If enough people support you then you can do something about it.
Both the Greens and UKIP have affected Government policy because of their success at the ballot box.
Bit more practical than moaning about the BBC's news coverage isn't it?
And isn't it also slightly absurd to suggest that in order to somehow legitimise one's right to voice an opinion on an online discussion forum, one must take up a full-time career in politics? Does this rule, by any chance, only come into play when the author's opinions diverge from your own?
Perhaps because it doesn't work? The democratic system in this country is set up in such a way that the main parties are so entrenched in power that they are near impossible to remove. Even if at little as 10% of people supported republicanism, they would have to be concentrated in a two or three constituencies to have any electoral success. I mean, UKIP could reach 15-20% percent of the popular vote in 2015 and end up with no MPs.
If the two main parties and the Lib Dems thought that abolishing the monarchy would be a popular move they would have it in their manifestos.
Actually, the purpose of this trip is to advertise Australia and NZ around the world - for which their taxpayers are funding the trip. This visit is getting coverage in the US, China and Japan - none of which would have happened if a British Prime Minister (or President) had gone there.
Fair enough, but it is still prominent members of our royal family getting the media attention. I am sure that is bound to be of benefit to the UK.
Perhaps because it doesn't work? The democratic system in this country is set up in such a way that the main parties are so entrenched in power that they are near impossible to remove. Even if at little as 10% of people supported republicanism, they would have to be concentrated in a two or three constituencies to have any electoral success. I mean, UKIP could reach 15-20% percent of the popular vote in 2015 and end up with no MPs.
If UKIP get 20% of the vote and no seats then I think some questions should/will be asked and it could bring forth a sea-change.
I remember in the eighties when the Greens had good elections - especially in the locals. Both Labour and the Conservatives fell over themselves to adopt Green policies. UKIP's success has put the referendum back on the agenda. Given a choice both of the main parties would happily not have one.
The only way to keep the status quo is to do nothing.
If the two main parties and the Lib Dems thought that abolishing the monarchy would be a popular move they would have it in their manifestos.
What - and risk losing the power that is divested to parliament (and the PM) by the Crown? Not bloody likely! ;-) The royals and MPs are on the same gravy train.
Fair enough, but it is still our prominent members of our royal family getting the media attention. I am sure that is bound to be of benefit to the UK.
They are not just *our* royal family. They are also the royal family of Australia, New Zealand and other Commonwealth Realms. They have as much right to see them as we do.
No I am neither of those things, I just don't object to the coverage especially as the Duke and Duchess are essentially advertising this country abroad - which may result in more tourism, trade etc.
With all the misery on the news these days, what's wrong with seeing something cheerful?
If enough people support you then you can do something about it.
Both the Greens and UKIP have affected Government policy because of their success at the ballot box.
Bit more practical than moaning about the BBC's news coverage isn't it?
To be honest, there are more pressing problems in this country, politically, than the royal family. However, that doesn't make the hereditary principle in the monarchical system any more palatable (except, I assume, amongst those who like the idea of children being bred for specific jobs).
The main parties are hardly going to adopt something that is against the figurehead of the establishment that they are part of. The 'juvenile student revolutionaries' is such a sad stereotype that it's barely worth response.
People like Honor Blackman, Philippa Gregory and Glenda Jackson are well known for being 'juvenile student revolutionaries'. ;-)
And isn't it also slightly absurd to suggest that in order to somehow legitimise one's right to voice an opinion on an online discussion forum, one must take up a full-time career in politics? Does this rule, by any chance, only come into play when the author's opinions diverge from your own?
cf. My earlier 'stifling the discussion' remark.
Of course you don't. But I do not know what you expect to achieve.
The problem is not a pro-Royal agenda but the news organisations covering what they think will get more viewers.
You do not like, or agree about, the Royal Family. You can even have a moan about it on here. But don't expect anything to change just because you sound off here.
And if you sound off on here then you also have to expect people with opposing views give opposing views.
People like Honor Blackman, Sue Townsent, Philippa Gregory and Glenda Jackson are well known for being 'juvenile student revolutionaries'. ;-)
One's an an actress, another was an author (RIP) and another is a leftie actress-cum-politician. I have no idea who the other one is. All entitled to their opinions but none of them are in any position to change public opinion.
