By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
This country has a problem with mega rich landowners on 11:39 - Nov 3 by noggin
I’ll try and get to this once the kids are in bed. Who is he?
The Times thread does a magnificent job in laying out why they are causing so much hardship for the rest of us. We could completely transform this country for our kids by abolishing the monarchy.
This country has a problem with mega rich landowners on 12:25 - Nov 3 by Mullet
I’ll try and get to this once the kids are in bed. Who is he?
The Times thread does a magnificent job in laying out why they are causing so much hardship for the rest of us. We could completely transform this country for our kids by abolishing the monarchy.
He's a working class kid, done good. Was naturally talented at Maths and got a scholarship at the LSE. Got a job as a trader by winning a game of cards and became City Bank's most successful trader by betting on the economy getting worse. So although he's a relatively wealthy man, he is now trying to push for taxing the wealthy, to stop increasing wealth inequality.
This country has a problem with mega rich landowners on 12:25 - Nov 3 by Mullet
I’ll try and get to this once the kids are in bed. Who is he?
The Times thread does a magnificent job in laying out why they are causing so much hardship for the rest of us. We could completely transform this country for our kids by abolishing the monarchy.
It feels as if there's been a decent shift over the last few years. I can't imagine that an institution such as The Times would have been quite so critical whilst Liz was about.
The cracks are starting to appear. The Beeb will be the big one. If/when they turn, I dare say things might gather pace.
This country has a problem with mega rich landowners on 12:34 - Nov 3 by Blueschev
Put them and all of their hangers on up against a wall, along with yesterday’s ref.
I’d not have them killed. But nationalised. If they want the job they work for us. The land alone is scandalous theft from the country and should be run by and for us. Imagine the jobs and wealth creation for generations alone.
This country has a problem with mega rich landowners on 12:42 - Nov 3 by Zx1988
It feels as if there's been a decent shift over the last few years. I can't imagine that an institution such as The Times would have been quite so critical whilst Liz was about.
The cracks are starting to appear. The Beeb will be the big one. If/when they turn, I dare say things might gather pace.
[Post edited 3 Nov 2024 12:52]
Well they have picked this up but o can’t imagine they’ll be allowed to criticise given their need for impartiality.
A whole generation who can’t afford to live comfortably, buy property etc on the whole as well as the pace of change, can only be a good thing for the removal of a burden like the Saxe-Coburgs. The treatment of Harry and Meghan has possibly been a factor too, right after Diana.
I think what’s really surprising about that thread and the wider findings is just how appallingly greedy and parasitic they are.
This country has a problem with mega rich landowners on 15:48 - Nov 3 by Mullet
Well they have picked this up but o can’t imagine they’ll be allowed to criticise given their need for impartiality.
A whole generation who can’t afford to live comfortably, buy property etc on the whole as well as the pace of change, can only be a good thing for the removal of a burden like the Saxe-Coburgs. The treatment of Harry and Meghan has possibly been a factor too, right after Diana.
I think what’s really surprising about that thread and the wider findings is just how appallingly greedy and parasitic they are.
Plus the late Queen illegally shut our Parliament.
Plus that sweaty nonce Andrew.
Plus the Chagos Islands scandal originates with an "Order in Council" signed by Her Majesty, rather than a vote of our supposedly sovereign Parliament.
And, of course:
The Palace lobbying for Crown exemptions from certain laws.
Charles lecturing us all on the environment and telling us we should all convert our Aston Martin's to run on "surplus English wine" like he does.
Re Harry and Meghan: the "Senior Royal" who asked "what colour their baby would be".
Then there are the historical scandals which come to light from time to time, such as the substantiated, in writing, evidence that the exiled abdicated King actually spied for the Nazis and wrote a report to them of his visit to inspect French defensive fortifications.
The biggest gaslighting of the British public is that we should show deference to this family because of all they do to serve as "Constitutional Monarchs". We don't have a Constitution. So much of what passes for it are handbooks on the running of the Royal Household or Parliament written by Victorian Civil Servants, which are given the elegant title of "convention", but which simply serve to undermine and limit autonomy of our Parliament.
2
This country has a problem with mega rich landowners on 18:41 - Nov 3 with 2942 views
This country has a problem with mega rich landowners on 17:36 - Nov 3 by ArnoldMoorhen
Plus the late Queen illegally shut our Parliament.
Plus that sweaty nonce Andrew.
Plus the Chagos Islands scandal originates with an "Order in Council" signed by Her Majesty, rather than a vote of our supposedly sovereign Parliament.
And, of course:
The Palace lobbying for Crown exemptions from certain laws.
