John52 Posted April 13, 2021 Share Posted April 13, 2021 malc d - 2021-04-13 10:07 PM Our monarchs don't dictate, are not allowed to make any rules ( without parliaments approval ) and don't indulge in plundering. ;-) We have no written constitution so they can make it up to suit themselves as they go along. My understanding is The Queen holds the ultimate power but doesn't use it as long as things keep going her way. She gives her power to the Prime Minister under the Royal Prerogative which assures his support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted April 14, 2021 Share Posted April 14, 2021 John52 - 2021-04-13 10:27 PM malc d - 2021-04-13 10:07 PM Our monarchs don't dictate, are not allowed to make any rules ( without parliaments approval ) and don't indulge in plundering. ;-) We have no written constitution so they can make it up to suit themselves as they go along. My understanding is The Queen holds the ultimate power but doesn't use it as long as things keep going her way. She gives her power to the Prime Minister under the Royal Prerogative which assures his support. Do you have any idea how stupid you look??? (lol) (lol) (lol) .......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malc d Posted April 14, 2021 Share Posted April 14, 2021 John52 - 2021-04-13 10:27 PM malc d - 2021-04-13 10:07 PM Our monarchs don't dictate, are not allowed to make any rules ( without parliaments approval ) and don't indulge in plundering. ;-) We have no written constitution so they can make it up to suit themselves as they go along. Have you any evidence of the royal family " making things up " in relation to 'running the country' - in RECENT history - ? (?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CurtainRaiser Posted April 14, 2021 Share Posted April 14, 2021 malc d - 2021-04-14 9:28 AM John52 - 2021-04-13 10:27 PM malc d - 2021-04-13 10:07 PM Our monarchs don't dictate, are not allowed to make any rules ( without parliaments approval ) and don't indulge in plundering. ;-) We have no written constitution so they can make it up to suit themselves as they go along. Have you any evidence of the royal family " making things up " in relation to 'running the country' - in RECENT history - ? (?) I have evidence of the royal family interfering in legislation that may impact on them personally. I also have evidence of the current government "" making things up " in relation to 'running the country' - in RECENT history - ?" Both of which strengthen the case for a elected head of state and a written constitution. On a separate note I wonder why we will extradite Julian Assange but not prince Andrew? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malc d Posted April 14, 2021 Share Posted April 14, 2021 CurtainRaiser - 2021-04-14 9:39 AM malc d - 2021-04-14 9:28 AM John52 - 2021-04-13 10:27 PM malc d - 2021-04-13 10:07 PM Our monarchs don't dictate, are not allowed to make any rules ( without parliaments approval ) and don't indulge in plundering. ;-) We have no written constitution so they can make it up to suit themselves as they go along. Have you any evidence of the royal family " making things up " in relation to 'running the country' - in RECENT history - ? (?) I have evidence of the royal family interfering in legislation that may impact on them personally. I also have evidence of the current government "" making things up " in relation to 'running the country' - in RECENT history - ?" I would not be surprised at all to learn that the royal family may " interfere in legislation that may impact on them personally " ......... and I suspect that a President would do the same. I believe that kind of interfering is officially known as ' lobbying ' - to make it sound more acceptable. I'm not surprised if you have evidence of the current government " making things up " - - but that doesn't mean that the Queen was involved. :-| Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CurtainRaiser Posted April 14, 2021 Share Posted April 14, 2021 malc d - 2021-04-14 10:04 AM CurtainRaiser - 2021-04-14 9:39 AM malc d - 2021-04-14 9:28 AM John52 - 2021-04-13 10:27 PM malc d - 2021-04-13 10:07 PM Our monarchs don't dictate, are not allowed to make any rules ( without parliaments approval ) and don't indulge in plundering. ;-) We have no written constitution so they can make it up to suit themselves as they go along. Have you any evidence of the royal family " making things up " in relation to 'running the country' - in RECENT history - ? (?) I have evidence of the royal family interfering in legislation that may impact on them personally. I also have evidence of the current government "" making things up " in relation to 'running the country' - in RECENT history - ?" I would not be surprised at all to learn that the royal family may " interfere in legislation that may impact on them personally " ......... and I suspect that a President would do the same. I believe that kind of interfering is officially known as ' lobbying ' - to make it sound more acceptable. I'm not surprised if you have evidence of the current government " making things up " - - but that doesn't mean that the Queen was involved. :-| That the queen didn't get involved is the problem, that is the role of a head of state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malc d Posted April 14, 2021 Share Posted April 14, 2021 CurtainRaiser - 2021-04-14 10:13 AM malc d - 2021-04-14 10:04 AM CurtainRaiser - 