Let the taxpayer buy the Queen a new yacht says Tory

[parttime crackhead]

Being the queen would be shite. Having to meet up with the pope once a year for a square go on the 12th must get a bit tiring.

Prince Philip is a fucking boss though. I actually love that guy. I'd hate to be any other member of the direct royal family, they all need to be responsible/respectable to certain degree (& they're all inbred posh cunts), but big Philip can just sit there like "Shut it pal, I'm shagging the queen! Make me some tea. Tell that black man to stop chucking spears & check out the funny wee eyes on the chinaman!!!"

 

[knock]

is meant to be the transitionary period between capitalism and communism.

Yeah, the Marxist/Leninist tradition holds that view. The anarchist/libertarian tradition does not accept that a communist society can emerge from any kind of authoritarian transitional phase, that on the contrary authoritarian structures are self-maintaining, and history agrees. That's why I'm a libertarian communist.

Anyway Kate's given me a slap so I'll stop the off-topic chat.

 

[Mr Smokes Blunts.]

Yeah and the Queen travels on Easy Jet.



While not denying Putin's a cunt, this figure is the most wildly inaccurate (and out of date - 2007) that you could glean from one look at a google page.

But maybe you're right. Maybe every rich scumbag is really permanently in a state of misery being envious of the even richer scumbag on top of them.

Poor Queenie.

You are entirely missing the point. The alternative to the Queen is a president. Why not take a look around the globe at what presidents offer their people; more expense, more cronyism/corruption, and they do a worse job. What do we gain? Well, we pacify people like yourself. Not worth it.

That link was one I picked out of sheer laziness, because I already knew Putins wealth from when I studied Russian politics a few years ago. Most of his money is held in private and hidden bank accounts though. Here's a Guardian link, i'll NSFW it because I know how bonerific it can be for you:

NSFW:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/22/vladimir-putin-wealth-russian-election

 

[Mr Smokes Blunts.]

I think you've managed to highlight the reasons for yourself over the last few posts.

Surely you can see that I only meet personal attacks with personal attacks? I don't run around attacking other people willy nilly just because they take an opposing view to me.

 

[StoneHappyMonday]

i'll NSFW it because I know how bonerific it can be for you:

NSFW:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/22/vladimir-putin-wealth-russian-election

Surely you can see that I only meet personal attacks with personal attacks? I don't run around attacking other people willy nilly just because they take an opposing view to me.

LOL etc.

 

[jancrow]

You say that I am the one peddling conjecture, but I posted my link saying the amount the Queen costs, where as you replied with 'no she costs more than that' with no source.

I pointed out that that is the palace's own figure (quoted in THE SUN of all places) and does not include the enormous amount spent on protecting them round the clock. It is also interesting to note that their travel expenses have almost doubled in the last year (source: royal.gov.uk). Independent estimates have put the figure of their actual cost to the taxpayer in 2011 at between 180 and 200 million (http://www.republic.org.uk/What we want/In depth/Royal finances/index.php)

-Putin this, Putin that, quick jab at Sarkozy

Ok, thank you for one example of Putin's opulent lifestyle, or two because we can assume that his personal fortune allows him to live pretty well. Are you familiar with the Royal Train or that big gilded pumpkin the old bat rattles around in from time to time? What about our art collection, valued at £10 billion, which we are not even allowed to look at? It isn't even maintained to internationally recognised standards of conservation and it's extremely difficult for anyone, including eminent academics, to get even a peek at it. Should that be in the control of one family?

I think Putin's a gangster and a crook and a terrifying man to have in charge of a country. He has one thing going for him, though- he worked his way up to it. He probably didn't do it in a particularly nice way but he did it off his own back. He wasn't just a lucky sperm.

I called you on that particular piece of conjecture because you've used assumptions and opinion throughout this thread to 'support' your point of view. Whether it's knowing what's going on inside Obama's head or assuming that I don't like the royal family because I am not of noble birth (or something) your opinions have been the bedrock of your argument. Occasionally we stray from you waving a little plastic flag into international waters where we're informed that everyone else is much worse. It doesn't really stand up. You come across as a dyed-in-the-wool monarchist who won't give any of this real thought.

 

[Mr Smokes Blunts.]

