Current Affairs

[screwy]

Unfortunately I was diagnosed with narrowing and furring of the arteries about 5 weeks ago. I had some chest pains today so went to get checked out, all ok thankfully.
I’ve got an appointment next week with the cardiologist. At the moment I’m on tablets.

[Onelife]

Thankfully you’re in an era where conditions such as yours can be treated quite successfully. I have two sisters both of whom have the same conditions, a condition I also have but mine is controlled well with medication. My sisters have had 5 stents between them, while one is not in good health due to other reasons both are now well into their 70's.

Chin up Screwy…I would send you some chocolates but chocolates and high cholesterol don’t go together... you’ll just have to settle for my good wishes for next week.

[oldbluefox]

Best wishes screwy. I hope the cardiologist soon gets you sorted.

[towny44]

I agree in principle OL that a long term plan is a good idea. I've long advocated for example a 25 year minimum plan for the NHS that all sides sign up to. But I've also always said it will never happen because all the big issues that matter to people, such as health, education, housing, the economy etc are big vote winners and losers and will always be a political battleground.

We saw it starkly in the pandemic when even at a time of crisis the opposition couldn't bring itself to say "this is too important to play politics, we're backing the government."

Yes Stephen, looking forward to it.

There are indeed mountains to climb on how we bring our political parties to a consensus whereby they put their country first and their party second…I can’t however see this happening under our present system of governance.

But you have already accepted that the crown does not play an active part in the governance of the country, so disbanding the monarchy would not bring about any change. Therefore which aspects of the way our govt operates do you propose to amend to bring about your changes.

[Mervyn and Trish]

I agree in principle OL that a long term plan is a good idea. I've long advocated for example a 25 year minimum plan for the NHS that all sides sign up to. But I've also always said it will never happen because all the big issues that matter to people, such as health, education, housing, the economy etc are big vote winners and losers and will always be a political battleground.

We saw it starkly in the pandemic when even at a time of crisis the opposition couldn't bring itself to say "this is too important to play politics, we're backing the government."

Yes Stephen, looking forward to it.

There are indeed mountains to climb on how we bring our political parties to a consensus whereby they put their country first and their party second…I can’t however see this happening under our present system of governance.

Sadly, as Towny says, you confuse all these honourable if unattainable ambitions with your antipathy towards the Monarchy. None of what you wish to achieve would be any more likely without them. They are not the obstacle. Sadly.people such as Andy Burnham are and won't help. He is, along with the rest of the usual suspects, a political animal. You might as well nominate Boris.

[Onelife]

I agree in principle OL that a long term plan is a good idea. I've long advocated for example a 25 year minimum plan for the NHS that all sides sign up to. But I've also always said it will never happen because all the big issues that matter to people, such as health, education, housing, the economy etc are big vote winners and losers and will always be a political battleground.

We saw it starkly in the pandemic when even at a time of crisis the opposition couldn't bring itself to say "this is too important to play politics, we're backing the government."

Yes Stephen, looking forward to it.

There are indeed mountains to climb on how we bring our political parties to a consensus whereby they put their country first and their party second…I can’t however see this happening under our present system of governance.

But you have already accepted that the crown does not play an active part in the governance of the country, so disbanding the monarchy would not bring about any change. Therefore which aspects of the way our govt operates do you propose to amend to bring about your changes.

Hi John, I see you are using your intellectual stealth to divert attention away from what I actually said ….

“You will agree with me when I say that the Monarchy has no direct influence in parliamentary decision making but that’s not to say it doesn’t have enormous influence in moulding the parliamentary system into that which works against the bests interests of our country”

Whilst I don’t expect anyone to agree with me … but the disbanding of the Monarchy would also see an end to an institution that promotes its self by surrounding its self with social climbers, most of whom are all looking for that next step up the ladder of title and privilege. The Monarchy represents the divisions and inequality that abounds in society today. There are those who still think the Monarchy gives our country a focus of national identity, there are those like myself who thinks it’s a self-serving business that is doing very well for its self, thank you very much.

The opinion expressed within are my opinions and I fully accept others will not share my views.

I have already explained what I would do to change the government in its present state, so this will have to do for tonight.

