Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Mad Doc You and I can form the revolution ! I completely agree with you this country is nothing compared to what it was. Everything is upside down government is poo. our laws are poo, our immigration is poo (only to the extent that we're letting so many in were over populating our small island. list goes on.

You and I could make it great again

On the subject of Immigration, more Brits have left than foreigners have arrived. So it's really not as big an issue as the Daily Nazi might make out.

smiling Assassin wrote:But what would you replace the current government with?

I suppose you could always join America like Hawaii did.

Of course, as we saw in the 1800s, once you're in, there's no getting out...

JohnHwangDD wrote:

smiling Assassin wrote:But what would you replace the current government with?

I suppose you could always join America like Hawaii did.

Of course, as we saw in the 1800s, once you're in, there's no getting out...

so we're like the mob?

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:On the subject of Immigration, more Brits have left than foreigners have arrived. So it's really not as big an issue as the Daily Nazi might make out.

Thats only really true of EU trafic. Although it still isnt as bad as the media make out, no. However on the same note, neither is the suposed huge infestation of chavs you reference in your initial post.

Ok MDG I am gonna get lambasted for my response...but wth, I don't care. But before I make my point, I just want to point out that the last time your country revolted, and overthrew the Crown, you ended up with that rat Oliver Cromwell, and no I don't count the Glorious Revolution as one, since it really didn't change much, except that it kicked a Catholic king out, and ended the Stuart dynasty.

Now then, I think you are completely justified in your anger with the government. Labour has promised item after item and has not delivered one bit, ex: a popular referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, but no that was skipped over you and taken straight to the Europhile parliament. I don't care for the EU much myself, and I especially don't like the idea of Britain being in it, and in the several times I have been there I only ever met one person who considered themselves to be European, but I digress. But Labour isn't the only party to be frustrated with, the Tories and Lib Dems are just not offering strong enough alternatives to Labour policies. They need to get their acts together and create a solid platform with real plans. The Tories are the worse of the two at this because David Cameron, who in his defense is brilliant at PMs questions, has taken the main positions of the Tories that were so different than Labour and watered them down to be just slightly different. The Conservatives are no longer even named properly, and it has created offshoots such as UKIP that have to focus on single issues because the Tories have abandoned many of their traditional position, Euroscepticism being one of them.

The argument that I put forth than is this. You already have two items in your government that you can turn to in order to stop the Commons from running rampant, in what you must consider to be nothing short of a tyranny of the majority. One is the Crown itself and the other the Lords. The Crown is your most obvious solution. (I hate to be technical but earlier you said that the power of the state rests with the people, but constitutionally speaking it rests with the Crown. That may be waaaay technical but that's why I was gonna be a lawyer .) Anyway, the people can and should appeal to the Sovereign to step in and either A) Dissolve Parliament if it isn't doing a proper job, or B) Withhold Royal Assent to something that Her/His subjects obviously do not want. Now I know that I am being idealistic, but you have to admit that at least you can try this, and who knows, it might work. The Lords are a bit more complicated now that Tony Blair dumped pretty much all the hereditary members, which was of course just so he could stuff it full of Labour supporters. Any of you have any suggestions on how to use the Lords as a balance to the Commons? I prefer the pre-1911 system, but I am sure that my fellow Americans will burn me in effigy after reading this, so better to not anger too many of them.

All this being said, I think revolution should be the last thing on your mind, but you should look at strong alternatives. If the populace were to cry out, I do think that the Queen would listen, which may lead to your revolution as it could result in a constitutional crisis, and possibly a civil war....again. But honestly I doubt that will happen. If you can't tell I am a strong believer in Constitutional Monarchy done right, and I definitely think that it can be done right, now better then ever. I hope I didn't offend to many people, and I am impressed if you read this whole thing.

MDG, I completely agree.

In my eyes the government is bowing down to whoever holds the majority so that they can simply stay in power. If the majority want to let criminals have more rights than those who are honest then the government passes bills making it so. (I'm using criminals as an example to make my point)

IIRC, Prime Ministers in the past, such as Church Hill etc, were not paid very well so you tended to get the people who wanted to run a country for the good of the UK rather than sitting behind a desk making rules to screw us over and get paid large sums of money for it.