Charles lecturing us all on the environment and telling us we should all convert our Aston Martin's to run on "surplus English wine" like he does.
Re Harry and Meghan: the "Senior Royal" who asked "what colour their baby would be".
Then there are the historical scandals which come to light from time to time, such as the substantiated, in writing, evidence that the exiled abdicated King actually spied for the Nazis and wrote a report to them of his visit to inspect French defensive fortifications.
The biggest gaslighting of the British public is that we should show deference to this family because of all they do to serve as "Constitutional Monarchs". We don't have a Constitution. So much of what passes for it are handbooks on the running of the Royal Household or Parliament written by Victorian Civil Servants, which are given the elegant title of "convention", but which simply serve to undermine and limit autonomy of our Parliament.
Your first line is more than a touch disingenuous, if the Queen had turned round to Boris and told him "You can f@ck off I'm not signing that you lying cretin" all of the Republicans would have been up in arms that she was going against our democratically elected leader.
1
This country has a problem with mega rich landowners on 21:00 - Nov 3 with 2710 views
This country has a problem with mega rich landowners on 20:52 - Nov 3 by StNeotsBlue
Your first line is more than a touch disingenuous, if the Queen had turned round to Boris and told him "You can f@ck off I'm not signing that you lying cretin" all of the Republicans would have been up in arms that she was going against our democratically elected leader.
This country has a problem with mega rich landowners on 20:42 - Nov 3 by bluejacko
Well the King and Queen would have been there the same or next day if it was in the UK not nearly a week later.
That's nonsense as the road access was cut off for days but even if it wasn't, really what's the point? The people of the Valencian villages need water, food, electricity, emergency services not some unelected rich prick out for a photo op.
1
This country has a problem with mega rich landowners on 00:26 - Nov 4 with 2435 views
This country has a problem with mega rich landowners on 20:52 - Nov 3 by StNeotsBlue
Your first line is more than a touch disingenuous, if the Queen had turned round to Boris and told him "You can f@ck off I'm not signing that you lying cretin" all of the Republicans would have been up in arms that she was going against our democratically elected leader.
I was always taught that our "Constitutional Monarchy" was the last of the "Checks and Balances" to prevent abuse by the Executive.
The one time that was put to the test Lizzie bottled it. Or didn't care.
Ironically the illegal proroguing of Parliament was engineered by Jacob Rees-Mogg to prevent the adults on both sides in the Commons working together to break the Brexit logjam. Rees-Mogg, one of those who argued for Brexit in order to "restore the Sovereignty of Parliament" took the first opportunity he could to undermine the principle that the Executive is beholden to Parliament, and that the Prime Minister only serves as long as they command the support of the majority of MPs on substantive issues.
HM the Late Queen's failure to protect Parliamentary Sovereignty was the moment that turned me from being, like many, ambivalent about the monarchy, to becoming Republican.
The Head of State has to protect our democracy from abuse by the Executive, and if the Monarchy can't or won't do that then we need an elected Head of State who will. And a codified Constitution.
0
This country has a problem with mega rich landowners on 00:55 - Nov 4 with 2405 views
This country has a problem with mega rich landowners on 15:48 - Nov 3 by Mullet
Well they have picked this up but o can’t imagine they’ll be allowed to criticise given their need for impartiality.
A whole generation who can’t afford to live comfortably, buy property etc on the whole as well as the pace of change, can only be a good thing for the removal of a burden like the Saxe-Coburgs. The treatment of Harry and Meghan has possibly been a factor too, right after Diana.
I think what’s really surprising about that thread and the wider findings is just how appallingly greedy and parasitic they are.
It is important to also add that the path of allegiance sworn by all new recruits of the British Army is as follows:
“I swear by almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors and that I will as in duty bound honestly and faithfully defend her Majesty, her heirs and successors in person, crown and dignity against all enemies and will observe and obey all orders of her Majesty, her heirs and successors and of the generals and officers set over me.” (This is the "faith" version, those of no faith can "Declare and affirm".)
Can anyone spot what is missing there?
When push comes to shove, should the Prime Minister, or Parliament, and the Royal Family fall out, the Royal Family can count on the support of the British Army, the ROYAL Navy and the ROYAL Air Force.
0
This country has a problem with mega rich landowners on 08:30 - Nov 4 with 2198 views
This country has a problem with mega rich landowners on 00:26 - Nov 4 by ArnoldMoorhen
I was always taught that our "Constitutional Monarchy" was the last of the "Checks and Balances" to prevent abuse by the Executive.
The one time that was put to the test Lizzie bottled it. Or didn't care.
