The haves and the "have-yachts"

[Verbal]

What form of government would you choose Verbal? Figurehead President with Executive Prime Minister (eg France and Ireland); Executive President accountable directly to parliament (eg US), some other? Genuinely interested to know.

 

I wonder why that question comes up. Royalists are fond of saying QE2 has no power. Actually of course, the recent scandal over the government's going and kneeling before Charles to get his approval over all kinds of legislation gives the lie to that. So an alternative to what? To a bunch of usurpers who, so embarrassed by their German-ness during the first world war, invented a silly surname, nicked from the castle they'd 'inherited'?

 

Constitutional reform has been held up far too long by pathetic kow-towing to these dumbasses. As a consequence, we already have a dangerous merging of the executive and the legislature, rather than a clear separation of powers (the liberal constitutional ideal). Reform that reintroduces that separation is good for democracy, and if democracy is so intimately intertwined with neo-liberal economics, as the swivel-eyes on here insist, then if they're right we'll all be better off and, they too, should be anti-Royalist.

 

At the moment, we have an unelected figurehead, and, often, an unelected Prime Minister (as happened with Brown - but he's by no means the exception. Major took over from Thatcher before he won the General Election in 1992, and Calaghan before him, etc, etc). We have these little coups and no one bats an eyelid - or very few anyway.

 

It's time to constitutionally grow up, drop the mother-fixation with QE2, ditch the monarchy, write the damned constitution down and be the mid-sized liberal democracy we can be.

[buctootim]

I wonder why that question comes up. Royalists are fond of saying QE2 has no power. Actually of course, the recent scandal over the government's going and kneeling before Charles to get his approval over all kinds of legislation gives the lie to that. So an alternative to what? To a bunch of usurpers who, so embarrassed by their German-ness during the first world war, invented a silly surname, nicked from the castle they'd 'inherited'?

 

Constitutional reform has been held up far too long by pathetic kow-towing to these dumbasses. As a consequence, we already have a dangerous merging of the executive and the legislature, rather than a clear separation of powers (the liberal constitutional ideal). Reform that reintroduces that separation is good for democracy, and if democracy is so intimately intertwined with neo-liberal economics, as the swivel-eyes on here insist, then if they're right we'll all be better off and, they too, should be anti-Royalist.

 

At the moment, we have an unelected figurehead, and, often, an unelected Prime Minister (as happened with Brown - but he's by no means the exception. Major took over from Thatcher before he won the General Election in 1992, and Calaghan before him, etc, etc). We have these little coups and no one bats an eyelid - or very few anyway.

 

It's time to constitutionally grow up, drop the mother-fixation with QE2, ditch the monarchy, write the damned constitution down and be the mid-sized liberal democracy we can be.

 

 

Im not so much a Royalist as lassez-faire. Have never been convinced we have a major problem and am doubtful any particular alterntive constitutional model offers significant bebefits without introducing new disadvantages.

[Verbal]

Im not so much a Royalist as lassez-faire. Have never been convinced we have a major problem and am doubtful any particular alterntive constitutional model offers significant bebefits without introducing new disadvantages.

 

Laissez-faire is the name of a political philosophy that advocates an individual's freedom from state limitations, and is historically anti-Royalist for that reason. I always find it odd that swivel-eyed right-wingers (not you, of course) are so staunchly royalist when their supposed core beliefs should lead them to be exactly the opposite.

 

So on this, the right and left should unite: free us from those putrid 'Sachsen-Coburg und Gothas' (to give them their German names in German).

[benjii]

Verbal, can you give the implied racism a rest please?

[Saint in Paradise]

For goodness sake will people stop using the racist card just because they don't like

what someone else has posted. I find it rather tiresome booring and stupid.

 

Oh yes and I don't normally agree with Verbal but on this topic I do.

[View From The Top]

Verbal, can you give the implied racism a rest please?

 

 

Eh?

[Verbal]

Verbal, can you give the implied racism a rest please?

 

Read their surname again, and then, very slowly, ask yourself that question again to see how hopelessly ill-informed it really is.

[View From The Top]

I can see the benefits of a Royal Yacht as a business tool but to me it shows how out of touch some tories are that they think building one, at the tax payers expense, would lift the moral of the country.

[alpine_saint]

So we can give the old girl a Jubilee gift she'll love and create desparetly needed jobs in our shipbuilding industry building a showcase ship that will travel the world showing off what we can do ...... and its going to cost everyone in the country the princely sum of £1 each.