2021-04-14 9:39 AM malc d - 2021-04-14 9:28 AM John52 - 2021-04-13 10:27 PM malc d - 2021-04-13 10:07 PM Our monarchs don't dictate, are not allowed to make any rules ( without parliaments approval ) and don't indulge in plundering. ;-) We have no written constitution so they can make it up to suit themselves as they go along. Have you any evidence of the royal family " making things up " in relation to 'running the country' - in RECENT history - ? (?) I have evidence of the royal family interfering in legislation that may impact on them personally. I also have evidence of the current government "" making things up " in relation to 'running the country' - in RECENT history - ?" I would not be surprised at all to learn that the royal family may " interfere in legislation that may impact on them personally " ......... and I suspect that a President would do the same. I believe that kind of interfering is officially known as ' lobbying ' - to make it sound more acceptable. I'm not surprised if you have evidence of the current government " making things up " - - but that doesn't mean that the Queen was involved. :-| That the queen didn't get involved is the problem, that is the role of a head of state. But surely the same applies if a President didn't get involved when he should ? :-| Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CurtainRaiser Posted April 14, 2021 Share Posted April 14, 2021 malc d - 2021-04-14 10:27 AM CurtainRaiser - 2021-04-14 10:13 AM malc d - 2021-04-14 10:04 AM CurtainRaiser - 2021-04-14 9:39 AM malc d - 2021-04-14 9:28 AM John52 - 2021-04-13 10:27 PM malc d - 2021-04-13 10:07 PM Our monarchs don't dictate, are not allowed to make any rules ( without parliaments approval ) and don't indulge in plundering. ;-) We have no written constitution so they can make it up to suit themselves as they go along. Have you any evidence of the royal family " making things up " in relation to 'running the country' - in RECENT history - ? (?) I have evidence of the royal family interfering in legislation that may impact on them personally. I also have evidence of the current government "" making things up " in relation to 'running the country' - in RECENT history - ?" I would not be surprised at all to learn that the royal family may " interfere in legislation that may impact on them personally " ......... and I suspect that a President would do the same. I believe that kind of interfering is officially known as ' lobbying ' - to make it sound more acceptable. I'm not surprised if you have evidence of the current government " making things up " - - but that doesn't mean that the Queen was involved. :-| That the queen didn't get involved is the problem, that is the role of a head of state. But surely the same applies if a President didn't get involved when he should ? :-| The people then get to change the president. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malc d Posted April 14, 2021 Share Posted April 14, 2021 CurtainRaiser - 2021-04-14 10:59 AM malc d - 2021-04-14 10:27 AM CurtainRaiser - 2021-04-14 10:13 AM malc d - 2021-04-14 10:04 AM CurtainRaiser - 2021-04-14 9:39 AM malc d - 2021-04-14 9:28 AM John52 - 2021-04-13 10:27 PM malc d - 2021-04-13 10:07 PM Our monarchs don't dictate, are not allowed to make any rules ( without parliaments approval ) and don't indulge in plundering. ;-) We have no written constitution so they can make it up to suit themselves as they go along. Have you any evidence of the royal family " making things up " in relation to 'running the country' - in RECENT history - ? (?) I have evidence of the royal family interfering in legislation that may impact on them personally. I also have evidence of the current government "" making things up " in relation to 'running the country' - in RECENT history - ?" I would not be surprised at all to learn that the royal family may " interfere in legislation that may impact on them personally " ......... and I suspect that a President would do the same. I believe that kind of interfering is officially known as ' lobbying ' - to make it sound more acceptable. I'm not surprised if you have evidence of the current government " making things up " - - but that doesn't mean that the Queen was involved. :-| That the queen didn't get involved is the problem, that is the role of a head of state. But surely the same applies if a President didn't get involved when he should ? :-| The people then get to change the president. We'd just have to find a new president who promises not to do the same thing. ;-) p.s. I just don't find the prospect of a Presidential campaign every five years very appealing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted April 14, 2021 Share Posted April 14, 2021 I wonder if this might be of interest? https://tinyurl.com/38tv7nxp Basically, the UK monarch is merely a bird in a gilded cage. The one real remaining power the monarch has is to refuse to sign a piece of legislation into law by giving it the Royal Assent. As was long said by the senior civil service, refusal to grant assent was the "nuclear option". That power was a good lever to have objections to particularly controversial legislation heard, and the legislation possibly revised, but outright refusal would result in parliament removing the requirement of the monarch to give assent. I that were to happen we should be left with a Prime Minister who, with a sufficient majority, under the rest of our unwritten constitution, would