comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 1 minute ago
Nothing wrong with the UK, or its people.
———
I beg to differ.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I meant existentially
Of course there’s plenty wrong with the state of the country.
comment by Ignacio Varga (U11781)
posted 1 hour, 11 minutes ago
comment by Beeb (U1841)
posted 3 minutes ago
Anybody left that would fight and die for King Charles?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
MU52
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, there are plenty. Folk that don't mucg give a damn either way and just want a job. Doubt there are many, if any, that sign up because they love their monarch?
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Ignacio Varga (U11781)
posted 1 hour, 11 minutes ago
comment by Beeb (U1841)
posted 3 minutes ago
Anybody left that would fight and die for King Charles?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
MU52
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, there are plenty. Folk that don't mucg give a damn either way and just want a job. Doubt there are many, if any, that sign up because they love their monarch?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Will they sign up for their love for truss?
comment by Boy From The South (U3979)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 19 minutes ago
comment by Boy From The South (U3979)
posted 16 seconds ago
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 56 seconds ago
comment by RB&W - Whiteside has done it again (U21434)
posted 2 minutes ago
The only way the UK Monarchy can be abolished - apart from the unlikely event of a People's Revolution, would be through an Act Of Parliament that has been read and voted through both Houses Of Parliament in the appropriate manner.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
52 seems to think it would be a simple act of ‘democracy’ to enact abolition. It’s far from that.
The first past the post system and the house of lords makes it very difficult to achieve, even if a majority of the actual population were to be in favour of it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Which they aren't, sort of making this moot.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Surely the more interesting question is *why* are a majority of the populace seemingly delighted to have an unelected, wealthy & privileged upper class reigning over them (albeit in a fairly docile, non-interventionist way)?
Support for the very concept of a monarchy is one that has been promulgated, propagated & curated over a long, long period of time through subservient, fawning media & so on. It's very difficult to undo that level of damage inflicted upon a population (on any issue). It'll happen eventually; the 29% of the population who want abolition + the % of those who are polled as 'don't know' whether they're in favour or not will increase over time.
So I don't think there's any moot points to be had. I always think we have to examine why population X thinks/believes in issue/position Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Or maybe it's possible that many millions of people see a benefit that the monarchy bring which you don't happen to agree with?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe, but I don't think the preponderance of evidence points that way. We have plenty of excellent studies on the insidious role and distorting nature of our print & broadcast corporate media on issue after after, and we have studies on the public's attitudes and understandings of issues and an interesting measure of outcomes.
When we put the two together we see a powerful, status quo serving media and a marginalised, poorly informed public on pretty much every issue.
Do we really expect that the public happen to be uniquely informed about the monarchy in a way in which they consistently show that they aren't on every other issue?
And given that we know that 30% of the population are in favour of abolition, it's fairly easy to observe that media coverage of the Royals in both print & broadcast reflects nothing close to that prevalence of attitudes. I'd be surprised if even 1% of Royal coverage reflected anti-monarchy positions. To give a concrete comparison, only 9% of BBC new coverage in the lead up the US/UK attack on Iraq featured anti-war positions, and public attitudes to the war in March 2003 were close to 50/50 for/against. That's a remarkable figure given the bombardment of pro-war coverage and voices levelled at the public everyday. Do we imagine that more serious journalism that offered a great deal more dissent would have yielded similar public opinion in March 2003? Obviously not.
The same is surely true here. Public attitudes are carefully curated through PR. Were our media actually servants of the public rather than an arm of power, we'd all be subjected to more dissenting views on the monarchy, and public opinion would likely be closer to majority-abolition as a result.
Or you can choose to believe that public support for the monarchy is magically manifest from some deep, reflective, critically thought out and well-informed public consciousness on the merits of the monarchy, in some wild deviation of the norm on literally every other issue... Does that seem remotely likely?