I'm no expert, but I do wonder if we should go back to that and drastically cut down the salary these poeple are getting.

I mean for crying out loud we now have BNP with two seats in Parliement!!
EDIT: Post used incorrect word, amended


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@JEB_Stuart, you make a lot of sense there and I agree with a fair amount of what you say. You need only to look at the crowds that formed when the Queen Mother died to realise just how much respect the Monarchy has.

I for one have wondered on many occasions have wondered what would happen if the Queen decided to overthrow the Government. I have a lot of respect for the royal family so personally, they'd get my vote if it ever came to it, I lost my faith in the government years ago

Just 66 shopping days to Guy Fawkes.
Work faster.

hellsguardian316 wrote:

In my eyes the government is bowing down to whoever holds the majority so that they can simply stay in power. If the majority want to let criminals have more rights than those who are honest then the government passes bills making it so. (I'm using criminals as an example to make my point)

..and ? Is this not the basis of democracy ? Or are you saying that GOvt.s should NOT do what the people want ?

IIRC, Prime Ministers in the past, such as Church Hill etc, were not paid very well so you tended to get the people who wanted to run a country for the good of the UK rather than sitting behind a desk making rules to screw us over and get paid large sums of money for it.

I'm no expert, but I do wonder if we should go back to that and drastically cut down the salary these people are getting.

Nope. They tended to be already rich which might be what is confusing you.

I mean for crying out loud we now have BNP with two seats in the commons!!

Except we don't of course.

Why let the facts get in the way of a good rant though eh ?

@JEB_Stuart, you make a lot of sense there and I agree with a fair amount of what you say. You need only to look at the crowds that formed when the Queen Mother died to realise just how much respect the Monarchy has.

Less than Princess Diana got. Less than the world cup parade in 66.

I for one have wondered on many occasions have wondered what would happen if the Queen decided to overthrow the Government. I have a lot of respect for the royal family so personally, they'd get my vote if it ever came to it, I lost my faith in the government years ago

The Queen can't overthrow the govt, it's hers in the first place.

And you wouldn't get a vote with a monarch ruling you directly.

..We were saying something earlier about people being too ignorant and misinformed to be able to vote "correctly" yes ?

Oldgrue wrote:Just 66 shopping days to Guy Fawkes.
Work faster.

Thank you reds8n for that dose of reality. It bothered me as well that someone believes that the majority shouldn't be listened to.

reds8n has picked up on the point I made at the beginning. You get what you vote for and the problem is that the general public is too lazy or stupid to actually make the effert to look in to things themselves. The challenage is to actually educate the public enough so they have the knowledge to express an opinion based on fact. I won't hold my breath though, you only have to listen to Newsbeat on Radio 1 to see that we have no hope. Their news is basic because they know the age range they are aimed at, switch off if the reports are too long. God help us!

Huh?
I voted Lib Dem ... I'm not getting what I voted for!

But I do agree that poeple need to be educated a LOT more on politics. I was one of those kids that hated politics and never had anything to do with it. Now as an adult I'm finally seeing just how important politics is. If your just going into the booth and ticking the box of the guy with the best name or you have heard the most about then you are NOT making an imformed choice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
and as such have no rights to complain.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@reds8n
Actually I believe the government should do whats right for the UK and not just what people say they want. I know full well that there will be draw backs and nothing is ever as simple as that. But in theory, doing this would benefit the UK as a whole and therefore the general public too.

We want cheaper fuel, lower taxes, we're not getting those are we, so the goverment is clearly not bowing to the masses on some points because of the damage it would do to the country. Yet they are more than happy to put laws in place that protect the wrong poeple or do more harm than good.

Sadly, as you quite rightly pointed out, there are always exceptions to the rule. In part, the government doesn't always make the choices they should even if its for the best because they know at the next election they'd risk being voted out.

hellsguardian316 wrote:Huh?
I voted Lib Dem ... I'm not getting what I voted for!

