PDA

View Full Version : I thought there was a chance, but no, the utter arrogance continues . . .



David Banks
03-Aug-13, 02:12
There was some chatter, out here in the colonies, about what last name might be chosen, maybe Windsor?

The rest of us have to have a surname, but, for those born with a silver spoon sticking out of some orifice, any "rules" simply don't apply. They are "above" such things.

It is also reported that they do not even have to use one of their given names when ascending the throne and can choose whatever amuses them.

Echoes of another recent choice of Francis.

Next comes all the fawning, ad nauseum and ad infinitum.

They all make me puke.

sids
03-Aug-13, 07:23
In Scotland, you can go by any name you like.

But you're not wrong- what an arrogant bairn that George is!

macadamia
03-Aug-13, 09:20
On my planet, I am totally relaxed that others may be royalty, millionaires, or have just been lucky and won the lottery. I am not relaxed about the bitterness which goes with class or wealth envy. It implies a victimhood which only exists in the mind of the person with such thoughts. Sids - you're absolutely right. How DARE little George be deliberately born just to upset people? It's not fair! Nobody made a fuss when I was born.........etc.....etc......

squidge
03-Aug-13, 09:47
I too am relaxed about wealth be it earned won or inherited however I find that relaxed stance constantly challenged by governments who dont care that in the 21st Century people are committing suicide to escape poverty and that we still have children born into and living in deprived poverty stricken situations and that their life chances are diminished because of that. I am delighted that the inane baby related babble has stopped takinv over the news and other programmes. I am perfectly happy for there to be a King George, Fred or N-dubz whatever he wants to call himself. But I hope he reigns over countries which have governments that do not target the weak and the poor whilst handing out tax breaks to the ultra rich.

secrets in symmetry
03-Aug-13, 13:06
There was some chatter, out here in the colonies, about what last name might be chosen, maybe Windsor?

The rest of us have to have a surname, but, for those born with a silver spoon sticking out of some orifice, any "rules" simply don't apply. They are "above" such things.

It is also reported that they do not even have to use one of their given names when ascending the throne and can choose whatever amuses them.

Echoes of another recent choice of Francis.

Next comes all the fawning, ad nauseum and ad infinitum.

They all make me puke.if you don't like it, go live in a republic.

I hear Zimbabwe is nice at this time of year.

Humerous Vegetable
03-Aug-13, 16:25
There was some chatter, out here in the colonies, about what last name might be chosen, maybe Windsor?

The rest of us have to have a surname, but, for those born with a silver spoon sticking out of some orifice, any "rules" simply don't apply. They are "above" such things.

It is also reported that they do not even have to use one of their given names when ascending the throne and can choose whatever amuses them.

Echoes of another recent choice of Francis.

Next comes all the fawning, ad nauseum and ad infinitum.

They all make me puke.

Yes, good post. This sad infant is being used to deflect attention away from other, more important news. Nobody with more than an ounce of grey matter cares about him, his name, his very large amounts of inherited goods and chattels excepted when it is being paid for by the Scottish taxpayer. These people are parasites. They live off the hard work of people in this country who pay taxes.Titles and land are thrown at them and we are expected to keep them. Thank God the SNP are having no truck with the House of Lords and have set their face against hereditary peers. The Earl of Caithness, for example, has lived in Oxfordshire his whole life and his only interest in Caithness is the money he is getting from Scottish Heritage and the tourists from Girnigoe.

macadamia
03-Aug-13, 17:03
Once you jolly types get your heads round the idea of stewardship rather than ownership, and of duty which accompanies privilege - like Her Queen working quite a lot (ask the British public) for the UK over the last SIXTY years (plus a lot of training before that) , then maybe the concept of a showcase family representing the nation - rather more ably than the winners of "Britain's Got Talent" - might find a place in your heart.

In case it doesn't, just keep repeating the following mantra - "President Blair, President Salmond, President Blair, President Salmond."

Now THAT's when the puking starts!

Rheghead
03-Aug-13, 19:31
In case it doesn't, just keep repeating the following mantra - "President Blair, President Salmond, President Blair, President Salmond."

Now THAT's when the puking starts!

You are scaremongering. A president doesn't need to have the power like in the US model. And any case you can change a president by voting out or impeachment. I say if you do not like the system then don't vote for party that does. And if there is no choice then join a republican party and provide that choice. Simples.

macadamia
03-Aug-13, 20:29
Oooh, you used the word "scaremongering" - one of the few words permitted by the Dear Leader for his minions to use in the Great Non-Debate! How original. How boy crying wolf!

ducati
03-Aug-13, 20:31
There was some chatter, out here in the colonies, about what last name might be chosen, maybe Windsor?