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 21 seconds ago
comment by Boy From The South (U3979)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 19 minutes ago
comment by Boy From The South (U3979)
posted 16 seconds ago
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 56 seconds ago
comment by RB&W - Whiteside has done it again (U21434)
posted 2 minutes ago
The only way the UK Monarchy can be abolished - apart from the unlikely event of a People's Revolution, would be through an Act Of Parliament that has been read and voted through both Houses Of Parliament in the appropriate manner.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
52 seems to think it would be a simple act of ‘democracy’ to enact abolition. It’s far from that.
The first past the post system and the house of lords makes it very difficult to achieve, even if a majority of the actual population were to be in favour of it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Which they aren't, sort of making this moot.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Surely the more interesting question is *why* are a majority of the populace seemingly delighted to have an unelected, wealthy & privileged upper class reigning over them (albeit in a fairly docile, non-interventionist way)?
Support for the very concept of a monarchy is one that has been promulgated, propagated & curated over a long, long period of time through subservient, fawning media & so on. It's very difficult to undo that level of damage inflicted upon a population (on any issue). It'll happen eventually; the 29% of the population who want abolition + the % of those who are polled as 'don't know' whether they're in favour or not will increase over time.
So I don't think there's any moot points to be had. I always think we have to examine why population X thinks/believes in issue/position Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Or maybe it's possible that many millions of people see a benefit that the monarchy bring which you don't happen to agree with?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe, but I don't think the preponderance of evidence points that way. We have plenty of excellent studies on the insidious role and distorting nature of our print & broadcast corporate media on issue after after, and we have studies on the public's attitudes and understandings of issues and an interesting measure of outcomes.
When we put the two together we see a powerful, status quo serving media and a marginalised, poorly informed public on pretty much every issue.
Do we really expect that the public happen to be uniquely informed about the monarchy in a way in which they consistently show that they aren't on every other issue?
And given that we know that 30% of the population are in favour of abolition, it's fairly easy to observe that media coverage of the Royals in both print & broadcast reflects nothing close to that prevalence of attitudes. I'd be surprised if even 1% of Royal coverage reflected anti-monarchy positions. To give a concrete comparison, only 9% of BBC new coverage in the lead up the US/UK attack on Iraq featured anti-war positions, and public attitudes to the war in March 2003 were close to 50/50 for/against. That's a remarkable figure given the bombardment of pro-war coverage and voices levelled at the public everyday. Do we imagine that more serious journalism that offered a great deal more dissent would have yielded similar public opinion in March 2003? Obviously not.
The same is surely true here. Public attitudes are carefully curated through PR. Were our media actually servants of the public rather than an arm of power, we'd all be subjected to more dissenting views on the monarchy, and public opinion would likely be closer to majority-abolition as a result.
Or you can choose to believe that public support for the monarchy is magically manifest from some deep, reflective, critically thought out and well-informed public consciousness on the merits of the monarchy, in some wild deviation of the norm on literally every other issue... Does that seem remotely likely?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But you've seen the light, clearly, and know better than anybody who disagrees?
comment by Boy From The South (U3979)
Maybe, but I don't think the preponderance of evidence points that way. We have plenty of excellent studies on the insidious role and distorting nature of our print & broadcast corporate media on issue after after, and we have studies on the public's attitudes and understandings of issues and an interesting measure of outcomes.
When we put the two together we see a powerful, status quo serving media and a marginalised, poorly informed public on pretty much every issue.
Do we really expect that the public happen to be uniquely informed about the monarchy in a way in which they consistently show that they aren't on every other issue?
And given that we know that 30% of the population are in favour of abolition, it's fairly easy to observe that media coverage of the Royals in both print & broadcast reflects nothing close to that prevalence of attitudes. I'd be surprised if even 1% of Royal coverage reflected anti-monarchy positions. To give a concrete comparison, only 9% of BBC new coverage in the lead up the US/UK attack on Iraq featured anti-war positions, and public attitudes to the war in March 2003 were close to 50/50 for/against. That's a remarkable figure given the bombardment of pro-war coverage and voices levelled at the public everyday. Do we imagine that more serious journalism that offered a great deal more dissent would have yielded similar public opinion in March 2003? Obviously not.
The same is surely true here. Public attitudes are carefully curated through PR. Were our media actually servants of the public rather than an arm of power, we'd all be subjected to more dissenting views on the monarchy, and public opinion would likely be closer to majority-abolition as a result.
