Just read a piece in the Wail about the Duchess becoming Queen or not.
Why do some people have to worry about this happening , courtiers are said to be against it.
The fact is, she will be the King's missus and entitled to be Queen.
I am no monarchist, so I suppose it's non of my business, but will it really affect peoples lives one iota. I suppose a lot are ' Diana goupies ' but, really, that's all in the past, get a life ! You're not going to lose your home and income, you will still have food to eat and your kids won't be sent down the mines. It will mean nothing to any of us.
She seems a pleasant enough old dear, I think she enjous a fag now and again and is probably down to earth ( for a nob ).
We could do a lot worse.
Still, It bothers me not one tuppeny pfd.
Ted
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 8 Feb 11 at 13:48
|
|
The French got it right over 200 years ago.
|
>> The French got it right over 200 years ago.
Did they really? We tried the same thing 150 years earlier and it didn't work for us.
If you have a constitutional monarchy (and we have one) it doesn't much matter who the monarch is. The monarch is a thing, whose essential function is to be, to exist. Not a person.
The individuals who perform this role are absurdly privileged in a way. Must compensate to some extent for the tendency of the hoi polloi to take the whole thing personally and make ill-mannered remarks from the sidelines while picking their noses. Can't be much fun trying to hide behind the seaweed in the goldfish bowl.
Can't help wondering what a po-faced republican Britain would be like. I don't see that it would be any better than the one we've got. Perhaps it would be better, but I can't see how from here.
|
>> Did they really?
Yes, they didn't try to replace their nobs with a Puritan dictatorship and then let the beggers back in once the religious nut cutlet was out of the way.
And I don't sse how a Republic of Britain would be "po-faced". Why is that necessarily true?
There's no reason to suppose that nose picking is the preserve of the proletariat, either.
It's my prerogative to make ill-mannered remarks about them if I wish, their forebears from whom they derive their privilege spent many a long century extracting the fruits of the peasants' labour and lining their own pockets, whilst sending the common man to his death in their personal crusades against their cousins.
Monarchy is an anachronistic embarrassment to our country now, in my ever so horribly humble, yer Lordshipness.
Last edited by: Alanović on Tue 8 Feb 11 at 13:35
|
...Monarchy is an anachronistic embarrassment to our country now...
An embarrassment to whom?
Like it or not, our monarchy, certainly in the shape of the current queen, is widely admired throughout this country and the world.
I support the monarchy in general, and think the queen has done a fantastic job, never put a foot wrong in nigh-on 60 years.
Some of the rest of 'em don't measure up, but every team has its weaker links.
|
>> An embarrassment to whom?
>>
Anyone not hard of thinking, and thereby not steeped in the obsequious grovelling of the downtrodden wossanames which most of this country has been bludgeoned in to being over century upon century.
They've been laughing it up at our expense for far to long and continue to do so. Nazi uniforms? Joyriding in government owned helicopters to impress girls? Arranged marriages ending in inevitable divorce and tragedy (not just the preserve of those filthy immigrants, eh?).
The ignominious list of misbehaviour is endless.
The world laughs at us. Begone, parasites.
|
>> The world laughs at us. Begone, parasites.
But come on, we get a bank holiday when they get married :)
|
...Begone, parasites...
I never thought I'd come across anyone whose views were as boringly predictable as my own.
But then I came across alanovic, and I met my match.
|
I dunno Iffy, you might be surprised if you met me personally. I'd say I'm only about 80% boringly predictable.
I voted UKIP once, you know.
|
...I voted UKIP once, you know....
I can't match that for unpredictability.
I did think about not voting Conservative once, but then I woke up.
|
>> an anachronistic embarrassment to our country
Ah, embarrassment, that's the problem. You think it makes us look stupid.
Believe me Alanovic, we don't need to go to those lengths to make ourselves look stupid. The people who really rule this country, for whom we vote, generally do an impeccable job of that.