be free to exercise pretty much untrammelled power. The PM chooses his/her cabinet, and the Commons trumps the HoL after one reference back for re-consideration. No checks, no balances. It more or less works most of the time, but only because people generally stick to the established conventions. I'm not convinced that remains a satisfactory way to conduct democracy. Too much power in the hands of a complacent few, and too little in the hands of the elected members, because too many of those members are beholden to the party machines that selected and promoted them for election. The real power is not in parliament, it is in the political parties, and of those just two. The power within the parties is exercised by the unelected "grandees" who "donate" their funds, for reasons to which no-one other than those unelected grandees is privy. Yet, we call it democracy. Supposedly government of the people, by the people, for the people. Under our system it is a mirage. Instead, we have government that veers between government of the people, by one faction, for that faction, to government of the people, by the other faction, for the other faction. Beginning in 1707 with the Tories and the Whigs, it became Tory and Conservative in 1834, Conservative and Liberal in 1859, and finally Conservative and Labour in 1924. Just two parties in perpetual opposition endlessly squabbling over who gets the biggest share of the national wealth, and in the process squandering much of that wealth as the power swings from one to the other and the winner lays waste to the other's achievements - not because they were necessarily bad, but because they didn't invent them! Well, that's my view! :-D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted April 14, 2021 Share Posted April 14, 2021 CurtainRaiser - 2021-04-14 9:39 AM malc d - 2021-04-14 9:28 AM John52 - 2021-04-13 10:27 PM malc d - 2021-04-13 10:07 PM Our monarchs don't dictate, are not allowed to make any rules ( without parliaments approval ) and don't indulge in plundering. ;-) We have no written constitution so they can make it up to suit themselves as they go along. Have you any evidence of the royal family " making things up " in relation to 'running the country' - in RECENT history - ? (?) I have evidence of the royal family interfering in legislation that may impact on them personally. I also have evidence of the current government "" making things up " in relation to 'running the country' - in RECENT history - ?" Both of which strengthen the case for a elected head of state and a written constitution. On a separate note I wonder why we will extradite Julian Assange but not prince Andrew? If you dont like living here ;-) .......... You know where the EXIT is >:-) ......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CurtainRaiser Posted April 16, 2021 Share Posted April 16, 2021 "I think we need more media articles about Prince Philip’s funeral as there are so many details that haven’t been covered yet, such as: - The predicted humidity levels inside the church. - Prince William’s likely brand of deodorant. - The ratio of silk to polyester in The Queen’s hat. - Why Meghan will / won’t watch it on TV from home and why that makes her a bitch and Kate would never do that because she’s just so amazing and Princess Diana would be so proud." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted April 16, 2021 Share Posted April 16, 2021 CurtainRaiser - 2021-04-16 7:42 AM "I think we need more media articles about Prince Philip’s funeral as there are so many details that haven’t been covered yet, such as: - The predicted humidity levels inside the church. - Prince William’s likely brand of deodorant. - The ratio of silk to polyester in The Queen’s hat. - Why Meghan will / won’t watch it on TV from home and why that makes her a bitch and Kate would never do that because she’s just so amazing and Princess Diana would be so proud." Thanks for supplying more ammunition for your Petard CowPat >:-) ............ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CurtainRaiser Posted April 16, 2021 Share Posted April 16, 2021 Bringing two threads together Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tracker Posted April 16, 2021 Share Posted April 16, 2021 Brian Kirby - 2021-04-14 11:56 AM Yet, we call it democracy. Supposedly government of the people, by the people, for the people. Under our system it is a mirage. Instead, we have government that veers between government of the people, by one faction, for that faction, to government of the people, by the other faction, for the other faction. Beginning in 1707 with the Tories and the Whigs, it became Tory and Conservative in 1834, Conservative and Liberal in 1859, and finally Conservative and Labour in 1924. Just two parties in perpetual opposition endlessly squabbling over who gets the biggest share of the national wealth, and in the process squandering much of that wealth as the power swings from one to the other and the winner lays waste to the other's achievements - not because they were necessarily bad, but because they didn't invent them! Well, that's my view! :-D A view to which I too have subscribed for many a long year. What we have is an alternating hot potch of power mad maniacs ruining the country in turn by a combination of greed, self interest, political dogma (actually politcal dogmess) U turns and general incompetence. But it is still preferable to what North Korea and many other down trodden peoples have so let us be grateful for small mercies! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tracker Posted April 16, 2021 Share Posted April 16, 2021 ooops - double post - sorry! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malc d Posted April 16, 2021 Share Posted April 16, 2021 Tracker - 2021-04-16 3:49 PM Brian Kirby - 2021-04-14 11:56 AM Yet, we call it democracy. Supposedly government of the people, by the people, for the people. Under our system it is a mirage. Instead, we have government that veers between government of the people, by one faction, for that faction, to government of the people, by the other faction, for the other faction. Beginning in 1707 with the Tories and the Whigs, it became Tory and Conservative in 1834, Conservative and Liberal in 1859, and finally Conservative and Labour in 1924. Just two parties in perpetual opposition endlessly squabbling over who gets the biggest share of the national wealth, and in the process squandering much of that wealth as the power swings from one to the other and the winner lays waste to the other's achievements - not because they were necessarily bad, but because they didn't invent them! Well, that's my view! :-D A view to which I too have subscribed for many a long year. What we have is an alternating hot potch of power mad maniacs ruining the country in turn by a combination of greed, self interest, political dogma (actually politcal dogmess) U turns and general incompetence. But it is still preferable to what North Korea and many other down trodden peoples have so let us be grateful for small mercies! The alternative to our system does not have to be the system from North Korea, or any other down trodden part of the world. For more democratic systems I would look at countries closer to home. Scandinavia for example. Our two party system only just gets by as ***acceptable if the ruling party changes every 5 or 10 years. :-| *** well, acceptable to ME anyway - but I haven't had to use food banks - yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted April 16, 2021 Share Posted April 16, 2021 Tracker - 2021-04-16 3:49 PM Brian Kirby - 2021-04-14 11:56 AM Yet, we call it democracy. Supposedly government of the people, by the people, for the people. Under our system it is a mirage. Instead, we have government that veers between government of the people, by one faction, for that faction, to government of the people, by the other faction, for the other faction. Beginning in 1707 with the Tories and the Whigs, it became Tory and Conservative in 1834, Conservative and Liberal in 1859, and finally Conservative and Labour in 1924. Just two parties in perpetual opposition endlessly squabbling over who gets the biggest share of the national wealth, and in the process squandering much of that wealth as the power swings from one to the other and the winner lays waste to the other's achievements - not because they were necessarily bad, but because they didn't invent them! Well, that's my view! :-D A view to which I too have subscribed for many a long year. What we have is an alternating hot potch of power mad maniacs ruining the country in turn by a combination of greed, self interest, political dogma (actually politcal dogmess) U turns and general incompetence. But it is still preferable to what North Korea and many other down trodden peoples have so let us be grateful for small mercies! Well yes, Rich. But "better than north Korea" is hardly a glowing accolade, is it? No system is perfect, but ours seems to have become particularly poor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tracker Posted April 16, 2021 Share Posted April 16, 2021 Brian Kirby - 2021-04-16 6:57 PM Well yes, Rich. But "better than north Korea" is hardly a glowing accolade, is it? No system is perfect, but ours seems to have become particularly poor. Always look on the bright side of life Brian! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malc d Posted April 16, 2021 Share Posted April 16, 2021 Brian Kirby - 2021-04-16 6:57 PM Tracker - 2021-04-16 3:49 PM Brian Kirby - 2021-04-14 11:56 AM Yet, we call it democracy. Supposedly government of the people, by the people, for the people. Under our system it is a mirage. Instead, we have government that veers between government of the people, by one faction, for that faction, to government of the people, by the other faction, for the other faction. Beginning in 1707 with the Tories and the Whigs, it became Tory and Conservative in 1834, Conservative and Liberal in 1859, and finally Conservative and Labour in 1924. Just two parties in perpetual opposition endlessly squabbling over who gets the biggest share of the national wealth, and in the process squandering much of that wealth as the power swings from one to the other and the winner lays waste to the other's achievements - not because they were necessarily bad, but because they didn't invent them! Well, that's my view! :-D A view to which I too have subscribed for many a long year. What we have is an alternating hot potch of power mad maniacs ruining the country in turn by a combination of greed, self interest, political dogma (actually politcal dogmess) U turns and general incompetence. But it is still preferable to what North Korea and many other down trodden peoples have so let us be grateful for small mercies! Well yes, Rich. But "better than north Korea" is hardly a glowing accolade, is it? No system is