[Onelife]

I agree in principle OL that a long term plan is a good idea. I've long advocated for example a 25 year minimum plan for the NHS that all sides sign up to. But I've also always said it will never happen because all the big issues that matter to people, such as health, education, housing, the economy etc are big vote winners and losers and will always be a political battleground.

We saw it starkly in the pandemic when even at a time of crisis the opposition couldn't bring itself to say "this is too important to play politics, we're backing the government."

Yes Stephen, looking forward to it.

There are indeed mountains to climb on how we bring our political parties to a consensus whereby they put their country first and their party second…I can’t however see this happening under our present system of governance.

Sadly, as Towny says, you confuse all these honourable if unattainable ambitions with your antipathy towards the Monarchy. None of what you wish to achieve would be any more likely without them. They are not the obstacle. Sadly.people such as Andy Burnham are and won't help. He is, along with the rest of the usual suspects, a political animal. You might as well nominate Boris.

In that case would you mind breaking the news to Foxy that he’s out of a job

[towny44]

There are indeed mountains to climb on how we bring our political parties to a consensus whereby they put their country first and their party second…I can’t however see this happening under our present system of governance.

But you have already accepted that the crown does not play an active part in the governance of the country, so disbanding the monarchy would not bring about any change. Therefore which aspects of the way our govt operates do you propose to amend to bring about your changes.

Hi John, I see you are using your intellectual stealth to divert attention away from what I actually said ….

“You will agree with me when I say that the Monarchy has no direct influence in parliamentary decision making but that’s not to say it doesn’t have enormous influence in moulding the parliamentary system into that which works against the bests interests of our country”

Whilst I don’t expect anyone to agree with me … but the disbanding of the Monarchy would also see an end to an institution that promotes its self by surrounding its self with social climbers, most of whom are all looking for that next step up the ladder of title and privilege. The Monarchy represents the divisions and inequality that abounds in society today. There are those who still think the Monarchy gives our country a focus of national identity, there are those like myself who thinks it’s a self-serving business that is doing very well for its self, thank you very much.

The opinion expressed within are my opinions and I fully accept others will not share my views.

I have already explained what I would do to change the government in its present state, so this will have to do for tonight.

Once you have disbanded the monarchy and disenfranchised all the royal family from the public purse, what do you propose to do with all the palaces. With all the the pomp and ceremony of the monarchy gone, most of their tourist influence will have evaporated, but their cost and upkeep will still be needed if they are not to fall into disrepair, and the staff wil need paying or become unemployed and a drain on the public purse as they all claim universal credit.
Maybe after all it might not be a bad idea to leave the monarchy to fund the upkeep of all these palaces from the majority of the stipend given them by the govt, as they do now.
If you were to watch any of channel 4 and 5's stately homes programmes it might surprise you to see how well these over privileged Lords and Ladies manage to maintain their homes without being a strain on the state, however without their royal connections they also would lose their tourist appeal.
I think your plan has more holes than the Titanic, just to maintain some vague cruising connection to This thread.

[Onelife]

But you have already accepted that the crown does not play an active part in the governance of the country, so disbanding the monarchy would not bring about any change. Therefore which aspects of the way our govt operates do you propose to amend to bring about your changes.

Hi John, I see you are using your intellectual stealth to divert attention away from what I actually said ….

“You will agree with me when I say that the Monarchy has no direct influence in parliamentary decision making but that’s not to say it doesn’t have enormous influence in moulding the parliamentary system into that which works against the bests interests of our country”

Whilst I don’t expect anyone to agree with me … but the disbanding of the Monarchy would also see an end to an institution that promotes its self by surrounding its self with social climbers, most of whom are all looking for that next step up the ladder of title and privilege. The Monarchy represents the divisions and inequality that abounds in society today. There are those who still think the Monarchy gives our country a focus of national identity, there are those like myself who thinks it’s a self-serving business that is doing very well for its self, thank you very much.

The opinion expressed within are my opinions and I fully accept others will not share my views.

I have already explained what I would do to change the government in its present state, so this will have to do for tonight.