And by the way, people exercising their prerogative to make ill-mannered remarks from the sidelines more or less all the time also helps in no small measure to make us look stupid. Yes, people can say what they like about the monarchy or the monarch, with due regard for the laws of libel and sedition. I can't say they usually make good use of that privilege though. They just sound stupid to me, except on the rare occasions when they are saying something substantive about the institution.
|
>> Ah, embarrassment, that's the problem. You think it makes us look stupid.
Yes, but that really isn't the main argument I would propound for the removal of the monarchy.
But if you wish to call me stupid then go ahead. I see no point trying to debate with someone so willing to belittle their interlocutor so speedily.
Having seen no reasoned support from you regarding the monarchy other than you think them harmless old duffers, it ill behoves you to start trying to suppress those with contrary views before they have been explored properly.
I had hoped you would have detected the implicit (attempted if you like) humour in my comments which are being made on, let's face it, what should be a light hearted forum. The original post I don't think was meant to propagate a slew of highbrow academic debate.
|
Hey, calm down Alanovic, I wasn't calling you stupid. If you are a republican, as you appear to be, then you are in very good company including many of my own nearest and dearest.
En passant, I can't help feeling that the republic craved by you and Polly Toynbee among others would be more fundamentally po-faced than what we have at present. Po-facedness seems to me to be a creeping cancer in all western societies at the moment, and I don't welcome it.
It's just that this whole argument strikes me as a bit, well, stupid. You should have a look at Bagehot, 'The English Constitution'. The point being that we haven't really got one in the way these ultra-modern, rational republics like the US and France have. My own view is that this gives us more room for manoeuvre, for being the slippery but dangerous semi-rational so-and-sos we need to be to keep our end up in today's dodgy old world.
But if you want a list of rules on a parchment, and all the afterthoughts ('amendments') scribbled on bits of paper and left on the hall table, then that's what you want and you are fully entitled. But do you really, hand on heart, imagine that would lead to better, er, 'governance'?
|
>> But do you really, hand on heart, imagine
>> that would lead to better, er, 'governance'?
Not in and of itself, but it'd be a start. An example to follow. And it would be a long process, no doubt. I'd like to see governance in all its forms returned to the people, rather than it being imposed above the people, and the removal of the hereditary privilege of the head of state would be a really good starting point.
The government we currently experience (whichever party is in charge) is in its nature government of the people, not government by the people. Starting to change the entire system from the top down (revolution seems only to have worked for the everafter in a handful of cases) would be desireable in my book.
Thank you for clarifying your remarks about stupidity, my apologies if I took them the wrong way.
|
|
And Alanovic, I really do recommend Walter Bagehot. The opening passage of 'The English Constitution' makes reference to 'a middle-aged widow and an unemployed youth'. Guess who they were!
|
>> Monarchy is an anachronistic embarrassment to our country now, in my ever
>> so horribly humble, yer Lordshipness.
If you think it's an embarrassment abroad, your opinion errs. If you think it's an embarrassment to a miniority in the UK - well, you could be right, but very few care about that particular minority.
Last edited by: FotheringtonTomas on Tue 8 Feb 11 at 14:06
|
>> Yes, they didn't try to replace their nobs with a Puritan dictatorship and then let
>> the beggers back in once the religious nut cutlet was out of the way.
Instead didn't they replace their Kings with a hereditary dictatorship?
Alanović, with your name, are you UK domiciled?
|
|
It's called a constitutional monarchy. Slight snag: we haint got a written constitution so far as I can see, it's all made up as they go along. Otherwise known as the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law. Parliament is a den of thieves. The law is in disrepute, primarily because there is too much and its not enforced anyway, except capriciously. The Met influenced by certain newspaper dark powers to abort the most obvious enquiries into bugging is an example. Monarchy built on a bed of slurry. I rest my case:)
|
>> Parliament is a den of
>> thieves. The law is in disrepute, primarily because there is too much and its not
>> enforced anyway, except capriciously.
And Republics are better?
Seems like a good description of the US, France, Italy, and all the rest... Monarchy or not it seems no different, and at least we don't have China or North Korea's system... or would some prefer that?