Or you can choose to believe that public support for the monarchy is magically manifest from some deep, reflective, critically thought out and well-informed public consciousness on the merits of the monarchy, in some wild deviation of the norm on literally every other issue... Does that seem remotely likely?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But you've seen the light, clearly, and know better than anybody who disagrees?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the evidence shows the redundancy of the monarchy or any undemocratic institution in 2022, and seemingly a growing number of people feel similarly.
But my arguments are grounded in the evidence. It's not really about 'me'.
And let's get real... If my arguments for abolition are stronger than the opposite position, then yes, technically that would be "knowing better", unless you think all views are equally valid simply because they're held? I'm sure you don't think that, so I'm struggling to understand your tone.
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Boy From The South (U3979)
Maybe, but I don't think the preponderance of evidence points that way. We have plenty of excellent studies on the insidious role and distorting nature of our print & broadcast corporate media on issue after after, and we have studies on the public's attitudes and understandings of issues and an interesting measure of outcomes.
When we put the two together we see a powerful, status quo serving media and a marginalised, poorly informed public on pretty much every issue.
Do we really expect that the public happen to be uniquely informed about the monarchy in a way in which they consistently show that they aren't on every other issue?
And given that we know that 30% of the population are in favour of abolition, it's fairly easy to observe that media coverage of the Royals in both print & broadcast reflects nothing close to that prevalence of attitudes. I'd be surprised if even 1% of Royal coverage reflected anti-monarchy positions. To give a concrete comparison, only 9% of BBC new coverage in the lead up the US/UK attack on Iraq featured anti-war positions, and public attitudes to the war in March 2003 were close to 50/50 for/against. That's a remarkable figure given the bombardment of pro-war coverage and voices levelled at the public everyday. Do we imagine that more serious journalism that offered a great deal more dissent would have yielded similar public opinion in March 2003? Obviously not.
The same is surely true here. Public attitudes are carefully curated through PR. Were our media actually servants of the public rather than an arm of power, we'd all be subjected to more dissenting views on the monarchy, and public opinion would likely be closer to majority-abolition as a result.
Or you can choose to believe that public support for the monarchy is magically manifest from some deep, reflective, critically thought out and well-informed public consciousness on the merits of the monarchy, in some wild deviation of the norm on literally every other issue... Does that seem remotely likely?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But you've seen the light, clearly, and know better than anybody who disagrees?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the evidence shows the redundancy of the monarchy or any undemocratic institution in 2022, and seemingly a growing number of people feel similarly.
But my arguments are grounded in the evidence. It's not really about 'me'.
And let's get real... If my arguments for abolition are stronger than the opposite position, then yes, technically that would be "knowing better", unless you think all views are equally valid simply because they're held? I'm sure you don't think that, so I'm struggling to understand your tone.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So basically your arguments seem to be centered around the premise that the UK population is generally uneducated or misinformed about a number of subjects.
And because of this, you think they should be given the choice to elect our head of state?
Frankly all your points do are reinforce to me why I prefer an unelected, apolitical and unifying HOS.
Good posts, BK.
I’ve always been a bit conflicted on it myself. Usually because there’s bigger issues, but with the Queen’s death I’ve really become in favour of abolition now.
I’ve always acknowledged my conflict comes from a sense of romanticism, but obviously it’s not a rational way to run a country.
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 9 seconds ago
Good posts, BK.
I’ve always been a bit conflicted on it myself. Usually because there’s bigger issues, but with the Queen’s death I’ve really become in favour of abolition now.
I’ve always acknowledged my conflict comes from a sense of romanticism, but obviously it’s not a rational way to run a country.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They don't run the country.
comment by GregUnited (U1192)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Ignacio Varga (U11781)
posted 1 hour, 11 minutes ago
comment by Beeb (U1841)
posted 3 minutes ago
Anybody left that would fight and die for King Charles?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
MU52
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, there are plenty. Folk that don't mucg give a damn either way and just want a job. Doubt there are many, if any, that sign up because they love their monarch?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Will they sign up for their love for truss?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well that was like choosing a punch in the throat over a kick in the balls so doesn't count.
