An elected dictatorship.

[oggbashan]

Please explain- Is Prince Charles subject to F of I requests now, and the Torries want to provide him with privacy while at the same time taking away every one else's, or is this a metaphor for something else?


Sounds to me like Orwell was bad with dates, but otherwise prescient.


So is Scotland going to reconsider it's independence? Or are they waiting for the 12 billion in cuts first?

The letters published so far prove whatever you want to prove.

They show that the Prince of Wales has concerns about many issues and had written to Ministers, and the Prime Minister, about them.

The Ministers and the Prime Minister receive many such letters from others such as the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lord Mayor of London, and members of the general public - including me.

Whether Prince Charles' letters should be made public? Should my letters be made public?

The difference depends on your view of the Monarchy. Should it be strictly neutral in Politics? Queen Victoria certainly wasn't. She harangued and abused some Prime Ministers. But recent tradition is that the Monarch should stay neutral, and Her Majesty the Queen has tried hard to be that, even if she has hinted that she does or doesn't like some policy. She has been more obvious recently about Scottish Independence. She wants the Monarchy to continue to rule a United Kingdom.

Constitutionally the Monarch is neutral. But the Heir? The Prince of Wales? The most recent Prince of Wales before Charles was the Duke of Windsor, he who became Edward VIII and abdicated to marry Wallis Simpson. By the standard of his time he was very outspoken about the poor treatment of British workers particularly by Welsh Coal Mine owners.

Charles knows he shouldn't express opinions when/if he becomes the Monarch. Being Charles he would find that difficult, but as the Prince of Wales he still can even if some think he shouldn't.

What really matters is whether Charles' letters made/make any difference.

I don't think they did/do - unless he raises issues that haven't been considered before. What he says will be read, while my letters might not be, but will his letters change Government policy? I doubt it.

All he can do, and does, is raise public awareness of some issues such as the brutality of some modern architecture. He fuels the debate but decides nothing - nor should he.

But if you are against Monarchy? Charles should never say anything, no matter how strongly he feels.

 

[Busybody]

Of course you don't
You're an idiot.


Des isn't worried about the survival of the kingdom, he's worried about the survival of the democracy it took centuries for the non-aristocracy to enjoy.
There's just a bit of a difference.

what is wrong with the agenda?

the characterization of it in the OP is incorrect

 

[Scotsman69]

No pal. The BRITISH people didn't vote for the bastards.

The ENGLISH people, or a minority of those voting, did. Hell mend them. Scotland hasn't had a significant Tory vote since 1955... sixty years ago.

One has to admire their commitment to evil. Others just talk about evil, but these guys are there day in day out, really making a difference.

Just because it's worth repeating: the British people voted for this. They want these things to happen. Chilling.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Moreover, I believe freedom of speech, human rights, and the right to privacy transcend party politics. It is hubristic to think that a narrow election victory gives them the right to destroy such fundamental and, until recently, non-partisan essentials of our polity.

Don't forget that seditious libel has long been established as a crime under English/British Common Law.

 

[Liar]

No pal. The BRITISH people didn't vote for the bastards.

The ENGLISH people, or a minority of those voting, did. Hell mend them. Scotland hasn't had a significant Tory vote since 1955... sixty years ago.

Wonder what woulda happened if you'd had the Scottish independence referendum after the UK elections instead of the other way round.

 

[KingOrfeo]

No pal. The BRITISH people didn't vote for the bastards.

The ENGLISH people, or a minority of those voting, did. Hell mend them. Scotland hasn't had a significant Tory vote since 1955... sixty years ago.

How do the Tories do so well, then, without the Scottish vote?

 

[oggbashan]

How do the Tories do so well, then, without the Scottish vote?

Because Labour couldn't get a majority without their Scottish seats which they have lost to the SNP.

 

[DesEsseintes]

David Cameron meme!

Sometimes I love the internet.

 

[Scotsman69]

Silly thought. All that matters now, is that in my lifetime, I'll live in a nation again.

Wonder what woulda happened if you'd had the Scottish independence referendum after the UK elections instead of the other way round.

 

[patient1]

The letters published so far prove whatever you want to prove.

They show that the Prince of Wales has concerns about many issues and had written to Ministers, and the Prime Minister, about them.