Once you have disbanded the monarchy and disenfranchised all the royal family from the public purse, what do you propose to do with all the palaces. With all the the pomp and ceremony of the monarchy gone, most of their tourist influence will have evaporated, but their cost and upkeep will still be needed if they are not to fall into disrepair, and the staff wil need paying or become unemployed and a drain on the public purse as they all claim universal credit.
Maybe after all it might not be a bad idea to leave the monarchy to fund the upkeep of all these palaces from the majority of the stipend given them by the govt, as they do now.
If you were to watch any of channel 4 and 5's stately homes programmes it might surprise you to see how well these over privileged Lords and Ladies manage to maintain their homes without being a strain on the state, however without their royal connections they also would lose their tourist appeal.
I think your plan has more holes than the Titanic, just to maintain some vague cruising connection to This thread.

Good morning, John, I don’t know why it is that when I read your posts a get that sinking feeling .

You ask what I would do with all of our palaces…Not a lot John for the first 30 or so years as they would be self-funding by the increased tourism who will flock to see parts of the palaces that have been off limits to us Royal subjects…the increased opening hours should also increase revenue for its upkeep. The tourist influence will not evaporate as is the case with several republican countries that have major tourist attractions. In the very unlikely event that tourism should drop off then I would turn the palaces into high end apartments with service charges that keep the paint from falling off the walls.

As for the staff losing their jobs, they can fill the vacancies that business is apparently crying out for.

As for the Lords and Ladies, they should do as most of us are required to do and live within their means…their royal connection won’t have much influence with regards to whether or not tourists visit their stately homes as very few of us even know who own these stately homes.

I hope my explanations have thrown you a lifejacket to keep coming back with more…to use a nautical term.

[oldbluefox]

Keefy, what have I done to upset you that much you are pairing me with that Burnham fella, England's answer to Nicola Sturgeon, full of his own importance with plenty of ideas but no idea how any of them can be achieved. I am resigning herewith!!!

[Onelife]

Keefy, what have I done to upset you that much you are pairing me with that Burnham fella, England's answer to Nicola Sturgeon, full of his own importance with plenty of ideas but no idea how any of them can be achieved. I am resigning herewith!!!

Hi Foxy, my thinking was that you could bring balance to the committee, I wasn’t asking you to jump into bed with him

Your resignation has been noted and accepted

[oldbluefox]

Dismantling the Monarchy is not as simple and straightforward as OL would have us believe.The Royal Family perform numerous duties as part of their role as distinct from the Republican image of sitting in their palaces lording it up. They provide a figurehead for the military and especially for numerous charities where they can promote the image of the charity, support their aims and attract funding in a way which politicians cannot. As an example Princess Anne carried out 214 engagements this year, Charles 181. Those are the official engagements on top of the less formal duties they carry out. I know what a delight it was to have a member of the Royal Family visit to armed forces personnel working abroad. They show a genuine interest and help to raise morale. Politicians, by their very nature cannot do that to the same extent.

They, along with the landed gentry (for want of a better name) are tasked with preserving the historical fabric of the nation. Take them away and many of our palaces and stately homes will fall into disrepair and ruin, the estates will no longer be managed which would impact on the diversity of the landscape. There are many instances in history where mismanagement of these wonderful buildings has led to ruin, or where government taxation has meant buildings being dismantled eg Lowther Castle. Thankfully many of these stately homes have been granted to the National Trust who are now tasked with preserving them for the nation.

It all sounds idyllic to some to get rid of the Royals. It has been tried before. In 1649 the monarchy was abolished and the Commonwealth of England was established as a republic. The monarchy was restored to Charles's son Charles II in 1660. It didn't last long did it? Long live Charles III.

[david63]

Also a little unreported fact is that the Royal Family bring a lot of investment and trade into this country and open a lot of doors for exports.

I know for a fact that before his demise that this was the main role of Prince Andrew.

[Onelife]

Dismantling the Monarchy is not as simple and straightforward as OL would have us believe.The Royal Family perform numerous duties as part of their role as distinct from the Republican image of sitting in their palaces lording it up. They provide a figurehead for the military and especially for numerous charities where they can promote the image of the charity, support their aims and attract funding in a way which politicians cannot. As an example Princess Anne carried out 214 engagements this year, Charles 181. Those are the official engagements on top of the less formal duties they carry out. I know what a delight it was to have a member of the Royal Family visit to armed forces personnel working abroad. They show a genuine interest and help to raise morale. Politicians, by their very nature cannot do that to the same extent.