Are you being deliberately thick?
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 52 seconds ago
comment by GregUnited (U1192)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Ignacio Varga (U11781)
posted 1 hour, 11 minutes ago
comment by Beeb (U1841)
posted 3 minutes ago
Anybody left that would fight and die for King Charles?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
MU52
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, there are plenty. Folk that don't mucg give a damn either way and just want a job. Doubt there are many, if any, that sign up because they love their monarch?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Will they sign up for their love for truss?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well that was like choosing a punch in the throat over a kick in the balls so doesn't count.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Or a punch in the tiiit if you're female?
comment by Boy From The South (U3979)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So basically your arguments seem to be centered around the premise that the UK population is generally uneducated or misinformed about a number of subjects.
And because of this, you think they should be given the choice to elect our head of state?
Frankly all your points do are reinforce to me why I prefer an unelected, apolitical and unifying HOS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My point extends beyond whether or not we have a monarchy etc... I think it's fairly safe to say that any functioning democracy requires that its population has access to adequate information. We have a media system that does the opposite of inform and educate the population to adequate levels on almost every issue (certainly every major issue).
So I wouldn't expect the UK population to make a good or better decision on the status of the monarchy any more than I would expect good outcomes on other issues (PM's, Brexit or whatever else...).
More than anything my point is lament out corporate media and to try and better understand *why* people think and believe the things that they do.
An unelected, apolitical(ish) HOS, *might* be superior to an elected, political one... But that depends on the choices on offer and the public's access to information that helps make a truly informed choice about who or what that HOS should be.
comment by Boy From The South (U3979)
posted 5 minutes ago
So basically your arguments seem to be centered around the premise that the UK population is generally uneducated or misinformed about a number of subjects.
And because of this, you think they should be given the choice to elect our head of state?
Frankly all your points do are reinforce to me why I prefer an unelected, apolitical and unifying HOS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I would rather our population was more educated and given more balanced information that supported what ought to result in a better decision. I fail to see why anyone would not believe that to be an altogether more desirable outcome, no?
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 7 minutes ago
Good posts, BK.
I’ve always been a bit conflicted on it myself. Usually because there’s bigger issues, but with the Queen’s death I’ve really become in favour of abolition now.
I’ve always acknowledged my conflict comes from a sense of romanticism, but obviously it’s not a rational way to run a country.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Abolition isn't a hill I'm attempting to die on by any means - there's certainly bigger issues to tackle. As much as anything I loathe the blind devotion that large parts of the public have for the institution, and the servile media that keeps the charade going.
There's other things... The de facto arms sales rep role the monarchy plays, the royal prerogative, the wealth accumulation and so on. But these things are not exclusive to the Royals... I hate all of those things in all cases.
BK
That’s something that so many fail to see in the argument. It’s not simply about removing the monarchy in isolation, it’s that and so much more that people want to change in this country.
I think if the more pressing needs in the UK were to be addressed then the fall of the monarchy would become a direct consequence of that. Issue will be addressing those issues for the reasons your posts highlight.
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 7 minutes ago
Good posts, BK.
I’ve always been a bit conflicted on it myself. Usually because there’s bigger issues, but with the Queen’s death I’ve really become in favour of abolition now.
I’ve always acknowledged my conflict comes from a sense of romanticism, but obviously it’s not a rational way to run a country.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Abolition isn't a hill I'm attempting to die on by any means - there's certainly bigger issues to tackle. As much as anything I loathe the blind devotion that large parts of the public have for the institution, and the servile media that keeps the charade going.
There's other things... The de facto arms sales rep role the monarchy plays, the royal prerogative, the wealth accumulation and so on. But these things are not exclusive to the Royals... I hate all of those things in all cases.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I do totally agree with you on the arms deal thing, interestingly it's something Charles has spoken about his distate for but that's our elected government forcing him into that position. Make of that what you will.
