h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Am I the only one who, whenever I see those triangular Union Jack flags, wants to cut one out and re-enact the opening credits of 'Dad's Army'?

<BB<

Oh, I just found them amusing - must be my age.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/05/25/article-2149973-1349EA71000005DC-320_470x663.jpg

Caption competition, anyone?

I can empathise with people in Britain who dislike the government but love the head of state. Ireland has a government that nobody likes too much, much like Britain does - but the presidents are usually nice and dignified.

(And have to be elected).

Caption?

"She nose, you know"

"Gulliver? Is that you, darling? Oo, that tickles!"


~jwf~

Thing is, in Britain the public wouldn't get the Head of State they want anyway. They would get two representatives of the current political elite put forward and supported by the two main parties, the whole thing would get deeply political and divisive and we'd wind up with the one that's slightly less disliked than the other together with a whole new level of political hangers on.

Don't we have enough bloody politicians? Not so long ago, I had 3 politicians representing me: a local councillor, an MP and an MEP. Now I have 3 councillors, 8 MSPs, 1 MP and 6 MEPs. 18 political representatives!! Plans are afoot to make the House of Lords directly elected so maybe we'll get that figure even higher!

Let's keep the Head of State out of the clutches of our petty party politicians, please. With a constitutional monarch, at least we know where we stand and we have a degree of stability and continuity.

Elections are overrated.

Some people who got elected.


Tony Blair, Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, David Cameron/Nick Clegg.

and at the risk of invoking Godwin...

well, y'know

Heck, some people seem to be voting for Sarah Palin

>> With a constitutional monarch, at least we know where we stand
and we have a degree of stability and continuity. <<

The British system is the envy of the whirled.
Don't let anyone muck it about.

~jwf~

PS:
Last night I watched Helen Mirren as 'The Queen'.
The relationship of the Monarchy to the political
whirled and pop cultural 'needs' of the mob were
very clearly defined in a very sensible way that
left me feeling quite defensive about the Royals.
This, in spite of the recent visit to Canada by Charlie
and his 'new' wife which went over here like a lead
zeppelin to most of us. Even the anti-monarchists
didn't bother to come a-bleating since that situation
is so un-regal from the get-go.

Must be terrible to live under such circumstances. Like it or not, the head of state IS a politician.

>> Like it or not, the head of state IS a politician. <<

Yes, and a very good one with six decades of experience
dealing with 12 Prime Ministers since she swore to serve
the people in 1952. The depiction of her relationship to
the-then-newly-elected and fresh-faced Tony Blair at the
time of Diana's demise was insightful, and admirably human
and states-man-like. My admiration for her soared.
And Helen Mirren is no slouch either.

~jwf~

It is?

I don't care much for being regarded as 'a subject' along with the all the nonsense that accompanies it.

I couldn't serve in the police force, armed services or as a magistrate or a judge. I could not pledge allegiance to the crown so am excluded. In fact, I don't think that if elected, I could take my seat in The House of Commons for the same reason. Not without lying about my loyalty which wouldn't be a very good place to start would it.

You can have them.

PP

I agree about Helen Mirren though.

And THAT'S no way to think about your queen now is it?

PP.

Of course she's a very good one, jwf. That's why it would be nice if we could elect her for doing such a good job of politicking.

>> Mr Fulton, You are being ironic, aren´t you? <<

Usually. In fact almost always. And thank you for
trying to decipher my true meaning in a language
I often contort well beyond the range of most ESL
speakers in my efforts to re-program the thinking
of the average English speaking idjit.


But no, in this case I am (while still amused) quite sincere
in my belief in the value of the British system of Parliament
under a constitutional monarchy.

In fairness to you I have to say it requires a familiarity
with the longer history of what has become the UK, a
knowledge of the ups and downs and wars and mobs
and the pigs and prigs and fobs who have marched up
and down Great Britain's roads over the centuries to fully
understand and/or appreciate. It is, as Churchill said,
not perfect but it beats all the alternatives. Maybe it's
because it's an island, a melting pot, most of tribes have
come to accept a basic commonality that is never resolved
in other 'nations'. Something about all being in the same boat.


~jwf~

>I could not pledge allegiance to the crown so am excluded.<

And just wait until we have a king not a queen... I predict apathy and less enthusiasm for monarchy, prior points about the elected class bitterly and despondently acknowledged.

>>..it would be nice if we could elect her for doing such a good.. <<

No. No. No.
Elections are just popularity contests.

Kings do not need to be popular. That is the true
advantage they have over politicians.

With hereditary tribal kings we get what we get
and we make such adjustments over time as we can
to make sure they do not behave like the warlords,
despots, dictators or power-mongers that would by
nature arise if we let them.

~jwf~

"make such adjustments as we can" - yep. By voting.

Popularity contests are actually a fairly good basis for a system of government.

Good thing you put a winky smiley on that one.

Can you imagine what the whirled would be today if
the Beatles had really proven to be more popular
than Jesus and we'd been foolish enough to let
John and Ringo have access to the big red phone.

We'd all be wearing jackets with no collars, hair down
to our arse and being forced to make pilgrimages
to India.

Ah yes, 1965...
It was a very good year.

Carry on.

~jwf~

"I feel like we're being given something (a bank holiday yay cake yay) to distract us from the true exercise of power." (Storm)

Well, I had rather assumed we are being given something to distract us from the lamentable state of the economy, tbh. I'm not against that either. It'll be nice to have a holiday from depressing news while we surf the flagwaving.

Actually that point about quite how much power the PM has as a result of being the Queen's representative is the one that always got me in my republican days. A distinct lack of checks and balances, as the Americans would say. Thing is, it sounds bad, of course it does, but is it? I mean, obviously we all have our opinions about the best way to run the country, the best way to deal with the economic crisis or whatever but I've noticed that in life while I think we should be doing X, sometimes Y turns out to work just as well. It's not how I would have done it, but hey. So I wonder if our disgust at having a government who can, fairly unfetteredly, put their plans into action is a sort of control freakishness.

I'm thinking of things like Obama's inability to get his reform of the healthcare service properly introduced. Too many checks and balances perhaps? Those against will never now have the opportunity to find out, 20 years down the line that it wasn't all that bad and those for didn't get much out of it either. Compromise sounds good but constantly?

And perhaps it's just because I care less about who is in power these days as long as they get on with it and do something, but it seems to me that perhaps because they know they will be able to go at it when they get into power that in fact the various parties in the UK are less entrenched, less polarised than in the US (for example).

I dunno. I doubt it's a provable theory, or one which you could prove comes from having a Queen, but I find I am less concerned with ideology than I was as a teenager. All the democracies have their flaws in their executions/ set ups and none work perfectly. Not sure that getting rid of the Queen would actually change the way political power is exercised in this country anyway tbh. Too much history of not having to do powersharing - it'd probably remain the same system just with Boris Johnson as Head of State because he's amusing, or something.

Anyway. Ramble ramble ramble.