The Ministers and the Prime Minister receive many such letters from others such as the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lord Mayor of London, and members of the general public - including me.

Whether Prince Charles' letters should be made public? Should my letters be made public?

The difference depends on your view of the Monarchy. Should it be strictly neutral in Politics? Queen Victoria certainly wasn't. She harangued and abused some Prime Ministers. But recent tradition is that the Monarch should stay neutral, and Her Majesty the Queen has tried hard to be that, even if she has hinted that she does or doesn't like some policy. She has been more obvious recently about Scottish Independence. She wants the Monarchy to continue to rule a United Kingdom.

Constitutionally the Monarch is neutral. But the Heir? The Prince of Wales? The most recent Prince of Wales before Charles was the Duke of Windsor, he who became Edward VIII and abdicated to marry Wallis Simpson. By the standard of his time he was very outspoken about the poor treatment of British workers particularly by Welsh Coal Mine owners.

Charles knows he shouldn't express opinions when/if he becomes the Monarch. Being Charles he would find that difficult, but as the Prince of Wales he still can even if some think he shouldn't.

What really matters is whether Charles' letters made/make any difference.

I don't think they did/do - unless he raises issues that haven't been considered before. What he says will be read, while my letters might not be, but will his letters change Government policy? I doubt it.

All he can do, and does, is raise public awareness of some issues such as the brutality of some modern architecture. He fuels the debate but decides nothing - nor should he.

But if you are against Monarchy? Charles should never say anything, no matter how strongly he feels.

Thanks for the explanation, Og.

It's hard for me to get a feel for this controversy. I wish Charles health and happiness...

But to me, not believing in Divine Right, he's just old money with paparazzi. His expertise is limited to etiquette, living under public scrutiny and possibly Corgis. He has less to offer than you or John Cleese or Richard Branson on a given subject.

So I guess I don't/ wouldn't care whether or not his opinion were expressed and whether or not it were public. It pales in comparison to this-

'For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens: as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone.'

 

[oggbashan]

Thanks for the explanation, Og.

...

But to me, not believing in Divine Right, he's just old money with paparazzi. His expertise is limited to etiquette, living under public scrutiny and possibly Corgis. He has less to offer than you or John Cleese or Richard Branson on a given subject.

...

The Prince of Wales' expertise? I think you underestimate him. The Duchy of Cornwall demonstrates organic farming on a commercial, profitable scale. His various charitable interests cover a wide range of activities. The Prince's Trust engages with disaffected and marginalised communities and provides help, finance and expertise for young entrepreneurs. The amount of work he does in a given year is staggering.

Whether you or I agree with him? That's a different matter. On some things I will. On others I'd disagree vehemently.

Comparing him with John Cleese? John is an entertainer. Why should I respect his opinions on anything except entertainment? Richard Branson? I might respect his advice on commercial risk taking, but not on entertainment.

Whatever else can be said about the Prince of Wales, no one should underestimate his passion for some subjects, and in a few he has considerable expertise. He also has an army of paid and unpaid advisors, many of them world experts in their fields.

I suspect that some of his letters were written because others thought the Prince's intervention would be more effective than their own, or they are not allowed to express their opinion - e.g. serving Army officers worried about the uselessness of their equipment in Iraq and Afghanistan. Charles is Colonel in Chief of several regiments. If the regiment's officers privately told him their concerns which they couldn't voice publicly, then Charles would be likely to (and did) respond by writing a letter to the Prime Minister.

So far the response to the publication seems predictable. If you don't like the Monarchy, he shouldn't have written them. If you support the Monarchy, or are neutral, then the reaction has been "Why can't Charles write these letters? They seem normal, sane, well-informed and sensible."

The real argument is about whether the letters exerted undue influence. The public record suggests they didn't and don't. They might irritate politicians or remind them of facts they'd rather forget.

The modern equivalent of Charles' letters is the on-line petition or a Twitter campaign. Some of those work, like some of his letters. Some of them don't but they show that the politicians' actions are watched.

There are several campaigns already started about Freedom of Speech, Privacy online, How to tackle extremist preachers etc. Some show obvious bias and are unlikely to influence any elected government. Some are expressing real concerns that should be considered.

As far as I am concerned Charles can keep writing. I certainly will. It gets us past the stage of "Someone must do something about..." and relieves the irritation even if that is all it does.

