[BREXIT] Farewell Europe, and thanks for all the Fish stocks

1282931333439

Posts

  • JoeUserJoeUser Registered User regular
    Gumpy wrote: »
    Vote was 17 - 15 for secret ballot

    That probably means that he's off the ballot

  • LabelLabel Registered User regular
    that's some gruesome thoughts that brings up.

    JoeUserFencingsaxSkeithAistanRainfall
  • RMS OceanicRMS Oceanic Registered User regular
    JoeUser wrote: »
    Gumpy wrote: »
    Vote was 17 - 15 for secret ballot

    That probably means that he's off the ballot


    Good foot-shooting lads

    Panda4You
  • JusticeforPlutoJusticeforPluto Registered User regular
    As an American I have no idea what to make of Corbyn.

    He seems like a mix of good and bad ideas, has strong convictions, and is kinda a poor leader?

  • HermanoHermano Registered User regular
    As an American I have no idea what to make of Corbyn.

    He seems like a mix of good and bad ideas, has strong convictions, and is kinda a poor leader?


    PSN- AHermano
  • SnicketysnickSnicketysnick The Greatest Hype Man in WesterosRegistered User regular
    As an American I have no idea what to make of Corbyn.

    He seems like a mix of good and bad ideas, has strong convictions, and is kinda a poor leader?

    To quote myself from D&D

    He's a militant idealist who almost outright refuses to actually do any leading. His supporters and party faction are also extremely aggressive towards dissenters and seem to operate under the assumption that anyone not in the inner circle is to be browbeaten into submission and that disagreement is the same as disloyalty. The latest spate of resignations was prompted by the sacking of Hilary Benn for one such disagreement. Or for a more qualified opinion, here's Alan "AJ" Johnson, former labour Home Secretary and general good man with an absolute barnstormer of a critique sent during the recent vote of no confidence vs Corbyn

    CmJUf_PWAAATiiO.jpg

    7qmGNt5.png
    D3 Steam #TeamTangent STO
    pots+pansPanda4You
  • JusticeforPlutoJusticeforPluto Registered User regular
    I mean, I kinda agree?

    Part of being a head of state or goverment, or a leader in general is that you have to have an ability to compromise and work with those you don't want to, but have to.

    RMS OceanicFencingsaxKetBranecroSYSRainfallVegemyteRhesus Positive
  • RMS OceanicRMS Oceanic Registered User regular
    As an American I have no idea what to make of Corbyn.

    He seems like a mix of good and bad ideas, has strong convictions, and is kinda a poor leader?

    Pretty much. Even as you understand his personal policies clash with the other MPs, he hasn't really acted on those ideas. He doesn't fight effectively for his policies or try to go along with the mainstream in a convincing way. As a leader you have to decide how you want things to be, and he's failed to do so. And while this goes on he hasn't really challenged the Tory policies as is his duty as leader of the opposition.

    The best example I have of his behaviour is last year, when there was a vote to authorise air strikes against ISIS in Syria. Setting aside the merits of the vote, the party was fairly split, and rather than use the Whips and other mechanics available to him to try and "persuade" his colleagues to vote against it, he did what is the precise opposite and promised a free vote. And then hinted that there would be consequences for voting in favour of it. He's trying to not look like a tyrant by resorting to the whips, but by undermining a free vote with such hints he looks wishy washy.

    SnicketysnickJoeUserLiiyaBeastehPanda4You
  • OmnipotentBagelOmnipotentBagel floof Registered User regular
    edited July 2016
    As an American I have no idea what to make of Corbyn.

    He seems like a mix of good and bad ideas, has strong convictions, and is kinda a poor leader?

    Pretty much. Even as you understand his personal policies clash with the other MPs, he hasn't really acted on those ideas. He doesn't fight effectively for his policies or try to go along with the mainstream in a convincing way. As a leader you have to decide how you want things to be, and he's failed to do so. And while this goes on he hasn't really challenged the Tory policies as is his duty as leader of the opposition.