 

A bargain.

 

Yep, whining about this is pathetic. The trappings of Royalty make the UK a f**king fortune, in areas such as tourism.

 

She has served the country brilliantly and selflessly for 60 years, and in that time has been a symbol of continuity, an anchor, as the country changed from global superpower to Third World status.

 

I remember when her saying goodbye to Britannia was televised. The only time she has been seen to cry in the whole of her reign. What a nasty, ungrateful mean-spirited nation we have become.

 

Give her a f**king yacht to get about to engagements and tours in while she can. It's planned to be f**king dual-use anyway.

[alpine_saint]

I wonder why that question comes up. Royalists are fond of saying QE2 has no power. Actually of course, the recent scandal over the government's going and kneeling before Charles to get his approval over all kinds of legislation gives the lie to that. So an alternative to what? To a bunch of usurpers who, so embarrassed by their German-ness during the first world war, invented a silly surname, nicked from the castle they'd 'inherited'?

 

Constitutional reform has been held up far too long by pathetic kow-towing to these dumbasses. As a consequence, we already have a dangerous merging of the executive and the legislature, rather than a clear separation of powers (the liberal constitutional ideal). Reform that reintroduces that separation is good for democracy, and if democracy is so intimately intertwined with neo-liberal economics, as the swivel-eyes on here insist, then if they're right we'll all be better off and, they too, should be anti-Royalist.

 

At the moment, we have an unelected figurehead, and, often, an unelected Prime Minister (as happened with Brown - but he's by no means the exception. Major took over from Thatcher before he won the General Election in 1992, and Calaghan before him, etc, etc). We have these little coups and no one bats an eyelid - or very few anyway.

 

It's time to constitutionally grow up, drop the mother-fixation with QE2, ditch the monarchy, write the damned constitution down and be the mid-sized liberal democracy we can be.

 

Christ you are a nasty self-opinionated smug little sh*t.

[trousers]

It's time to constitutionally grow up, drop the mother-fixation with QE2, ditch the monarchy, write the damned constitution down and be the mid-sized liberal democracy we can be.

 

Christ you are a nasty self-opinionated smug little sh*t.

 

[Saintandy666]

Yep, whining about this is pathetic. The trappings of Royalty make the UK a f**king fortune, in areas such as tourism.

 

She has served the country brilliantly and selflessly for 60 years, and in that time has been a symbol of continuity, an anchor, as the country changed from global superpower to Third World status.

 

I remember when her saying goodbye to Britannia was televised. The only time she has been seen to cry in the whole of her reign. What a nasty, ungrateful mean-spirited nation we have become.

 

Give her a f**king yacht to get about to engagements and tours in while she can. It's planned to be f**king dual-use anyway.

 

3rd world status?! That is honestly the most stupid thing I have heard for a while. What a ridiculous point. If you think the UK is a third world country, perhaps you should go live in Sudan for a while... or Ethiopia.

[thefunkygibbons]

Proof again that you should not believe everything you read

 

Selective leaking by a certain Lib dem, when earlier letters had already agreed that no-one was talking about public money being spent

 

Actually, I think the whole plan is very inspiring and far sighted

 

Certainly, if there was a public appeal, I would chip in

[Special K]

I cannot see how building a big, ****-off ship will lift the morale of the country, especially if Brenda and the gang get to swan off on it to the sun a couple of times a year. Irrespective of how it is funded (and it doesn't look like public money is being considered) how on earth would it benefit the country, other than prove to be a bolthole for s****y do's for the Royals and minor commonwealth leaders? Waste of time and a ****-poor idea. Hope it's ditched without any further consideration.

[alpine_saint]

I cannot see how building a big, ****-off ship will lift the morale of the country, especially if Brenda and the gang get to swan off on it to the sun a couple of times a year. Irrespective of how it is funded (and it doesn't look like public money is being considered) how on earth would it benefit the country, other than prove to be a bolthole for s****y do's for the Royals and minor commonwealth leaders? Waste of time and a ****-poor idea. Hope it's ditched without any further consideration.

 

Then I suggest you have a look around and look at what a demoralising effect the f**k-up of our new carriers and the RN in general is having.

 

Such items have massive symbolism.

[Special K]

Then I suggest you have a look around and look at what a demoralising effect the f**k-up of our new carriers and the RN in general is having.

 

Such items have massive symbolism.

 

Fair enough for a fighting ship, full of rough-ty tough-ty semen (oops, seamen) like delldays, but not a floating gin palace for the over privileged.