 

[DesEsseintes]

Ogg, I disagree. I don't like the monarchy, though I do rather like Charles and I have no problem with him writing to the government - he is entitled to, as am I. I read the letters and agree with most of them - he writes well, and with a refreshing modesty. But as long as he is more than a private citizen, and as long as as our next monarch he is constitutionally supposed to be neutral, we need to see his letters to ensure he is not having any more influence than anyone else. We have evidence - the Chelsea Barracks situation - that he does indeed have more influence than an ordinary private individual, so of course it needs to be checked. In any case, why is he worried? His letters, if anything, make him seem more decent in my eyes. And while we're about it, we need to see every letter sent to MPs, and every email. It would be fascinating to see some of the corporate ones...

'If you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear', as the government keeps telling we mere mortals...

 

[oggbashan]

Ogg, I disagree. I don't like the monarchy, though I do rather like Charles and I have no problem with him writing to the government - he is entitled to, as am I. I read the letters and agree with most of them - he writes well, and with a refreshing modesty. But as long as he is more than a private citizen, and as long as as our next monarch he is constitutionally supposed to be neutral, we need to see his letters to ensure he is not having any more influence than anyone else. We have evidence - the Chelsea Barracks situation - that he does indeed have more influence than an ordinary private individual, so of course it needs to be checked. In any case, why is he worried? His letters, if anything, make him seem more decent in my eyes. And while we're about it, we need to see every letter sent to MPs, and every email. It would be fascinating to see some of the corporate ones...

'If you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear', as the government keeps telling we mere mortals...

The Chelsea Barracks situation? How do you know that Charles' intervention was the lever that influenced the decision?

There were many other people worried about Chelsea Barracks and expressing their concerns and anger.

Wanting to see every letter and every email sent to MPs? I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy. Back in the 1960s I was an unofficial, unpaid, aide to an MP, helping with my particular area of expertise. The MP received about fifty letters a day - then.

With the introduction of wordprocessors and email address lists, every day every MP gets a letter from one individual or group sent to 'ALL', and hundreds of communications a day. Many of those messages are incoherent, much like some of the ranting on the General Board, and a few are as rational as Charles' letters. Every one of those people expects an answer - a polite answer even if their letter has to have every other word asterisked out.

It's a nightmare.

 

[Scotsman69]

Tuts OGG, tis not like you to be factually incorrect.

Even if Labour had won every single Scottish seat last week, they still wouldn't have a majority in Westminster.

England has several times the population of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland combined. So a significant majority by any party in England, even if NOBODY in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland voted for that party, will always result in an English dictatorship.

Which is precisely why Scotland voted overwhelmingly for the SNP, which is the only party anywhere in the UK which can legitimately claim to have secured a majority of its voting electorate.

And which is also why there cannot ever be a federal solution to the UK's constitutional crisis. Unless England is divided into Regional Parliaments.

Because Labour couldn't get a majority without their Scottish seats which they have lost to the SNP.

 

[oggbashan]

Tuts OGG, tis not like you to be factually incorrect.

Even if Labour had won every single Scottish seat last week, they still wouldn't have a majority in Westminster.

England has several times the population of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland combined. So a significant majority by any party in England, even if NOBODY in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland voted for that party, will always result in an English dictatorship.

Which is precisely why Scotland voted overwhelmingly for the SNP, which is the only party anywhere in the UK which can legitimately claim to have secured a majority of its voting electorate.

And which is also why there cannot ever be a federal solution to the UK's constitutional crisis. Unless England is divided into Regional Parliaments.

Without winning a number of seats in Scotland, Labour can't form a government of the UK even if they win significant numbers from the Conservatives in England.

English Regional Parliaments? We don't have the history or cohesion of Scotland or Wales.

We had SEEDA - South East England Development Agency which was supposed to be a precursor of a move towards an elected Regional Assembly. It spread from Buckinghamshire and Berkshire along the South Coast to Kent. What it ignored, despite protests, was that the only thing the counties in SEEDA had in common was their interaction with London. Yet the influence of London was barred from the discussions so SEEDA was pointless (and expensive!).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_East_England_Development_Agency

 

[AZMotherLover]

First they came for the Extremists...
And I did not speak out...
Because I was not an Extremist.