    The best example I have of his behaviour is last year, when there was a vote to authorise air strikes against ISIS in Syria. Setting aside the merits of the vote, the party was fairly split, and rather than use the Whips and other mechanics available to him to try and "persuade" his colleagues to vote against it, he did what is the precise opposite and promised a free vote. And then hinted that there would be consequences for voting in favour of it. He's trying to not look like a tyrant by resorting to the whips, but by undermining a free vote with such hints he looks wishy washy.

    Ironically, hinting at consequences for voting "wrong" in a "free" vote makes him look so much more like a tyrant.

    OmnipotentBagel on
    cdci44qazyo3.gif

    RMS OceanicSnicketysnickameybesBeastehSlacker71BahamutZEROKetBraRainfallDedwrekkaLord_AsmodeusPanda4YouVegemyte
  • NyysjanNyysjan FinlandRegistered User regular
    Gundi wrote: »
    Karl wrote: »
    Oh and in regards to the Queen

    Yes she has ultimate power but it's understood that she'd never actually pull the trigger without having complete support.

    Because dissolving parliament without massive support from the general public would have her removed from power.

    So all she has to do is be way more popular than Parliament? ...Wait, by god, the woman's playing the long con!
    I suspect that not insignificant amount of Brits would, at this point, happily have the Queen as the only power in government.
    And only reason lot more are not, is because of Charles (deservedly or not).

  • JusticeforPlutoJusticeforPluto Registered User regular
    Is May pro Brexit? I'm seeing conflicting statements from her online.

  • RMS OceanicRMS Oceanic Registered User regular
    Is May pro Brexit? I'm seeing conflicting statements from her online.

    She was officially in the Remain camp, but much like Boris Johnson it's considered to have been political maneuvers rather than actual convictions. And now it seems she intends to follow through lest UKIP wipe the Tories out.

  • GaryOGaryO Registered User regular
    edited July 2016
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    Gundi wrote: »
    Karl wrote: »
    Oh and in regards to the Queen

    Yes she has ultimate power but it's understood that she'd never actually pull the trigger without having complete support.

    Because dissolving parliament without massive support from the general public would have her removed from power.

    So all she has to do is be way more popular than Parliament? ...Wait, by god, the woman's playing the long con!
    I suspect that not insignificant amount of Brits would, at this point, happily have the Queen as the only power in government.
    And only reason lot more are not, is because of Charles (deservedly or not).

    I'd happily go back to the monarchy being the only source of government. The Queen has a good head on her shoulders, Charles cares about the environment and is a bit hippy ( apparently likes alternative medicine), but still ok, William is pretty much by all accounts well adjusted and a nice guy, maybe a bit dull, and theres plenty of time for George to get a good education on how not to be a shithead.
    Thats the probably the next 50 years (at least) of government sorted out.

    Lets face it, its not like they can be worse than the current lot of knobjockeys we have for a government

    GaryO on
  • JusticeforPlutoJusticeforPluto Registered User regular
    So blow up the country to save the party?

    Lovely...

  • RMS OceanicRMS Oceanic Registered User regular
    So blow up the country to save the party?

    Lovely...

    That's pretty much what Cameron did

    This was a Tory Civil War that we all lost

    Brovid HasselsmofnecroSYSPeter EbelPanda4YouRhesus Positive
  • HobnailHobnail Registered User regular
    edited July 2016
    GaryO wrote: »
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    Gundi wrote: »
    Karl wrote: »
    Oh and in regards to the Queen

    Yes she has ultimate power but it's understood that she'd never actually pull the trigger without having complete support.

    Because dissolving parliament without massive support from the general public would have her removed from power.

    So all she has to do is be way more popular than Parliament? ...Wait, by god, the woman's playing the long con!
    I suspect that not insignificant amount of Brits would, at this point, happily have the Queen as the only power in government.
    And only reason lot more are not, is because of Charles (deservedly or not).