When looking at the antics of Italy's leader I'm sometimes glad we have QE2... Though I do admire his stamina, just wish I could pull birds like that!
|
"When looking at the antics of Italy's leader I'm sometimes glad we have QE2... Though I do admire his stamina, just wish I could pull birds like that!"
You could if you had his money. They are only expensive prostitutes after all.
|
|
True... They are probably all false eyelashes and tons of makeup in reality as well!
|
I don't disagree, hobby. The US constitution seems to be fixed in the 18C - how very handy for the NRA. Not so handy for the 30,000 dead pa from gunshots.
|
>> Just read a piece in the Wail about the Duchess becoming Queen or not.
>>
>> Why do some people have to worry about this happening , courtiers are said to
>> be against it.
At least she won't be on our money, but big ears will.
I wish we could have some photogenic royalty, or maybe we should just switch over to the Euro.
Are there any lookers on any of the Euros?
|
>> I wish we could have some photogenic royalty, or maybe we should just switch over
>> to the Euro.
Not long to wait: tinyurl.com/6gdlodj (Telegraph)
|
"We could do a lot worse.'
I'd do her. I missed out with Diana.
|
...I missed out with Diana...
You were one of the few that did, by the sound of it.
Last edited by: Iffy on Tue 8 Feb 11 at 13:30
|
|
Just another of celebrity albeit one with a bit of history. Having an appreciation of what their ancestor, Longsharks, did around here - they have nothing to be proud of really. I don't care.
|
Ive always looked at the Royal family and thought, ok they are a consitutional oddity, but do I want them, or the Prime Minister as head of state.
Given the lamentable behaviour of MPs at times, having a pretty sqeaky clean 80+ year old granny who knows how to behave in company there to point to and say no, shes our head of state, suits me.
Camilla, yeah why not, she seems a game old bird, may even out Chucks eccentricities.
|
|
Watching a local programme here a few months ago (I was the duty S4C watcher that day) - they were interviewing a local woman (who happens to be a harpist of international repute) she spoke of the last Prince of Wales dying in 1282 (by Longshanks' hand) with such sincerity and conviction that I believed her.
|
...Just another of celebrity...
The celebrity point is a good one.
I have never met the queen, but I've met plenty of people who have.
There is a common thread along the lines of:
"I'm no royalist, but when you meet her...."
I've been at royal visits and seen how the faces of people to whom the queen speaks light up and remain lit for several minutes.
Leaving aside the monarchy debate, the woman does have a certain something.
"Celebrity" is probably a good way of describing it.
|
The Queen is one of the few genuine people to whom the word Celebrity can be used, unlike these pop star wannabe's, luvvies and overblown football players.
I've never met her, seen her in the flesh and I don't particularly like the idea of her and her family being in the privileged position they are just by accident of their birth or marriage but she has her uses and is an icon to many. If only they could all support themselves financially their popularity may increase.
|
>> If only they could all support themselves financially their popularity may increase.
Would you suggest allowing "them" to use all the income from the Crown Estates?
|
>> Watching a local programme here a few months ago (I was the duty S4C watcher
>> that day) - they were interviewing a local woman (who happens to be a harpist
>> of international repute) she spoke of the last Prince of Wales dying in 1282 (by
>> Longshanks' hand) with such sincerity and conviction that I believed her.
Thats the trouble with the Welsh, always harping on about the past.
|
>> Thats the trouble with the Welsh, always harping on about the past.
>>
I dread the day they ever do achieve independence; they'll have to go back to hating each other instead of the English! ;-)
|
>> Why do some people have to worry about this happening
I don't know. They (the worriers) are, on the whole, rather tiresome - it's a bit like the reverse of the Adoration of the Dailies to the PM's wife (and other politician's wives). Perhaps it wouldn't be so nice to be royalty - having to actually work, and never say anything wrong, and be under the public gaze as well as the microscope of the aforementioned "Dailies" 24 hours a day.
|
A ceremonial head of state, someone who is respected and admired, is a requirement for any country.
Monarchy, where the head of state is the next oldest alive, from an inbred family, is really not suited to modern times. No single dynasty have the right to such an unelected or undisputed role.
