The Jubilee: how will you celebrate

Frankie Boyle :

"Nothing makes us feel more British than behaving like North Koreans"

"To anybody watching in Iraq or Afghanistan this must look like Darth Vader's birthday party"

😀
 
Last edited:
There were numerous tributes paid to the Queen at last night's celebrity packed Jubilee concert and I'd like to pay her one of my own. She's spent 60 years having to endure nightmares like that; I take my hat off to her for doing it. Us commoners can turn off the telly or switch over and watch Corrie - Liz has no choice but to sit through the whole thing. The prospect was obviously too much to bare for Prince Phillip, hence his hospitalization, no doubt he'll make a swift recovery later on today. I used to have a certain affection for Rolf Harris as I liked his TV shows when I was a young boy but, honestly, what on earth was he doing singing one of his ditties unaccompanied - that was embarrassing! As for Paul McCartney - he's lost his voice and can't sing in tune any more. He's only there because of his name and track record, not for his musical abilities as they are(n't) today. The best of the crop was Mr. Jones - he's still able to cut it, IMO.
Tim.
 
bbmac said:
At least you can vote them out at the next election. I personally prefer the irish/German/Israeli model (there are others-U.s for eg) - ie they all have figurehead presidents who are elected - ie the people have their say and as you correctly state above - anyone can become head of state - no matter what the circumstances of their birth.

Hereditary privilege is just plain wrong - in our new republic we would seperate church and state, end the house of lords in favour of a reformist elected slimmed down upper chamber, do away with all hangers-on - Dukes, Earls, Baronets, Lords etc , end the ridiculous honours system, split the executive from the legislature and generally create a meritocracy where power runs bottom up not top down.

We would return the country to the people and not just via symbols but real practical measures that give people the chance of a stake in society with hard work and responsibility. For eg we would nationalise the credit reference agencies so there was just one for any consumer credit and mortgages could again only be 2.5 x income with unsecured credit capped at 20% of take home income. We would actively encourabge the halving of house prices and tax 2nd homes at 100% of their value per year etc etc...

As citizens (not subjects) we would all sign an agreement with the state outlining the rights and concurrent responsibilities and if we broke it there would be penalties. Citizenship rights and reponsibilities would be taught in school. Respect of the state and the law would be re-instated and institutions such as the Police modernised to reflect the new raelitiesd and start to earn back that respect.

We could cut crime in half in 5 years - but that is another story and my soap box is getting worn again.

G/L
Click to expand...

That's all logically correct, but emotionally wrong.

It seems to me that the monarchy provides a national focus of permanence for people to come together untainted by political allegiance or whatever. And that is a very good thing I would suggest.

Take this week-end, for example. Can you think of anything else that would have drawn so many people together in common purpose, even if that common purpose was just to enjoy themselves and have a good time?

I got thoroughly soaked at the Goring & Streatley street party - over a kilometre long and stretching from Berkshire to Oxfordshire - and it was lovely being with so many of my neighbours who I rarely see day to day, all enjoying ourselves despite the weather and entering into the spirit of the occasion.

God save the Queen, I say 😀

jon
 
Mr. Charts said:
Better than having that Gordon Brown as President.
Click to expand...

Great minds think alike.

I disliked the idea of, not so much a Monarch, but the idea that someone is born into a life of oppulence that is not fair. However, she has earned her day of glory and if she had not been there, who would it have been?

There is so much wrong with our society and the reason is that, since WWII, many things havre been discarded as being stupid, you csn see it in a good porcentage of our youth---not all of it, thank God. If we discard the monarchy, it will be another tradition gone and, what is worse, with what would it be replaced?

So, I think that we should keep it after all, although I say it with reluctance.
 
barjon said:
That's all logically correct, but emotionally wrong.
Click to expand...

Do you not think that the shape of that phrase hints in an interesting way at the mechanics of the human mind ?

It's as if you are saying you know deep down that he is right but feel compelled to resist the fact because of societal pressure.

It reminds me of people I speak to who claim to be religious when they are clearly atheists. It's as if they don't want to admit it to themselves for fear of creating divisions between themselves and friends and family.

Cult-like and irrational behaviours occur because people feel emotionally compelled to "fit in" with others of their group and don't wish to be seen as heretics. It feels more emotionally comfortable to be part of the gang/tribe than to take an independant stand based upon reason alone.
 
Last edited:
Vorbis said:
.................It's as if you are saying you know deep down that he is right but feel compelled to resist the fact because of societal pressure.............
Click to expand...

