The Queen
Re: The Queen
If the funeral is the 19th, that's Talk Like a Pirate Day. Can we get Charlie to pledge his allegiance to the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
"My interest is in the future, because I'm going to spend the rest of my life there"
- Little waster
- After Pie
- Posts: 2385
- Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 12:35 am
- Location: About 1 inch behind my eyes
Re: The Queen
If a demos is determined to vote itself into a dictatorship then no political system is going to stop them, the best it can do is make it as difficult as possible with as many “are you absolutely sure?” checkpoints as possible.Millennie Al wrote: ↑Sat Sep 10, 2022 10:40 pmIf a democratically elected PM is abusing their power, what makes you think that the same demos that elected them will elect a benign, sensible person to be head of state? And what if it's the head of state that is abusing their power?Little waster wrote: ↑Sat Sep 10, 2022 11:08 amIf we envisage the head of state role being the backstop capable in extremis of over-ruling the actions of a democratically-elected PM up to the point of even having them physically removed from power and taken into custody they will need the authority that can only stem from a clear democratic mandate rather just being the clubbable chum of the current PM or former winner of Big Brother or whatever.
Under the system you outlined the electorate would have to chose a corrupt PM AND a corrupt President; under the current system they would just need to elect a corrupt PM.
And that’s assuming a corrupt President would even be willing to work with a corrupt PM, with a functioning US-style system of checks and balances, the self-interest of the narcissistic douchebag in the People’s Palace would just as easily lead them to oppose the corrupt sociopath in No. 10 (and the over-promoted nephew who’s Leader of the Upper House and the five amoral alcoholic rapists on the Supreme Court) as work with them.
Add to that would a Trump or Johnson character even want to become a 99% ceremonial President just for the chance of occasionally wielding the 1% of powers they do have in their own interest when they could instead strive to be the PM with actual day-to-day clout.
Finally., as dyqik said, the demos who elects the PM would not be the same as the demos who elect the President. Even at the relative high-point of 2019, the Conservatives only represented 29% of the total electorate and only 44% of the actual voters, Truss is only leader (and therefore PM by default) with the backing of just 47% of Tory members (even in a two-horse head-to head) who in turn represent (sic) less than 0.3% of the population and about a third of the Tory MPs. Her only democratic mandate is from the 46% of the “Tattie Taliban” who turned out to vote for her in 2019. Research suggests only ~5% of that total voted for Truss because of her personal qualities, the other 95% were voting for whichever sack of spuds had a blue rosette on and again mostly to make Johnson PM not her. So minority, on plurality, on minority, on plurality, of small unrepresentative sections of the electorate.
The contrast in democratic mandate with a Presidential election (either FPTP, STV or head-to-head) couldn’t be more stark, 15-20 million voters would have to personally choose the precise Presidental candidate, over all other options, with no need for the anachronism of an electoral college.
This place is not a place of honor, no highly esteemed deed is commemorated here, nothing valued is here.
What is here was dangerous and repulsive to us.
This place is best shunned and left uninhabited.
What is here was dangerous and repulsive to us.
This place is best shunned and left uninhabited.
- shpalman
- Princess POW
- Posts: 8341
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
- Location: One step beyond
- Contact:
Re: The Queen
The President of Italy is elected by members of the chamber and the senate, plus "58 special electors appointed by the regional councils of the 20 regions of Italy." But the mandate is seven years, deliberately chosen to be longer than and out-of-sync with the five-year mandate of the politicians. Recently, of course, governments have tended to last a lot less than that but presidents are being persuaded to not immediately leave at the end of their first term.
During this year's government crisis the prime minister (Draghi) won a confidence vote but not convincingly enough, went to Mattarella to offer his resignation, and Mattarella refused it and told him to go back and see if it couldn't get a majority coalition together anyway. (He couldn't, this is why there'll be elections this month in which we're unfortunately expecting the far-right to do quite well, so thanks for that M5S you morons.)
During this year's government crisis the prime minister (Draghi) won a confidence vote but not convincingly enough, went to Mattarella to offer his resignation, and Mattarella refused it and told him to go back and see if it couldn't get a majority coalition together anyway. (He couldn't, this is why there'll be elections this month in which we're unfortunately expecting the far-right to do quite well, so thanks for that M5S you morons.)
having that swing is a necessary but not sufficient condition for it meaning a thing
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk
Re: The Queen
Make it a requirement that the Head of State:
- has never held elected office
- has never served in the military
That would rule out ambitious political types and coup types. And make the job as boring as possible, all bureaucracy and no glamour. Appoint someone like the former Permanent Secretary of the Department of Agriculture.
- has never held elected office
- has never served in the military
That would rule out ambitious political types and coup types. And make the job as boring as possible, all bureaucracy and no glamour. Appoint someone like the former Permanent Secretary of the Department of Agriculture.