... isn't that democracy at work? I know people say that the "first past the post" option is flawed, but lets be clear here, it's not "a first past the post" system. It's not about the first person to reach a magic number, it's who gets the most votes, even if they do it by 10 votes.

The concerns I have about PR is that you could end up with a government that can't govern. A government needs to be able to make a decision and act without spending days, weeks, months wheeling & dealing to get the required votes to move forward. Don't get me wrong, it's a nice idea but I just think it's not really practical. My own opinion is that works ok in Europe as lot of those countries have more balanced political views. Countries like us, the US & France seem to have more rigid political views that don't really allow that cross party interaction needed for it to work.

reds8n wrote:

hellsguardian316 wrote:

In my eyes the government is bowing down to whoever holds the majority so that they can simply stay in power. If the majority want to let criminals have more rights than those who are honest then the government passes bills making it so. (I'm using criminals as an example to make my point)

..and ? Is this not the basis of democracy ? Or are you saying that GOvt.s should NOT do what the people want ?

IIRC, Prime Ministers in the past, such as Church Hill etc, were not paid very well so you tended to get the people who wanted to run a country for the good of the UK rather than sitting behind a desk making rules to screw us over and get paid large sums of money for it.

I'm no expert, but I do wonder if we should go back to that and drastically cut down the salary these people are getting.

Nope. They tended to be already rich which might be what is confusing you.

I mean for crying out loud we now have BNP with two seats in the commons!!

Except we don't of course.

Why let the facts get in the way of a good rant though eh ?

@JEB_Stuart, you make a lot of sense there and I agree with a fair amount of what you say. You need only to look at the crowds that formed when the Queen Mother died to realise just how much respect the Monarchy has.

Less than Princess Diana got. Less than the world cup parade in 66.

I for one have wondered on many occasions have wondered what would happen if the Queen decided to overthrow the Government. I have a lot of respect for the royal family so personally, they'd get my vote if it ever came to it, I lost my faith in the government years ago

The Queen can't overthrow the govt, it's hers in the first place.

And you wouldn't get a vote with a monarch ruling you directly.

..We were saying something earlier about people being too ignorant and misinformed to be able to vote "correctly" yes ?

1. I'm well aware you don't get a vote with Monarchy
have you heard of something called "figure of speech?" or are you trying wind me up? it worked!

2. Church Hill paid well
All I could gather from my search was he had a private income, so I plan to learn a bit more about him

3. Why lets the facts get in the way?
What facts? You don't seem to have posted any either

4. BNP
Seem to have misheard some information on that and will tip my hat to you respectfully

5. Less than Princess Diana got. Less than the world cup parade in 66.
Erm... ok? Why is that relevant? There are 5million bicycles in Beijing, it doesn't detract from the fact that the Monarchy clearly has a huge support, quoting irrelevant numbers from something unrelated doesn't make sense.

6. Being ignorant
If your directing that at me then I am somewhat offended, I never claim to be an expert on these matters and I'm merely posting my own view based on the information I know. At least I've have actually contributed my own opinion and I'm reading the responses posted here to expand my own understanding as well as voice myself. What have you done other than try to provoke a response from me and say yes/no without even offering proof.

I only like democracy when the people i vote for win! If they don't then the system is broken and/or corrupt!

Its all the greeks fault.
First Nation to ever be a democracy IIRC

The closest that modern America has come to revolution was back in the 60's.

Nowadays we're too fat, lazy, and apathetic to even come close to those levels.

Majority rule is rapidly devolving into mob rule. History has illustrated time and again that most people dont want to worry about the bigger things. With modern media as it is the sheep can be easily herded into voting certain ways with simple advertising techniques.

Since most democracies think everyone of age can/should vote just because they have a pulse, it cant be a great surprise when people that just have a pulse get elected.

Governments 'for the people by the people' reflect this, people are more comfortable electing people like themselves.