The rest of us have to have a surname, but, for those born with a silver spoon sticking out of some orifice, any "rules" simply don't apply. They are "above" such things.

It is also reported that they do not even have to use one of their given names when ascending the throne and can choose whatever amuses them.

Echoes of another recent choice of Francis.

Next comes all the fawning, ad nauseum and ad infinitum.

They all make me puke.

You don't have to have a last name. Ask Fish.

linnie612
03-Aug-13, 20:44
He's a Dick, Ducati!

secrets in symmetry
03-Aug-13, 21:32
He's a Dick, Ducati!He's also very tall, which makes him a big one lol!

secrets in symmetry
03-Aug-13, 23:34
In case it doesn't, just keep repeating the following mantra - "President Blair, President Salmond, President Blair, President Salmond."

Now THAT's when the puking starts!That's not what Ugly Fat Eck wants, this is his ambition....

http://i.imgur.com/rda8MGx.jpg

David Banks
04-Aug-13, 14:13
if you don't like it, go live in a republic.

I hear Zimbabwe is nice at this time of year.

Personally, I think a republic could be an improvement on a monarchy. There are other examples one could consider, such as Finland.

A country does need a person(s) to perform “ceremonial” duties such as meeting heads of state from other countries, acknowledging citizens who have acted with distinction, and a myriad of other duties. This “job” can be combined with the leader of the government, or handled by another person such as an elected president. It is the “elected” part that I particularly like, and I think such posts should have term limits.

Further, I have no problem with a wide range of wealth in a population -- from living in government-supported housing all the way to earned, inherited or lottery wealth. However, if one can believe statistics, it seems that the gap between the ultra-rich and ultra-poor is widening, and I would vote for a government which had a progressive tax system to control the extremes.

It is the superior - inferior divide of a class system, based purely upon birth, that I would like to see abolished.

secrets in symmetry
04-Aug-13, 16:51
Why don't you start by campaigning for Canada to become a republic? You could show us the way.

David Banks
04-Aug-13, 17:39
Why don't you start by campaigning for Canada to become a republic? You could show us the way.

Well, I'm sure most of Québec is already onside.

And, we have people going to court recently over being required to swear allegiance to "the queen" when taking out Canadian citizenship.

And, there is another attempt - ongoing - to get rid of "our" version of "your" house of lords.

We're working at it!

piratelassie
04-Aug-13, 20:17
Bring on the Republic.

secrets in symmetry
04-Aug-13, 20:39
Well, I'm sure most of Québec is already onside.

And, we have people going to court recently over being required to swear allegiance to "the queen" when taking out Canadian citizenship.

And, there is another attempt - ongoing - to get rid of "our" version of "your" house of lords.

We're working at it!Lol! I suspect Québec would choose to secede from Canada long before a republic came about.

A second chamber works well in many countries, but the current UK House of Lords is a mess that resulted from the (less than) half baked reforms by the Blair government. What is the current situation in Canada, and what is the plan for reform?

ducati
04-Aug-13, 22:11
He's a Dick, Ducati!

What? Dick Fish? That's not very Rock n Roll.

secrets in symmetry
04-Aug-13, 22:40
What? Dick Fish? That's not very Rock n Roll.Dick is his surname His middle name is Willy. I'm beginning to see why he's known as Fish lol.

He's really tall. I look like a dwarf when standing beside him.

David Banks
05-Aug-13, 17:51
Lol! I suspect Québec would choose to secede from Canada long before a republic came about.

A second chamber works well in many countries, but the current UK House of Lords is a mess that resulted from the (less than) half baked reforms by the Blair government. What is the current situation in Canada, and what is the plan for reform?

Our non-elected house is called the Senate, and is expected to give "sober second thought" to legislation. All senators are selected by the prime minister.

Wikipedia tells me that:
Seats are assigned on a regional basis, with each of the four major regions receiving 24 seats, and the remainder of the available seats being assigned to smaller regions. The four major regions are Ontario, Quebec, the Maritime provinces, and the Western provinces. The seats for Newfoundland and Labrador, the Northwest Territories, Yukon, and Nunavut are assigned apart from these regional divisions. Senators may serve until they reach the age of 75.
Unquote

A prime minister will usually choose people from his or her own party. So, when there is a national vote to "throw the bums out," we are usually left with a "hangover" in the senate who may try to impede the efforts of a new prime minister. Being unelected has many shortcomings, a significant one being that there is no effective method of removing a senator.

One of the current "scandals" is over senators' expense accounts, where many tens of thousands of dollars had been fraudulently acquired and had to be repaid - except in one case where the prime minister's chief of staff wrote a personal cheque of $90k to an offending senator to try to make the findings of an audit "just go away." Being your own 'police' clearly does not work.