No, I'm not suggesting that. What I was trying to say was that things that may be correct from a logical perspective do not necessarily satisfy emotional needs. It follows that if one is to cater for those emotional needs then the logical solution is not necessarily the one to fit the bill.

For example, it may be logical to stand by and watch your young son drown because of the risk to yourself in trying to save him. That's not a solution most fathers would subscribe to though.
 
What gives us republicans heart is that it is difficult to ascertain accurately whether folk were coming together because they are a. patriotic, b. like a good party, c. are supporters of the monarchy, d. a.n. other reason (s.) It is good to come together of that there is no doubt and many will have done so for reasons a,b, and d detailed above, and there is a distinction between patriotism and monarchy - the U.s for eg explifies this very well and generally far more patriotic as a nation than we are. We as republicans tend to be far more patriotic than others in this country and we don't mistake patriotism for nostalgia.

There is no doubt that it was overall a PR success by the palace, but their whole future strategy is William and Kate - that's it - (note a pic or two of them strategically if somewhat crassly placed on the sideboard behind Brenda during her telivised Jubillee address today.) There is a sense that celebrating the past forms the other tenet of their future strategy but I hope thius will not be enough - particularly when the older generations die out. On the balcony appearance the 'new' 'slimmed down' monarchy was evident, ie just the Monarch and the immediate heir and his kids - all the old hangers on weren't there - even Airmiles Andy and his 2 ghastly trogs and the even more irrelelevant Edward and Anne (and she isn't fishmonger I'll .....) were missing. A small change but proof of the influence our arguments are having.

It wasn't a good w/e to be a republican but I take comfort that whilst some 69% currently polled support continuation of monarchy this figure slips to 25% of the 25's and under and this is where our efforts lie - not in convincing the other older generations. We are in in for the long game - It will happen - of that I have no doubt.


PS: Best images of the w/e - those confused american popstars singing Happy Birthday (lol!) and then the projected visuals on the Palace (earmarked as a public library / hostel for the homless when we take over lol !) that started during Madness's 6mins that transposed into the Flag of France ! Brilliant !

G/L

barjon said:
That's all logically correct, but emotionally wrong.

It seems to me that the monarchy provides a national focus of permanence for people to come together untainted by political allegiance or whatever. And that is a very good thing I would suggest.

Take this week-end, for example. Can you think of anything else that would have drawn so many people together in common purpose, even if that common purpose was just to enjoy themselves and have a good time?

I got thoroughly soaked at the Goring & Streatley street party - over a kilometre long and stretching from Berkshire to Oxfordshire - and it was lovely being with so many of my neighbours who I rarely see day to day, all enjoying ourselves despite the weather and entering into the spirit of the occasion.

God save the Queen, I say 😀

jon
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Yeah 'happy birthday', did nobody brief them? All in all a poor show from the so called celebrities, totally outclassed by the Royal Family, as usual.
 
bbmac said:
It wasn't a good w/e to be a republican but I take comfort that whilst some 69% currently polled support continuation of monarchy this figure slips to 25% of the 25's and under and this is where our efforts lie - not in convincing the other older generations. We are in in for the long game - It will happen - of that I have no doubt.
Click to expand...
Hi bbmac,
So, you're not convinced by the appeal of Will & Kate then?
😛
I can see some logic in the republican argument but it has one major flaw which is why I come down on the side of the monarchy. The country is already in a dire straights; getting rid of the monarchy will only serve to compound the situation. There's no financial upside for the country in getting rid of them. On the contrary, they are a marketing dream - the country needs them for the income they generate from TV rights and tourism etc. According to a radio commentator I heard on Saturday, around one third of the world's population watched the Thames River Pageant. One third!!! You might not like them, the young people of Britain might not like them - but billions of people around the rest of the world love 'em. They are a brilliant and irreplaceable sales tool for Great Britain Plc.
Tim.
 
Eric Geddes said:
Looks like the anti-monarchists got well & truly stuffed this last 4 days.
Click to expand...

Sadly true, the feudal class system in this country hasn't been so popular for decades. I seem to be surrounded by an army of glazed-eyed, fawning, boot-licking, forelock-tugging, sycophants.

Along with the deepening recession, a government staffed primarily by old Etonians, the rise of the far right across Europe, and the death of Rock'n'Roll (as evidenced by that appaling, cringy performance the other day), I'm beginning to feel I've time-travelled back to the thirties.