Ironically the illegal proroguing of Parliament was engineered by Jacob Rees-Mogg to prevent the adults on both sides in the Commons working together to break the Brexit logjam. Rees-Mogg, one of those who argued for Brexit in order to "restore the Sovereignty of Parliament" took the first opportunity he could to undermine the principle that the Executive is beholden to Parliament, and that the Prime Minister only serves as long as they command the support of the majority of MPs on substantive issues.
HM the Late Queen's failure to protect Parliamentary Sovereignty was the moment that turned me from being, like many, ambivalent about the monarchy, to becoming Republican.
The Head of State has to protect our democracy from abuse by the Executive, and if the Monarchy can't or won't do that then we need an elected Head of State who will. And a codified Constitution.
I’d say that’s more indicative of the need for criminal proceedings against Boris, JRM et al. potentially. They’d essentially be seen as traitors in a bygone age and dealt with swiftly after all.
But as with the article I linked, it shows why it’s less about blaming Liz and more about questioning what are we paying them for? The answer seems not a lot. As you say, they are entirely ineffective when it comes down to it.
This country has a problem with mega rich landowners on 00:26 - Nov 4 by ArnoldMoorhen
I was always taught that our "Constitutional Monarchy" was the last of the "Checks and Balances" to prevent abuse by the Executive.
The one time that was put to the test Lizzie bottled it. Or didn't care.
Ironically the illegal proroguing of Parliament was engineered by Jacob Rees-Mogg to prevent the adults on both sides in the Commons working together to break the Brexit logjam. Rees-Mogg, one of those who argued for Brexit in order to "restore the Sovereignty of Parliament" took the first opportunity he could to undermine the principle that the Executive is beholden to Parliament, and that the Prime Minister only serves as long as they command the support of the majority of MPs on substantive issues.
HM the Late Queen's failure to protect Parliamentary Sovereignty was the moment that turned me from being, like many, ambivalent about the monarchy, to becoming Republican.
The Head of State has to protect our democracy from abuse by the Executive, and if the Monarchy can't or won't do that then we need an elected Head of State who will. And a codified Constitution.
If the Monarchy is only legitimate through the “will of the people”, the ultimate expression of which is through the elected government, then the monarchy is the very definition of pointless. We could do away with them and not miss them one bit. I can’t see any purpose they serve other than being patrons of causes (which would also carry on anyway). Also, if the government is the ultimate decision maker now, I don’t see why we’d need to replace the monarchy with a president. Just scrap the monarchy and keep Parliament/government. Unconventional, but anything else is just unnecessary fat on the bones.
There is an argument that not everything or everyone has to have a purpose of course. So we could keep them for tradition’s sake. But we certainly don’t need them for any practical reason.
Anyone who thinks change will happen needs to take themselves to one side and give themselves a good talking to. Ever since time began there's been rich, not so rich and poor.No I'm not saying it's right. I wouldn't class myself as being in favour of the Monarchy, especially when our King was allowed to marry a divorcee and everyone knows he was "at it" way before him and Princess Diana parted. But whatever laws, taxes etc are brought in the rich will always get around it either by using accountants or moving to a Country where their tax take is much lower. The Royals are exempt from many of the constraints which your average man/woman is. Most of us cannot get away with PAYE. I do believe Labours take on the farming community is way off though. You don't have to have many tractors, combines and land to hit 1 million. As for Companies we know that bosses have gorged themselves on huge pay increases, shares etc over the last 20 years or so. I will give you an example of how wages and prices have got out of kilter. In 2002 my wage was £21,000, my house sold for £132,000. Now 22 years later the wages of the workers for my previous Company are around £27,000 so up £6,000, my house is now valued at between £315-£345,000. Take the average at say £330,00 you have an increase of £198,000. So house prices along with most other things have far outstripped wages.
0
This country has a problem with mega rich landowners on 10:20 - Nov 4 with 1968 views
This country has a problem with mega rich landowners on 08:45 - Nov 4 by Swansea_Blue
If the Monarchy is only legitimate through the “will of the people”, the ultimate expression of which is through the elected government, then the monarchy is the very definition of pointless. We could do away with them and not miss them one bit. I can’t see any purpose they serve other than being patrons of causes (which would also carry on anyway). Also, if the government is the ultimate decision maker now, I don’t see why we’d need to replace the monarchy with a president. Just scrap the monarchy and keep Parliament/government. Unconventional, but anything else is just unnecessary fat on the bones.
There is an argument that not everything or everyone has to have a purpose of course. So we could keep them for tradition’s sake. But we certainly don’t need them for any practical reason.
I'd challenge any royalist to point to one single positive the British crown has contributed to humanity, ever.
