Let the taxpayer buy the Queen a new yacht says Tory

[watsons torment]

shes got a personal fortune of 350 million, why can't she buy her own ultra luxury boat.

 

[Mr Smokes Blunts.]

Don't tell me you've lapsed into self-parody already...

Don't tell me you've lapsed into one liners with no sense of debate already....

 

[jancrow]

There is nothing hazy about it. Not changing head of states every 5 years means that greater bonds can be made internationally over time. It also stops the top position becoming horrendously party political - for instance, Sarkozy is up for election next year. So what is he doing? He's trying to play tough in Europe, being a total dick, which ruins France's repuation. Neblous enough for you?

Ok, you're firming it up a bit now, that sounds much more reasonable. However, the Queen is much less integral to the running of this country than you seem to believe. Other countries get along just fine without a monarchy.

 

[Mr Smokes Blunts.]

Ok, you're firming it up a bit now, that sounds much more reasonable. However, the Queen is much less integral to the running of this country than you seem to believe. Other countries get along just fine without a monarchy.

They get along just fine, but I think they would still be better with a monarchy. The UK punches well above it's weight on the international stage, and it's hard to not attribute at least some of this to the Queen. Even the man who was elected to what could be argued the highest position on earth, Obama, was delighted to meet this random old lady.

 

[jancrow]

I was looking for something to 'shop but then I didn't need to:

 

[StoneHappyMonday]

Well you accused me of simply jumping in to support anything the conservatives say and do, which is not the case. You on the other hand can't help sounding like a Guardianista.

Nope. I merely quoted the Guardian.

You then use my sources as a way to insult rather than debate.

It's not the fact you read, it's the fact you read reenforcing liberal mumbo jumbo,

And again.

It was a news story. Not comment. Do you know the difference?

and seemingly refuse to interact with any other sources of information that might challenge you.

To be fair, you just mean I find it hard to interact with you.

And that is true.

 

[Jabberwocky]

sorry, i've been trying really hard not to, but we can't have a debate about the monarchy without introducing something that i think would go a long way to legitimising* it..... nsfw for size and total off topicness.

NSFW:

To the citizens of the United States of America from Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II:

In light of your immediate failure to financially manage yourselves and also in recent years your tendency to elect incompetent Presidents of the USA and therefore not able to govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation of your independence, effective immediately. (You should look up 'revocation' in the Oxford English Dictionary.)

Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will resume monarchical duties over all states, commonwealths, and territories (except Kansas , which she does not fancy).

Your new Prime Minister, David Cameron, will appoint a Governor for America without the need for further elections.

Congress and the Senate will be disbanded. A questionnaire may be circulated sometime next year to determine whether any of you noticed.

To aid in the transition to a British Crown dependency, the following rules are introduced with immediate effect:

1. The letter 'U' will be reinstated in words such as 'colour,' 'favour,' 'labour' and 'neighbour.' Likewise, you will learn to spell 'doughnut' without skipping half the letters, and the suffix '-ize' will be replaced by the suffix '-ise.'Generally, you will be expected to raise your vocabulary to acceptable levels. (look up 'vocabulary'). (I love that one)


Using the same twenty-seven words interspersed with filler noises such as ''like' and 'you know' is an unacceptable and inefficient form of communication. There is no such thing as U.S. English. We will let Microsoft know on your behalf. The Microsoft spell-checker will be adjusted to take into account the reinstated letter 'u'' and the elimination of '-ize.' ' (I love that one too)

3. July 4th will no longer be celebrated as a holiday.

4. You will learn to resolve personal issues without using guns, lawyers, or therapists. The fact that you need so many lawyers and therapists shows that you're not quite ready to be independent. Guns should only be used for shooting grouse. If you can't sort things out without suing someone or speaking to a therapist, then you're not ready to shoot grouse.

5. Therefore, you will no longer be allowed to own or carry anything more dangerous than a vegetable peeler. Although a permit will be required if you wish to carry a vegetable peeler in public.