So, when you see a bunch of elected morons-its because morons voted them into office. Morons will ALWAYS be the majority

Going back to the original Greek concepts with voting, it was an earned privilege. Not an automatic right. 'Idiot' is actually the old greek term for someone that wouldnt vote. The way things are now, the masses will vote for things that are best for themselves, and have no care for the bigger picture-as, if they cant see it- it cant hurt them, right?

If you want to sway things, you need to be able to convince people. In this age, I think its more likely you could get them to vote if you made government events TV shows like "American Idol" or the 'Has Talent' shows. The sheeple seem to really like all the singing and dancin!

Doc, do we really even need a "Cry, bitch, and rant" thread to know how fethed this country really is?

Lets face it, its a game of the lesser evil.
We get rid of 1 group, we face the chance of an even worse one getting in. (ie: read up on the rise of the klan in the US if you havent allready)
Could end up with something like that here if you just get rid of people.
Something needs to be done, but as to what can be done without causing even more gak is still a mystery.

also, on a note about chavs here, i rather you not preach about chav genocide simply because one of them possibly told you to get your hair cut, or called you a goth.

That's what you guys get for having a fast paced government that changes party whenever a new P.M. is elected.

Joseph Goebbels wrote:Think of the press as a great keyboard on which the government can play.

Oh mass media, what would I do without you.

halonachos wrote:That's what you guys get for having a fast paced government that changes party whenever a new P.M. is elected.

Just to let you know nachos, the UK doesn't elect a PM, instead they elect all the members of the House of Commons and after Parliament has been set the Sovereign, in theory, then chooses who will lead her new government in her name, be they Lord or Commons, although there hasn't been a Lord PM since Salisbury, I think (correct me if I am wrong Brits). In practice though the new PM is whoever is the head of the party with a majority...hence that bloviating, sniveling, gasbag Gordon Brown.

Er...no. the Parliament does it. If the Queen objected she'd be kicked aside like bad cheese.

OT you're in Chino? I remember CHino. Do they still have the massed cattle farms there where the cows are so piled together you can smell them for miles? Every time I see that stupid Cows love California commercial I want to puke and ship that puke to the marketing company that thought that up.

Frazzled wrote:Er...no. the Parliament does it. If the Queen objected she'd be kicked aside like bad cheese.

That's why I said in theory vs in practice. Read the end of my last post.

Frazzled wrote:OT you're in Chino? I remember CHino. Do they still have the massed cattle farms there where the cows are so piled together you can smell them for miles? Every time I see that stupid Cows love California commercial I want to puke and ship that puke to the marketing company that thought that up.

No, Chino is no longer like that...it has turned into a quiet little suburban town. I remember when I was a kid there being a bunch of dairies but most of them are gone now.

Yeah, but when the wind blows, it still smells like cows...

Well, my Father always said if you want something done right do it yourself.

I honestly would help out with a revolt, nowadays are so boring and the Media makes me wana spoon out by eye's.

cool stuff happened in the last 50 years before I was born, and i Don't wana live to see Global Warming us over.


So.... When do we start?

JohnHwangDD wrote:Yeah, but when the wind blows, it still smells like cows...

Ah so you are wise to the ways of old school Chino...

cool stuff happened in the last 50 years before I was born, and i Don't wana live to see Global Warming us over.

Wait, you're in Canada eh? You should be jumping up in down for global warming shouting BRING IT BRING IT!

JD21290 wrote:

also, on a note about chavs here, i rather you not preach about chav genocide simply because one of them possibly told you to get your hair cut, or called you a goth.

Is nothing to do with their pathetic attempts at heckling. I mean, call me a Goth, and I'll agree. I might even offer them a cookiee for their abilities in stating the blatantly obvious. But it's more the crime they commit, the huge amount of benefits many fraudulently claim.

I suppose it would help if I mentioned that to me, being a Chav means more than dressing in cheapo clothes from a Sports Shop

That being said I really still get the Chav thing. It is like 'white trash' in the US?

Is chav just a derogatory term for the young lower class? If it is I can think of a few terms some people use out here to talk down to the lower classes... and white trash isn't usually the first thing out of there mouth....