[trousers]

Proof again that you should not believe everything you read

 

Selective leaking by a certain Lib dem, when earlier letters had already agreed that no-one was talking about public money being spent

 

 

Indeed. But at least this incessant selective quoting in the left wing press gives the Tory bashers something to vent their spleen over day in, day out... ;-)

[ART]

Surely in this day and age some billionaire luxury yacht owner can step forward and make hids yacht available to Her Majesty for a month or two each year.

 

I object at her age to the public funding such a project, which would end up being used by Prince Charles and Camilla who have plenty of income to fund the project. In fact, it would be a nice gesture of Charles to buy mummy a yacht, knowing it would fall back into his hands at a later date.

[Gingeletiss]

It appears that it won't be 'taxpayer' funded, so all you lefties, will have to look for another stick, to start beating the government and monarchy of this country!

[Saintandy666]

It appears that it won't be 'taxpayer' funded, so all you lefties, will have to look for another stick, to start beating the government and monarchy of this country!

 

Mr. Gove proposed it would be originally. Cameron, a much more sensible man set the record straight.

[pap]

It appears that it won't be 'taxpayer' funded, so all you lefties, will have to look for another stick, to start beating the government and monarchy of this country!

 

The government of this country is a joke and has been for as long as I can remember.

 

Michael Gove in particular, is a disaster of an Education Secretary.

 

Appreciate that your generation was taught to defer to authority, and that some of you actually bought it. The generations that followed haven't been so keen.

Edited 17 January, 2012 by pap

[ART]

It wasn't Britannia itself, but the running costs that saw the Royal Yacht being put into retirement. Surely there are enough Saudi Kings, Princes to buy and run a new one for the Jubilee celebrations. The suggestion of paying out for a new one is one of the worse suggestions to come out of the Coalition. Maybe Europe heads of State could fund one for multi usage.

[Gemmel]

I wonder if verbal burst a blood vessel typing that lot?

 

And to think that they will be around for many years to come..............calm down verbal, sit still with slow breathing, you know the drill.

[Marsdinho]

Um, have you lot missed something. The proposal is to pay for it out of PRIVATE funding. They need to raise £100m (£80m to build the yacht and £20m for "running costs")

 

The yacht will also be used as an scientific / educational environment.

 

I think some people love to have selective reading syndrome, and get all hot under the collar about something they've just made up.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jan/16/royal-yacht-backed-david-cameron

[Saintandy666]

Um, have you lot missed something. The proposal is to pay for it out of PRIVATE funding. They need to raise £100m (£80m to build the yacht and £20m for "running costs")

 

The yacht will also be used as an scientific / educational environment.

 

I think some people love to have selective reading syndrome, and get all hot under the collar about something they've just made up.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jan/16/royal-yacht-backed-david-cameron

 

That's the proposal now, but Gove originally wanted it as a 'reward' to the Queen paid by taxpayers.

[trousers]

That's the proposal now, but Gove originally wanted it as a 'reward' to the Queen paid by taxpayers.

 

So, on other words, Cameron and one of his ministers had a sensible dialogue about it. The minister suggested public financing was an option but Cameron disagreed.

 

What's to kick up a fuss about? (other than to satisfy the human race's craving for a debate about everything and anything)

 

Maybe people should wait for stories to reach their conclusion before jumping on bandwagons.

[Saintandy666]

So, on other words, Cameron and one of his ministers had a sensible dialogue about it. The minister suggested public financing was an option but Cameron disagreed.

 

What's to kick up a fuss about? (other than to satisfy the human race's craving for a debate about everything and anything)

 

Maybe people should wait for stories to reach their conclusion before jumping on bandwagons.

 

The fuss is that Gove ever thought it was a good idea to use taxpayers money to fund this ship in the first place, but then again it is Michael Gove.

[Marsdinho]

That's the proposal now, but Gove originally wanted it as a 'reward' to the Queen paid by taxpayers.

 

Christ, lets all moan then about the introduction of wallpaper tax.....back in 1712.

[um pahars]

So, on other words, Cameron and one of his ministers had a sensible dialogue about it. The minister suggested public financing was an option but Cameron disagreed.

 

What's to kick up a fuss about? (other than to satisfy the human race's craving for a debate about everything and anything)

 

Maybe people should wait for stories to reach their conclusion before jumping on bandwagons.