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 4 minutes ago
I think if the more pressing needs in the UK were to be addressed then the fall of the monarchy would become a direct consequence of that. Issue will be addressing those issues for the reasons your posts highlight.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Absolutely. It's one of the reasons I always come back to the role our media play in shaping & distorting public attitudes. As you say, if the public held better views on other issues, the issue of the monarchy would inevitably (I think) take care of itself.
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 34 seconds ago
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 4 minutes ago
I think if the more pressing needs in the UK were to be addressed then the fall of the monarchy would become a direct consequence of that. Issue will be addressing those issues for the reasons your posts highlight.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Absolutely. It's one of the reasons I always come back to the role our media play in shaping & distorting public attitudes. As you say, if the public held better views on other issues, the issue of the monarchy would inevitably (I think) take care of itself.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Out of interest BerbaKing, do you think you could potentially hold better views? Or do you hold the correct view on all subjects and everybody else should conform to your way of thinking?
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 4 minutes ago
I think if the more pressing needs in the UK were to be addressed then the fall of the monarchy would become a direct consequence of that. Issue will be addressing those issues for the reasons your posts highlight.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Absolutely. It's one of the reasons I always come back to the role our media play in shaping & distorting public attitudes. As you say, if the public held better views on other issues, the issue of the monarchy would inevitably (I think) take care of itself.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep. Sadly it seems we are going even further towards the likes of America on that front, so it’s difficult to see it being rowed back when these institutions hold such power in swaying public opinion. Hopefully the next generation can break the mould.
comment by Boy From The South (U3979)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 34 seconds ago
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 4 minutes ago
I think if the more pressing needs in the UK were to be addressed then the fall of the monarchy would become a direct consequence of that. Issue will be addressing those issues for the reasons your posts highlight.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Absolutely. It's one of the reasons I always come back to the role our media play in shaping & distorting public attitudes. As you say, if the public held better views on other issues, the issue of the monarchy would inevitably (I think) take care of itself.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Out of interest BerbaKing, do you think you could potentially hold better views? Or do you hold the correct view on all subjects and everybody else should conform to your way of thinking?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't have sufficient knowledge of "all" subjects to even have a view, so yes, plainly I could hold better views on many (most!) subjects!
I think my positions on the subjects I've taken serious time to learn about are reasonably water tight, but I'm always happy to be shown differently and change my mind where they might be leaky.
You seem to have a bit of a bee in your bonnet about something but I'm not sure what or why. Everything I've said about media/public understanding comes from easily cited studies and analysis by multiple independent sources - I'm not giving my own opinion (because my opinion isn't worth much).
You seem to have a bit of a bee in your bonnet about something but I'm not sure what or why.
———
Because he’s a Tory monarchist that also bootlicks Repbulicans.
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 5 seconds ago
comment by Boy From The South (U3979)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 34 seconds ago
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 4 minutes ago
I think if the more pressing needs in the UK were to be addressed then the fall of the monarchy would become a direct consequence of that. Issue will be addressing those issues for the reasons your posts highlight.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Absolutely. It's one of the reasons I always come back to the role our media play in shaping & distorting public attitudes. As you say, if the public held better views on other issues, the issue of the monarchy would inevitably (I think) take care of itself.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Out of interest BerbaKing, do you think you could potentially hold better views? Or do you hold the correct view on all subjects and everybody else should conform to your way of thinking?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't have sufficient knowledge of "all" subjects to even have a view, so yes, plainly I could hold better views on many (most!) subjects!
I think my positions on the subjects I've taken serious time to learn about are reasonably water tight, but I'm always happy to be shown differently and change my mind where they might be leaky.
You seem to have a bit of a bee in your bonnet about something but I'm not sure what or why. Everything I've said about media/public understanding comes from easily cited studies and analysis by multiple independent sources - I'm not giving my own opinion (because my opinion isn't worth much).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No bee in a bonnet here, frankly I quite respect the eloquent and articulate nature of your postings even if we disagree.
What I have always had issue with in these sorts of debates is the notion that people could only possibly think differently to you because they've been swayed by the media and can't just simply have a different opinion based on their own reasonings.
It's this constant "I know better" attitude that I find quite sickening on a wide range of subjects.