    I'd happily go back to the monarchy being the only source of government. The Queen has a good head on her shoulders, Charles cares about the environment and is a bit hippy ( apparently likes alternative medicine), but still ok, William is pretty much by all accounts well adjusted and a nice guy, maybe a bit dull, and theres plenty of time for George to get a good education on how not to be a shithead.
    Thats the probably the next 50 years (at least) of government sorted out.

    Lets face it, its not like they can be worse than the current lot of knobjockeys we have for a government

    And hey, after awhile you'll have a chance to depose and execute monarch again, world hasn't seen that kind of thing for a long time, really sell some news

    Hobnail on
    HermanoJayKaos
  • JusticeforPlutoJusticeforPluto Registered User regular
    Cameron, he man who called for the referendum (but wanted to stay) to settle the issue only to see it back fire is going to be replaced by a woman who said she wanted to stay but actually wants to leave least her party be destroyed by UKIP, whose heads said they wanted to leave but now have no idea how to accomplish it.

    Meanwhile in the north, the Tories fought for Scotland to stay in the UK but now might see Scotland leave due to this vote that they really didn't want.

    Did I get that right?

    RMS OceanicSlacker71Fencingsax
  • RMS OceanicRMS Oceanic Registered User regular
    Cameron, he man who called for the referendum (but wanted to stay) to settle the issue only to see it back fire is going to be replaced by a woman who said she wanted to stay but actually wants to leave least her party be destroyed by UKIP, whose heads said they wanted to leave but now have no idea how to accomplish it.

    Meanwhile in the north, the Tories fought for Scotland to stay in the UK but now might see Scotland leave due to this vote that they really didn't want.

    Did I get that right?

    Pretty admirable stab. And fortunately Northern Ireland didn't get involved yet

    SnicketysnickJoeUser
  • GaryOGaryO Registered User regular
    Hobnail wrote: »
    GaryO wrote: »
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    Gundi wrote: »
    Karl wrote: »
    Oh and in regards to the Queen

    Yes she has ultimate power but it's understood that she'd never actually pull the trigger without having complete support.

    Because dissolving parliament without massive support from the general public would have her removed from power.

    So all she has to do is be way more popular than Parliament? ...Wait, by god, the woman's playing the long con!
    I suspect that not insignificant amount of Brits would, at this point, happily have the Queen as the only power in government.
    And only reason lot more are not, is because of Charles (deservedly or not).

    I'd happily go back to the monarchy being the only source of government. The Queen has a good head on her shoulders, Charles cares about the environment and is a bit hippy ( apparently likes alternative medicine), but still ok, William is pretty much by all accounts well adjusted and a nice guy, maybe a bit dull, and theres plenty of time for George to get a good education on how not to be a shithead.
    Thats the probably the next 50 years (at least) of government sorted out.

    Lets face it, its not like they can be worse than the current lot of knobjockeys we have for a government

    And hey, after awhile you'll have a chance to depose and execute monarch again, world hasn't seen that kind of thing for a long time, really sell some news

    Exactly, motivates the Monarchy to do a good job.
    Unlike current politicians most of whom who's main motivations seem to be 'how does this profit me/get me relected'

    I literally have zero faith in any politician/political party at the moment

  • HobnailHobnail Registered User regular
    Really a good civil war keeps everybody on their toes, thins out those military-age types too

  • GrogGrog My sword is only steel in a useful shape.Registered User regular
    GaryO wrote: »
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    Gundi wrote: »
    Karl wrote: »
    Oh and in regards to the Queen

    Yes she has ultimate power but it's understood that she'd never actually pull the trigger without having complete support.

    Because dissolving parliament without massive support from the general public would have her removed from power.

    So all she has to do is be way more popular than Parliament? ...Wait, by god, the woman's playing the long con!
    I suspect that not insignificant amount of Brits would, at this point, happily have the Queen as the only power in government.
    And only reason lot more are not, is because of Charles (deservedly or not).