LOL etc.

Do I really have to quote you saying that I can stop defending Tory policy because they've dropped it now? Or the part where you said that I what I was writing was shit? You threw the first ad hom, and from there the gloves are off.

 

[Mailmonkey]

I don't want to turn this into a personal slangin match either...I'm just answering your questions...

I did try to agree with you in a "debate" once about gender equality, feminist issues, but your atitude to those who disagreed with you stopped me wanting to contribute any further.

i've seen you involved in other debates, and I think there was another time I actualy agreed with your opinions, but again, the way you go about putting your opinions forward just irks me so much, I couldn't align myself with you.

Now, usually, as in this case, I completely disagree with you. AND find your attitude to "debate" as you call it bizarre. You expect everybody to bow down to your superior knowledge, yet you make statements such as "you'll never change me". You are so sure of your opinions, you believe them to be facts...your statistics are always more valid and relevant than anyone elses. You enter a debate expecting people to see your views and statistics as valid, but you don't reciprocate.

I'm happy to get along with you in general drug related posts etc, I've got nothing at all against you...but I detest your "debating" style, and I disagree with a lot of your opinions.

 

[Mr Smokes Blunts.]

I pointed out that that is the palace's own figure (quoted in THE SUN of all places) and does not include the enormous amount spent on protecting them round the clock. It is also interesting to note that their travel expenses have almost doubled in the last year (source: royal.gov.uk). Independent estimates have put the figure of their actual cost to the taxpayer in 2011 at between 180 and 200 million (http://www.republic.org.uk/What we want/In depth/Royal finances/index.php)



Ok, thank you for one example of Putin's opulent lifestyle, or two because we can assume that his personal fortune allows him to live pretty well. Are you familiar with the Royal Train or that big gilded pumpkin the old bat rattles around in from time to time? What about our art collection, valued at £10 billion, which we are not even allowed to look at? It isn't even maintained to internationally recognised standards of conservation and it's extremely difficult for anyone, including eminent academics, to get even a peek at it. Should that be in the control of one family?

I think Putin's a gangster and a crook and a terrifying man to have in charge of a country. He has one thing going for him, though- he worked his way up to it. He probably didn't do it in a particularly nice way but he did it off his own back. He wasn't just a lucky sperm.

I called you on that particular piece of conjecture because you've used assumptions and opinion throughout this thread to 'support' your point of view. Whether it's knowing what's going on inside Obama's head or assuming that I don't like the royal family because I am not of noble birth (or something) your opinions have been the bedrock of your argument. Occasionally we stray from you waving a little plastic flag into international waters where we're informed that everyone else is much worse. It doesn't really stand up. You come across as a dyed-in-the-wool monarchist who won't give any of this real thought.

Well, my argument was made from a few strands, which revolved around the potential gains that republicans seem to think they would get. The first is that we would save money - I think we have established that this is not the case, and that the Royals pay more tax than they cost. At worst they break even, at best we are in a massive surplus which we wouldn't get from a normal president. So the amount they cost compared to the amount a president would cost us ranges from minus £200 million all the way upto minus £360 million. The second is that a better job would be done; There is no evidence, looking at other republics, that a president would do a better job. But there is evidence that they would do a worse job.

The only real 'benefit' is that we become more meritocratic as a society. Even then, as I said before, we will just end up with an Etonian any way. Putin could be regarded as a lucky sperm any way - there isn't much difference to him being born to be a King, to him being born with a higher intellect and a brilliant instinct in the perfect environment for him to thrive, in my mind.

 

[Mr Smokes Blunts.]

I don't want to turn this into a personal slangin match either...I'm just answering your questions...

I did try to agree with you in a "debate" once about gender equality, feminist issues, but your atitude to those who disagreed with you stopped me wanting to contribute any further.

i've seen you involved in other debates, and I think there was another time I actualy agreed with your opinions, but again, the way you go about putting your opinions forward just irks me so much, I couldn't align myself with you.

Now, usually, as in this case, I completely disagree with you. AND find your attitude to "debate" as you call it bizarre. You expect everybody to bow down to your superior knowledge, yet you make statements such as "you'll never change me". You are so sure of your opinions, you believe them to be facts...your statistics are always more valid and relevant than anyone elses. You enter a debate expecting people to see your views and statistics as valid, but you don't reciprocate.

