Queen Elizabeth II

Tugay One Cup said:
Wanting to carry on about your normal day to day life isn't making it all about you. It's about not wanting to make it all about someone else.

Just because you don't want to watch Homes Under the Hammer, it doesn't mean others shouldn't be able to. Do you not see the irony in what you're saying?

There's no need to burden other people with your mourning because nobody is stopping you and like minded people from feeling that way, certainly not Dion Dublin.
Click to expand...

Octavian said:
You know what I mean.
Click to expand...
I know. It's just a bugbear of mine.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
‘Glue that holds us together’ was probably a bit OTT, but she was definitely a stabilising and unifying force for many - and she has gone at a time when we are increasingly fracturing as a society.

I think we are fucked as a nation for a number of reasons and I believe and her passing will accelerate that - and prove to be a pivotal staging post in our decline.

Hope I’m wrong.
Click to expand...
Just had a woman on the radio who must've read your post last night cos she said exactly the same thing (glue)
She then went on to tell us that Queenie was everybodys ''Mother''. Well no she fucking wasn't. My mother died 3 months ago.
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
The problem is that, after a respectful period, the politicans will start trying to exploit the vacuum. We have now got another 12 months leading up to the Coronation. They will use this period, like Covid, like Brexit, to deflect attention away from our totally broken political system. It will be another opportunity for people to wallow in nostalgia and past glories which, to be fair, so many of us love to do.
This should be an opportunity to totally change the political structure of the country, slim down the monarchy, get rid of all the unelected hangers-on in government, introduce a fair voting system, and start to modernise the country so we can compete properly twith the rest of the world. Perhaps Charles and William themselves can be a force for change. As you say we can't go on like this, just living in the past.
Click to expand...
I do agree that this country operates under "a ... broken political system" but I cannot agree that it is broken totally. Our system tries to reconcile two principles, the elective and the hereditary. Most "radical" thought is no more sophisticated than a crude demand to get rid of the hereditary elements completely. In fact, the House of Lords is no longer based on any principle of heredity and is little more than a chamber of ageing MPs and government placemen. It is not a chamber which can compel the Commons to reconsider because it lacks legitimacy. Yet we need desperately a second chamber which can compel the executive to reflect maturely before acting. This is essential because the elective element in the constitution no longer works at all. We have an electoral system which rewards 30 odd % of the votes with a working, even a crushing, majority of MPs, in which no government has ever won 50% of the votes cast, which is dominated by parties dominated by one faction, which produce prime ministers who think increasingly in slogans and soundbites ("hug a hoody", "Brexit means Brexit", "get Brexit done") while they get on with fiddling expenses, lying and breaking their own laws.

This brings us to the one part of the constitution which has worked - the hereditary, constitutional monarchy, and the credit for this goes to Queen Elizabeth 11. I am sure that many of us would find that she led a privileged existence, that the dead hand of the protocol of court life would be insufferable but as a constitutional monarch she has always shown the sensitive touch that only the highest sense of duty and the most genuine concern for her people could produce. Being that kind of constitutional monarch is by no means easy but for Queen Elizabeth it was an instinct, not a calculation and in that lies her greatness. Now Charles is king. He must realise that he can no longer be "the dissident prince" and that his role as king brings far more responsibilities that rights and privileges. We need him to succeed.
 
StillBluessinceHydeRoad said:
I do agree that this country operates under "a ... broken political system" but I cannot agree that it is broken totally. Our system tries to reconcile two principles, the elective and the hereditary. Most "radical" thought is no more sophisticated than a crude demand to get rid of the hereditary elements completely. In fact, the House of Lords is no longer based on any principle of heredity and is little more than a chamber of ageing MPs and government placemen. It is not a chamber which can compel the Commons to reconsider because it lacks legitimacy. Yet we need desperately a second chamber which can compel the executive to reflect maturely before acting. This is essential because the elective element in the constitution no longer works at all. We have an electoral system which rewards 30 odd % of the votes with a working, even a crushing, majority of MPs, in which no government has ever won 50% of the votes cast, which is dominated by parties dominated by one faction, which produce prime ministers who think increasingly in slogans and soundbites ("hug a hoody", "Brexit means Brexit", "get Brexit done") while they get on with fiddling expenses, lying and breaking their own laws.

This brings us to the one part of the constitution which has worked - the hereditary, constitutional monarchy, and the credit for this goes to Queen Elizabeth 11. I am sure that many of us would find that she led a privileged existence, that the dead hand of the protocol of court life would be insufferable but as a constitutional monarch she has always shown the sensitive touch that only the highest sense of duty and the most genuine concern for her people could produce. Being that kind of constitutional monarch is by no means easy but for Queen Elizabeth it was an instinct, not a calculation and in that lies her greatness. Now Charles is king. He must realise that he can no longer be "the dissident prince" and that his role as king brings far more responsibilities that rights and privileges. We need him to succeed.
Click to expand...
I agree with your view on the first past the post system and your last paragraph. But I am not convinced we need a second chamber at all (and especially not one full of former MPs). Lots of successful countries (about 50 per cent) manage perfectly well with a single chamber.
The House of Commons would make better decisions if it was smaller. Modern technology makes it much easier to scrutinise decisions and legislation. One very senior Civil Servant once told me that, in his view, at least 50 per cent of the legislation passed was unnecessary and was driven by politicians' personal motives rather than any desire to improve the country. A bit cynical perhaps but also some truth in his comment I think.
What happens nowadays is that, because of limited resources, many laws are just not enforced by anyone. Our Parliament is now the biggest in the world (apart from China) and we don't have an empire any more.
 
Thank Christ we live in an age of podcasts. Three hour drive home later and I'll be damned if any virtue-signalling radio stations are given airtime.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top