I find the idea of "sober second thought" has merit, and that regional representation is an effective way of recognising the history of the country. However, it needs to be elected, and, if elected, should have more power to effectively block legislation and initiate legislation. However, this does increase the risk of "gridlock."

The New Democratic Party (NDP) - the present main opposition party (the first time they have ever held this position) - have advocated abolishment of the senate for 50 years. Personally, I would support such a policy only if we had proportional representation.

That's all I would like (at least, today).

David Banks
06-Aug-13, 00:32
A second chamber works well in many countries, but the current UK House of Lords is a mess that resulted from the (less than) half baked reforms by the Blair government.

Your House of Lords "is a mess" -- it can't be true!

Any body which could include "your" Lord Black of Crossharbour (formerly "ours") must surely be performing at peak efficiency.

Do tell me where you think it could be improved - and what mechanisms could be used to effect such changes.

ducati
06-Aug-13, 08:23
Your House of Lords "is a mess" -- it can't be true!

Any body which could include "your" Lord Black of Crossharbour (formerly "ours") must surely be performing at peak efficiency.

Do tell me where you think it could be improved - and what mechanisms could be used to effect such changes.

All members of both houses should be hereditary. It is well known inherited wealth makes you now what the Rif Raf should do.:mad:

David Banks
06-Aug-13, 17:28
All members of both houses should be hereditary. It is well known inherited wealth makes you now what the Rif Raf should do.:mad:


I don't quite follow you. Maybe, you missed getting into Eton.

Remember, the "p" is silent as in "bath."

ducati
06-Aug-13, 18:17
I don't quite follow you. Maybe, you missed getting into Eton.

Remember, the "p" is silent as in "bath."

How do you know I didn't get into Eaton? As far as I know there is no entrance exam. (just a credit check)

David Banks
06-Aug-13, 23:41
Somebody's going through a "bad spell."

ducati
07-Aug-13, 08:02
Somebody's going through a "bad spell."

Not bad, just special

Shaggy
07-Aug-13, 11:19
if you don't like it, go live in a republic.



Knowing you, that would mean a banana republic.....a septic isle.....precisely what the UK has now become

secrets in symmetry
08-Aug-13, 00:43
All members of both houses should be hereditary. It is well known inherited wealth makes you now what the Rif Raf should do.:mad:There's an argument that hereditary peers are better than politically-appointed life peers because they have a sense of duty and they don't owe anything to a party, and to whichever PM appointed them. There may be elements of truth in this argument, but there's surely a better way.

secrets in symmetry
08-Aug-13, 00:48
Our non-elected house is called the Senate, and is expected to give "sober second thought" to legislation. All senators are selected by the prime minister.

Wikipedia tells me that:
Seats are assigned on a regional basis, with each of the four major regions receiving 24 seats, and the remainder of the available seats being assigned to smaller regions. The four major regions are Ontario, Quebec, the Maritime provinces, and the Western provinces. The seats for Newfoundland and Labrador, the Northwest Territories, Yukon, and Nunavut are assigned apart from these regional divisions. Senators may serve until they reach the age of 75.
Unquote

A prime minister will usually choose people from his or her own party. So, when there is a national vote to "throw the bums out," we are usually left with a "hangover" in the senate who may try to impede the efforts of a new prime minister. Being unelected has many shortcomings, a significant one being that there is no effective method of removing a senator.

One of the current "scandals" is over senators' expense accounts, where many tens of thousands of dollars had been fraudulently acquired and had to be repaid - except in one case where the prime minister's chief of staff wrote a personal cheque of $90k to an offending senator to try to make the findings of an audit "just go away." Being your own 'police' clearly does not work.

I find the idea of "sober second thought" has merit, and that regional representation is an effective way of recognising the history of the country. However, it needs to be elected, and, if elected, should have more power to effectively block legislation and initiate legislation. However, this does increase the risk of "gridlock."

The New Democratic Party (NDP) - the present main opposition party (the first time they have ever held this position) - have advocated abolishment of the senate for 50 years. Personally, I would support such a policy only if we had proportional representation.

That's all I would like (at least, today).That sounds very much like the UK system. We have expense-account scandals, and we have mostly political appointees in the Lords since the Blair government booted out most of the hereditary peers - which was surely a positive step on the road to something better.

The US system of two elected houses is ok, but they have an extra layer (the president) and they have so many checks and balances that so many US administrations have been almost powerless. Their constitution is surely in need of an update. The world has moved on since the US wrote a constitution that aimed to prevent the worst actions of 18th century western European political systems.