Panto_Villan

The only two who seem to be burnishing their reputations here are Tugendhat and Sunank. Sunak is the only one who can actually provide an answer to the tough economic questions being asked - you might not agree with the answers he's giving, but everyone else just seems to be claiming they can unleash the economic growth that will allow them to pay for public services without having to raise taxes or increase debt. They just sound clueless. Tugendhat seems to have a bit of charisma about him. I was kinda hoping he would be a bit less lightweight on the economy though tbh. If you're willing to say you don't regret voting Remain in a Tory leadership contest then you should also be willing to say that we probably need to put taxes up to pay for better public services. The three women just seem to be floundering and giving really wishy-washy answers to everything. I wonder if this improves Sunak's head to head against Mordaunt much? I feel like Starmer would eat her for breakfast if she performs like this in the PM TV debates.

Yes, that's the point I was making. Welsh isn't pointless, it simply looks that way if you strip it of its context. It's therefore a good illustration of why you shouldn't try to strip things of their context. I'm aware I'm now repeating myself and the subject was already pretty tangential from the original topic, so I'm just going to leave things there.

No, I know. And I'm just going to answer this in a little more detail because I don't want to derail the conversation further and I guess it's easy to misunderstand my point if you take it out of the context it was made in. The intention isn't to imply the Welsh language is pointless or whitewash the history surrounding it. It was purely to illustrate that you can't consider a piece of culture in a vaccuum, because then you omit the history and heritage tied up in it. The fact of the matter is that almost every Welsh person can speak English precisely because the language was suppressed. If you were to look at the current situation purely from a perspective of utility (i.e. can people communicate with one another) then Welsh is completely surplus to requirements because everyone in Wales speaks English now. But that's a very simplistic reading of the situation. There's a lot of history and culture tied up in a language and that's why public money is spent on preserving Welsh, which is totally fine by me. The overall point is that the same is true for the monarchy. If you created a new monarchy out of thin air it would be very different from the current monarchy even if the structure and role was the same. It wouldn't have the positive associations and history that many people in this country have for the monarchy, and indeed nor would it have the negative historical associations (i.e. the british empire) too. So while you wouldn't want to create a new monarchy from scratch today, that doesn't necessarily mean the existing one should be abolished.

It's entirely up to you whether you consider the Queen part of your culture or not, I'm not here to gatekeep either way. It was purely the way you used the word "you" in your previous message made it sound like you very much viewed your culture as seperate from British culture. Sounds like that was just due to a mutual misunderstanding though, in which case no harm done.

The exchequer pays out public money and legislation is in place to support a language that is objectively pointless if you're look at it from a viewpoint of pure utility. That viewpoint would of course be missing the point of why language and culture should be preserved, which is why I used it to illustrate that looking at things from the viewpoint of pure utility is a bad idea. Personally, I'm perfectly happy with my taxpayer money being spent on supporting the Welsh language just as I am it supporting museums I'll never visit, etc. Funny that you're foaming at the mouth as soon as there's some percieved slight about your culture though, given how keen you are to fling insults at people daring to enjoy an aspect of their own culture.

No, not really. However that doesn’t mean you should abolish it. You wouldn’t invent the Welsh language or Brutalist architecture if it didn’t already exist, yet we go out of our way to preserve those things. Shakespeare is pretty outdated writing by today’s standards too, but history and heritage has inherent value. Our royal family is interesting in no small part because it is anachronistic. Nobody would want to see a newly established royal family, they want to see the remnants of a world famous institution that once ruled half the world as they smile and wave like fairground exhibits. Actually, I tell a lie. I can think of one reason why you might want a non-elected blank slate monarch to be head of state - because if you don’t have one, the head of state is an elected politician. That means if you do have a big parade or major event, it’d be Boris and Carrie (or Jeremy Corbyn) sitting in the gilded carriage at the front. That’d be way more divisive than having the Queen do it imo. More meritocratic, of course, but I think people would enjoy the pageantry less as a result. It’s useful having a figurehead sometimes. Your mileage may vary on how much you value that I suppose.

So you think she'd have been more interested in visiting London if we abolished the monarchy and opened the palace up to the public instead? That's interesting. Not the answer I was expecting but always good to hear opinions. If you time your visit right they do actually do tours of the palace, although the decor on the inside isn't actually as grand as you might think when you look closely at it. Personally I think the Tower of London is much better to visit but perhaps that's just me.

No, it's just lots of people are aware that the Tower of London is also in central London, so the fact they went to visit Buckingham Palace instead (which you can't even go inside most of the time) implies that the interest was in the monarchy rather than buildings in which monarchs used to reside. Although @MNVillan can probably clear it up best. Do you think your wife would be as interested in seeing the Palace if the monarchy had been abolished and plain old Lizzie Windsor didn't live there any more?

Firearms are something I've wondered about for a long time. My family live in South Africa, which is well known as a very violent place and there's quite a few guns in circulation. House robberies or car hijackings can often be unneccessarily violent (usually due to drugs), so there's definitely a logical case that can be made for getting a gun. My family have always been very clear that they're absolutely not interested in getting a gun. The chances of there being a tragic accident are vastly increased if you own one, your chances of being killed in a robbery or hijacking if you have a gun are also much higher. They're willing to take the risk of being defenceless in the face of a murderous psychopath and getting killed because statistically that's way less of a danger than actually owning the gun is. I gained a bit of respect for my dad when he explained his logic to me - I think it's quite brave to let yourself be defenceless, as it very much goes against my natural instincts.