One's an an actress, another was an author (RIP) and another is a leftie actress-cum-politician. I have no idea who the other one is. All entitled to their opinions but none of them are in any position to change public opinion.
I didn't say there were. I merely pointed out the flaws in the (what seems to me an almost stereotypical right-wing) claim that anyone who opposes the royals is a 'juvenile student leftie'. It's up there with the other yawn-inducing standard, 'anyone who is not as far to the right as me is a sixth-form leftie!'
They are not just *our* royal family. They are also the royal family of Australia, New Zealand and other Commonwealth Realms. They have as much right to see them as we do.
Of course you don't. But I do not know what you expect to achieve.
The problem is not a pro-Royal agenda but the news organisations covering what they think will get more viewers.
You do not like, or agree about, the Royal Family. You can even have a moan about it on here. But don't expect anything to change just because you sound off here.
And if you sound off on here then you also have to expect people with opposing views give opposing views.
I think it's a very naive view to believe that the media simply delivers what they think viewers/readers want without any hint of other agendas.
I don't see anyone saying that they expect change to come from their online posting, nor anyone complaining about the fact that people are giving opposing views.
I'll try again and hope the Security Services won't delete this one.
How do you think Nick Witchell feels - he has gone from a a journalist to a hagiographer. No longer reporting the news, but without any sense of impartiality reporting the movements of a couple of non-entities.
It is strange that the BBC will be so "impartial" that they will broadcast Creationism but not impartial when it comes to the Royal Overlords.
My point is that the Republicans need to be more grown up and professional about the way they go about things.
Whatever you think about UKIP they could teach the Republicans a lot about getting the public support.
This is a good few years ago now but I remember the reaction on the Throne Out website (one of the main republican campaigns) to the death of the Queen Mother was, in a large banner headline. 'WHO GIVES A SH*T?' This is petulant, and dismissive of a large section of the population who clearly did 'care'.
Even looking at the Republic website which is a lot more professional, they don't do a very convincing job busting the so-called monarchist 'myths'.
This is a good few years ago now but I remember the reaction on the Throne Out website (one of the main republican campaigns) to the death of the Queen Mother was, in a large banner headline. 'WHO GIVES A SH*T?' This is petulant, and dismissive of a large section of the population who clearly did 'care'.
Even looking at the Republic website which is a lot more professional, they don't do a very convincing job busting the so-called monarchist 'myths'.
What they want is a democratically elected head of state to put it simply and that in itself is good enough for me.
Again with this, 'If you don't like something, don't mention it' rubbish. No thanks, I'll dislike it and maintain my right to rebut those who tell me to shut up. But if you don't like my opinions, by all means don't reply to me.
I love how we've had months of demonising by the Mail anyone,families even, stood withing ten foot of a cliff face, they then plaster pics all over the place of a royal peering over a rock face edge and lavish them with praise.
I've just witnessed yet another fawning, cutesy, disingenuous report from Nicholas Witchell on BBC News, detailing Kate & William's antipodean propaganda campaign. Isn't the BBC supposed to be impartial in their coverage? It's the same on most other channels, of course, but even on those I can't fathom what the vested interest is in featuring these publicity junkets as headline news. William being probable future head of state, I can understand that there may be call for a minor article, but this is baffling. Can anyone enlighten me?
Well if anyones going to have influential connections and the ability to blackmail and ensure positive news coverage it is going to be the royal family isnt it
I think people should accept things and move on - yes its sycophantic but a lot of people (mainly women) seem to gush all over it.
In the end the worlds constitutional monarchies have actually been some of the worlds strongest and most stable democracies over the last 150 years. Sweden, Norway, Netherlands, Belgium - and the UK (plus Canada, Australia, NZ etc). The reintroduction of the monarchy in Spain - actually led to the country returning to democracy.
Maybe its not such a bad system - perhaps if Germany and Russia had kept their monarchies we might well have been saved from Hitler and Stalin!
I love how we've had months of demonising by the Mail anyone,families even, stood withing ten foot of a cliff face, they then plaster pics all over the place of a royal peering over a rock face edge and lavish them with praise.
I must say I don't follow the Daily Mail (why do you?) so you'll have to explain what on earth you are on about!