I'm happy to get along with you in general drug related posts etc, I've got nothing at all against you...but I detest your "debating" style, and I disagree with a lot of your opinions.

I remember going over how you couldn't bring yourself to agree with me because of how I debate... but in this thread, and pretty much every other time i've become involved in these threads, i've been ad homed from every direction by people who simply won't post any relevant information that reenforces what they say (so I guess that does make my statistics infinitely better, as they are infinitely more existant?) Regularly they will just dip into say 'you're wrong' 'you're a cunt' 'you sicken me' etc. I don't expect anyone to bow down to my superior knowledge, far from it. I merely highlight it when I have people telling me that they have studied a topic more than me and that I should therefore bow down to them. It's like you don't even see the posts that i'm replying too... or that I am relentlessly followed around by certain people posting one liners, being general pricks who add nothing to any topic we are discussing. These same people do it to other people who dare to disagree with their very narrow set of opinions and values, and you might have noticed people leaving because of it.

Admittedly, I should have been more direct when I said 'you'll never change me' to knock. I meant 'you'll never change me into a communist'. Perhaps a bit of a strong comment to make, but I am pretty confident that I have interacted with the source material enough to know that in my mind it is an unviable political ideology. I am actually quite interested in changing my opinions on almost all topics, and I love being presented with facts and figures and having to change my opinion on things. But I rarely venture into discussions with people on issues that I have never researched, so it doesn't happen regularly. For instance, I did do a fair bit of opinion changing on the Iraq war thread.

My post above is generally what my archetypal post would look like when I am debating someone who is actually debating, rather than just a troll. Does that get under your skin, or make you feel like you can't debate with me? Because I honestly see no problems with that. Also, do you see any problems with my posts upto the point at which Sam made his diamond mining post?

 

[jancrow]

Well, my argument was made from a few strands, which revolved around the potential gains that republicans seem to think they would get. The first is that we would save money - I think we have established that this is not the case

(sound of needle skipping across record)

I don't think we have. Not to my satisfaction and probably not to anyone else's but your own.

The second is that a better job would be done; There is no evidence, looking at other republics, that a president would do a better job. But there is evidence that they would do a worse job.

Again, this is conjecture on your part and again you're really just 'cherry picking' as you put it yourself at one point, examples of presidents who (in your opinion) are worse. All you've really done across how ever many pages is roll out a rather more verbose version of 'aren't they wonderful, I couldn't do their job'. And you've repeatedly assumed that I want a president for some reason even though I've explicitly said I don't. There is no 'evidence' that they would do a worse job. It is your opinion that they would do a worse job.

Putin could be regarded as a lucky sperm any way - there isn't much difference to him being born to be a King, to him being born with a higher intellect and a brilliant instinct in the perfect environment for him to thrive, in my mind.

In your mind being the operative words here.

E2A:

Also, do you see any problems with my posts upto the point at which Sam made his diamond mining post?

It's just scraped in there but I was offended by your conjecture that I must be a particular type of person because I hold a particular view.

 

[parttime crackhead]

I'm not completely anti-monarchy. I don't like the fact that these cunts are born into privilege but I've had the "The Queen Makes A Profit" thing explained at me while wasted a few times & ended up agreeing. So really, I don't give a fuck either way.

One thing I don't get is your point that if we got rid of the queen we would need a president. What for? What would the presidents purpose actually be? The Queen is an historical figurehead, that's really just there because... that's the way it is. Why would she have to be replaced with something else if we got rid of her? America doesn't have a president & a prime minister does it??? All you'd do is change the prime minister's job title to president, or am I missing some massive point here?

 

[Mr Smokes Blunts.]

(sound of needle skipping across record)

I don't think we have. Not to my satisfaction and probably not to anyone else's but your own.



Again, this is conjecture on your part and again you're really just 'cherry picking' as you put it yourself at one point, examples of presidents who (in your opinion) are worse. All you've really done across how ever many pages is roll out a rather more verbose version of 'aren't they wonderful, I couldn't do their job'. And you've repeatedly assumed that I want a president for some reason even though I've explicitly said I don't. There is no 'evidence' that they would do a worse job. It is your opinion that they would do a worse job.