    I'd happily go back to the monarchy being the only source of government. The Queen has a good head on her shoulders, Charles cares about the environment and is a bit hippy ( apparently likes alternative medicine), but still ok, William is pretty much by all accounts well adjusted and a nice guy, maybe a bit dull, and theres plenty of time for George to get a good education on how not to be a shithead.
    Thats the probably the next 50 years (at least) of government sorted out.

    Lets face it, its not like they can be worse than the current lot of knobjockeys we have for a government

    Charles has said before how people should not rise above their station. The queen's coronation saw her being decked out in gold and jewels while the country was still rationing. However they market themselves, they're a bunch of toffs who have no incentive to give a damn about the people.

    I can see the advantages of a constitutional monarchy, but god help us if they were ever actually in charge.

    CptKemzik
  • GumpyGumpy There is always a greater powerRegistered User regular
    Cameron, he man who called for the referendum (but wanted to stay) to settle the issue only to see it back fire is going to be replaced by a woman who said she wanted to stay but actually wants to leave least her party be destroyed by UKIP, whose heads said they wanted to leave but now have no idea how to accomplish it.

    Meanwhile in the north, the Tories fought for Scotland to stay in the UK but now might see Scotland leave due to this vote that they really didn't want.

    Did I get that right?

    Eeeeh

    May did probably want to stay, but she's known for being a bit more personally detached from things and knew that swinging around and supporting the leave vote was critical to keeping her party together. She knows that party unity is critical, especially at the moment with all the uncertainty the referendum has unleashed. By adapting and compromising with her party she was able to demolish her opposition and win a fairly secure leadership without there being a critical build up of bad blood that could kill it 9 months later

    Now what's the latest update on the Labour NEC?

  • JoeUserJoeUser Registered User regular
    Still debating, maybe vote soon

  • GumpyGumpy There is always a greater powerRegistered User regular
    edited July 2016
    As an American I have no idea what to make of Corbyn.

    He seems like a mix of good and bad ideas, has strong convictions, and is kinda a poor leader?

    The push against Corbyn isn't just the push against the actual man. About 30 years ago there was a huge duff up in the party when the harder left and the centre came to blows and a lot of shitty things happened. There were a couple of fairly beefy hard left groups (like the Socialist Workers Party) who apparently did some less then stellar stuff and the hard left lost and got knocked out the party. Corbyn is seen as a potential return for that faction and a lot of this drama is old baggage resurfacing.

    Gumpy on
    SolartynicCptKemzik
  • GumpyGumpy There is always a greater powerRegistered User regular
  • NyysjanNyysjan FinlandRegistered User regular
    Grog wrote: »
    GaryO wrote: »
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    Gundi wrote: »
    Karl wrote: »
    Oh and in regards to the Queen

    Yes she has ultimate power but it's understood that she'd never actually pull the trigger without having complete support.

    Because dissolving parliament without massive support from the general public would have her removed from power.

    So all she has to do is be way more popular than Parliament? ...Wait, by god, the woman's playing the long con!
    I suspect that not insignificant amount of Brits would, at this point, happily have the Queen as the only power in government.
    And only reason lot more are not, is because of Charles (deservedly or not).

    I'd happily go back to the monarchy being the only source of government. The Queen has a good head on her shoulders, Charles cares about the environment and is a bit hippy ( apparently likes alternative medicine), but still ok, William is pretty much by all accounts well adjusted and a nice guy, maybe a bit dull, and theres plenty of time for George to get a good education on how not to be a shithead.
    Thats the probably the next 50 years (at least) of government sorted out.

    Lets face it, its not like they can be worse than the current lot of knobjockeys we have for a government

    Charles has said before how people should not rise above their station. The queen's coronation saw her being decked out in gold and jewels while the country was still rationing. However they market themselves, they're a bunch of toffs who have no incentive to give a damn about the people.

