Thursday, 28 April 2011

Always a Roundhead

You may have noticed or perhaps, been relived, to see a distinct lack of writing on the forthcoming Royal Wedding here.

No doubt it is going to boost London Tourism and retail sales - however, overall the double bank holiday is expected to shave 0.5% off GDP for the quater - so after yesterday's first quarter GDP Q2 is going to be anaemic too. Expected lost labour production is £7.9 bnillion - so the Tourist spending will have to be chunky to make up for the Bank holiday. I somehow doubt we will see the BBC's fees for worldwide broadcast come off the licence fee for next year either.

I am though a staunch Republican and so am dismayed by the reaction to the Wedding. it is costing taxpayers a forutne and next year we have the Olympics too - with tickets for hospitality going for £4000 pounds and a £9 billion state subsidy to boot. It's a sad state of affairs.

In a real democracy there should be an aspiration that anyone can make it; this will be tempered by the knowledge that life hands out easier and harder starts and is in the end, very unfair. But the US has this right, we should all have hope. In the UK there is no hope of reaching rigth to the top except by marrying Prince William. Only Royalty rules and this is through birthright. This creates a divide and limits aspiration, idolsingin kings and Princess's is no better than idolising celebrities and this level of wishful fantasising on the part of people in the Uk is in part responsible for the gradual decline of the Country and its culture.

Generally lefties I come across who get overly excited about class are middle-class charlatans who are pretending to be downbeats - useuly to secure some pernicous advantage of their own either moral or commercial. I do agree with them though about the need for merit in society and rewarding merit, not of rewarding birthright solely. That is feudal not deomcratic.

I would much rather see even Neil Kinnock as titular head of state than the Queen. even Kinnock has tried and failed miserably for his whole lifetime - something to be respected if not admired.

None of this refelcts badly on the couple getting married, good luck to them. The Country would be a better place if they could go and live happily ever after in obscurity though.

I shall say no more of this now.

24 comments:

ModernLibertarian said...

The Royal Family have no real power though, and are merely there as a constitutional figurehead. Though if they played a greater role in politics, I would definitely want them replaced with a president. But I don't think there's an appetite for a US-style head of state, we already kind of have that in the PM, so a UK President would fill the same constitutional role as the Royal Family, i.e. out of politics but acting as a constitutional figurehead. So we might as-well keep the Royals.

Nick Drew said...

off with your head !

Kinnock ? FFS

that's not republican, that's perverse !

Bill Quango MP said...

Kinnock?
I'd rather have Fergy.

Steven_L said...

Yeah kick them out of Bucks Palace and lease the land for high rise developments!

Be worth it for the look on Charlies face let alone the few billion quid.

Would probably pay for that aircraft carrier, the QE, how ironic that would be!

CityUnslicker said...

Modern - electing someone is the point, even if the role is ceremonial. As to the constitutional government tnat we have, that is no longer serving us well either; but that is for another day.

Salis Grano said...

Electing someone is precisely not the point. Elections are political.

Sean said...

Better than having the sleazy hypocrites Kinnocks as the first family/president

but yes all things being equal you would not invent a monarchy.

Mark Wadsworth said...

You're a Republican? I am surprised!

As Steve L says, leasing off all their castles and parks (or making them accessible for public recreation) is a splendid plan.

As to the new Royal Family, I nominate Posh & Becks.

asquith said...

I've got no objection to the monarchy or this particular set of royals, so I'm no a republican.

I won't be celebrating the royal wedding beause I'm not overly bothered, and that turned into being actively affronted when they chose to source their crockery in China when there are firms in this very city that would have been delighted to do the work (and need it).


As an economic liberal I oppose protectionism and I certainly wouldn't try to somehow stop them buying where they like by means of the state. Yet, in addition to free trade, I believe in consumer power and we certainly do make statements when we open our wallets. I eat and drink from wares made in Stoke, and if the royals can't be arsed to do that then guess what, I can't be arsed to celebrate.

Who's "unpatriotic" now?

My dissertation was on the aftermath of the civil war. I have a great regard for the roundheads. It was reading about the Restoration and the Glorious Revolution that made me understand how precious this country's legacy is and how easily freedoms can be snuffed out.

That was in 2005-6. It was around this time that I realised what a cunt Blair was with his attacks on civil liberties, and I've changed my mind on a fair few things but an oppositon to the last goverment remains.

Anonymous said...

CU I see no warts in the picture of Oliver, he insisted that they paint him warts and all, many people lost their lives in the civil war on all sides, it seems the Arab countries seem to be doing that very same thing as indeed the US did in the 1860's things get very nasty when there is civil war.

Budgie said...

I thought Kinnock was bad until Bliar came along.

By definition an elected President is devisive. One with no power is pointless. A Lord Protector must take power from the PM - no PM would go for that.

That leaves us with the PM as Head of State. Would s/he want to do the ceremonial bit? Thought not. I know, lets pass that tedious business on to someone with no power like .... er ... the Queen.

Sebastian Weetabix said...