 

Because there are some options/scenarios that shouldn't even make it past the blue sky thinking stage and suggesting that a Royal yacht should be funded from the Public Purse in these austere times is one of them.

 

For Gove to put it in writing just shows how out of touch he is. The way Cameron and others in the cabinet quickly slapped it down is a recognition of what a foolish idea it was.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Because there are some options/scenarios that shouldn't even make it past the blue sky thinking stage and suggesting that a Royal yacht should be funded from the Public Purse in these austere times is one of them.

 

For Gove to put it in writing just shows how out of touch he is. The way Cameron and others in the cabinet quickly slapped it down is a recognition of what a foolish idea it was.

 

Makes me laugh that people are getting their knickers in a twist over a tax payer funded Royal Yacht, as if that's the only expense to us.

 

It's like, "you can live rent free in our great houses, we'll fawn over you, pay all your useless kids and family to do **** all, you can even dissolve our Parliament, but there's no way we're paying for your Yacht". A Royal Yacht is a drop in the ocean compared to what the Royals have cost us over the years.

 

If any other German family came here, lived off the welfare state & rent free, with rights far above anything that the normal public have, people like Dune's blood pressure would explode.

[trousers]

Because there are some options/scenarios that shouldn't even make it past the blue sky thinking stage and suggesting that a Royal yacht should be funded from the Public Purse in these austere times is one of them.

 

For Gove to put it in writing just shows how out of touch he is. The way Cameron and others in the cabinet quickly slapped it down is a recognition of what a foolish idea it was.

 

I must be too old fashioned. This was known as healthy debate when I were t' lad. Nothing wrong with a spot of Devil's Advocacy.... ;-)

[Verbal]

So, on other words, Cameron and one of his ministers had a sensible dialogue about it. The minister suggested public financing was an option but Cameron disagreed.

 

What's to kick up a fuss about? (other than to satisfy the human race's craving for a debate about everything and anything)

 

Maybe people should wait for stories to reach their conclusion before jumping on bandwagons.

 

Yes, let's wait until our lords and masters have come to their considered, smoking-room opinion about what's best for us peasants, rather than be part of the debate, after Gove had listed public funding as his 'chief option' for handing over a yacht to the Saxe-etcs as a fawning 'gift' from our grateful, forelock-tugging selves.

 

Don't you think that the public reaction to Gove being such a pompous, patronising dickhead over this was part of what made them conclude: 'We'd better not do that'? Besides, isn't that what democracy is supposed to be about?

[trousers]

Yes, let's wait until our lords and masters have come to their considered, smoking-room opinion about what's best for us peasants, rather than be part of the debate, after Gove had listed public funding as his 'chief option' for handing over a yacht to the Saxe-etcs as a fawning 'gift' from our grateful, forelock-tugging selves.

 

Don't you think that the public reaction to Gove being such a pompous, patronising dickhead over this was part of what made them conclude: 'We'd better not do that'? Besides, isn't that what democracy is supposed to be about?

 

I concede that human beings like nothing more than a good old moan at stuff (mainly on internet forums....)

[Verbal]

I concede that human beings like nothing more than a good old moan at stuff (mainly on internet forums....)

 

I don't think you'll find that all the backtracking was as a consequence of Saintsweb!

 

Besides, your cynicism about public debate - the 'public' 'moans'; while our rulers and betters judiciously consider - is sadly rather typical of the 'We'll give you what's good for you' arrogance of classical Toryism.

[trousers]

I don't think you'll find that all the backtracking was as a consequence of Saintsweb!

 

Besides, your cynicism about public debate - the 'public' 'moans'; our rulers and betters judiciously consider - is sadly rather typical of the 'We'll give you what's good for you' arrogance of classical Toryism.

 

Why, thank you kind sir

 

[um pahars]

Makes me laugh that people are getting their knickers in a twist over a tax payer funded Royal Yacht, as if that's the only expense to us.

 

It's like, "you can live rent free in our great houses, we'll fawn over you, pay all your useless kids and family to do **** all, you can even dissolve our Parliament, but there's no way we're paying for your Yacht". A Royal Yacht is a drop in the ocean compared to what the Royals have cost us over the years.

 

If any other German family came here, lived off the welfare state & rent free, with rights far above anything that the normal public have, people like Dune's blood pressure would explode.

 

The problem is that Im a bit of a Monarchist (which as well as being somewhat anti EU integration, which makes me a special kind of centre lefty!!!!), so my issue wasn't the funding of it per se, instead it was the timing given we're supposed to be all in this together.