6. All intersections will be replaced with roundabouts, and you will start driving on the left side with immediate effect. At the same time, you will go metric with immediate effect and without the benefit of conversion tables. Both roundabouts and metrication will help you understand the British sense of humour.

7. The former USA will adopt UK prices on petrol (which you have been calling gasoline) of roughly $10/US gallon. Get used to it.)

8.You will learn to make real chips. Those things you call French fries are not real chips, and those things you insist on calling potato chips are properly called crisps. Real chips are thick cut, fried in animal fat, and dressed not with catsup but with vinegar.

9. The cold, tasteless stuff you insist on calling beer is not actually beer at all. Henceforth, only proper British Bitter will be referred to as beer, and European brews of known and accepted provenance will be referred to as Lager. New Zealand beer is also acceptable, as New Zealand is pound for pound the greatest sporting nation on earth and it can only be due to the beer. They are also part of the British Commonwealth - see what it did for them. American brands will be referred to as Near-Frozen Gnat's Urine, so that all can be sold without risk of further confusion.

10. Hollywood will be required occasionally to cast English actors as good guys. Hollywood will also be required to cast English actors to play English characters. Watching Andie Macdowell attempt English dialogue in Four Weddings and a Funeral was an experience akin to having one's ears removed with a cheese grater.

11. You will cease playing American football. There are only two kinds of proper football; one you call soccer, and rugby (dominated by the New Zealanders). Those of you brave enough will, in time, be allowed to play rugby (which has some similarities to American football, but does not involve stopping for a rest every twenty seconds or wearing full kevlar body armour like a bunch of nancies).

12. Further, you will stop playing baseball. It is not reasonable to host an event called the World Series for a game which is not played outside of America . Since only 2.1% of you are aware there is a world beyond your borders, your error is understandable. You will learn cricket, and we will let you face the Australians (World dominators) first to take the sting out of their deliveries.

13. You must tell us who killed JFK. It's been driving us mad.

14. An internal revenue agent (i.e. tax collector) from Her Majesty's Government will be with you shortly to ensure the acquisition of all monies due (backdated to 1776).

15. Daily Tea Time begins promptly at 4 p.m. with proper cups, with saucers, and never mugs, with high quality biscuits (cookies) and cakes; plus strawberries (with cream) when in season.

God Save the Queen!

sorry americans.

* legitimising in my head, rather than by any external means.

 

[jancrow]

They get along just fine, but I think they would still be better with a monarchy. The UK punches well above it's weight on the international stage, and it's hard to not attribute at least some of this to the Queen. Even the man who was elected to what could be argued the highest position on earth, Obama, was delighted to meet this random old lady.

I really don't think that more of the world's citizens would be better off with a bunch of unelected inbreds taking money from them for doing a job which they were not invited to do.

Do you like the idea of the queen alone or the queen plus extended family including scumbags like the Kents?

How do you know that Obama was actually delighted? Might he not have been more delighted had he been allowed to wear the crown and sit on a throne and get his picture taken?

 

[Vader]

Give them an unlimited bus pass and £20 max to spend on food per day and be done with it. most people fucking live off less than that! And most people buy their lunch out of their own wages.

You don't see the heads of FTSE 100 companies catching the bus or eating Maccy Ds. I understand the righteous indignation behind the idea that politicians should be frugal, but if you want the best and brightest to pursue politics, you need to make it an attractive prospect. Most people are not qualified to run the country, and we need to offer those that are some kind of reward. If you demand such a mean compensation, you exacerbate one of the biggest problems with the current system- that the only people in Government are upper-middle class Etonians who don't really need the money to live. Why would a bright kid from a Northern comprehensive want to be an MP if they know they're going to be less comfortable than if they took a private sector job? Of course, there's always going to be some sacrifice in the name of public service, but making demands like yours only ensures that the less privileged will remain excluded from government. I'm not trying to defend abusing the expense system, or lavishing riches on MPs, just giving them the kind of expense account that would be commensurate with what they would receive if they held a similarly senior position in the private sector.