But what do you do if someone cuts in front of you at the checkouts when you go to Lidl? How is it possible to resolve that situation without access to a firearm?

Did you get that quote from Nadine Dorries? She'd say that if he entered the room in a coffin.

He's toast. 100 voting against would have been bad for him. Nearly 150 is awful. It's quite impressive how quickly he's managed to implode.

It doesn't really have to be either or, does it? Our country would still have plenty to offer tourists if the monarchy was gone, but that doesn't mean that some appeal wouldn't be lost if the monarchy were gone. The point is usually brought up because republicans are usually working on the assumption that the (very visible) costs of the monarchy are a net drain on the country's finances. Whereas if the monarchy is paying for itself via tourism and filling other functions we'd otherwise have to pay for then it continuing to exist is more acceptable to most.

Yeah, I got that. But that is exactly what I meant by a punitive inheritance tax - encouragement for people to spend accumulated wealth before they die, because otherwise the state would end up taking most of it. I think it would solve quite a few societal problems, but people reflexively dislike the idea of a "death tax" even if it would probably benefit a large majority of the population. (But that's probably a bit too much of a digression from the topic at hand.)

Indeed. The thing being punished is the inheritance itself, which is kinda the point. Not that most of the electorate see it that way.

True. And just to make it clear - while I stick up for the Queen in this thread I'd happily jack inheritance tax up to punitive levels if I was PM. I respect her as an individual but that doesn't mean I'm a fan of the landed gentry she is part of.

Good knowledge!

Do you really think any family gets to ascend to the throne without already being extremely rich and influential? They might be richer now, but I somehow doubt William would be a binman if some other aristocrat had ended up with the crown a few generations back.

For me it's more about the restrictions you have to accept as part of the role. The Queen has been a good monarch because she doesn't have public opinions on anything at all political or controversial (not sure if you remember the absolute fury from the palace when the Brexiteers claimed she was pro-Brexit), she's always managed to maintain a dignified presence despite spending enormous amounts of time on public engagements and there being cameras literally everywhere she goes. Basically she has to meet vast numbers of people every year while also not doing anything that stops her being a blank slate that the rest of the country can project onto, which means she can't actually really use her money and power to do anything. Charles is unpopular because he apparently didn't realise this and tried to use his position to have opinions and influence things - which is a disaster waiting to happen really. Frankly the country will get rid of the monarchy if they try to do anything except smile and wave. They're here for our entertainment these days. I think you underestimate her workload too. The only figure I found with a quick google was that in 2015 she did 341 engagements, but that's a hell of a lot for an 89-year old. If I was worth $500m would I want to spend my entire life making bland small talk with people and getting wheeled out every time there's a visiting head of state, even when I'm in my 90s? No. I'd live like Jack Grealish on steroids. Or at least start interfering in politics.

I'm actually surprised it has come to this given the Tory party has stuck with him so long despite his obvious flaws. I guess it's finally dawned on them that the polls aren't going to improve unless they change leader. I'm not sure what outcome I want really. Probably for Boris to continue limping along, mortally wounded and bleeding support. This country has been in complete political paralysis since the day after the Brexit referendum though and another 3+ years of a government incapable of governing isn't going to be good either. It's already been six years. Hopefully they'll call a new election sooner rather than later.

Didn't David Davis stand in about 400 Tory leadership elections?

Also, to go on a bit of a tangent, there's probably at least a couple of billion people who would snap your hand off to get the life of literally any citizen of this country. We've all benefitted massively from being born into a wealthy country with a good education system that we individually did f-all to earn. It's easy to rail against "the rich" and "the priviledged" but there's an element of glass houses at work here too imo. Very few people ever seem to consider themselves part of those categories despite what the statistics might imply.

Of course, but that's not really an argument against the royal family per se. They're not rich because they're the royal family, they're rich because they're part of the aristocracy from which all of our royal families throughout history have emerged - the Queen would still be incredibly wealthy if she hadn't taken a single penny from the taxpayer in her life (e.g. the Spencer family is still worth £100m+ despite not being royal blood). You're making an argument against excessive inherited wealth and for what it's worth I agree with you. Nonetheless I still respect a lady worth £500m devoting literally her entire life to trying to unite the country as best she can.

No, but they’re a perfect example of what you did mention, right? The monarchy no longer existing and the royal assets all being transferred to the state. I think money can quite easily buy that lifestyle. Living in a nice house and getting your needs attended to by others. Anyone worth £5-10m could have that lifestyle without all the bullshit and lack of privacy that goes with being a royal. I reckon there’s very few millionaires in this country who would be the next king / queen. Any middling celebrity / influencer or PL footballer or (child of a) wealthy businessman probably has a much more luxurious and less restricted existence. Theres a reason why the independently wealthy (though hardly A-list) Meghan Markle ran a mile once she realised what being a royal actually entailed. I think “proud” might be the wrong word tbh. Appreciative might be better. Whatever word you’d use to describe David Attenborough still working to help the environment in his 90s. Its the same for the Queen. You only get one life on this planet and she’s spent the entire of it in public service as the nation’s figurehead when she could quite reasonably have retired from the role 30 years ago and spent her time doing things she enjoyed (and, indeed, was wealthy enough that she never actually had to do it in the first place). I think even a republican could probably admire her lifetime of dedication to the role even if they disagree with the institution she represents.

Targett isn’t gone. He was too mentally weak to secure a permanent transfer out of here.