    I can see the advantages of a constitutional monarchy, but god help us if they were ever actually in charge.
    And?
    Would selling of those gold and jewels have changed the food situation?
    And how much would sbuying them back later have cost?

    Personally, i am a bit iffy about selling of state property to pay for temporary expenditures, no matter how necessary (usually better to take a loan), might as well start selling chairs and tables and just write on the floor if you do.
    That said, were those actual state property or do they belong to the crown?

  • HobnailHobnail Registered User regular
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    Grog wrote: »
    GaryO wrote: »
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    Gundi wrote: »
    Karl wrote: »
    Oh and in regards to the Queen

    Yes she has ultimate power but it's understood that she'd never actually pull the trigger without having complete support.

    Because dissolving parliament without massive support from the general public would have her removed from power.

    So all she has to do is be way more popular than Parliament? ...Wait, by god, the woman's playing the long con!
    I suspect that not insignificant amount of Brits would, at this point, happily have the Queen as the only power in government.
    And only reason lot more are not, is because of Charles (deservedly or not).

    I'd happily go back to the monarchy being the only source of government. The Queen has a good head on her shoulders, Charles cares about the environment and is a bit hippy ( apparently likes alternative medicine), but still ok, William is pretty much by all accounts well adjusted and a nice guy, maybe a bit dull, and theres plenty of time for George to get a good education on how not to be a shithead.
    Thats the probably the next 50 years (at least) of government sorted out.

    Lets face it, its not like they can be worse than the current lot of knobjockeys we have for a government

    Charles has said before how people should not rise above their station. The queen's coronation saw her being decked out in gold and jewels while the country was still rationing. However they market themselves, they're a bunch of toffs who have no incentive to give a damn about the people.

    I can see the advantages of a constitutional monarchy, but god help us if they were ever actually in charge.
    And?
    Would selling of those gold and jewels have changed the food situation?
    And how much would sbuying them back later have cost?

    Personally, i am a bit iffy about selling of state property to pay for temporary expenditures, no matter how necessary (usually better to take a loan), might as well start selling chairs and tables and just write on the floor if you do.
    That said, were those actual state property or do they belong to the crown?

    People just don't like that kind of shit. Remember how the last Pope went around wearing golden tablecloths and diamond slippers and whatnot, wasn't popular

  • GrogGrog My sword is only steel in a useful shape.Registered User regular
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    Grog wrote: »
    GaryO wrote: »
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    Gundi wrote: »
    Karl wrote: »
    Oh and in regards to the Queen

    Yes she has ultimate power but it's understood that she'd never actually pull the trigger without having complete support.

    Because dissolving parliament without massive support from the general public would have her removed from power.

    So all she has to do is be way more popular than Parliament? ...Wait, by god, the woman's playing the long con!
    I suspect that not insignificant amount of Brits would, at this point, happily have the Queen as the only power in government.
    And only reason lot more are not, is because of Charles (deservedly or not).

    I'd happily go back to the monarchy being the only source of government. The Queen has a good head on her shoulders, Charles cares about the environment and is a bit hippy ( apparently likes alternative medicine), but still ok, William is pretty much by all accounts well adjusted and a nice guy, maybe a bit dull, and theres plenty of time for George to get a good education on how not to be a shithead.
    Thats the probably the next 50 years (at least) of government sorted out.

    Lets face it, its not like they can be worse than the current lot of knobjockeys we have for a government

    Charles has said before how people should not rise above their station. The queen's coronation saw her being decked out in gold and jewels while the country was still rationing. However they market themselves, they're a bunch of toffs who have no incentive to give a damn about the people.

    I can see the advantages of a constitutional monarchy, but god help us if they were ever actually in charge.
    And?
    Would selling of those gold and jewels have changed the food situation?
    And how much would sbuying them back later have cost?