 

[Mr Smokes Blunts.]

Nope. I merely quoted the Guardian.

You then use my sources as a way to insult rather than debate.



And again.

It was a news story. Not comment. Do you know the difference?



To be fair, you just mean I find it hard to interact with you.

And that is true.

O so you didn't write this?:

Its ok MSB, party line has changed, you don't need to defend this shit anymore.

Downing St rejects yacht as inappropriate

If you think the Guardian is an unbiased source of news I don't know whether to laugh or cry. The whole paper can be summarised into 'WAAAHHHH WAAAAHHH BOOO HOOO'.

 

[Mr Smokes Blunts.]

I really don't think that more of the world's citizens would be better off with a bunch of unelected inbreds taking money from them for doing a job which they were not invited to do.

Do you like the idea of the queen alone or the queen plus extended family including scumbags like the Kents?

How do you know that Obama was actually delighted? Might he not have been more delighted had he been allowed to wear the crown and sit on a throne and get his picture taken?

By that same token I don't think the world's citizens would be better off with a bunch of elected inbreds taking money from them to do a job worse than a monarchy would. Many countries might as well be monarchies, like Pakistan, who elect generation after generation to the top position. Then we have countries like Italy where Berlusconi has ruled has royally fucked everything. I have never seen Obama so happy to meet any other heads of state, and he said as much. The extended family in the royals cost a pitance, and they come with the territory. If you have a long standing ruler, their families need to be protected.

 

[Mailmonkey]

I'm only in this thread for the lulz.

I find it impossible to interact with you too MSB when you got onto this sort of rant. I've told you this before, so it's not news, more comment. Which is free.

 

[tambourine-man]

Hold all the interviews you want, you'll only throw your toys out of your pram when an Etonian gets the job.

You're missing the central plank of argument against having an elected figurehead.

In the highly unlikely event that the UK became a Republic with an elected figurehead, the electable competitors would be dominated by big brother contestants, x-factor rejects, the stars of YouTube viral advertising, and people who are famous for having fake tits.

Despite loathing what Monarchy stands for, a UK Republic would be like some horridly deformed version of Celebrity Juice.

 

[jancrow]

Those are just two countries rather than a worldwide trend, and Pakistan has only existed for a couple of generations after being pretty much randomly carved out of India so I think it's fair to say that a pattern hasn't really developed there. Italy's another matter but interestingly enough is also a very young country.

I don't see why the extended family come with the territory? If anything this makes the royal family sound even more like a product of the Dark Ages than they actually are, and just because something costs 'a pittance' (a term which I think you're stretching here, to be honest) doesn't mean it should be maintained out of the public pocket. "Yeah, I don't like it, but it was (comparatively) cheap". "What does it do?" "Fuck all".

I don't see any compelling evidence for hanging onto the queen here or anywhere else, much less buying her a boat which will cost more than you or I will earn in our lifetimes.

 

[Mailmonkey]

"Yeah, I don't like it, but it was (comparatively) cheap". "What does it do?" "Fuck all".

"Who's paid for it?"
"You"
"Sweet, can I go out fishing on it?"
"No, get back where you belong peasant...make sure you cough up the cash first though"

 

[Mr Smokes Blunts.]

I'm only in this thread for the lulz.

I find it impossible to interact with you too MSB when you got onto this sort of rant. I've told you this before, so it's not news, more comment. Which is free.

I don't feel like I am ranting... I can see how you might think that I am because I post rapidly and prolifically when I am defending a point against certain users. But if you look at the posts between chinup and jancrow, and me, then you should see a different trend because they are more interested in getting into an actual debate. I don't believe we have ever actually debated any issues, for you to come to the conclusion that it would be impossible to interact with me?

I guess the thing you have to remember is that 9/10 I am arguing alone against a mix of posters who range from being reasonable to acting like you've stabbed them in the eye, to snipping one line in several paragraphs that I have written to try and act clever. To be honest this is the first time I've even got into anything that even slightly resmbles a heated debate since Marmalade left.

