"Scouse not English"

[cornish sam 960]

25 minutes ago, duke63 said:

Its a strange world. The powers that be wanting to keep people as 'their subjects' rather than people in their own right.

Just to add i would not boo a minute's silence for the Queen and don't condone it but....

 

Better to be subjects than the exploitable resource that the Tories consider most people to be

[Nuff Said 5,159]

44 minutes ago, cornish sam said:

Better to be subjects than the exploitable resource that the Tories consider most people to be

Better to be neither surely?

[cornish sam 960]

3 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

Better to be neither surely?

Ok, I asked this question in the thread that got deleted and I'll ask it again now as I didn't see any answers before it went.

What would actually be the benefit of getting rid of the royal family now? They have no meaningful power and whilst they were given c.£100m last year by the govt (I e. Tax payer) a large chunk of that was for repairing buildings which are national assets. In real terms that's less then £1.50pp for a year and would make very little tangible difference to the nation's finances as a whole (more than that was wasted on expired PPE for example) were it not given out, whilst the history etc. Brings in extra taxes and revenues from people buying royal merch etc... 

I'm not a royalist and I'm not a republican, I just see no real benefit in getting rid of them at this point and occasionally we get an extra days holiday because of them.

[Worthy Nigelton 1,061]

10 hours ago, WD40 said:

Scouse not British…hmm…how do they like that British money that funds their benefits and NHS services for all they contribute. The government has just had to bail out the Liverpool city council for fiscal mismanagement. 

Unfortunately, Thatcher's official policy of 'managed decline' has left them in a difficult situation economically for forty plus years. The scousers aren't perfect but this claptrap gets right on my nerves when they've been shat on for decades by the south east elite. Its difficult making a success of a city when national forces much more powerful than you are trying to ruin you. No wonder they're not massively keen on Her Majesty and British institutions. I don't blame them one bit.

[duke63 545]

14 minutes ago, cornish sam said:

Ok, I asked this question in the thread that got deleted and I'll ask it again now as I didn't see any answers before it went.

What would actually be the benefit of getting rid of the royal family now? They have no meaningful power and whilst they were given c.£100m last year by the govt (I e. Tax payer) a large chunk of that was for repairing buildings which are national assets. In real terms that's less then £1.50pp for a year and would make very little tangible difference to the nation's finances as a whole (more than that was wasted on expired PPE for example) were it not given out, whilst the history etc. Brings in extra taxes and revenues from people buying royal merch etc... 

I'm not a royalist and I'm not a republican, I just see no real benefit in getting rid of them at this point and occasionally we get an extra days holiday because of them.

Because it would be the beginning of the end for inherited privilege and power. It’s what holds Britain back and will ultimately lead to its break up. 

[Worthy Nigelton 1,061]

6 minutes ago, duke63 said:

Because it would be the beginning of the end for inherited privilege and power. It’s what holds Britain back and will ultimately lead to its break up. 

I genuinely believe there is greater appetite for this than we are led to believe. Its one of those things people dare not say for fear of being shot down/ostracised. Much like any criticism of capitalism - its a difficult thing to say publicly.

[WD40 720]

42 minutes ago, Worthy Nigelton said:

Unfortunately, Thatcher's official policy of 'managed decline' has left them in a difficult situation economically for forty plus years. The scousers aren't perfect but this claptrap gets right on my nerves when they've been shat on for decades by the south east elite. Its difficult making a success of a city when national forces much more powerful than you are trying to ruin you. No wonder they're not massively keen on Her Majesty and British institutions. I don't blame them one bit.

40 years. Do you see this carry on from Manchester? From Newcastle? This goes to the heart of it and their tendency to blame everyone but themselves for their failures. Victim complex has taken root. 

[duke63 545]

Liverpool has always been a very cosmopolitan and left wing City presumably due to its history as a major Irish/Atlantic port. 
There has always been much infighting between Tory governments and the establishment and the leaders of Liverpool’s community as a result. 

[cornish sam 960]

1 hour ago, duke63 said:

Because it would be the beginning of the end for inherited privilege and power. It’s what holds Britain back and will ultimately lead to its break up. 