Comments
And isn't it also slightly absurd to suggest that in order to somehow legitimise one's right to voice an opinion on an online discussion forum, one must take up a full-time career in politics? Does this rule, by any chance, only come into play when the author's opinions diverge from your own?
cf. My earlier 'stifling the discussion' remark.
If the two main parties and the Lib Dems thought that abolishing the monarchy would be a popular move they would have it in their manifestos.
Fair enough, but it is still prominent members of our royal family getting the media attention. I am sure that is bound to be of benefit to the UK.
If UKIP get 20% of the vote and no seats then I think some questions should/will be asked and it could bring forth a sea-change.
I remember in the eighties when the Greens had good elections - especially in the locals. Both Labour and the Conservatives fell over themselves to adopt Green policies. UKIP's success has put the referendum back on the agenda. Given a choice both of the main parties would happily not have one.
The only way to keep the status quo is to do nothing.
What - and risk losing the power that is divested to parliament (and the PM) by the Crown? Not bloody likely! ;-) The royals and MPs are on the same gravy train.
They are not just *our* royal family. They are also the royal family of Australia, New Zealand and other Commonwealth Realms. They have as much right to see them as we do.
See my earlier post.
To be honest, there are more pressing problems in this country, politically, than the royal family. However, that doesn't make the hereditary principle in the monarchical system any more palatable (except, I assume, amongst those who like the idea of children being bred for specific jobs).
People like Honor Blackman, Philippa Gregory and Glenda Jackson are well known for being 'juvenile student revolutionaries'. ;-)
Of course you don't. But I do not know what you expect to achieve.
The problem is not a pro-Royal agenda but the news organisations covering what they think will get more viewers.
You do not like, or agree about, the Royal Family. You can even have a moan about it on here. But don't expect anything to change just because you sound off here.
And if you sound off on here then you also have to expect people with opposing views give opposing views.
One's an an actress, another was an author (RIP) and another is a leftie actress-cum-politician. I have no idea who the other one is. All entitled to their opinions but none of them are in any position to change public opinion.
I didn't say there were. I merely pointed out the flaws in the (what seems to me an almost stereotypical right-wing) claim that anyone who opposes the royals is a 'juvenile student leftie'. It's up there with the other yawn-inducing standard, 'anyone who is not as far to the right as me is a sixth-form leftie!'
I wasn't saying otherwise.
I did see it, albeit after I posted ;-)
I'm happy to be the one to say that it is nice to see something cheerful on news for a change
I think it's a very naive view to believe that the media simply delivers what they think viewers/readers want without any hint of other agendas.
I don't see anyone saying that they expect change to come from their online posting, nor anyone complaining about the fact that people are giving opposing views.
I'll try again and hope the Security Services won't delete this one.
How do you think Nick Witchell feels - he has gone from a a journalist to a hagiographer. No longer reporting the news, but without any sense of impartiality reporting the movements of a couple of non-entities.
It is strange that the BBC will be so "impartial" that they will broadcast Creationism but not impartial when it comes to the Royal Overlords.
This is a good few years ago now but I remember the reaction on the Throne Out website (one of the main republican campaigns) to the death of the Queen Mother was, in a large banner headline. 'WHO GIVES A SH*T?' This is petulant, and dismissive of a large section of the population who clearly did 'care'.
Even looking at the Republic website which is a lot more professional, they don't do a very convincing job busting the so-called monarchist 'myths'.
What they want is a democratically elected head of state to put it simply and that in itself is good enough for me.
Yep, I completely agree with this.
If the majority of people in a democracy want a monarchy, isn't that in itself democratic?
Do they? I don't recall having a vote on it.
Nor even a proper debate.
Well if anyones going to have influential connections and the ability to blackmail and ensure positive news coverage it is going to be the royal family isnt it
In the end the worlds constitutional monarchies have actually been some of the worlds strongest and most stable democracies over the last 150 years. Sweden, Norway, Netherlands, Belgium - and the UK (plus Canada, Australia, NZ etc). The reintroduction of the monarchy in Spain - actually led to the country returning to democracy.
Maybe its not such a bad system - perhaps if Germany and Russia had kept their monarchies we might well have been saved from Hitler and Stalin!
I must say I don't follow the Daily Mail (why do you?) so you'll have to explain what on earth you are on about!