Which major empire was your current area once a part of?

[Arakhor]

And we still have a depiction of one of their vile parasites on our money.

I don't think that's really appropriate, thanks.

 

[Ferocitus]

I don't think that's really appropriate, thanks.

Respectfully: why not?
Are views of what I regard as an abhorrent political class not allowed?

 

[Arakhor]

Well, for one thing, using such language poisons any worthwhile discussion on the same. Besides, what exactly is abhorrent about it? The fact that your old, rich, white head of state is not Australian or that they're not elected (or both)? The first three are unlikely to change in a hurry, even if Australia becomes a republic.

 

[Ferocitus]

Well, for one thing, using such language poisons any worthwhile discussion on the same.

So, any similar adjectives in relation to violent racist sub-groups, or homophobes, or misogynists
are also not allowed?

Well, for one thing, using such language poisons any worthwhile discussion on the same. Besides, what exactly is abhorrent about it?

That is neither here nor there.
The issue is the language we can or cannot use to express an opinion - the opinion itself is immaterial.

The fact that your old, rich, white head of state is not Australian or that they're not elected (or both)? The first three are unlikely to change in a hurry, even if Australia becomes a republic.

Irrelevant to the allowable use of language, i.e. the topic of "dispute" here.
Again, sincerely and respectfully.

 

[Arakhor]

I said I didn't feel that was appropriate, not that it wasn't allowed. If it broke site rules, you wouldn't have been able to miss the mod text.

 

[Ferocitus]

I said I didn't feel that was appropriate, not that it wasn't allowed. If it broke site rules, you wouldn't have been able to miss the mod text.

Apologies. I mistakenly believed it was a moderator's determination, rather than just an opinion
by a member who is also a moderator. And evidently a very fine one too.

 

[Traitorfish]

Besides, what exactly is abhorrent about it?

Hereditary monarchy, even a largely ineffectual one, runs contrary to all democratic and meritocratic principal. That is surely self-evident?

Even the British keep the monarchy around mostly out of habit. There are very few actual monarchists alive today, there are just even fewer republicans.

 

[Ferocitus]

Hereditary monarchy, even a largely ineffectual one, runs contrary to all democratic and meritocratic principal. That is surely self-evident?

Even the British keep the monarchy around mostly out of habit. There are very few actual monarchists alive today, there are just even fewer republicans.

Yes, but the same could be said about their House of Lords. Some of those
institutions can't just be axed quickly.
Oh, wait...

 

[Arakhor]

Hereditary monarchy, even a largely ineffectual one, runs contrary to all democratic and meritocratic principal. That is surely self-evident?

It's not democratic, certainly, but I never claimed it was. Besides, I would prioritise gerrymandering, low voter turn-out, uninformed voters and FPTP voting as greater threats to a well-run democratic state than a constitutional monarchy.

 

[Traitorfish]

It's not democratic, certainly, but I never claimed it was.

It's not merely not-democratic, its fundamentally anti-democratic, which in any reasonably democratic political culture must be regarded as abhorrent, or at the very least repugnant and unfortunate.

Besides, I would prioritise gerrymandering, low voter turn-out, uninformed voters and FPTP voting as greater threats to a well-run democratic state than a constitutional monarchy.

That's fair, but entirely besides the point.

 

[Ferocitus]

It's not merely not-democratic, its fundamentally anti-democratic, which in any reasonably democratic political culture must be regarded as abhorrent, or at the very least repugnant and unfortunate.

That's fair, but entirely besides the point.

Yes, some of us can walk and chew gum at the same time.

It's time to put up a large billboard near the Palace that her butler can read
out to her while she has tea and so that she and her lick-spittle lackeys know
what is in store for them.

Time to put U in G_LAG.

She might appreciate that: upper-class ordure like a bit of clever wordplay.

 

[Arakhor]

She might appreciate that: upper-class ordure like a bit of clever wordplay.

And fancy words like that don't disguise their bilious undercurrent.

 

[Ferocitus]

And fancy words like that don't disguise their bilious undercurrent.

Exactly. I wouldn't want them to get the wrong impression of how I regard them.

 

[JohannaK]

You know, Olleus, your analysis is fundamentally flawed because a powerless head of state doesnt mean an apolitical one. While I concede that a Presidency is easier to politicise by its very elective nature, it still depends first on the scruples of the political class and secondly but perhaps more importantly, on the good will of the head of state him/herself.

 

[Traitorfish]

There are some advantages to having a constitutional (and powerless) monarchy. It provides a clear cut difference between the government and the state, and so provides a safe outlet for patriotism that is separate from politics.

Tell that to the Irish.

 

[Traitorfish]

Hey, nobody claims it was perfect. And the Troubles is as much about religion as anything else. The point I was trying to make is that the Monarchy costs nothing (actually brings is net revenue to the treasury) and reduces the overt politically toxic patriotism compared to - say - the USA.

I'm not talking about The Troubles, I'm talking about the last five hundred years of Irish history. The crown has always been political in Ireland, because the conditions that allowed for an apolitical monarchy- that is, a basic agreement about the constitutional order- has never existed on that island, not so long as the British have been involved.

Even in Scotland, the monarchy is no longer simply apolitical, because it is a unionist institution. It has been brought to the forefront yet, because the nationalist leadership have tactfully guaranteed that the monarchy would be retained at least in the short-term, but as a rule you will find that all enthusiastic monarchists are unionists, and most nationalists possess republican sympathies.

The monarchy appears apolitical because the majority of Britons agree that it should exist, because it is not contested, not because it exists somehow outside the terms of political ideology. It's not a case of being less than perfect, it's a case that this is simply an untrue description of the institution.

 

[Ferocitus]

Hey, nobody claims it was perfect. And the Troubles is as much about religion as anything else. The point I was trying to make is that the Monarchy costs nothing (actually brings is net revenue to the treasury) and reduces the overt politically toxic patriotism compared to - say - the USA.

The royals have enjoyed a very good life for many generations.
It's time to end their parasitic sinecure. They can apply for a council
flat and live like those who have been doing it very hard.

The economy of GB won't be affected much by a little loss of income from
visitors to the Windsor zoo.

 

[Arakhor]

The royals have enjoyed a very good life for many generations. It's time to end their parasitic sinecure. They can apply for a councilflat and live like those who have been doing it very hard.

What is with these republican wet dreams where suddenly everything that royal family has ever owned is stripped from them, including their bank accounts?

 

[Ferocitus]

What is with these republican wet dreams where suddenly everything that royal family has ever owned is stripped from them, including their bank accounts?

Not what they owned or earned legitimately, just the wealth they accumulated
through nefarious means, or exploitation, or expropriating it from thousands of
innocent people by dint of their position.

 

[Arakhor]

So, any plans to level that sentiment against bankers, industrialists and those who inherit significant wealth, but who don't have the accident of fate to have an inherited title as well?

(Also, good luck defining what your provisos actually mean in practice.)