    Personally, i am a bit iffy about selling of state property to pay for temporary expenditures, no matter how necessary (usually better to take a loan), might as well start selling chairs and tables and just write on the floor if you do.
    That said, were those actual state property or do they belong to the crown?

    It illustrates the massive difference between the lives of the monarchy and their subjects. Westminster is out of touch with the country enough as it is, having the royals rule wouldn't improve that.

    BahamutZEROCptKemzik
  • SolarSolar Registered User regular
    Corbyn is a decent bloke but a poor leader and the faction of the party behind him has a core of fucking awful people who refuse to see any kind of reason and think anyone to the right of fucking Pol Pot is a crypto-fascist

    Corbyn himself has done a bad job of clamping down on this kind of stupid behaviour and the PLP are shit scared that they are walking into another thrashing at a GE, which has all combined to mean that the PLP want Corbyn gone so they can bring someone in more palatable to voters outside the party (fair) and the Corbynites in the party are throwing a right strop because they believe that Corbyn can win and anyone who is expressing concerns otherwise is a traitor, which has pushed those concerns into outright rebellion.

    Which is not to say I want Eagle as Labour leader as I don't think much of her either.

    tynic
  • JarsJars Registered User regular
    not having him on the ballot seems really petty. what's the harm in it, sounds like he wouldn't win anyway

  • NyysjanNyysjan FinlandRegistered User regular
    Hobnail wrote: »
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    Grog wrote: »
    GaryO wrote: »
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    Gundi wrote: »
    Karl wrote: »
    Oh and in regards to the Queen

    Yes she has ultimate power but it's understood that she'd never actually pull the trigger without having complete support.

    Because dissolving parliament without massive support from the general public would have her removed from power.

    So all she has to do is be way more popular than Parliament? ...Wait, by god, the woman's playing the long con!
    I suspect that not insignificant amount of Brits would, at this point, happily have the Queen as the only power in government.
    And only reason lot more are not, is because of Charles (deservedly or not).

    I'd happily go back to the monarchy being the only source of government. The Queen has a good head on her shoulders, Charles cares about the environment and is a bit hippy ( apparently likes alternative medicine), but still ok, William is pretty much by all accounts well adjusted and a nice guy, maybe a bit dull, and theres plenty of time for George to get a good education on how not to be a shithead.
    Thats the probably the next 50 years (at least) of government sorted out.

    Lets face it, its not like they can be worse than the current lot of knobjockeys we have for a government

    Charles has said before how people should not rise above their station. The queen's coronation saw her being decked out in gold and jewels while the country was still rationing. However they market themselves, they're a bunch of toffs who have no incentive to give a damn about the people.

    I can see the advantages of a constitutional monarchy, but god help us if they were ever actually in charge.
    And?
    Would selling of those gold and jewels have changed the food situation?
    And how much would sbuying them back later have cost?

    Personally, i am a bit iffy about selling of state property to pay for temporary expenditures, no matter how necessary (usually better to take a loan), might as well start selling chairs and tables and just write on the floor if you do.
    That said, were those actual state property or do they belong to the crown?

    People just don't like that kind of shit. Remember how the last Pope went around wearing golden tablecloths and diamond slippers and whatnot, wasn't popular
    Well, difference is, that the Queen is a monarch of a country because her ancestors had a bigger armies than other people.
    Pope is a leader of a religion that the founder of told them to sell all your belongings and give to the poor.

    I expect different behaviour from a monarch than i do from a pope (actually, i don't expect it, but feel justified in criticizing the pope for not being different due the chruches own claims).