They, along with the landed gentry (for want of a better name) are tasked with preserving the historical fabric of the nation. Take them away and many of our palaces and stately homes will fall into disrepair and ruin, the estates will no longer be managed which would impact on the diversity of the landscape. There are many instances in history where mismanagement of these wonderful buildings has led to ruin, or where government taxation has meant buildings being dismantled eg Lowther Castle. Thankfully many of these stately homes have been granted to the National Trust who are now tasked with preserving them for the nation.

It all sounds idyllic to some to get rid of the Royals. It has been tried before. In 1649 the monarchy was abolished and the Commonwealth of England was established as a republic. The monarchy was restored to Charles's son Charles II in 1660. It didn't last long did it? Long live Charles III.

Hi Foxy, are you sure you won’t reconsider the post I offered you as I always admire your well-crafted views on things?

In response I would just say this…I haven’t said that dismantling The Monarchy would be simple or straight forward, I do however acknowledge that some like yourself may think this is what I have implied.

I also acknowledge that some of the Royal Family have, and do continue to perform numerous duties in their line of work, which should be expected considering the undisclosed wages they get for doing so.

I do struggle a bit with this figurehead military thing of giving themselves honorary military titles, but hey!... if troops get a moral boost from having them parading in front of them, then fair enough.

I do agree with you about the Royal involvement with various charities, Harry and Meghan are prime example of this.

I also agree with you about the preservation of historic buildings but I also think many of our historic buildings still have a certain appeal even though time has taken its toll on them…. indeed, many still attract hordes of paying visitors.

While we are on the subject of historic buildings, I have been a frequent visitor to the NT run Powis Castle. A real nice day out which I can highly recommend.

Whether one likes it or not the Monarchy is losing its appeal in several areas not least with the commonwealth where countries are choosing to break their ties with our once great Empire…one can only presume they no longer feel the Monarchy has any relevance in their country’s future.

We are all living in un-idyllic times Foxy and the only way I can see us moving forward is not to keep hankering after the past.

I’m sure you are all sick to the back of teeth of me spouting my opinions so I shall now leave this Monarchy discussion (unless Towny goads me back again) in order that you can all celebrate your vison of King Charles glorious reign.

Long live Onelife and the rest of you of course

[Manoverboard]

I would keep the Royal Family intact and trust their own judgement(s) to pare it down over the generations but in the meantime I would scrap the House of Lords and all routes to Rank and Privilege. Like OL I also believe that this particular group have no part to play in the furtherance of the cause of the common man nor the prosperity of the Country as a whole. This was clearly demonstrated during the Brexit debate.

[Mervyn and Trish]

Replace the Lords with a smaller second house elected by proportional representation

[oldbluefox]

Replace the Lords with a smaller second house elected by proportional representation

Now we are talking

[david63]

Replace the Lords with a smaller second house elected by proportional representation

Now where have I heard that before - Oh yes Sir Kir

[Mervyn and Trish]

As usual late to the party. I've been saying it since three or four Labour leaders back. I'm tempted to call him Sir Hinds....... oh maybe not!

[oldbluefox]

It's something they all promise but nobody ever does anything because they all have their 'buddies' they've promoted to the Lords and they don't want to upset them.
Can't wait for the next beanfeast - the Honours List. I can never understand why honours go to those who have done their job, have been fortunate in having the skills to carry out that job, have made plenty of money out of doing their job and are now rewarded with a medal for doing nothing else but doing their job. Meanwhile there are those who have dedicated their lives to serving others, over and above their own work and they get nothing.

[Mervyn and Trish]

Did you miss out again Floxy?

Yeah, me too.

[Onelife]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... 0-expenses

[towny44]

Whilst I do tend to support the idea of an elected upper chamber, I do have reservations about who should be on the ballot, and why would this need to be done via PR, unless you want the upper chamber to be a mirror of the lower chamber, except it would give the minor parties a much larger number of seats. Can you imagine what an upper chamber full oF Scots Nationalists would be like.

[david63]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... 0-expenses

Three years old? Nothing more relevant?

[Onelife]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... 0-expenses

Three years old? Nothing more relevant?

I’ll send out a search party…tomorrow....

We’re just about to get the Monopoly board out.