If you could highlight what it is that comes across as ranting I would appreciate it?

 

[Myshkin]

I guess the thing you have to remember is that 9/10 I am arguing alone against a mix of posters who range from being reasonable to acting like you've stabbed them in the eye, to snipping one line in several paragraphs that I have written to try and act clever.

The lone voice of reason, eh? It must be one lonely furrow to plough...

 

[Mr Smokes Blunts.]

Those are just two countries rather than a worldwide trend, and Pakistan has only existed for a couple of generations after being pretty much randomly carved out of India so I think it's fair to say that a pattern hasn't really developed there. Italy's another matter but interestingly enough is also a very young country.

I don't see why the extended family come with the territory? If anything this makes the royal family sound even more like a product of the Dark Ages than they actually are, and just because something costs 'a pittance' (a term which I think you're stretching here, to be honest) doesn't mean it should be maintained out of the public pocket. "Yeah, I don't like it, but it was (comparatively) cheap". "What does it do?" "Fuck all".

I don't see any compelling evidence for hanging onto the queen here or anywhere else, much less buying her a boat which will cost more than you or I will earn in our lifetimes.

Those are just two countries that I have cherry picked. You would be harder pushed to find another country with a president that runs as smoothly as we do, or indeed a country that saves money via having a presidency. There are dozens of other examples I can give; e.g. Bush senior and junior in America. Putin in Russia, who lives in opulence the Royals can only dream of. Sarkozy being a fuck about in France. India has seen 3 generations of Ghandi's take presidency. I think that covers almost every noteable presidency on the planet?

To be honest, I don't think there are many countries on earth who enjoy foreign relations like we British do. I don't really think 5 years is long enough to get to grips with the job. Plus, with your position that these presidencies can hide behind how young the system is, wouldn't you be doing the same thing to plaster over any failings of our new system?

Our system is very good. And I believe the saying is if it aint broke don't fix it...

 

[Mr Smokes Blunts.]

The lone voice of reason, eh? It must be one lonely furrow to plough...

to snipping one line in several paragraphs that I have written to try and act clever.

Cheers for illustrating my point perfectly

 

[jancrow]

What are those examples of as some seem to relate to your previous point (loosely, I'd hardly call two non-successive presidents in America a dynasty) and one to your second sentence, and that's Putin, and there's only one of him living in opulence rather than a huge clan of Putins raping the taxpayer and lining up to take over once he's gone? I assume that his family are probably fairly well looked after and he's clearly a massively shifty bastard who I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy but that is a bit of a sideline. I would also point out that I'm not arguing for a presidency, never have and never would. I actually think that the PM / Cabinet model works reasonably well in theory, and I simply don't believe that the monarch has any significant influence on the democratic process. She signs shit off but it's a completely ceremonial role.

While I appreciate what you are saying about five years not being long enough to establish firm relationships with other world leaders I honestly think that you are overstating the queen's importance on the world stage. Let's not forget that most other countries (that we have diplomatic relationships with, anyway) shift leaders about as regularly as we do so there is no significant advantage in hanging on for ever and ever. She's 85 and has lived a largely isolated life during which she has never had to fend for herself, pass an exam, get a job or go to the shop for ten B&H and a packet of rizla. How can someone so removed from everyday reality possibly understand or represent our interests at home or abroad? How useful can someone who has never had to rely on her own resources be in the cut and thrust of international diplomacy? She's the one who, if I squint and I'm feeling generous I can just about see the point of. Yet you seem to be supportive of the entire royal family including the hangers on at the fringes and I can't see any reason for that but blind sentimentality.

I'm not saying anything about those presidencies beyond the fact that I don't think anyone can claim there's a significant pattern in Pakistan when it has been in existence for such a short time. I'm not making a judgement on the nature of the presidencies and it would be Knight's Move thinking for me to transpose those processes onto a British republic in any case.

EDIT: Also, Putin 'lives in opulence the Royals can only dream of'? Do you have a source for this comparison or is it more of the same brand of conjecture which I see again and again across the last couple of pages?