Jump to content

A good reason to vote Green


Patmobile
 Share

Recommended Posts

I've just found out the Green Party want to get rid of the monarchy.  If I lived and voted in GB I would vote for them for that one reason alone.

I saw an interesting piece in the Times today as I flew back to France from abroad.  On a recent visit to Britain, Queen Sofia of Spain flew to Stansted on a £13 Ryanair flight.  My guess is the Spanish monarchy, with this level of understanding of the lives of the people who work to pay for it, has a better chance of survival than does the House of Windsor.

Patrick     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Patmobile"]

I've just found out the Green Party want to get rid of the monarchy.  If I lived and voted in GB I would vote for them for that one reason alone.

Patrick     

[/quote]

You are of course free to express your opinion. This week is an ideal time to celebrate such freedom of expression and remember those who died to guarantee it.

I am a Royalist, so cannot agree with your sentiments in this regard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Patmobile"]

I've just found out the Green Party want to get rid of the monarchy. [/quote]

And how will this help the environment?    Why don't they remove the right to vote from expats?    They use more air fuel and produce more hot air than the royal family, after all!

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No argument about the right to one's own opinion.

But from where I stand the UK appears to be in a shambolic state of political, administrative, social and financial chaos.  The Queen has the constitutional power to dissolve a Parliament when it becomes incapable of governing properly.  This power was used in her name by her Governor General in Australia a few years back, in circumstances that appeared to be far less urgent than those pertaining to the truly incompetent government of Britain today.

If the monarchy has any purpose surely it is to ensure proper government? 

As for all the princes, princesses, royal dukes and duchesses and other hangers-on with their stupid and creepy "highness" titles, the Greens or anyone else could have my vote for getting shot of them any day.

Palaces and the goods and riches they are stuffed with rightly belong to the nation, anyway.  That much should be perfectly clear, since the people of Britain have twice before kicked out monarchs and then chosen new monarchs to reign, only with the consent of the people.  Buckingham Palace could therefore be turned into a superb public facility with a museum, restaurants, cinemas, a car park, bus station, theatre, concert rooms, etc.

The next government, whatever its political colour, would do well to open a full public debate on monarchy and titles.  Perhaps a date could be fixed, say in 50 years time, beyond which no new monarch would be installed.  That would give plenty of time to decide on how to replace the whole grossly overprivileged and pampered lot of them.

Patrick              

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="DancingFairy"]

And how will this help the environment?    Why don't they remove the right to vote from expats?    They use more air fuel and produce more hot air than the royal family, after all!

[/quote]

re the environment question - I have no idea.  Ask the Greens.  But if all their ideas are this good they deserve the full support of all thinking voters.

re the expat vote - I couldn't agree more. Vote either with your feet or your ballot paper.  Not both. 

The United Kingdom will soon cease to be united, mostly thanks to Blair and Brown, so why not cease to be a kingdom, too?

Patrick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chateau (more like chaumiere) Cooperlola is by no means a hotbed of royal sentiment - although my mum and Betty Windsor were both expecting their first sprog at the same time, so I'm two days older than Charlie Boy - and the Really Bad Years of royal news, when the princes were all dating, getting married and having the bambini etc made a horrendous bore of the media. Undoubtedly, though, UK plc benefits hugely from the residents of Buck House in terms of tourism and all the foreign exchange that brings. London would be a poorer city without all those gongoozlers, albeit the Tube would be emptier, too! The unpopularity of elected leaders in recent years has probably served to soften the resentment that arose after Dianagate, although that might reappear when Betty pops them, but the ice-cream sellers would love to see a coronation. However, even if there are all sorts of good environmental reasons to vote Green, perhaps - this ain't one of them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Patmobile"]

No argument about the right to one's own opinion..............

  The Queen has the constitutional power to dissolve a Parliament when it becomes incapable of governing properly. ...[/quote]edited by Owens

And she didn't even when a PM came close to civil war by setting police on their own communities in vicious ways (the miners strike).  However I do recall that there were a few 'briefing sessions' requested by HM at the time.

I doubt whether anybody is confident that they know the route through the current world malaise. 

Anybody here prepared to replace Gordon? I doubt there are candidates in the palace of Westminster who are better on the world economy (OK Vince Cable perhaps). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Owens88"]

And she didn't even when a PM came close to civil war by setting police on their own communities in vicious ways (the miners strike).  However I do recall that there were a few 'briefing sessions' requested by HM at the time.

I doubt whether anybody is confident that they know the route through the current world malaise. 

Anybody here prepared to replace Gordon? I doubt there are candidates in the palace of Westminster who are better on the world economy (OK Vince Cable perhaps). 

[/quote]

No, the Queen had no constitutional cause to order the dissolution of parliament at that time, since her PM of the time had the backing of cabinet, the commons, and the majority of the voters.  The violent demonstrations were the result of would-be "King Arthur" Scargill's cruel misleading of the miners. 

The phrase "close to civil war" implies a split in the nation of such breadth and depth that it could cause violent action by one substantial section of the civilian population against another substantial section.  A few hundred miners bashing blacklegs and themselves being bashed by policemen is not such a schism - especially since not even all the miners were involved.

The only current politician who has been tested and proved incapable of running Britain's economy is Gordon Brown.  He is the man who had 10 years to see the problems looming and did nothing, because, of course, to take the proper action would have been politically unpopular and might have lost him his chance to become PM.  There were plenty of decent, intelligent members of his own party who, with a bit of political courage, might have done better, but they never got the chance.  

Certainly no-one on the Labour side of the commons would want the job now.  It would be very short-term at best, and probably career suicide.  That's why Britain needs a new government fast. That's why, in view of Brown's unwillingness to do the decent thing, the Queen should make her Prime Minister go. 

As far as I can see, the Green Party is the only viable party that has the abolition of the monarchy on its agenda.  On present form it has proved to be a totally useless institution, so I repeat - vote Green.

Patrick 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is that regardless of political orientation, to vote anything other than the two main parties would mean proportional representation. God help us if we go down that route. Voting green is pointless in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would love to see proportional representation: if the politicians were busy fighting each other they would not have time to bring in thousands of bossy, nannying new laws. Society needs some form of protection against politicians.

The green party, like the global warmingist, seem to be some sort of quasi religion. I'd rather vote catholic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Devon"]

I would love to see proportional representation: if the politicians were busy fighting each other they would not have time to bring in thousands of bossy, nannying new laws. Society needs some form of protection against politicians.

[/quote]

Unfortunately, the example set by proportional representation countries is that minority partners to the coalition manage to get 'bossy, nannying new laws' passed as part of their bargaining power. The smallest partner is usually the one that holds the balance of power in proportional represented governments, and that is why they fail so regularly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="baypond"][quote user="Devon"]

I would love to see proportional representation: if the politicians were busy fighting each other they would not have time to bring in thousands of bossy, nannying new laws. Society needs some form of protection against politicians.

[/quote]

Unfortunately, the example set by proportional representation countries is that minority partners to the coalition manage to get 'bossy, nannying new laws' passed as part of their bargaining power. The smallest partner is usually the one that holds the balance of power in proportional represented governments, and that is why they fail so regularly.
[/quote]

 

Phew, Are you saying we Brits are lucky then? [8-)]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...