    Slacker71
  • GumpyGumpy There is always a greater powerRegistered User regular
    Jars wrote: »
    not having him on the ballot seems really petty. what's the harm in it, sounds like he wouldn't win anyway

    He is 99% going to win if he actually gets on the ballot

    Which it looks like he's now on

    The Eagle is about to be crushed and the rebellion is pretty fucked

    LiiyaHermanoSnicketysnickSlacker71Panda4YouAshcrofttynic
  • JarsJars Registered User regular
    in that case making it so the most likely to win can't win by not putting them on the ballot sounds, uh, bad

    HermanoPhillishereCorp.ShephardNartwakCptKemzik
  • BahamutZEROBahamutZERO Registered User regular
    Jars wrote: »
    not having him on the ballot seems really petty. what's the harm in it, sounds like he wouldn't win anyway

    he's supposedly much more popular among the segment of the party that is allowed to vote on the final ballot than among the party leadership which selects who goes on the ballot, I think?

    BahamutZERO.gif
    Slacker71
  • HermanoHermano Registered User regular
    Jars wrote: »
    not having him on the ballot seems really petty. what's the harm in it, sounds like he wouldn't win anyway

    They wouldn't be trying to keep him off the ballot if they thought he wouldn't win, that's why they're doing this


    PSN- AHermano
  • HobnailHobnail Registered User regular
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    Hobnail wrote: »
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    Grog wrote: »
    GaryO wrote: »
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    Gundi wrote: »
    Karl wrote: »
    Oh and in regards to the Queen

    Yes she has ultimate power but it's understood that she'd never actually pull the trigger without having complete support.

    Because dissolving parliament without massive support from the general public would have her removed from power.

    So all she has to do is be way more popular than Parliament? ...Wait, by god, the woman's playing the long con!
    I suspect that not insignificant amount of Brits would, at this point, happily have the Queen as the only power in government.
    And only reason lot more are not, is because of Charles (deservedly or not).

    I'd happily go back to the monarchy being the only source of government. The Queen has a good head on her shoulders, Charles cares about the environment and is a bit hippy ( apparently likes alternative medicine), but still ok, William is pretty much by all accounts well adjusted and a nice guy, maybe a bit dull, and theres plenty of time for George to get a good education on how not to be a shithead.
    Thats the probably the next 50 years (at least) of government sorted out.

    Lets face it, its not like they can be worse than the current lot of knobjockeys we have for a government

    Charles has said before how people should not rise above their station. The queen's coronation saw her being decked out in gold and jewels while the country was still rationing. However they market themselves, they're a bunch of toffs who have no incentive to give a damn about the people.

    I can see the advantages of a constitutional monarchy, but god help us if they were ever actually in charge.
    And?
    Would selling of those gold and jewels have changed the food situation?
    And how much would sbuying them back later have cost?

    Personally, i am a bit iffy about selling of state property to pay for temporary expenditures, no matter how necessary (usually better to take a loan), might as well start selling chairs and tables and just write on the floor if you do.
    That said, were those actual state property or do they belong to the crown?

    People just don't like that kind of shit. Remember how the last Pope went around wearing golden tablecloths and diamond slippers and whatnot, wasn't popular
    Well, difference is, that the Queen is a monarch of a country because her ancestors had a bigger armies than other people.
    Pope is a leader of a religion that the founder of told them to sell all your belongings and give to the poor.

    I expect different behaviour from a monarch than i do from a pope (actually, i don't expect it, but feel justified in criticizing the pope for not being different due the chruches own claims).

    Man I guess so, I think that if you are the figurehead for a bunch of broke ass people and go around bedecked in jewels it will never be a good look

  • LiiyaLiiya Registered User regular
    Also most of the jewels etc that the Queen has are old as balls.

    NyysjanDonovan PuppyfuckerNeveronRainfallSlacker71lonelyahavaOlivawAngelina
  • HermanoHermano Registered User regular
    Jars wrote: »
    not having him on the ballot seems really petty. what's the harm in it, sounds like he wouldn't win anyway

    he's supposedly much more popular among the segment of the party that is allowed to vote on the final ballot than among the party leadership which selects who goes on the ballot, I think?

    There's no supposedly about it, he was elected leader less than a year ago with an overwhelming majority


    PSN- AHermano
Sign In or Register to comment.