In your mind being the operative words here.

But I haven't found or been presented with any evidence that any president on our earth costs less than the Queen, and I have posted examples of many (most) who surpass the Queen. And that is before you factor in the fact she pays so much more tax per pound than anyone else. Your answer to this was that we would basically steal everything she owns, when history shows us that when the Lords lost a lot of power their estates stayed in their hands. She would keep it, and we would lose that money.

I was initially cherry picking to prove a point quickly, but when called out on it I provided you with examples from every single major country with a president that there is! These illustrated a range of issues that were actually worse in those presidencies: nepotism, personal wealth accumulation, and the quality of work that they do. I know that you do not want a president, you want the exact set up with got with the Queen gone - but what you have failed to realise is that the PM would more than likely take on the roles the Queen fulfills, and become a President in everything but name. You can say that it is my opinion that a President would do a worse job, but that is an opinion based on empirical sources. Few if any presidents that I can think of have a better track record of foreign diplomacy than our country.

I also just downloaded a PDF viewer to have a look at the full sources you gave to me. They are interesting, but I don't think we'd gain the revenue from the Duchys, and I find it odd that what we are essentially quibbling over is about a million pounds that it costs us to support the Queen's family?

 

[Mr Smokes Blunts.]

I'm not completely anti-monarchy. I don't like the fact that these cunts are born into privilege but I've had the "The Queen Makes A Profit" thing explained at me while wasted a few times & ended up agreeing. So really, I don't give a fuck either way.

One thing I don't get is your point that if we got rid of the queen we would need a president. What for? What would the presidents purpose actually be? The Queen is an historical figurehead, that's really just there because... that's the way it is. Why would she have to be replaced with something else if we got rid of her? America doesn't have a president & a prime minister does it??? All you'd do is change the prime minister's job title to president, or am I missing some massive point here?

You are right insofar as the PM wouldn't have to be called Mr. President. He would have the role of a President though. He would sign all of our laws, he would take us to war, he would gain considerable power over the legislature, he would have to expand his foreign policy operations dramatically, he would probably have to live in a bigger residency capable of allowing him to meet dignitaries even more regularly.

 

[jancrow]

But I haven't found or been presented with any evidence that any president on our earth costs less than the Queen, and I have posted examples of many (most) who surpass the Queen.

Look, as you say yourself in the next paragraph I have no desire to install a president. I'm not even rabidly anti-queen despite my first post, although it probably wouldn't take very much at all to push me that way. I mainly object to the Harrys and the Kents and the Edwards of that world.... And their goddamn WAGs. Maybe I even feel a little as though the qunt should be allowed to live out her declining years as a gesture of kindness and that we should take things from there. Ie no succession, off you go the lot of you and get jobs. You seem to share some views with the Conservatives and I can't understand for the life of me why they and you support well-paid jobs for life for people whose worth has not been proved either way.

Your answer to this was that we would basically steal everything she owns, when history shows us that when the Lords lost a lot of power their estates stayed in their hands. She would keep it, and we would lose that money.

No, it wasn't. As I stated before I was never pro-pitchfork. I'm not convinced that she does 'legally own' her land- is it not in trust for the people in the same way as 'our' art collection? What do you think about that, by the way, because I've raised 'our' art collection a few times now? Even the most blinkered philistine can see the beauty of £10 billion. Why on earth would she keep her land in any case? Is she going to keep it when she dies?

Few if any presidents that I can think of have a better track record of foreign diplomacy than our country.

What parts of our track record spring to mind and where can we see the hand of the House of Windsor?

 

[parttime crackhead]

Aye, so our PM would become our president. Sound. Makes sense in my head now. I thought for some reason we would have to get a totally separate cunt in to be president in place of the queen & I couldn't figure out why. Why would he need a big pad to meet "dignitaries"? Fuck them. Gadaffi met those cunts in a tent, no gien a fuck.

Does the PM not do all those things anyway (laws, wars etc) but the queen co-signs it? Has there even been an occasion in recent history where the PM or parliament (or whatever/however the fuck it works) has went to the queen & she's knocked him back? Said "You know what? Naw. I'm the queen, I'll decide". Surely the queen signing laws etc is just a paper exercise these days, nothing more than a formality?