Awarded gold star 4 November 2021
Re: The Queen
There were also a lot of complaints about a fairly recent cover depicting the queen, but again the joke was about others. The numerous complainers were either objecting at the mere association of the queen and a joke, or simply refusing to try and understand the joke. You do wonder how such people ever got to like Private Eye enough to subscribe to it. But there are plenty of people who use any opportunity to demonstrate their loyalty to something.sTeamTraen wrote: ↑Sat Sep 10, 2022 11:55 pm[Private Eye]... could go for an absolute corker of a cover, like they did with Diana, which got them into trouble even though it took a pop not at her but at the reaction by the crowds outside Buck House. I hope they do because I'm a bit of a cynical bastard (something with Charles saying "About f.cking time" would be good) but I wouldn't be surprised if they pull their punches this time. They got enormous stick a few weeks ago when comparing Johnson's time in office with an overflowing toilet, although a lot of the negative reaction appeared to be at least ostensibly because people were genuinely offended, in a "OMG that's obscene" way, with the picture of said toilet, rather than the comparison itself being seen as odious.
Your suggested joke is essentially the same joke they have been making for ever, so I would be bored by that. I hope they can do introduce something a bit unexpected. But the record is that some people will be offended by any joke that mentions the monarch.
The overflowing toilet was a perfect analogy. But some guests in my house asked for it to be removed from visibility.
Re: The Queen
Some guests in your house asked you to remove something of yours that they didn't like?
What the f.ck sort of guests are you inviting round?
What the f.ck sort of guests are you inviting round?
Awarded gold star 4 November 2021
- Stranger Mouse
- After Pie
- Posts: 2442
- Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 1:23 pm
Re: The Queen
Was it in the toilet?
I’ve decided I should be on the pardon list if that’s still in the works
- Little waster
- After Pie
- Posts: 2385
- Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 12:35 am
- Location: About 1 inch behind my eyes
Re: The Queen
Laminated and used as place-mats on the dining table.
This place is not a place of honor, no highly esteemed deed is commemorated here, nothing valued is here.
What is here was dangerous and repulsive to us.
This place is best shunned and left uninhabited.
What is here was dangerous and repulsive to us.
This place is best shunned and left uninhabited.
Re: The Queen
Had a quick google and first thing I found was Nicky Wire, 2021: "You see supposedly left-leaning actors and pop stars queuing up to get MBEs and OBEs - and I'd rather f**king stab my eyes out with a pencil than do that." Up there with Robert Smith's comment on honours.Bewildered wrote: ↑Sun Sep 11, 2022 1:31 amMy favourite is from the manics: https://youtu.be/c0m6KQqnuUwjdc wrote: ↑Sun Sep 11, 2022 12:32 amI saw another suggestion: https://twitter.com/troublepeach12/stat ... 7492378625sTeamTraen wrote: ↑Sat Sep 10, 2022 11:59 pm
I was going to suggest a re-release of the Smiths' hit on this topic, but I suspect Morrissey may also be a non-ironic monarchist these days.
They also changed a lot and might be joining the sycophantic now, but I still think I am going to post this one on Facebook later today.
-
- Stargoon
- Posts: 129
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:44 pm
- Location: Stourbridge
Re: The Queen
Under the Regency Acts if both Charles and William died before Prince George was 18, William’s brother Harry would be Regent. I don’t think Charles would be happy about this situation even if Harry hadn’t decided to live abroad. I wonder if and how it will be changed or will they think it’s too unlikely that Charles and William will die in the next 9 years to worry about.
When Elizabeth came to the throne, if she had died before Charles was 18, under the Regency Act her sister, Margaret, would have been Regent. However, it was changed for that specific case so that Prince Philip would have been Regent. This was different because Margaret wasn’t completely excluded, she would have become Regent if Philip had died before Charles reached 18.
When Elizabeth came to the throne, if she had died before Charles was 18, under the Regency Act her sister, Margaret, would have been Regent. However, it was changed for that specific case so that Prince Philip would have been Regent. This was different because Margaret wasn’t completely excluded, she would have become Regent if Philip had died before Charles reached 18.
- Boustrophedon
- Stummy Beige
- Posts: 2910
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 3:58 pm
- Location: Lincolnshire Wolds
Re: The Queen
And not a lawyer.lpm wrote: ↑Sun Sep 11, 2022 11:41 amMake it a requirement that the Head of State:
- has never held elected office
- has never served in the military
That would rule out ambitious political types and coup types. And make the job as boring as possible, all bureaucracy and no glamour. Appoint someone like the former Permanent Secretary of the Department of Agriculture.
Perit hic laetatio.
Re: The Queen
It's Blackcountryboy!
Only person on here who can remember life under a king?
Only person on here who can remember life under a king?
Awarded gold star 4 November 2021
- El Pollo Diablo
- Stummy Beige
- Posts: 3355
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:41 pm
- Location: FBPE
Re: The Queen
I can remember life under a king, it was literally yesterday
If truth is many-sided, mendacity is many-tongued
Re: The Queen
And what are your recollections, EPD?
An impoverished nation? Fears of a hard winter ahead with not enough fuel? Not enough housing? Britain realising it's no longer a world power? Air pollution? Class divisions?
An impoverished nation? Fears of a hard winter ahead with not enough fuel? Not enough housing? Britain realising it's no longer a world power? Air pollution? Class divisions?