No it wouldn't, the only thing that would change is the type of people who would be inheriting the privilege and power and it would be more going to rich capitalists. Anyone who thinks that "the nobility" are the problem is being a bit pie-eyed in my opinion, far more damage is done by the capitalist power and privilege than the historical ones as they are more focussed on increasing their power and wealth whilst having no qualms about trampling on people to get there.

[hogesar 9,720]

Liverpool will forever have a chip on their collective shoulders and anything that goes wrong will never be their responsibility. 

Saying that, by all accounts it seems the silence was generally respected.

[shefcanary 2,444]

1 hour ago, cornish sam said:

Ok, I asked this question in the thread that got deleted and I'll ask it again now as I didn't see any answers before it went.

What would actually be the benefit of getting rid of the royal family now? They have no meaningful power and whilst they were given c.£100m last year by the govt (I e. Tax payer) a large chunk of that was for repairing buildings which are national assets. In real terms that's less then £1.50pp for a year and would make very little tangible difference to the nation's finances as a whole (more than that was wasted on expired PPE for example) were it not given out, whilst the history etc. Brings in extra taxes and revenues from people buying royal merch etc... 

I'm not a royalist and I'm not a republican, I just see no real benefit in getting rid of them at this point and occasionally we get an extra days holiday because of them.

My view of this question is based on my analysis of the economic position of the UK and how individuals react to what is going on at the moment. There are strong counter arguments to this which I accept are equally valid (like support of the royals gives people a focus to do their bit for the country), but the following is one way of assessing things in pure economic terms based on past history.

One benefit would be we would not have to have this 10 days of mourning at a moment that is absolutely critical to this country. Instead of focussing on the economic recovery from Covid pandemic and the constraints for our support of Ukraine in its defence of its nationhood, the country feels like it is coming to a standstill. This may not be important if the country knuckles down and works overtime for the next couple of months, but after what we have all been through I'm not convinced we can.

A boost is required, short of a massive financial giveaway from Truss and her cronies (or England winning the plastic World Cup in Qatar) I'm not sure where that is coming from. And then we have a coronation to look forward to, which will take another week out of the recovery!

To underline this, it took the UK almost 15 years economically to recover from WW2, with recovery slowed down because of the death of the previous monarch and subsequent coronation of the monarch the country is now mourning. Elsewhere there were faster recoveries, as other countries had relatively few major national events to divert their people's attention at the job in hand.

Is the economic boost given by the Royal Family (tourism etc.) enough to counter the economic downtime caused by people's focus on their familial events, be it funerals, weddings, coronations or births? 🤷‍♂️ I'd welcome reasoned responses, as I am deeply troubled by our current economic response at present and would seek reassurance.

[yellowrider120 776]

58 minutes ago, WD40 said:

40 years. Do you see this carry on from Manchester? From Newcastle? This goes to the heart of it and their tendency to blame everyone but themselves for their failures. Victim complex has taken root. 

This 'managed decline' is a fairy story perpetuated by those on the left who constantly strive to find anything to berate Tory governments with. I've only voted Tory twice I think in my life and normally agree with Peter Hitchen's description of them as the 'useless Tories'. I'm no fan of Michael Heseltine either but in this article he puts the record straight.

 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-16355281

Whilst 'managed decline' was certainly proposed (by Geoffrey Howe), it was never put into practice.   

[The Real Buh 3,474]

4 hours ago, dylanisabaddog said:

I'm afraid that the people responsible for that child's death are the thousands across the country who think it's perfectly OK and harmless to take cocaine at the weekend. That's not just football supporters by the way. 

Scouse gangs supply a huge amount of class A across the country but remember it definitely is not their fault

never is

[The Real Buh 3,474]

14 hours ago, YellowSubmarine said:

For someone who has 1’999 likes you’d think you be fairly informed/educated but with comments like that, obviously not. A whole city of people aren’t hiding a murderer you moron.

