to trade to with Britain as the figurehead is what we need.
Removing the royals won't exactly be a cheap or easy process. What do we do with Royal Charters? How expensive will it be to redesign all the money? What do we even call the country?
Do you really want someone incompetent as Boris to have the chance to be the President of the country?
- 437
- Merseyside
- merseyxshore
It's not a solution to the current governmental problem, it's a solution to an embarrassing social and cultural problem. Throwing out a tired shadow of a now irrelevant (and problematic) institution is not erasing history. History is defined as significant events that have already happened. Getting rid of the current monarchy will not change this, as the only history they seem to make now is controversial tabloid fodder.
It's not a case of how much or little the taxpayer gives them. It's the principle and precedent set by giving an already extremely wealthy family guaranteed public funds for no other reason than their lineage. This is so out of touch and insulting in 2022 it's ridiculous. And if the concept of a royal family is the only thing holding our trade together, then that is surely a case for better government rather than retaining an abhorrent institution. One is not a solution for the other, in the same sense that we can both remove the monarchy and improve our government. The two should not be mutually exclusive.
I for one wouldn't be arsed about their faces still being on the money. History, you know?
Oh and we call the country England, once Scotland and Wales gain independence and we give Ireland back to the Irish. Tiocfaidh ár lá
- 17,324
- United Kingdom
All that simply adds insult to injury. The reason for abolishing the Royals, is because they have no place in a modern democratic society.
So I agree with this. I'd probably support abolishing the monarchy, but it's separate issue. It's not going to fix the big problems in government or society.
However... reasons like this...
... should not be an obstacle for doing the right thing, none of these problems are insurmountable, or even that hard in the case of the money or the name.
The chance, yes. It's massively preferable to using birthright to determine these things.
Is the Monarchy okay because the Queen seems alright, or because a monarchy is a good system? If we didn't have a monarchy, would you vote to introduce an unelected family who's bloodline would reign over the country ad infinitum?
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,734
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
It wouldn't throw history out of the window at all (it's the statue argument all over again), and needn't dent profit either.
70m a year cost is a low-ball figure from the sovereign grant alone, and ignores a lot of additional costs and lost revenue, take for example the Duchy's of Lancaster and Cornwall, these are owned by the country, but all revenue from them goes directly to the royal family and not liable for tax as a result* (asset values for the Duchy of Cornwall are valued at over 1bn alone), nor does the grant cover the cost of security and policing for the family and its estates, nor the cost of regional trips (your council tax covers those as they are paid by local authorities). A more realistic cost is well in excess of £350m.
It's also not a zero sum game, most of the revenue the royal family bring in is via tourism, that doesn't go away if they are no longer in-situ, much as York raises around £1bn a year in tourism around Vikings without a single Viking still ruling the place. Opening up Buck Palace to overnight stays would allow you to utterly rake it in for example.
Citation that a bunch of countries in which the union flag is referred to as the 'butcher apron' and a number of which are moving towards removing the queen as head of state are held together by the royals is very, very much needed. Keep in mind that the Commonwealth is made up of 56 countries, only 15 of which still have the queen as head of state, so no, the Royal family don't seem to be a driving force in that regard at all. Rather the Commonwealth is a valuable political platform for a lot of smaller nations, something that has nothing at all to do with monarchy.
That was a weak argument pre-brexit, and remains one to this day. Pre brexit the commonwealth accounted for 9% of UK trade, post-brexit that's jumped by a whopping 0.4%. Lets not forget the UK-Australia one that benefits the UK economy by (checks notes) 0.02% over 15 years, yep that's going to help heaps, and is most likely going to be one of the more profitable ones from the Commonwealth.
You mean the things that are mostly ceremonial and have little to no legislative bearing anymore (and only around 750 of which exist)?
No more expensive that it does right now, we just replace the designed as and when currency is re-designed.
Britain.
I'd far rather have a someone I have a degree of democratic control over than an unelected and unaccountable family, and the entire system of peerages can go with it as well.
* tax is paid voluntarily and only after all expenditure has been removed.
Last edited:
- 29,952
- Bratvegas
- GTP_Liquid
Why is there an assumption that the Prime Minister is suddenly "upgraded" to an executive President? Does the UK have to copy the US at everything?
The European model with a split head of state President / head of government Prime Minister works in several countries. The President actually functions like the Queen is said to by royalists; a counsel to keep the executive powers vested in the Prime Minister in check with reserve powers to maintain executive balance.
If the point of the UK monarchy is as is often stated because "the Queen is there to keep the government in line" then as a political barrier of last resort she has done a terrible job. Have you seen the legislation passed and governments formed in her name over the past twelve years? And if the retort is "She keeps the government in check... no, no, not like that... she can only..." then what is the point? Think about it. She's there to keep the government in check. Does she? Can she? It's all fatuous anachronisms that don't work with modern politics.