How you find and elect the respected and admired head of state is however beyond my intellectual capabilities.
|
Thank you, Zero, for hitting the nail on the head.
As with the House of Lords, I would favour a system whereby those who wish to stand for election should not be, nor should they have been within, for argument's sake, the last 10 years, a member of nor a benefactor to a political party of any hue.
|
Thank God for the monarchy.
The Queen is a constitutional figurehead with no legislative powers whatsoever. Most or maybe all of what the royals cost is recouped in tourism.
Now let's look at the alternative.
An elected head of state (Choose from a collection of ego-centric washed out old has beens, Red Ken, Tony Benn, Jimmy Saville or whoever else catches the tabloids imagination). Give them a department costing billions to run each year, let them make stupid laws such as having a man with a red flag walking in front of motor cars, taxing us for stepping on the cracks in the pavement and whatever other daft ideas they can come up with. And then spend millions on re-electing them or some other retarded fruitcake every four years.
No thanks, democracy has it's place but you can have too much of it.
|
>> Now let's look at the alternative.
>>
>> An elected head of state ... Jimmy Saville
Now there's an idea...
|
Zero makes the rational point that you can't really defend the indefensible, but nor is it at all clear what can be put in its place.
That is quite close to my position. I would add though that after much thought, study, travel and inspection I am strongly prejudiced against revolutionary change in stable democracies. And actually it can make things worse even in unstable tyrannies if the population is really out of luck.
I didn't always think like that, but I have for a long time now.
|
"A ceremonial head of state, someone who is respected and admired, is a requirement for any country."
Can we offer you the job Zero?
|
>> "A ceremonial head of state, someone who is respected and admired, is a requirement for
>> any country."
>>
>> Can we offer you the job Zero?
Nah I am attending an interview for the post in Zimbabwe. The current one is loosing his grip.
|
|
If you don't get that one there should be vacancy in Egypt soon.
|
The best bit about the monarchy is that you avoid having a head of state who's climbed the greasy pole to get there. The last person you want as President is somebody whose lifelong ambition has been to be one.
As for the 'accident of birth' twaddle, I don't suppose our current political leader and his Chancellor benefitted from their parentage at all...
To borrow from Churchill, an elected parliament and a constitutional monarchy may well be the worst possible arrangement, apart that is from all the others.
I like her Maj, and Phil is a Bramah. I'm quite sure Charlie will rise to the occasion when he's put to proof. Much better prospect than a careerist politician. Sure you'll get the odd dud - but probably fewer than France, or Italy, or the US...
|
Blimey, I take a few minutes out to eat my meagre pensioner's lunch and 20 odd of you have posted....think about the poor old sod who has to read them all ! Have you no jobs to go to ?
I was tather thinking in my op about the reasons why people make all this fuss and puffing off about things that really have no affect on them, rather than the role of the monarchy.
Celebrity....that's the key !
We see it all the time. The Oscars are coming up, the morning news progs on the telly will be dominated by the whole bubble headed business. No affect whatsoever on our lives but all these idiots treat it, and similar events as though it was world changing news.
There are lots more interesting things to worry about than some actress's hair or how tall Tom Cruise is !
Ted
|
>> The Oscars are coming up,
Oh good grief. They're not, are they? That's it, no TV nor radio for me until March at the earliest. Then it'll be the royal wedding, better go hide out in a cave in Matabeleland for a while.
|
|
Can of worms you opened there Ted. Can of worms.
|
How did you know what I had for lunch, Armel.....Psychic ?
Ted
|
...How did you know what I had for lunch...
Comes to something when a pensioner cannot afford live worms for his lunch and has to open a can.
|
|
Heinz spaghetti? Really Ted...
|
Actually, SWMBO out all day today so been a naughty boy.
Nipped round to the Unlucky Fried Kitten and had three pieces with extra chips......if she finds out, my ass is grass...as they say !
Wrapping well hidden and air freshener in action.
Red
|
>> Wrapping well hidden and air freshener in action.
'They haven't got no noses,
The fallen sons of Eve...'