The Royals are marvellous. It adds to the gaiety of the nation, provides a non-political focus for loyalty, and prevents a dictatorship by keeping ultimate power out of the hands of the grubby politicians. As for the cost argument, I can't imagine President Bliar forgoing air force one & the odd palace or two. The worst thing is he would think he had earned it, rather than being born lucky!

Off to the tower with you, CU.

Laban said...

1) the monarchy is the living totem of our tribe.

In the US, to be republican is to be an American patriot, in Ireland to be an Irish patriot, in France to be a French patriot. There has been no patriotic British republican tradition since Cromwell - what republicanism exists is, often explicitly, anti-British.

2) Monarchy, like religion, appeals to the irrational in human nature.

I use irrational here to mean something which human reason is ill-equipped to grasp or comprehend, but which may nonetheless play an important role in human affairs. Complex or imaginary numbers could be an analogy. I can't grasp the concept of the square root of -1, yet it plays an important role in physics.

A society can get rid of monarchy, just as it can get rid of religion. But irrational urges in human beings cannot be so easily removed. If they cannot be expressed via the structures built up in Britain over the centuries, they will find an outlet elsewhere.

Sackerson said...

Before you have a republic worth the name, or concomitant with it, you must have democracy - in a Jeffersonian sense. We do not have a democracy, nor will we have even if AV becomes the system of choosing our neglectful and arrogant tyrants. Bollocks to your republic. Even America couldn't sustain it. And Cromwell only besought Parliament to consider that they might be mistaken when they stopped following his orders.

James Higham said...

Sounds reasonable to me, Sackers.

Anonymous said...

cityunslicker: "I would much rather see even Neil Kinnock as titular head of state than the Queen."

In one sentence you have demolished the argument for republicanism.


Apart from the revolting corrupt Kinnocks just think of the contenders:

Prescott [ althought his wife might have the dignity to carry off the role of first lady ]. Isn't that an odd title to hold in a republic?

Lord Martin of Springburn. Jesus wept!

Lord Mandleson. Feeling suicidal now.

Baron Hestletine.

That's just some of the more prominent detritus of the british political 'elite'.

Word verficiation: minging

Dick the Prick said...

Didn't Elizabeth pick Cameron? Ho hum - monarchies are just institutions; they neither run nor don't run things. If we eliminate them we just change the name on the door. Kinnock is a very bad example.

Royalty as an office has preceadence, it has claim & counter claim. I don't think people should be so sophisticated as to choose the tripartite system of governance which is executive, military & people - all drivel under-graduate courses teach judiciary, legislature & executive but if Syria & Lebanon teach us anything it is that they're pretty unstable.

We haven't truly seen the Monarchy @ Work, for we are young and they are old, but i'm not able to go into revisionist history and commend that the monarchy has done good work for Blighty. If they are merely constitutional then that would be even worse work.

Blue Eyes said...

"Expected lost labour production is £7.9 bnillion"

Presumably we should stop taking weekends too, in order for labour production to be maximised.

"the US has this right"

As you know, the residents of the continental colonies were fighting a rather different battle in the late 18th century than native Brits were then and native Brits are now.

Our constitution is definitely flawed, but not because of the existence of a ceremonial head of state. Electing a ceremonial head of state would hardly remove the many things which are standing in the way of "anyone" making their own way in Britain.

Electro-Kevin said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Electro-Kevin said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Electro-Kevin said...

Dismayed you shall have to remain and for some while, I should think.

The republicans in this country have just been utterly trumped. The simple reason is that they're wrong. It's hard to put a finger on why ... they just are.

Politicians simply can't muster the popularity of the Royals nor the loyalty of the people. In fact politicians are hated and distrusted.

Let's have a war to sort the issue out then. You'll be up against nearly all of our armed soldiers and nearly all of our armed police (voluntarily and willingly sworn to the Crown) before you even start. And rest assured that 80% of the population will be behind them too.

Well there's been no vote on the issue but that sounds pretty democratic to me.

It's about the best event we've had in years and could mark a turnaround in national pride and identity - boosted our reputation globally, to say nothing of the institution of marriage.

And Victoria Beckham, Jordan and Kerry Katona are about as far removed from Wills, Harry and Kate as could possibly be. What a breath of fresh air and how on earth has a fine mind like your own confused the two ?

Neil Kinnock for goodness sake ???

Thank God I didn't have to watch that odious creep Blair in the congregation with his ugly, yawning wife beside him. And if that's typical of republicans then I say fuck republicans.

This and Osama. What a week to remember !

This could be the very jolt we need. And if so it's worth every penny.

CityUnslicker said...

Thanks for all your comments, somehow I knew this post would attract a few.

I still think there is a better way of organising the country than we currently do and that the Monarchy is not the place to start a Government.

Havign said that , it is pretty benign compared to many of the ills we face so I end my republican campaign now.

Laban said...

CU -

"And makes us rather bear those ills we have,
Than fly to others that we know not of?"

Blue Eyes said...

Of course there are better ways of organising the country! But worrying about whether our figurehead is there by divine right or popular mandate is absolutely the wrong place to start.

To be fair, if we had to elect a non-political head of state this week we would probably choose William or Harry.