If you can’t, inform, engage or inspire anyone with posts, then keep your stupidity to yourself

The Beatles are s41t as well btw

Edited September 14, 2022 by The Real Buh

[Worthy Nigelton 1,061]

2 hours ago, WD40 said:

40 years. Do you see this carry on from Manchester? From Newcastle? This goes to the heart of it and their tendency to blame everyone but themselves for their failures. Victim complex has taken root. 

Manchester and Newcastle didn't have it half as bad as Liverpool did under that witch... they paid the price for being a Labour voting city to the absolute max she could get away with.

[Naturalcynic 649]

3 hours ago, Worthy Nigelton said:

Unfortunately, Thatcher's official policy of 'managed decline' has left them in a difficult situation economically for forty plus years. The scousers aren't perfect but this claptrap gets right on my nerves when they've been shat on for decades by the south east elite. Its difficult making a success of a city when national forces much more powerful than you are trying to ruin you. No wonder they're not massively keen on Her Majesty and British institutions. I don't blame them one bit.

A complete myth.  Following the Toxteth riots it’s alleged that a couple of cabinet ministers recommended that more public money was not squandered on the “stony ground” of Merseyside, but Thatcher rejected that advice and instead she sent Heseltine to Liverpool with a view to implementing a programme of urban regeneration.  Needless to say, the left seized on the story  and distorted it dreadfully for political purposes, and lo and behold people like you believe it.

[cornish sam 960]

1 hour ago, shefcanary said:

My view of this question is based on my analysis of the economic position of the UK and how individuals react to what is going on at the moment. There are strong counter arguments to this which I accept are equally valid (like support of the royals gives people a focus to do their bit for the country), but the following is one way of assessing things in pure economic terms based on past history.

One benefit would be we would not have to have this 10 days of mourning at a moment that is absolutely critical to this country. Instead of focussing on the economic recovery from Covid pandemic and the constraints for our support of Ukraine in its defence of its nationhood, the country feels like it is coming to a standstill. This may not be important if the country knuckles down and works overtime for the next couple of months, but after what we have all been through I'm not convinced we can.

A boost is required, short of a massive financial giveaway from Truss and her cronies (or England winning the plastic World Cup in Qatar) I'm not sure where that is coming from. And then we have a coronation to look forward to, which will take another week out of the recovery!

To underline this, it took the UK almost 15 years economically to recover from WW2, with recovery slowed down because of the death of the previous monarch and subsequent coronation of the monarch the country is now mourning. Elsewhere there were faster recoveries, as other countries had relatively few major national events to divert their people's attention at the job in hand.

Is the economic boost given by the Royal Family (tourism etc.) enough to counter the economic downtime caused by people's focus on their familial events, be it funerals, weddings, coronations or births? 🤷‍♂️ I'd welcome reasoned responses, as I am deeply troubled by our current economic response at present and would seek reassurance.

So essentially your objection is that she has died at an inopportune time? Getting rid of it now would not provide a short term boost as many people would disagree with it and I can imagine that the coronation (when it finally happens, it took over a year for Liz to be crowned) might cause a couple more days of work to be missed, but would almost certainly lead to celebrations and an uplift in the mood of a fair portion of the populace...

On the subject of a massive giveaway, truss has tried to do that with the energy bill cap (yes I know it's actually a loan that will be paid back by all of us over the next 20 odd years) to little effect on the general mood of the country, let's see how much more **** they can pile on us trying to buy votes from the poor and vulnerable...

[PockthorpePete 331]

16 minutes ago, The Real Buh said:

The Beatles are s41t as well btw

Are? Do they still exist? The English language does seem rather a mystery to you. Could that be connected to your oddball posts?

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,442]

On the Chris evans show this morning , Vasos Alexander (generally a good bloke) said that the minutes silence was “impeccably” observed at Anfield . 
 

It clearly was not . The ref appears to cut it short and there are audible shouts and boos from the fans . 
 

Why say this on “mainstream” radio? 

[cambridgeshire canary 6,777]

2 hours ago, WD40 said:

40 years. Do you see this carry on from Manchester? From Newcastle? This goes to the heart of it and their tendency to blame everyone but themselves for their failures. Victim complex has taken root. 