But despite Chesterton's, and Quoodle's, observation Eve herself has supersenses including that of smell in most cases.
The air freshener will alert her, Ted, and that finely-tuned hooter will lead her to your KFC wrapper stuffed under the bed in no time.
|
If that doesn't, the guilty look that gives all men away, will do:)
Pat
|
The air freshener won't grass me up...it's one of those automatic ones which sound like a hamster f*rting every few minutes. The wrapping is wrapped in other wrapping and is in the wheely bin in the road.
The plate is washed and put away.
I think I've covered my tracks pretty damn well !
Ted
|
No telltale drool of chili sauce from the corner of your mouth? Feathers and coleslaw clinging to the outer reaches of your stubble?? Wheely bin replaced to the millimetre where it was before?
I don't fancy your chances. OO-er!
|
...I think I've covered my tracks pretty damn well !...
You've forgotten a couple a things.
What will you tell Mrs T you had for lunch, and how will you prove it?
|
Wasted effort Ted, you are doomed. There isn't a man on earth who can deceive a female for more than a few minutes. :-)
I just own up when I get sucked into McD's. The ear bashing doesn't last long.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Tue 8 Feb 11 at 18:36
|
Nah, I'm bombproof....don't even need to tell a porkie. I'll just tell her I had cold chicken,
there's a plateful in the fridge which she'll think it came from.
Anyway, she'll be so surprised that I've made the evening meal that she''ll faint.
The smelling salts will put the cap on the crime scene.
On the other hand, I might just 'fess up and have a plate of cold shoulder for tea !
( with a side serving of snub ) .
Ted
|
... I'll just tell her I had cold chicken...
Mmm, I'm very partial to cold chicken, one of the few meats that tastes just as nice, if not better, cold than hot.
I dunno, Ted, I sometimes think your cup runneth over.
|
Going back to the OP.
Who or what decides if Camilla is to be Queen? Does Prince Charles decide - in his infinite wisdom? Or does it require an Act of Parliament?
|
|
It doesn't require anything - the wife of the king automatically becomes queen. This has always been the case in England. If the queen chooses not to use that title then that is up to her and her and the king , but she will be queen.
|
Imagine the constitutional who-ha if a future male heir to the thrown engaged in a civil partnership with someone of the same sex?
Would the partner be Queen with a capital or lower case Q?
Either way it would be worth it just to read the Daily Mail's editorials.
|
A Zero says. Not an ideal institution but what do you replace it with? No republic in the world can boast a President or Presidency with the gravitas of a constitutional Monarch.
If we had no Monarch you would lose billions of tourist and other overseas income overnight. A president would cost an awful lot more to run and be less effective at representing the UK. I'm happy to put up with an anachronism if it means my taxes are lower and my life nor anyone else's life is no worse.
Queen Camilla - fine by me. We could do a lot worse. Seems a sensible person who may make the reign of King Charles III far better than it might have been with a Queen Diana.
|
We could do a lot worse. Seems a sensible
>> person who may make the reign of King Charles III far better than it might
>> have been with a Queen Diana.
>>
I'd be inclined to agree with that.
|
|
Nice woman, eminently suitable. Shame about the name.
|
>> If we had no Monarch you would lose billions of tourist and other overseas income
>> overnight.
This is complete, total, absolute hogwash, eyewash and and any other sort of wash you can think of.
Tourists come here because of the HISTORY of the country (yes including the monarchy), the buildings, the scenery, the countryside, the culture etc etc etc. They absolutely do not come just because there is still a monarch. They come to see the trappings, the relics, the rest of it. France still attracts more tourists then the UK every year, and I believe they knocked the monarch's block off over 200 years ago. Doesn't stop people wanting to visit Paris and Versailles now does it?
If tourism were based on the existence of a monarch, then surely Belgium and Denmark would be more popular tourist destinations than they are.
|
>> complete, total, absolute hogwash, eyewash and
Not really Alanovic. There are big public processions once or twice a year that people probably do quite want to watch, and of course the occasional fairytale wedding... but I agree with you to some extent. I wouldn't want to maintain the monarchy just to attract tourists if it seemed a bad idea in every other way.