I'm always optimistic though; as the Taoist YinYang (and the historical record) remind us, every move to an extreme tends to give birth to the very conditions that initiate a swing back in the opposite direction.
 
Hi Mate,

There is no doubt that the monarchy is a net contributor to the exchequer - even net of the civil list payments. As tourism is an 'invisible export' it is hard to measure excatly how much. I would remind you though that none of the 'Royal' attractions figure in the top 20 in the Uk - even in Windsor - Legoland attracts 20 x the tourists/visitors than the castle does (,!) and in France where the Royals were deposed 300 years ago the Palace of Versailles attracts 10 x more visitors than Buckingham Palace. It is therefore a spurious argument as to whether tourists would cease to visit London if we turned into a Republic, - the evidence is that they visit for thje History and that is undeniable with or without an extant monarchy.

On a wider point and central to our argument - Just because something does contribute money doesn't make it right. Hereditary privilege and all the invidious effects of it is wrong and has no place in a modern 21st century democracy - it's that simple.

G/L

timsk said:
Hi bbmac,
So, you're not convinced by the appeal of Will & Kate then?
😛
I can see some logic in the republican argument but it has one major flaw which is why I come down on the side of the monarchy. The country is already in a dire straights; getting rid of the monarchy will only serve to compound the situation. There's no financial upside for the country in getting rid of them. On the contrary, they are a marketing dream - the country needs them for the income they generate from TV rights and tourism etc. According to a radio commentator I heard on Saturday, around one third of the world's population watched the Thames River Pageant. One third!!! You might not like them, the young people of Britain might not like them - but billions of people around the rest of the world love 'em. They are a brilliant and irreplaceable sales tool for Great Britain Plc.
Tim.
Click to expand...
 
bbmac said:
Hi Mate,

There is no doubt that the monarchy is a net contributor to the exchequer - even net of the civil list payments. As tourism is an 'invisible export' it is hard to measure excatly how much. I would remind you though that none of the 'Royal' attractions figure in the top 20 in the Uk - even in Windsor - Legoland attracts 20 x the tourists/visitors than the castle does (,!) and in France where the Royals were deposed 300 years ago the Palace of Versailles attracts 10 x more visitors than Buckingham Palace. It is therefore a spurious argument as to whether tourists would cease to visit London if we turned into a Republic, - the evidence is that they visit for thje History and that is undeniable with or without an extant monarchy.

On a wider point and central to our argument - Just because something does contribute money doesn't make it right. Hereditary privilege and all the invidious effects of it is wrong and has no place in a modern 21st century democracy - it's that simple.

G/L
Click to expand...

Once again, BB, you can't argue with the logic, but what about the emotion. It seems to be a human condition that people like having someone to look up to who gives them a focus and brings them together for one reason or another (at a lower level, hence the cult of "celebrity"). So if the monarchy meets that need, so what that it may be "not right" in the democratic and fair sense. The crucial thing is that they have no political power and I think it's hugely beneficial that people have that common focus wholly removed from the dirty business of power politics.

Anyway, what's better? A meritocracy you say? You're surely not suggesting that presidents of the USA get there purely on merit are you?

jon
 
As an Italian I find England to be a great place when I was young, everything worked compared to the southern country, the weak and the poor where protected and social mobility was very much present, very much prerogatives of democracy.
I am sure the monarchy had a very huge impact on the above mentioned facts.
 
barjon said:
Anyway, what's better? A meritocracy you say? You're surely not suggesting that presidents of the USA get there purely on merit are you?

jon
Click to expand...

You make a good point there, but I think we have to blame the people as a whole rather than the system or even the candidates.

People with honesty, intelligence and integrity rarely get elected because insufficient people are prepared to vote for them. They would rather vote for some slick salesman who tells them what they want to hear, assuming they can be bothered to vote at all. As a group, humans are victims of their own apathy and refusal to question their own lazily aquired assumptions.

One good thing about democracy is that, collectively at least, we can never deny that we get the government we deserve!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

BSD
End of an Era on Wall Street: Goodbye to All That
Replies
7
Views
2K
jiggly
jiggly
KillPhil08
Internships will give you a headstart:
Replies
0
Views
4K
KillPhil08
KillPhil08
M
Mercaforex, Wall Street Goes Bearish
Replies
0
Views
2K
mercaforex
M
M
Chicago PMI Data Awaits
Replies
0
Views
1K
mercaforex
M
M
The Most Expensive Foreclosure Yet!
Replies
0
Views
2K
myinvestorsplace
M
Back
Top