[um pahars]

I must be too old fashioned. This was known as healthy debate when I were t' lad. Nothing wrong with a spot of Devil's Advocacy.... ;-)

 

Didn't see much healthy debate between Cameron and Gove on this one.

[Verbal]

Why, thank you kind sir

 

 

Just so long as those rose stems have poisoned tips...

[Saintandy666]

Christ, lets all moan then about the introduction of wallpaper tax.....back in 1712.

 

It shows Gove is out of touch.

 

I respect the Queen a lot, she has done a good job, even if that job need not be done. I used to be quite happy with us having a Royal Family, but I'm starting to lean the other way more and more recently. The first thing we need to do is dis-establish the Church of England.

[buctootim]

The first thing we need to do is dis-establish the Church of England.

 

Anybody here feel strongly about antidisestablishmentarianism?

 

(woo-hoo never had the chance to use the longest word in the English language in a real live sentence before).

[Saintandy666]

Anybody here feel strongly about antidisestablishmentarianism?

 

(woo-hoo never had the chance to use the longest word in the English language in a real live sentence before).

 

Yep, I'm anti-antidisestablishmentarianism

[Jonnyboy]

Yep, whining about this is pathetic. The trappings of Royalty make the UK a f**king fortune, in areas such as tourism.

 

She has served the country brilliantly and selflessly for 60 years, and in that time has been a symbol of continuity, an anchor, as the country changed from global superpower to Third World status.

 

I remember when her saying goodbye to Britannia was televised. The only time she has been seen to cry in the whole of her reign. What a nasty, ungrateful mean-spirited nation we have become.

 

Give her a f**king yacht to get about to engagements and tours in while she can. It's planned to be f**king dual-use anyway.

 

First up you don't live here, you are Austrian.

 

Secondly how mean spirited is it to be cutting disabled peoples benefits that they need for something better than a third world quality life, and then spunking a load of cash on a multimultimillionaire and her equally rich family. Disgusting.

[trousers]

Didn't see much healthy debate between Cameron and Gove on this one.

 

I'll bow to your inside knowledge on that one :-)

[Jonnyboy]

Gove, what a slimey pipsqueak. Sycophantically (?) dreaming about a knighthood.

[trousers]

Just so long as those rose stems have poisoned tips...

 

I did feel a little p r i c k earlier...

[trousers]

Gove, what a slimey pipsqueak. Sycophantically (?) dreaming about a knighthood.

 

Well if Fred Goodwin can get one for services to banking who knows what's possible....

[Jonnyboy]

Also, I like all the tories saying "it'll create jobs", ah so public spending is ok now ffs

 

OK well how about a national yacht. The royals can have it one week a year. Mps another week. Rest of the time share it round worthy causes. How about taking some kids in wheelchairs round the med. CHarles can pay for his own flight ffs.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

 

.... how mean spirited is it to be cutting disabled peoples benefits that they need for something better than a third world quality life, and then spunking a load of cash on a multimultimillionaire and her equally rich family. Disgusting.

 

Both are mean spirited surely.

 

The difference is that cutting our huge welfare benefit bill is a unavoidable necessity because of the state of the economy, while the only reason we no longer have a Royal Yacht is not because we can't afford it as a nation - small change in the grand scheme of things - but because politicians are afraid of upsetting anti-royalists with a chip on (both) shoulders like you.

 

So that would be a cowardly and mean spirited decision then.

[Saintandy666]

Both are mean spirited surely.

 

The difference is that cutting our huge welfare benefit bill is a unavoidable necessity because of the state of the economy, while the only reason we no longer have a Royal Yacht is not because we can't afford it as a nation - small change in the grand scheme of things - but because politicians are afraid of upsetting anti-royalists with a chip on (both) shoulders like you.

 

So that would be a cowardly and mean spirited decision then.

 

So Republicans have a chip on their shoulder?! Nothing to do with actual criticism of the system itself?

[pap]

Speaking of Gove and his rather questionable view about what should be publicly funded, news in today concerning the Michael Gove King James Bible Vanity Project.

 

He has been told to seek private funding for this thunderer of a notion too.

 

Thousands of copies apparently sitting in a warehouse abroad, according to claims in this Guardian article. Sitting there until a private benefactor can be found to finance the project.

 

Reading between the lines, Gove has already spent the money, and after the fiasco with the Queenboat, the Government can't be seen to doing stupid Gove things with public money, hence the requirement for a private financer.