Don't worry. The extremists will keep them occupied for a long time. They won't have time to come for you.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

the only thing missing is a nipple ... and milk

 

[Scotsman69]

OGG, on this point you are just WRONG. The sensible thing to do is have the grace to admit it.

There have been occasions when Labour's majority at Westminster was such that it would have formed the UK Government, even if it had won NO Scottish seats, just as the Tories currently govern us with one Scottish seat and less than 15% support from the Scottish electorate.

In 1997, for example, Labour's majority was 179, well over twice the number of Scottish Westminster seats. So even if Labour had lost every single Scottish seat in that election, it would still have formed the UK government.

As to your point about the political cohesion of the English regions, I tend to agree with you. Some regions, however, the North-East and South-West for example, have much stronger regional identities than the amorphous and populous South-East.

Which is why there can never be a federal solution to the UK's acute constitutional crises. Scottish independence within the foreseeable future is now inevitable. The higher population growth of Northern Ireland's Nationalist minority, compared to the Unionist majority, makes it likely that Northern Ireland will in time choose to leave the UK and join the Irish Republic. This is a constitutional aim of both the SDLP and Sinn Fein.

Given Labour's grateful acceptance of SDLP support on occasions, this makes a mockery of the hysterical English political and media allegation that there would have been something wrong with a Labour minority Government accepting voting support from a 'separatist' party. It has happened before and it will happen again.

The UK is doomed. By the end of this century, and probably long before that, it will cease to exist.

Without winning a number of seats in Scotland, Labour can't form a government of the UK even if they win significant numbers from the Conservatives in England.

English Regional Parliaments? We don't have the history or cohesion of Scotland or Wales.

We had SEEDA - South East England Development Agency which was supposed to be a precursor of a move towards an elected Regional Assembly. It spread from Buckinghamshire and Berkshire along the South Coast to Kent. What it ignored, despite protests, was that the only thing the counties in SEEDA had in common was their interaction with London. Yet the influence of London was barred from the discussions so SEEDA was pointless (and expensive!).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_East_England_Development_Agency

 

[oggbashan]

OK. I'll accept that I may be wrong based on past electoral history, but I can't see Labour as it is now ever regaining power without Scottish seats.

Historically the Liberals formed Parliaments but that is unlikely now.

My prediction for the next General Election is that the Conservatives will fail to have an overall majority even if Scotland is independent by then. If Labour get their act together and appeal to more voters they might be the largest party in England. The signs aren't good and the influence of the Unions on Labour's leadership election won't help. In theory I could vote for Labour's leader. I won't.

I would expect the Liberal Democrats to recover from this year, a very low point for them. They paid the price of being in the Coalition government but the upside is that they now have experience of the real political world. They have the potential to build support with more realistic policies.

UKIP? If there is a referendum on Europe I expect UKIP's support to erode away. Their current infighting doesn't help their cause. Like the Greens in Brighton, experience of them in charge of a Council will show the real impact of their policies. UKIP now control Thanet Council despite Nigel Farage not winning Thanet South. That Council has been in deep trouble financially. Unless UKIP make unpleasant and unpopular cuts in services the Council will fail. If they do make the cuts they'll be unpopular. Our local UKIP County and Local Councillors have been unimpressive, perhaps because they needed a steep learning curve, but the overall public impression is that they are lacking in understanding of the roles they have been elected to e.g. issuing statements on issues that are not within the Council's remit.

The next few years remind me of the ancient Chinese curse "May you live in interesting times".

 

[Braschi]

Bah, I remember the same "this is the end! The Tories have been elected and they will ruin the country!" stuff since the last election. Has Britain been ruined, yet?

It's the same kind of mindless politicism you find pretty much everywhere; from the right-wing Poles warning of the dire consequences of a left-wing government bringing back Stalinism to the left-wing Venezuelans warning that voting for the opposition is allowing the country to be a colony for the "imperialists".

Basically, you're whining about first world problems: you have no idea what a real dictatorship even looks like. If Cameron were to seriously move in that direction, then the best protection you will have from his right-wing thugs will be, ironically, the House of Lords and the Monarchy left-wingers like you so enjoy decrying.

Had the Ed become PM, no doubt there would have been an equal number of Tory useful idiots warning of the "slippery slope" into a Communist dictatorship.