It's interesting how hot under the collar people get about this. I think the vehemence on both sides may be because people aren't sure whether they are right or not. Defending the indefensible on one hand, and on the other ignoring the extremely complex, knotty and open-ended problem of devising another system that would work.
'If it ain't broke don't fix it'. That's the problem for British republicans. It ain't broke.
|
>> If tourism were based on the existence of a monarch, then surely Belgium and Denmark
>> would be more popular tourist destinations than they are.
That statement is a blind leap of faith which ignores other factors.
|
|
As it is to say that tourism to the UK would dry up should it become a republic.
|
|
Who said that? No-one in this thread, AFAICS.
|
|
Where? AFAICS he said that income would reduce - not "dry up".
|
>> the reign of King Charles III
I believe he wishes to be known as King George VII when the time comes. I reckon he's still got 20 years to wait, though.
|
|
Doesn't want to use another of his nmaes and be King Arthur then??
|
>> King George VII
I didn't know that Alanovic. Can't help wondering how come you do...
:o}
|
If you started with a clean sheet of paper you'd go nowhere near such a daft idea as a Monarchy. But once it's there and doing a job you've a helluva game to fond anything convincingly better.
Same goes for the House of Lords.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 9 Feb 11 at 12:06
|
AC, I could tell you, but I'd have to shoot you. ;-)
Seriously though, I think it's fairly common knowledge, isn't it?
(A close relative is actually a friend of Charlie's through his work. Never met the man myself though, but have refused a visit to Buck House on the grounds of my Republican beliefs.)
Last edited by: Alanović on Wed 9 Feb 11 at 12:06
|
>> Seriously though, I think it's fairly common knowledge, isn't it?
Is it?
|
>> >> Seriously though, I think it's fairly common knowledge, isn't it?
>>
>> Is it?
Thought it was, its been mentioned in the press a few times. Specially when he was trying to get mummy to abdicate.
|
>> Thought it was, its been mentioned in the press a few times.
Oh. I hadn't seen any reference to that.
>> Specially when he was trying to get mummy to abdicate.
Or that, although there's an amusing tale of Prince Harry, I think, when the coin was tossed to see who'd kick off, saying "Heads or Granny?".
|
>> man myself though, but have refused a visit to Buck House on the grounds of
>> my Republican beliefs.)
Get out of it. Republican? We all know you are a communist sleeper.
|
Nothing sleepy about me. Haven't had a decent nights sleep in over 6 years, thanks to two restless nippers.
I'm not ashamed to admit I have Communist leanings, in the true sense of the word, not in the Stalinist-dictatorship corrupted sense of the word.
A Republic would be a good opening step on the road to a fairer society.
|
...A Republic would be a good opening step on the road to a fairer society...
If any of us thought that was true, we would be with you, but we don't so we won't.
|
Ah well, no vision some people.
:-)
|
...Ah well, no vision some people...
Or too much. :)
|
>> I'm not ashamed to admit I have Communist leanings, in the true sense of the
>> word, not in the Stalinist-dictatorship corrupted sense of the word.
>>
>> A Republic would be a good opening step on the road to a fairer society.
It would make no difference whatsoever - as to having "communist leanings", whenever has any Communist regieme (I nearly used the word government by mistake) ever, ever produced a fair society, or anything like it - or, indeed, anything but a totalitarian shambles? Answer: never.
|
There's never been a Communist regime anywhere on this planet.
The term is a contradiction.
Equally there can't be such a thing as a Communist government.
That's the whole point.
There has never been a Communist state anywhere, some so-called Socialist states have declared that they were working towards Communism, but those were lies used to attempt to mask the true nature of the dictatorship which had actually been in place. They were found out in the end and got their comeuppance. Particularly in Romania.
|
|
Experience then shows that it can't and won't work.
|
No FT, you're not listening.
It's never been tried. Ever.
Experience shows that Socialist branded dictatorship and totalitarianism doesn't work.
