On Jun 5, 7:07*am, wrote:
On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 14:11:56 -0700 (PDT), "Railsigns.co.uk" wrote:
It seems to me that the monarchy's role today is as a kind of state-sponsored soap opera cum tourist attraction that we all subsidise generously with our taxes. Right-wing nutters' fervent support for it doesn't sit well with their small state/low taxation ideology or their hatred of state-subsidised monopolies. Perhaps we should privatise the monarchy and introduce some competition.g

The shares could be traded on the stock market. *It needs a catchy name - how about "One's Royal Business" ("ORB")?


"F" for humor, both of you.

On Jun 5, 8:03*am, Bob Martin wrote:
in 1220246 20120604 215753 Clive wrote:

In message
,
e27002 writes
Take a good look at the Heads of State of the various nations. *None
compare with Her Majesty, none come even close to comparing with her.
She is irreplaceable at any price.
I don't mind, if that is what you want, all I want is that you pay for
it.

I'm betting HM costs the UK far less than the US President costs the USA.

You betcha!

On Jun 5, 11:32*am, Mihangel Goch wrote:
On Jun 5, 8:32*am, 77002 wrote:





On Jun 4, 11:36*pm, Mihangel Goch wrote:

On Jun 4, 11:14*pm, Dave Jackson wrote:

On 04/06/2012 21:36, Railsigns.co.uk wrote:
How long would a directly elected president last before being in total
disagreement with the directly elected Prime Minister. Sounds like a
recipe for disaster to me. Likewise, reforming the House of Lords and
having elected peers is heading for problems eventually.

Plenty of countries have elected Presidents who carry out the same
kind of duties as a monarch. Our nearest neighbours, Ireland, seem to
get by with such a system, as does Germany. They are titular heads of
state but have no executive power, unlike the US which elects a
'Supreme Commander'. There are many different forms of government but
unelected members should have no power at all.

So, you want all lawmakers to act with one eye on their re-election
prospects. *That is a recipe for bad legislation and corruption. *A
body that reviews laws, sans personal interest, is invaluable.

If you wish to have a
bi-cameral system then hereditary peers should have no business being
there. Some of our European partners have monarchs asheads of state,
for example, Belgium, Spain, Denmark and The Netherlands and they
perform the same ceremonial role as QE2 or the President of German
Federal Republic.

Grow up and peddle your political views on a different
platform.

That is not my definition of a 'political view'. Are you seriously
suggesting that any of the above named countries has a poor system of
government that could be improved by the addition of hereditary
peers? *Because somebody inherits an Earldom, or whatever, does not
automatically endow them with inbuilt wisdom and that they might not
have 'personal interests'. But neither does it mean that someone who
has been elected is any better. The difference is that you can get rid
of him/her if you are not satisfied. You seem to think that anyone who
disagrees with you is beyond the pale, or as you put it ...........

'Yet, you left wing killjoys do not let up. *Spiteful and jealous as
always, you are not just bad and foolish people, you are thoroughly
unpleasant people, soulless,and joyless.'

You might remember that the main point of this discussion was whether
or not 'The Flotilla' was a success. The general opinion on this forum
and 'on the street' is that it was not. No one is blaming the Queen;
hereditary peers or even this government. You have chosen to make it
political. The monarch is supposed to be above politics so why not
take that as your standard instead of denigrating other contributors
as being spiteful; jealous; bad; foolish; thoroughly unpleasant;
soulless and joyless.

Hey, I was not the guy who took this thread political. That said, I
will not sit by and let the left monoplolize.

On Jun 5, 2:07*pm, Charlie Hulme wrote:
On 05/06/2012 08:32, 77002 wrote:



So, you want all lawmakers to act with one eye on their re-election
prospects. *That is a recipe for bad legislation and corruption. *A
body that reviews laws, sans personal interest, is invaluable.

What we get is a lot of unelected friends of the politicians. I
suggest choosing the upper house through the Jury system.

Grow up and peddle your political views on a different
platform.

What are you doing then?

Responding to the abuse from the lefties.

You've backdated your username to the 1950s, I notice ;-)

It varies. 77002 is only notional. I am not sure she ever carried her
TOPS number.

Charlie

On Jun 5, 4:14*pm, bob wrote:
On Jun 5, 9:22*am, 77002 wrote:





On Jun 4, 10:48*pm, Charlie Hulme
wrote:

On 04/06/2012 22:11, Railsigns.co.uk wrote:

It seems to me that the monarchy's role today is as a kind of
state-sponsored soap opera cum tourist attraction that we all
subsidise generously with our taxes. Right-wing nutters'
fervent support for it doesn't sit well with their small
state/low taxation ideology or their hatred of
state-subsidised monopolies.