Thanks for the clickbait title and being the footsoldier of the Left. But those with actual power aren't going to give a rats arse about your opinion.

 

[Busybody]

you have worse to worry about

your institutions side with those that want you all dead

(I hope all of England BURNS)

BBC Compares British Jihadist Preacher Anjem Choudary To Gandhi…

Choudary

Even Choudary is upset with the comparison: “They are kufaar… and I am a Muslim.”

Via Express:

Stunned viewers watched home affairs editor Mark Easton criticising the Government’s plans to silence hate-mongers such as Choudary, who has refused to condemn the killing of Lee Rigby, by asking whether great historical figures would pass the proposed test.

The newsman carried on by saying extreme views were needed in order to “challenge very established values”.

Speaking on BBC News at Ten last night, the home affairs editor went further and, following a news piece on Choudary, Mr Easton said: “It’s one thing to ban someone for inciting hatred or violence, but quite another to pass a law that silences anyone who challenges established values.

“I was in Parliament Square today – a statue of Gandhi looking down at me who was jailed for being extremist; Mandela who was jailed for being an extremist.

“History tells us that extreme views are sometimes needed to challenge very established values that people at the time hold so dear.”

Mr Easton’s comments have provoked anger against the public service broadcaster. […]

Speaking on Twitter, Choudary was defiant, even saying: “The comparison with Mandela & Ghandi are false, they are kufaar heading to hellfire whilst I am a Muslim

 

[DesEsseintes]

Bah, I remember the same "this is the end! The Tories have been elected and they will ruin the country!" stuff since the last election. Has Britain been ruined, yet?

It's the same kind of mindless politicism you find pretty much everywhere; from the right-wing Poles warning of the dire consequences of a left-wing government bringing back Stalinism to the left-wing Venezuelans warning that voting for the opposition is allowing the country to be a colony for the "imperialists".

Basically, you're whining about first world problems: you have no idea what a real dictatorship even looks like. If Cameron were to seriously move in that direction, then the best protection you will have from his right-wing thugs will be, ironically, the House of Lords and the Monarchy left-wingers like you so enjoy decrying.

Had the Ed become PM, no doubt there would have been an equal number of Tory useful idiots warning of the "slippery slope" into a Communist dictatorship.

Thanks for the clickbait title and being the footsoldier of the Left. But those with actual power aren't going to give a rats arse about your opinion.

Quite true. And that's what I'm 'whining' about. A long time since our government acted as the servants of the people they are supposed to.

And I have plenty of idea what a real dictatorship looks like. My grandfather escaped with half his family from Nazi Germany in '33. The other half wasn't so lucky. The government is granting itself and its successors unprecedented powers, which the Stasi, for example, in post-war Eastern Germany, would have killed for.

Britain is more and more ruined day by day, and 'mindless' (your word) optimists like you are part of the enabling mass which allows it to happen.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Because Labour couldn't get a majority without their Scottish seats which they have lost to the SNP.

Suppose the UK had a PR system. Presumably no party would get a majority, ever, and all governments would have to be coalitions, but how do you think it would break down? What percentage of the vote would go to the Tories/Labour/LibDems/SNP/UKIP/others?

 

[oggbashan]

Suppose the UK had a PR system. Presumably no party would get a majority, ever, and all governments would have to be coalitions, but how do you think it would break down? What percentage of the vote would go to the Tories/Labour/LibDems/SNP/UKIP/others?

There is a graphical explanation at this post:

http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=67546287&postcount=46

That shows what the result would have been IF the whole UK was decided by proportional representation.

BUT - That is only a crude representation. There are many possible PR systems. Each could produce a different result but the days of a single party domination at Westminster would probably never return.

When do turkeys vote for Thanksgiving/Christmas? Neither Labour nor Conservatives are likely to vote for PR. The Conservatives promised the Liberal Democrats a vote on PR, but put forward the least acceptable version which was rejected.

 

[KingOrfeo]

There is a graphical explanation at this post:

http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=67546287&postcount=46

That shows what the result would have been IF the whole UK was decided by proportional representation.

Seriously, I cannot motherfucking believe that the damned motherfucking UKIP-Nazi shits get more votes than the mostly-harmless LibDem granola crunchers in that scenario! What is rotting Britain's soul?!