The European model with a split head of state President / head of government Prime Minister works in several countries. The President actually functions like the Queen is said to by royalists; a counsel to keep the executive powers vested in the Prime Minister in check with reserve powers to maintain executive balance.
If the point of the UK monarchy is as is often stated because "the Queen is there to keep the government in line" then as a political barrier of last resort she has done a terrible job. Have you seen the legislation passed and governments formed in her name over the past twelve years? And if the retort is "She keeps the government in check... no, no, not like that... she can only..." then what is the point? Think about it. She's there to keep the government in check. Does she? Can she? It's all fatuous anachronisms that don't work with modern politics.
They stay in their mansions and become private citizens like the former royals of Austria, Germany and other countries are.
- 29,371
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
The actual state of Sunak and Truss.
What an absolute shower, the pair of them.
Truss is openly calling for a crackdown on "militant trade unions"... you know, those radical scumbags who demand such ridiculous things as fair pay and worker's rights, whilst she is almost literally making up her future policy as she goes along - policies that not only make no sense, but directly contradict one of her most beloved political mentors, a promising, young Liberal Democrat called Elizabeth who actually seemed to have a modicum of decency and a chance to be a worthwhile politician. Shame that Elizabeth switched parties and became Liz 'Margaret Thatcher but without the brains and even less of a heart' Truss.
And Sunak. Jesus wept. The only thing he has going for him is that at least he is honest... though if you are a Tory, that's a career killer. However, we should probably thank people like Sunak for being soutterly ******* dense honest as to say on camera that the whole 'levelling up' agenda is total bollocks (what?? Noooo....!!) rather to pretend that it was ever anything else than total bollocks.
Tl;dr: Sunak's political career is over - for which he and everyone else should be thankful; Truss's political career is about to take off - like Icarus.
What an absolute shower, the pair of them.
Truss is openly calling for a crackdown on "militant trade unions"... you know, those radical scumbags who demand such ridiculous things as fair pay and worker's rights, whilst she is almost literally making up her future policy as she goes along - policies that not only make no sense, but directly contradict one of her most beloved political mentors, a promising, young Liberal Democrat called Elizabeth who actually seemed to have a modicum of decency and a chance to be a worthwhile politician. Shame that Elizabeth switched parties and became Liz 'Margaret Thatcher but without the brains and even less of a heart' Truss.
And Sunak. Jesus wept. The only thing he has going for him is that at least he is honest... though if you are a Tory, that's a career killer. However, we should probably thank people like Sunak for being so
Tl;dr: Sunak's political career is over - for which he and everyone else should be thankful; Truss's political career is about to take off - like Icarus.
Last edited:
- 7,898
- Horbury, West Yorkshire
- GTP_Sprite
They can retire from their royal duties and live normal lives (as normal as it could be with such a background) no more tax payers money just their own.
I’m not suggesting a “Queen and I” scenario. Although an amusing read, it’s not on par with my own personal views of what should happen to them.
I’d say closer to the Swedish Royals. We’d still have to provide personal protection for them and there are some crackpots out there who’d love nothing more to endanger them or worse. But beyond that, they’re on their own.
The palaces, castles & estates along with all the paintings, furniture, books / documents etc. anything and everything which will benefit tourism.
To remove the royals we don’t need to remove the history and benefits they bring to the country.
UKMikey
Premium
- 18,395
- Grea'er Laandan
- UKMikeyA
- UKMikeyA
I think that's more of a "What?" and "We know" than a "Why?" and "How?". I agree with the principle but given that we can't even do a Brexit without breaking the country, I fear a Lizexit may be more effort than it's worth as far as the material benefits it'll bring the nation are concerned.
Last edited:
- 7,898
- Horbury, West Yorkshire
- GTP_Sprite
I agree, it’s all wishful thinking and the how part is certainly a very difficult prospect, and as you say we can’t even do Brexit without pulling the country apart.
The why is more of a personal thing in that so just hate the Royals, some love them and some (like myself) are more in the middle and see no real need for the people aspect anymore but the history (for better of worse) should be preserved.
Will it ever happen? No I don’t think so unless it comes directly from the family itself.
UKMikey
Premium
- 18,395
- Grea'er Laandan
- UKMikeyA
- UKMikeyA
Instead of president, can we have a lord protector instead? This'd sufficiently piss off the royalists but I can see where the title "lord" might be problematic if we end up overhauling the Upper House. Citizen protector it is, then. 
Last edited:
- 29,952
- Bratvegas
- GTP_Liquid
Similar threads
Latest Posts
-
Sports Cars GT Racing - GT1, GT3, Blancpain Endurance Series & National GT Series- Latest: OooAhh Cantona
-
-
