> I just don't understand how we are taking it up the arse by having a > monarchy?
Well, having read a defence of the monarchy on the grounds that it's claimed to make us money, I was merely intrigued to know what else the citizens of Britain should be willing to accept *just so long as it brings in a bit of cash*. Hence also the reference to some Premiership teams playing a 39th game in Hong Kong or somewhere, which would surely make a mockery of the competition but would no doubt pay handsomely. Of course, if you're happy - money aside - to regard yourself as a subject of the Queen, then all well and good, and that anal analogy doesn't apply to you, but consider this... apparently the operators of off-shore wind farms will have to pay a rent to Her Maj because... wait for it... THE QUEEN OWNS THE SEABED! Now, maybe you think that's right and proper, but surely you can understand the viewpoint of those of us who regard that as a frankly absurd state of affairs in 21st century Britain? More farce than arse, really. *** Apologies to everybody that this is turning into a long rant, but I've started so I'll finish. (Eventually...) *** I don't despise the royal family, I wish Kate and Wills every happiness, I've no reason to believe they aren't perfectly nice individuals, I just think that IN SOME SMALL WAY the acceptance of a monarchy helps perpetuate a system of governance that seems to be run for the benefit of a privileged few - whether it's bankers who donate to the right political parties, newspaper editors who toe the line and get their knighthoods, or whatever. I don't see that it's doing much for the folk of, say, Rotherham, or in any way creating a vibrant Great Britain. And for heaven's sake, PLEASE don't come out with the line that this is about envy. It's about wanting a little more *fairness*. Take a look at the diagram at the end of this article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11942117 Ignore Frank Lampard and Tiger Woods, just gawp in awe at the contrast between the little black dot and the giant circle too big to even fit in. Then tell me - with a straight face, mind - that you can't see something badly out of kilter in a system where someone who shuffles money around on stock markets is paid almost as much as 100,000 nurses. Expressing a preference for a society in which rewards are at least VAGUELY in some sort of sensible proportion to the effort one puts in, and privilege isn't inherited, needn't exactly make one a communist. And it's not as though many don't work for less than that nurse, even in this country, never mind whatever proportion of the world's population it is that's reckoned to live on less than a dollar a day. What's that... about 70p?... call it around £250 a year... that's a factor of 10,000,000 less than Mr Fund Manager. Oddly enough, I don't ascribe that to their monumental stupidity or fecklessness; I put it down mainly to them having been born into a crazy world. Part of that crazy world is our government. But if you're content with a bunch of MPs jeering at each other across the House of Commons (and an opportunity to have a good jeer appears to be about the only time the buggers turn up), then clearly there's no room for improvement there either. Not that I'm suggesting for a minute that AV would change all that (though in a non-two- horse-race I think it would produce a better match to the views of the voters) but, if nothing else, at least a YES vote might send a teensy message to those in the privileged position of wielding power that we might be interested in something better than the status quo. I mean, yesterday Cameron was asked on the radio why he was in favour of first-past-the-post and the first thing he said was that's it's simpler. Unfortunately I can't comment on what other guff he trotted out because my head had gone into meltdown that our PM could get away, unchallenged, with the suggestion that listing preferences in 1,2,3... order is too COMPLICATED for us. I'd only just recovered from William Hague popping up a few days earlier to inform us that AV was the "worst possible" electoral system. And which coaltion partner might it have been that insisted such an awful system would be the only alternative on offer? Hmm, Mr Hague? Can't have been the Lib Dems, as they were rather keen on letting us have a referendum on PR... So... there you have it... the continental shelf is the property of the Windsors, some human beings are seven orders of magnitude more valuable than others, and we're governed by utter hypocrites who treat us like fools. What's not to like? _______________________________________________ Leedslist mailing list Info and options: http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist To unsubscribe, email [email protected] MARCHING ON TOGETHER (There's it)