Awarded gold star 4 November 2021
-
- After Pie
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2020 4:02 am
Re: The Queen
I don't know about Trump, but it's exactly the sort of thing that Johnson seems to like - prestige without any real work.Little waster wrote: ↑Sun Sep 11, 2022 10:46 amAdd to that would a Trump or Johnson character even want to become a 99% ceremonial President just for the chance of occasionally wielding the 1% of powers they do have in their own interest when they could instead strive to be the PM with actual day-to-day clout.
With FPTP 29% is enough to win with four moderately popular candidates.Finally., as dyqik said, the demos who elects the PM would not be the same as the demos who elect the President. Even at the relative high-point of 2019, the Conservatives only represented 29% of the total electorate and only 44% of the actual voters,
That's not contrasting a president with a monarch - it's contrasting a farly specific presidential system with a specific monarchy. Just as with Brexit, there are many variants, and some are probably worse than we already have. It would still be a presidential system if the president were to be chosen by MPs, so they would inevitably choose someone who agrees with the PM.The contrast in democratic mandate with a Presidential election (either FPTP, STV or head-to-head) couldn’t be more stark, 15-20 million voters would have to personally choose the precise Presidental candidate, over all other options, with no need for the anachronism of an electoral college.
-
- After Pie
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2020 4:02 am
Re: The Queen
Private Eye...
It's sold in newsagents and supermarkets where everyone can see the cover without buying it.
- El Pollo Diablo
- Stummy Beige
- Posts: 3355
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:41 pm
- Location: FBPE
Re: The Queen
Now that you mention it I'm sure there was something along those lines, yes.
If truth is many-sided, mendacity is many-tongued
Re: The Queen
The published complaint letters always end by saying that they are ending their subscription. I suppose it doesn't have to be true that they have one, though PE would be able to check that.Millennie Al wrote: ↑Mon Sep 12, 2022 2:27 amPrivate Eye...It's sold in newsagents and supermarkets where everyone can see the cover without buying it.
Re: The Queen
Arrested for saying "Who elected him?" at the Oxford proclamation
WTF is the point of all these proclamations anyway? We already know that he's king.
WTF is the point of all these proclamations anyway? We already know that he's king.
And remember that if you botch the exit, the carnival of reaction may be coming to a town near you.
Fintan O'Toole
Fintan O'Toole
Re: The Queen
Pomp and ceremony, history - all that stuff.JQH wrote: ↑Mon Sep 12, 2022 10:34 amArrested for saying "Who elected him?" at the Oxford proclamation
WTF is the point of all these proclamations anyway? We already know that he's king.
I do feel bad for republicans though... hard to get away from this at the moment. Must be a real pain in the ass for them. I'm something of a Royalist and even I'm finding the wall to wall coverage starting to get on my tits.
Still - another bank holiday eh?
You can't polish a turd...
unless its Lion or Osterich poo... http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/mythbus ... -turd.html
unless its Lion or Osterich poo... http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/mythbus ... -turd.html
- Little waster
- After Pie
- Posts: 2385
- Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 12:35 am
- Location: About 1 inch behind my eyes
Re: The Queen
Saying that a sizeable chunk of the St James Proclamation was delivered with the same tone and degree of importance as a Working Men's Club Committee agreeing the previous meeting's minutes.
Flunky: Motion to approve the use of the Great Seal of Northern Ireland until a new one is cast.
King: Approved.
Flunky: Motion to approve the raising of the price of a packet of pork scratchings by one penny in line with inflation.
King: Approved.
Flunky: Motion to approve a round of applause in recognition of Old Albert's 35 years taking in the subs at the door.
King: Approved.
They could have at least dressed up a couple more of them up in silly outfits and punctuated the monotony with the Ceremonial Presentation of the Trousers of Destiny by the Grand Vizier or something.
This place is not a place of honor, no highly esteemed deed is commemorated here, nothing valued is here.
What is here was dangerous and repulsive to us.
This place is best shunned and left uninhabited.
What is here was dangerous and repulsive to us.
This place is best shunned and left uninhabited.
Re: The Queen
Not brilliant for everyone, and those that suffer are usually the least well off. For such is how our kick-you-while-you-are-down institutions work.
Mean employers can legally remove it from your holiday allowance. I have come across people who have suffered this, typically in minimum or near-minimum wage employment. In fact, one of them once asked me if this could be true, and that is how I found it was. They were not very happy about it, to say the least.
For part-time employees, it can be a mixed blessing. A kind employer, giving employees an extra day off, might reasonably give part-time workers a fraction of a day off, pro-rated to the proportion of full time they work. That may work either well or badly for them depending what they would normally work on a Monday.
Re: The Queen
please stop pretending this isn't a load of f.cking sh.t. this thread is peak Surrey.
Re: The Queen
I don't see any such pretence.
And remember that if you botch the exit, the carnival of reaction may be coming to a town near you.
Fintan O'Toole
Fintan O'Toole
Re: The Queen
My company had two performances cancelled by the National Trust this weekend. It would have meant about £6k in lost revenue there were to cover costs of about £3.5k. Luckily the Trust have said they will cover our losses. But they made the decision unilaterally. I think it was a bit of a knee jerk reaction…