Communism, however, has never been tried, just used as a word to front despotic regimes.
|
Its been tried, or the concept has, but as soon as someone gets 'in charge' they get warped by the Power Trip so it never gets off the ground in reality... As was said, everyone is equal, just some more equal than others... I doubt you'll ever get your wish, A, as the human mind seems geared to being better than the next person and not accepting that everyone is equal...
Though if you believe Star Trek is real, isn't their 'society' fairly close to the ideal...?
Last edited by: hobby on Wed 9 Feb 11 at 16:26
|
>> but have refused a visit to Buck House on the grounds of
>> my Republican beliefs.
>>
>>
>>
People do sometimes try to trump an award to their dearest rival by claiming to have been offered the same themselves but naturally turned it down. (Somerset Maugham and Hugh Walpole kept up a lifelong battle to outdo each other with these little social tricks)
But I don't think "Buck House - nominated" cuts the mustard any more than Sellars & Yeatman's "MA Cantab - failed".
|
|
Oh I've never been offered an award. My relative who is a friend of Charles was awarded an MBE and I was invited to attend the presentation. Most of my immediate family went, I stayed home.
|
...Oh I've never been offered an award...
To compensate, we could call you Citizen Alanovic.
|
That would be an honour. Seeing as Citizen Smith was a Fulham fan, I like it.
Freedom for Tooting and Fulham for the Cup! With apologies to Spurs fans....... :-)
|
...Freedom for Tooting and Fulham for the Cup! With apologies to Spurs fans....... :-)...
Walked straight into that.
I thought Citizen Smith was a good series, not sure how it would play today.
Was it his girlfriend's mum who called him Foxy?
And I think it was the publican who called him Trotsky.
Last edited by: Iffy on Wed 9 Feb 11 at 13:13
|
Right on both counts.
I've seen a few episodes recently and I still find it amusing. But I think one has to be a certain age to enjoy it now.
|
What truth, FT? That Citizen Smith is repeated on G.O.L.D.?
Or that I have reached a certain age?
Last edited by: Alanović on Wed 9 Feb 11 at 13:56
|
You are a Utopian Socialist Alanovic. So was I once, and I still have an occasional sentimental twitch in that direction.
Communism is another matter altogether. After the seizure of power by an opportunist clique, a sort of theocracy is cobbled together out of snippets of Marxian theory, ferocious repression and often nauseating propaganda. The Soviet Union and Mao's China both resembled theocracies more than anything else. Communism is a religion. The split between Trotskyist believers and Leninist believers resembles the schism between the Shiaa and the Sunna in Islam.
How weary this all makes me feel. How blank our minds become when we try to imagine a more perfect political system (unless we are still young, naive and enthusiastic).
All human progress has been technical and scientific. The management of large human groups - tribes, nations, states - hasn't changed in any of its essentials since the beginning of history. We are cave men with ipods and Ford Focuses.
Citizen Smith was very silly and annoying.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Wed 9 Feb 11 at 15:07
|
Well, I believe that the word "Communism" has been hi-jacked (by the Trots and Leninists, not to mention Stalinists) to describe the process you outline.
True Communism (the kind which has never been attempted) resembles nothing of the sort, I believe. Your accurate description of the schism sadly leaves out the pure Marxists - a bit like describing the schism between Catholic and Protestant without referring to the Jewish Christians.
I agree with your words regarding the USSR, I know - as they say - because I was there.
I don't think I can be accused of being young, nor enthusiastic. Naive maybe, but that's for others to judge.
You last paragraph is, indeed, true.
|
I can remember having earnest discussions about a socialist utopia as a teenager.
We thought it was groundbreaking stuff as we sat with our vending machine coffees in the sixth form common room.
Citizen Smith was an adult version of how we were as grammar school boys, which is probably why I liked the series.
The difference is we were naive and childish as children, but he was doing it as an adult.
|
Communism or any other doctrine which preaches equality will never work because we are not all equal.
Fairness is all we can strive for, and our system, while far from perfect is as good as it has ever got. The trouble with ideologies is they discount human nature and as such are doomed to fail.
|
Queen Camilla ? - Alanovich
