22-02-2011, 07:58 PM
22
Re: Prince Harry - National Disgrace?
Originally Posted by Uncle Joe
->
The Queen is supposed to belong to no political party. Aerolor my friend, your naievety is charming. Mr & Mrs Windsor have a vested interest in preserving the status quo by supporting a particular political party that is vowed in its very title to preserve that status quo. Advocate a radical policy which threatens the existence of their royal privileges and you will see which side of the fence they come down on.
Those of us who are 'hard left' want an elected 'Head of State', one who can be voted in or out of office as the PEOPLE determine, not foisted on us because Mrs Windsor's predessessors were bigger robber barons than those immediately surrounding them.
23-02-2011, 09:19 AM
23
Re: Prince Harry - National Disgrace?
Oohhhhhh Plantman, now we're getting personal. ok, GLOVES ARE NOW OFF!!!Firstly, the pomp and ceremony can continue without Mr & Mrs Windsor and it would still generate tourist income for the exchequer. By having a President as opposed to a whole family, 'WE' pay for ONE person not the whole bunch of them and their hangers on.
Capitalism has done most of us little favour - there IS a far better system, and whilst you decry Cuba, just compare their literacy level with that of our own.
"without wealth and the wealth that it generates there can be no welfare state". Just who do you think actually created that wealth Hmmmmmm???? - Not your Bankers and those who gamble on the stock exchange, but the workers who through their labour actually created that wealth. Margaret Hilda (phth, phth,phth) and her ilk plundered the National Health Service and never understood that there is such a thing as 'Society' and irrespective of personal wealth, those that have, will give to those that haver not. It is interesting to note also that the greater part of charitable funds comes not from those that have vast amounts of money at their disposal but from those that have very little - why is that??? - perhaps you would care to answer that quandery???
23-02-2011, 08:02 PM
24
Re: Prince Harry - National Disgrace?
Originally Posted by Uncle Joe
->
Oohhhhhh Plantman, now we're getting personal. ok, GLOVES ARE NOW OFF!!!
Barry
24-02-2011, 01:33 PM
27
Re: Prince Harry - National Disgrace?
Originally Posted by Uncle Joe
->
Oohhhhhh Plantman, now we're getting personal. ok, GLOVES ARE NOW OFF!!!Firstly, the pomp and ceremony can continue without Mr & Mrs Windsor and it would still generate tourist income for the exchequer. By having a President as opposed to a whole family, 'WE' pay for ONE person not the whole bunch of them and their hangers on.
Capitalism has done most of us little favour - there IS a far better system, and whilst you decry Cuba, just compare their literacy level with that of our own.
"without wealth and the wealth that it generates there can be no welfare state". Just who do you think actually created that wealth Hmmmmmm???? - Not your Bankers and those who gamble on the stock exchange, but the workers who through their labour actually created that wealth. Margaret Hilda (phth, phth,phth) and her ilk plundered the National Health Service and never understood that there is such a thing as 'Society' and irrespective of personal wealth, those that have, will give to those that haver not. It is interesting to note also that the greater part of charitable funds comes not from those that have vast amounts of money at their disposal but from those that have very little - why is that??? - perhaps you would care to answer that quandery???
We already have democratically elected political parties who serve terms and I can see little difference between a Prime Minister and a President (both are boring and I wouldn't pay to see them).
What is going on in Egypt, Libya and other countries is a struggle for a democracy which they do not have. Their royals and dictatoriships rule and govern with an iron fist - quite different to our royals, whatever political party they may prefer to have in power.
Just a little point about wealth/money. Without a bit of money and willingness to take a risk with that money ventures cannot get off the ground. How that partnership, if succesful, may develop is another matter.
PS I am flattered that you believe me to be charmingly naive, although I sense a little male chauvenism.
27-02-2011, 01:00 PM
28
Re: Prince Harry - National Disgrace?
Originally Posted by plantman
->
I doubt you could name one instance where your politics have succeeded. Cuba perhaps, Russia....?
If there was better system for deciding a head of state then I would go for it, but there isn't, many countries have not had the option of a 'Royal' type head of state so they have had to go down the Presidential route, but mixing politics with Head of State is always going to be a compromise in my view.
29-06-2011, 07:55 AM
30
Re: Prince Harry - National Disgrace?
Originally Posted by Nuttygran
->
Prince Andrew is the one I can't abide. I look upon him as a pompous, free loading twit.May I add that I am a royalist, I think Charles is OK & I don't mind Camilla..
Who or what could replace our royal family - the mind boggles..
ME - as President of a Socialist Republic!!!!
|
|