They'll wine about how Thatcher ruined Liverpool, a city built by slavery.

 

Dont point that out to them though for some reason they don't like hearing basic facts

[The Real Buh 3,474]

27 minutes ago, PockthorpePete said:

Are? Do they still exist? The English language does seem rather a mystery to you. Could that be connected to your oddball posts?

Has all their music stopped existing?

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

Last night, the 99.9% of fans who observed the silence proved that it isn't everyone. Of course its easy to say Scousers as a general term. I have a Scouse mate who is kind, generous and not stuck in the stereotyped permed hair and shell suit.

People have protested in their own way at the processions for the Queen. I must say I think arrest is a pathetic way to handle it. A sign saying "Not my King" is a proper and well mannered protest that certainly doesn't deserve being moved on or arrested.

[WD40 720]

41 minutes ago, Worthy Nigelton said:

Manchester and Newcastle didn't have it half as bad as Liverpool did under that witch... they paid the price for being a Labour voting city to the absolute max she could get away with.

Pray tell how Liverpool had it twice as bad. All northern cities based on heavy industry had it equally bad when trying to modernise the economy. Let’s not forget Sheffield as well. It was a painful shift. 

[Naturalcynic 649]

6 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

Last night, the 99.9% of fans who observed the silence proved that it isn't everyone. Of course its easy to say Scousers as a general term. I have a Scouse mate who is kind, generous and not stuck in the stereotyped permed hair and shell suit.

People have protested in their own way at the processions for the Queen. I must say I think arrest is a pathetic way to handle it. A sign saying "Not my King" is a proper and well mannered protest that certainly doesn't deserve being moved on or arrested.

Some were clearly arrested, prior to later being de-arrested, for their own safety in order to remove them from the area and to protect them from the potential consequences of their own deliberate act of disrespectful self-indulgence in a large crowd of people who would disagree fundamentally both with their “protest” and the thoughtless timing of it.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

21 minutes ago, Naturalcynic said:

Some were clearly arrested, prior to later being de-arrested, for their own safety in order to remove them from the area and to protect them from the potential consequences of their own deliberate act of disrespectful self-indulgence in a large crowd of people who would disagree fundamentally both with their “protest” and the thoughtless timing of it.

So those who disagreed with them would have been disrespectul by causing an incident. 

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

3 hours ago, shefcanary said:

My view of this question is based on my analysis of the economic position of the UK and how individuals react to what is going on at the moment. There are strong counter arguments to this which I accept are equally valid (like support of the royals gives people a focus to do their bit for the country), but the following is one way of assessing things in pure economic terms based on past history.

One benefit would be we would not have to have this 10 days of mourning at a moment that is absolutely critical to this country. Instead of focussing on the economic recovery from Covid pandemic and the constraints for our support of Ukraine in its defence of its nationhood, the country feels like it is coming to a standstill. This may not be important if the country knuckles down and works overtime for the next couple of months, but after what we have all been through I'm not convinced we can.

A boost is required, short of a massive financial giveaway from Truss and her cronies (or England winning the plastic World Cup in Qatar) I'm not sure where that is coming from. And then we have a coronation to look forward to, which will take another week out of the recovery!

To underline this, it took the UK almost 15 years economically to recover from WW2, with recovery slowed down because of the death of the previous monarch and subsequent coronation of the monarch the country is now mourning. Elsewhere there were faster recoveries, as other countries had relatively few major national events to divert their people's attention at the job in hand.

Is the economic boost given by the Royal Family (tourism etc.) enough to counter the economic downtime caused by people's focus on their familial events, be it funerals, weddings, coronations or births? 🤷‍♂️ I'd welcome reasoned responses, as I am deeply troubled by our current economic response at present and would seek reassurance.

Very curious to blame our slow economic recovery from the second world war on the death of King George VI. Perhaps it was more due to the incoming Labour government's priority to building a welfare state instead of promoting industry, the costs of dismantling the Empire and creating a Commonwealth of democratic nations, plus the debts racked up in fighting a world war that had to be repaid. 