It seems to me to be a form of slavery. A horrible job that you
can't leave.

Charlie

Her Majesty took an oath before G_d to serve her peoples. *This she
has done well. *We should all be grateful.

George W Bush took an oath of office before G_d to serve the people of
the US. *This he did poorly, and we were grateful when he was
ejected. *The swearing of an oath is no guarantee of quality,
unfortunately.

The point is that HM has endevoured to fulfil that vow. The UK,
Canada, et al, have a wonderful Head of State. Through the storms of
the last 60 years she has been an anchor.

"W" took an Oath before the Chief Justic of the Supreme Court. IMHO
his record is mixed, very mixed. I am sure the retirees appreciated
the inexpensive prescription plan.

Those US now have a Whitehouse resident who is a fraud. His policies
are not only bad for those US. They are bad for the world at large.

On 06/06/2012 06:45, e27002 wrote:
On Jun 5, 4:14 pm, wrote:
On Jun 5, 9:22 am, wrote:





On Jun 4, 10:48 pm, Charlie
wrote:

On 04/06/2012 22:11, Railsigns.co.uk wrote:

It seems to me that the monarchy's role today is as a kind of
state-sponsored soap opera cum tourist attraction that we all
subsidise generously with our taxes. Right-wing nutters'
fervent support for it doesn't sit well with their small
state/low taxation ideology or their hatred of
state-subsidised monopolies.

It seems to me to be a form of slavery. A horrible job that you
can't leave.

Charlie

Her Majesty took an oath before G_d to serve her peoples. This she
has done well. We should all be grateful.

George W Bush took an oath of office before G_d to serve the people of
the US. This he did poorly, and we were grateful when he was
ejected. The swearing of an oath is no guarantee of quality,
unfortunately.

The point is that HM has endevoured to fulfil that vow. The UK,
Canada, et al, have a wonderful Head of State. Through the storms of
the last 60 years she has been an anchor.

"W" took an Oath before the Chief Justic of the Supreme Court. IMHO
his record is mixed, very mixed. I am sure the retirees appreciated
the inexpensive prescription plan.

Those US now have a Whitehouse resident who is a fraud. His policies
are not only bad for those US. They are bad for the world at large.

And the upcoming alternative will be someone who believes that all the
main characters in the Old Testament and later Jesus visited North
America. Then there's the spiders...............no, wait.

--
Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must
painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman

"allantracy" wrote in message
...

Take a good look at the Heads of State of the various nations. None
compare with Her Majesty, none come even close to comparing with her.
She is irreplaceable at any price.
.

: The argument for replacing the monarchy kind of falls apart when you
mention a possible alternative of say President Tony Blair.

But then, no-one does.

It's Charles and the ghastly Camilla who are the real potential threat to
the British monarchy.

Meanwhile, back on the subject of transport...

:-)

--
Brian
"Fight like the Devil, die like a gentleman."

On Wed, 6 Jun 2012 10:23:55 +0100
"Brian Watson" wrote:
It's Charles and the ghastly Camilla who are the real potential threat to
the British monarchy.

Whats ghastly about her? She seems pretty normal to me - far more so than
that headcase clothes horse Diana. She had her fair share of lose screws.
Oh, I forgot, she was pretty (in a kind of sloany way) so thats alright then.
Peoples Princess? Pass the sick bucket...

B2003

On Wed, 6 Jun 2012 10:20:04 +0000 (UTC), d
wrote:

On Wed, 6 Jun 2012 10:23:55 +0100
"Brian Watson" wrote:
It's Charles and the ghastly Camilla who are the real potential threat to
the British monarchy.

Whats ghastly about her? She seems pretty normal to me - far more so than
that headcase clothes horse Diana. She had her fair share of lose screws.
Oh, I forgot, she was pretty (in a kind of sloany way) so thats alright then.
Peoples Princess? Pass the sick bucket...

Yup, I agree -- Camilla seems a much nicer, more normal person than
Diana, who wouldn't be nearly so glamorous by now, had she remembered
to wear her seat belt 15 years ago. And Camilla was also quite pretty
when young.

On Jun 6, 11:20*am, wrote:
On Wed, 6 Jun 2012 10:23:55 +0100

"Brian Watson" wrote:
It's Charles and the ghastly Camilla who are the real potential threat to
the British monarchy.

Whats ghastly about her? She seems pretty normal to me - far more so than
that headcase clothes horse Diana. She had her fair share of lose screws.
Oh, I forgot, she was pretty (in a kind of sloany way) so thats alright then.
Peoples Princess? Pass the sick bucket...

Agreed. Charles appears a more contented man now.