Well said that man. > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Date: Wed, 4 May 2011 16:06:58 +0100 > Subject: [LU] Non-LU: More farce than arse, really > > > 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) _______________________________________________ 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)