0
This country has a problem with mega rich landowners on 10:25 - Nov 4 with 1922 views
This country has a problem with mega rich landowners on 10:04 - Nov 4 by OldFart71
Anyone who thinks change will happen needs to take themselves to one side and give themselves a good talking to. Ever since time began there's been rich, not so rich and poor.No I'm not saying it's right. I wouldn't class myself as being in favour of the Monarchy, especially when our King was allowed to marry a divorcee and everyone knows he was "at it" way before him and Princess Diana parted. But whatever laws, taxes etc are brought in the rich will always get around it either by using accountants or moving to a Country where their tax take is much lower. The Royals are exempt from many of the constraints which your average man/woman is. Most of us cannot get away with PAYE. I do believe Labours take on the farming community is way off though. You don't have to have many tractors, combines and land to hit 1 million. As for Companies we know that bosses have gorged themselves on huge pay increases, shares etc over the last 20 years or so. I will give you an example of how wages and prices have got out of kilter. In 2002 my wage was £21,000, my house sold for £132,000. Now 22 years later the wages of the workers for my previous Company are around £27,000 so up £6,000, my house is now valued at between £315-£345,000. Take the average at say £330,00 you have an increase of £198,000. So house prices along with most other things have far outstripped wages.
The problem with saying, "the rich will just move abroad" is that most rich people don't keep their fortunes in bank accounts. Let them go, but their UK assets will still be taxable in the UK.
This country has a problem with mega rich landowners on 10:04 - Nov 4 by OldFart71
Anyone who thinks change will happen needs to take themselves to one side and give themselves a good talking to. Ever since time began there's been rich, not so rich and poor.No I'm not saying it's right. I wouldn't class myself as being in favour of the Monarchy, especially when our King was allowed to marry a divorcee and everyone knows he was "at it" way before him and Princess Diana parted. But whatever laws, taxes etc are brought in the rich will always get around it either by using accountants or moving to a Country where their tax take is much lower. The Royals are exempt from many of the constraints which your average man/woman is. Most of us cannot get away with PAYE. I do believe Labours take on the farming community is way off though. You don't have to have many tractors, combines and land to hit 1 million. As for Companies we know that bosses have gorged themselves on huge pay increases, shares etc over the last 20 years or so. I will give you an example of how wages and prices have got out of kilter. In 2002 my wage was £21,000, my house sold for £132,000. Now 22 years later the wages of the workers for my previous Company are around £27,000 so up £6,000, my house is now valued at between £315-£345,000. Take the average at say £330,00 you have an increase of £198,000. So house prices along with most other things have far outstripped wages.
The problem with housing market is supply & demand. II demand is weak biulders stop building to stop prices falling as someone who was in house building in the 60's untill the 90's it has alway's been the same. Plus when house prices get too high schemes are brought in to help people buy which again causes price increases.
0
This country has a problem with mega rich landowners on 18:11 - Nov 4 with 1666 views
This country has a problem with mega rich landowners on 10:04 - Nov 4 by OldFart71
Anyone who thinks change will happen needs to take themselves to one side and give themselves a good talking to. Ever since time began there's been rich, not so rich and poor.No I'm not saying it's right. I wouldn't class myself as being in favour of the Monarchy, especially when our King was allowed to marry a divorcee and everyone knows he was "at it" way before him and Princess Diana parted. But whatever laws, taxes etc are brought in the rich will always get around it either by using accountants or moving to a Country where their tax take is much lower. The Royals are exempt from many of the constraints which your average man/woman is. Most of us cannot get away with PAYE. I do believe Labours take on the farming community is way off though. You don't have to have many tractors, combines and land to hit 1 million. As for Companies we know that bosses have gorged themselves on huge pay increases, shares etc over the last 20 years or so. I will give you an example of how wages and prices have got out of kilter. In 2002 my wage was £21,000, my house sold for £132,000. Now 22 years later the wages of the workers for my previous Company are around £27,000 so up £6,000, my house is now valued at between £315-£345,000. Take the average at say £330,00 you have an increase of £198,000. So house prices along with most other things have far outstripped wages.
I think that’s a very depressing and pointless view to social inequality- especially as the Saxe Coburgs have been creaming it off in the billions for generations.
Also, the stats around how many farms are being wildly exaggerated in some circles.
This country has a problem with mega rich landowners on 13:54 - Nov 4 by Leaky
The problem with housing market is supply & demand. II demand is weak biulders stop building to stop prices falling as someone who was in house building in the 60's untill the 90's it has alway's been the same. Plus when house prices get too high schemes are brought in to help people buy which again causes price increases.
It’s almost like selling off our council stocks and adopting a snobby view to council houses might have harmed us severely as the decades of second home owners, turned to multiple home ownership.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