[shefcanary 2,444]

5 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

Very curious to blame our slow economic recovery from the second world war on the death of King George VI. Perhaps it was more due to the incoming Labour government's priority to building a welfare state instead of promoting industry, the costs of dismantling the Empire and creating a Commonwealth of democratic nations, plus the debts racked up in fighting a world war that had to be repaid. 

I welcome your curiosity, I was trying to stimulate debate. The past week has and the country's reaction to it, both establishment and the general population, has made me think our collective "obsession" with it has drawbacks as well as positives.  

First, it was not King George's death as such, but the rituals and pomp associated with a nation where Royalty seems to intrude so much on every day life. My other observation remains other countries (some without Royalty) rebounded economically far quicker from comparatively worse infrastructure positions and debt positions than us and was curious why this was. I would suggest that Keynesian economics would imply the focus on the welfare state should have kick started recovery as an investment in capital resulted (albeit with a risk of inflation, but strangely that didn't kick in really until much later); further without such a thing as royalty there would have been no dismantling of Empire and a need to build a Commonwealth. 

All hypothetical, but in economic terms I sense Royalty and the pomp and circumstance associated with it has held the UK back economically, but in social terms has the country gain more?  I am uncomfortable about reaching a conclusion one way or another.  

[Nuff Said 5,159]

5 hours ago, Worthy Nigelton said:

I genuinely believe there is greater appetite for this than we are led to believe. Its one of those things people dare not say for fear of being shot down/ostracised. Much like any criticism of capitalism - its a difficult thing to say publicly.

I have been genuinely surprised by the amount of support for reform of the monarchy I’ve heard recently. I thought the vast majority were royalists but I think I may have underestimated the number of those who are ready for change. 
 

In answer to Cornish Sam’s question, we don’t have to behead them all, just move the relationship between monarchy and state to a ceremonial, more loose one and remove the status of the king/queen as head of state.  And the argument about revenue is very dubious. If they and the buildings still exist, the tourists will still come, the royal family will just be a bit less wealthy and not in ultimate control of all our lives.

[WD40 720]

6 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

I have been genuinely surprised by the amount of support for reform of the monarchy I’ve heard recently. I thought the vast majority were royalists but I think I may have underestimated the number of those who are ready for change. 
 

In answer to Cornish Sam’s question, we don’t have to behead them all, just move the relationship between monarchy and state to a ceremonial, more loose one and remove the status of the king/queen as head of state.  And the argument about revenue is very dubious. If they and the buildings still exist, the tourists will still come, the royal family will just be a bit less wealthy and not in ultimate control of all our lives.

And King Charles is chief among those wanting to reform the monarchy. Hes already signalled his intention slim down the number of working royals, and therefore reduce the size of the sovereign grant. In what way do you believe the monarchy is un ultimate control of our lives on a day to day basis? Their a key part of the political set up, but in practice it’s symbolic and ceremonial head of state. To replace an apolitical head of state with a political one, and a referendum after referendum on the go forward system of government doesn’t sound like a worthwhile return of effort. Reform the monarchy, reform the lords. Evolution not revolution. 

[cornish sam 960]

11 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

I have been genuinely surprised by the amount of support for reform of the monarchy I’ve heard recently. I thought the vast majority were royalists but I think I may have underestimated the number of those who are ready for change. 
 

In answer to Cornish Sam’s question, we don’t have to behead them all, just move the relationship between monarchy and state to a ceremonial, more loose one and remove the status of the king/queen as head of state.  And the argument about revenue is very dubious. If they and the buildings still exist, the tourists will still come, the royal family will just be a bit less wealthy and not in ultimate control of all our lives.

Have they not been reduced to a ceremonial role already? Whilst we pretend that they are ultimately in charge they never actually try to use their supposed power and if the monarch did (for example) try to reject a piece of legislation then that would lead ot a constitutional crisis that would almost certainly end up favouring the govt and removal of the nominative position that the monarch has as head of state.