 

[Mr Smokes Blunts.]

Look, as you say yourself in the next paragraph I have no desire to install a president. I'm not even rabidly anti-queen despite my first post, although it probably wouldn't take very much at all to push me that way. I mainly object to the Harrys and the Kents and the Edwards of that world. Maybe I even feel a little as though the qunt should be allowed to live out her declining years as a gesture of kindness and that we should take things from there. Ie no succession, off you go the lot of you and get jobs. You seem to share some views with the Conservatives and I can't understand for the life of me why they and you support well-paid jobs for life for people whose worth has not been proved either way.



No, it wasn't. As I stated before I was never pro-pitchfork. I'm not convinced that she does 'legally own' her land- is it not in trust for the people in the same way as 'our' art collection? What do you think about that, by the way, because I've raised 'our' art collection a few times now? Even the most blinkered philistine can see the beauty of £10 billion. Why on earth would she keep her land in any case? Is she going to keep it when she dies?



What parts of our track record spring to mind and where can we see the hand of the house of Windsor?

Sorry, I added to my post before. What we are essentially arguing over is the £1 million or so it costs us to finance the Queen's immediate relatives (that's from your own source). That seems a rather petty issue to go changing laws over, changing currency, changing state structure, changing our stamps, changing our national anthem etc. over. Don't you think?

And the UK enjoys a very complex foreign policy relationship with much of the world, that I think a President wouldn't do justice. She has overseen the somewhat amicable dissolution of our empire, along with keeping extremely strong relations for our country with the Common Wealth nations. Many of these countries, and their people, absolutely love the Queen. If you really want to see some expert diplomacy perhaps you should read into George VI's conduct during WWII, in which he got many of the now common wealth countries to fight on our side.

 

[Mr Smokes Blunts.]

Aye, so our PM would become our president. Sound. Makes sense in my head now. I thought for some reason we would have to get a totally separate cunt in to be president in place of the queen & I couldn't figure out why. Why would he need a big pad to meet "dignitaries"? Fuck them. Gadaffi met those cunts in a tent, no gien a fuck.

Does the PM not do all those things anyway (laws, wars etc) but the queen co-signs it? Has there even been an occasion in recent history where the PM or parliament (or whatever/however the fuck it works) has went to the queen & she's knocked him back? Said "You know what? Naw. I'm the queen, I'll decide". Surely the queen signing laws etc is just a paper exercise these days, nothing more than a formality?

There is no way to really know what we would end up with, but we would probably end up with a similar set up to post-monarchy countries like France or Italy (to a lesser extent).

The PM does do many roles already, and on domestic policy the Royal Monarchy is just there to rubber stamp the wishes of the people. It is foreign policy where I beleive they do the bulk of their work though. I do like the idea that she can say no to wars or policy, and also take control of the country using the privy council in times of great peril, it stops the President/PM having absolute power.

I dunno if meetings in tents would fly in the UK, given the shit weather conditions.

 

[Mailmonkey]

I do like the idea that she can say no to wars or policy, and also take control of the country using the privy council in times of great peril, it stops the President/PM having absolute power.

But she never uses these powers.

Why didn't she rubberstamp the wishes of the people during the Iraq war?

 

[tambourine-man]

The Monarch only has 4 constitutional powers that can only be exercised by the Monarch: the power to appoint the Prime Minister, the power to dissolve Parliament, the power to dismiss the Government and the power to withhold royal assent to legislation passed by the Houses of Parliament.

The issue of war is slightly misleading. The Queen has little say. The power to declare war and to deploy the Armed Forces is an inherited Crown power exercised by the Government.

One thing I don't get is your point that if we got rid of the queen we would need a president. What for?

Although the Monarch provides a 'nexus' to the UK's legislation and is the source of unlimited an unaccountable power, I would assume that if the Monarch were given the boot, there'd need to be some fairly heavy constitutional reform.

I would be amazed if it wasn't used as an opportunity by politicians to gobble up powers conferred by royal prerogative.

So either you wouldn't need one, or they'd find a way to shove the responsibilities into an existing role.

Neither situation is particularly preferable. You know what they say about absolute power.