perfect, but ours seems to have become particularly poor. The current outbreak of sleaze in the government might be what Boris Johnson was looking forward to as the " sunlit uplands " ? :-D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CurtainRaiser Posted April 16, 2021 Share Posted April 16, 2021 Tracker - 2021-04-16 3:49 PM Brian Kirby - 2021-04-14 11:56 AM Yet, we call it democracy. Supposedly government of the people, by the people, for the people. Under our system it is a mirage. Instead, we have government that veers between government of the people, by one faction, for that faction, to government of the people, by the other faction, for the other faction. Beginning in 1707 with the Tories and the Whigs, it became Tory and Conservative in 1834, Conservative and Liberal in 1859, and finally Conservative and Labour in 1924. Just two parties in perpetual opposition endlessly squabbling over who gets the biggest share of the national wealth, and in the process squandering much of that wealth as the power swings from one to the other and the winner lays waste to the other's achievements - not because they were necessarily bad, but because they didn't invent them! Well, that's my view! :-D A view to which I too have subscribed for many a long year. What we have is an alternating hot potch of power mad maniacs ruining the country in turn by a combination of greed, self interest, political dogma (actually politcal dogmess) U turns and general incompetence. But it is still preferable to what North Korea and many other down trodden peoples have so let us be grateful for small mercies! Says the "man" who spent most of his working life ensuring that he didn't have to pay any tax and then bragged about it, self interest.....blah, blah.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted April 16, 2021 Share Posted April 16, 2021 Tracker - 2021-04-16 3:49 PM But it is still preferable to what North Korea and many other down trodden peoples have so let us be grateful for small mercies! Yes. But thats the direction we are heading in. So lets try and do something about it whilst we still can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted April 16, 2021 Share Posted April 16, 2021 pelmetman - 2021-04-14 4:34 PM If you dont like living here ;-) .......... You know where the EXIT is >:-) ......... If you want to live amongst corruption and sleaze you know where Saudi Arabia is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted April 16, 2021 Share Posted April 16, 2021 Brian Kirby - 2021-04-14 11:56 AM I wonder if this might be of interest? https://tinyurl.com/38tv7nxp Basically, the UK monarch is merely a bird in a gilded cage. The one real remaining power the monarch has is to refuse to sign a piece of legislation into law by giving it the Royal Assent. As was long said by the senior civil service, refusal to grant assent was the "nuclear option". That power was a good lever to have objections to particularly controversial legislation heard, and the legislation possibly revised, but outright refusal would result in parliament removing the requirement of the monarch to give assent. I that were to happen we should be left with a Prime Minister who, with a sufficient majority, under the rest of our unwritten constitution, would be free to exercise pretty much untrammelled power. The PM chooses his/her cabinet, and the Commons trumps the HoL after one reference back for re-consideration. No checks, no balances. It more or less works most of the time, but only because people generally stick to the established conventions. I'm not convinced that remains a satisfactory way to conduct democracy. Too much power in the hands of a complacent few, and too little in the hands of the elected members, because too many of those members are beholden to the party machines that selected and promoted them for election. The real power is not in parliament, it is in the political parties, and of those just two. The power within the parties is exercised by the unelected "grandees" who "donate" their funds, for reasons to which no-one other than those unelected grandees is privy. Yet, we call it democracy. Supposedly government of the people, by the people, for the people. Under our system it is a mirage. Instead, we have government that veers between government of the people, by one faction, for that faction, to government of the people, by the other faction, for the other faction. Beginning in 1707 with the Tories and the Whigs, it became Tory and Conservative in 1834, Conservative and Liberal in 1859, and finally Conservative and Labour in 1924. Just two parties in perpetual opposition endlessly squabbling over who gets the biggest share of the national wealth, and in the process squandering much of that wealth as the power swings from one to the other and the winner lays waste to the other's achievements - not because they were necessarily bad, but because they didn't invent them! Well, that's my view! :-D With no written constitution, I suppose we can only guess what would happen. When push comes to shove, whoever controls Her Majesty's Armed Forces controls the country. And they swear allegiance to her. Not to us Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdbrain Posted April 17, 2021 Share Posted April 17, 2021 One rule for The Royal Family another rule for others ... https://twitter.com/PatriotActive66/status/1383090404048928773 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.