I very much respect the viewpoint of abolitionists and I understand much of the reasoning behind why they believe it should be removed, I just don't agree.
What I have always had issue with in these sorts of debates is the notion that people could only possibly think differently to you because they've been swayed by the media and can't just simply have a different opinion based on their own reasonings.
-----
How are people supposed to discuss media influence over public opinion then? If they are accused of this when they bring it up? Media influence over public opinion is a fact of life.
Sign in if you want to comment
The constitution
Page 7 of 21
8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12
posted on 11/9/22
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 1 minute ago
Nothing wrong with the UK, or its people.
———
I beg to differ.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I meant existentially
Of course there’s plenty wrong with the state of the country.
posted on 11/9/22
comment by Ignacio Varga (U11781)
posted 1 hour, 11 minutes ago
comment by Beeb (U1841)
posted 3 minutes ago
Anybody left that would fight and die for King Charles?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
MU52
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, there are plenty. Folk that don't mucg give a damn either way and just want a job. Doubt there are many, if any, that sign up because they love their monarch?
posted on 11/9/22
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Ignacio Varga (U11781)
posted 1 hour, 11 minutes ago
comment by Beeb (U1841)
posted 3 minutes ago
Anybody left that would fight and die for King Charles?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
MU52
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, there are plenty. Folk that don't mucg give a damn either way and just want a job. Doubt there are many, if any, that sign up because they love their monarch?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Will they sign up for their love for truss?
posted on 11/9/22
comment by Boy From The South (U3979)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 19 minutes ago
comment by Boy From The South (U3979)
posted 16 seconds ago
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 56 seconds ago
comment by RB&W - Whiteside has done it again (U21434)
posted 2 minutes ago
The only way the UK Monarchy can be abolished - apart from the unlikely event of a People's Revolution, would be through an Act Of Parliament that has been read and voted through both Houses Of Parliament in the appropriate manner.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
52 seems to think it would be a simple act of ‘democracy’ to enact abolition. It’s far from that.
The first past the post system and the house of lords makes it very difficult to achieve, even if a majority of the actual population were to be in favour of it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Which they aren't, sort of making this moot.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Surely the more interesting question is *why* are a majority of the populace seemingly delighted to have an unelected, wealthy & privileged upper class reigning over them (albeit in a fairly docile, non-interventionist way)?
Support for the very concept of a monarchy is one that has been promulgated, propagated & curated over a long, long period of time through subservient, fawning media & so on. It's very difficult to undo that level of damage inflicted upon a population (on any issue). It'll happen eventually; the 29% of the population who want abolition + the % of those who are polled as 'don't know' whether they're in favour or not will increase over time.
So I don't think there's any moot points to be had. I always think we have to examine why population X thinks/believes in issue/position Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Or maybe it's possible that many millions of people see a benefit that the monarchy bring which you don't happen to agree with?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe, but I don't think the preponderance of evidence points that way. We have plenty of excellent studies on the insidious role and distorting nature of our print & broadcast corporate media on issue after after, and we have studies on the public's attitudes and understandings of issues and an interesting measure of outcomes.
When we put the two together we see a powerful, status quo serving media and a marginalised, poorly informed public on pretty much every issue.
Do we really expect that the public happen to be uniquely informed about the monarchy in a way in which they consistently show that they aren't on every other issue?
And given that we know that 30% of the population are in favour of abolition, it's fairly easy to observe that media coverage of the Royals in both print & broadcast reflects nothing close to that prevalence of attitudes. I'd be surprised if even 1% of Royal coverage reflected anti-monarchy positions. To give a concrete comparison, only 9% of BBC new coverage in the lead up the US/UK attack on Iraq featured anti-war positions, and public attitudes to the war in March 2003 were close to 50/50 for/against. That's a remarkable figure given the bombardment of pro-war coverage and voices levelled at the public everyday. Do we imagine that more serious journalism that offered a great deal more dissent would have yielded similar public opinion in March 2003? Obviously not.
The same is surely true here. Public attitudes are carefully curated through PR. Were our media actually servants of the public rather than an arm of power, we'd all be subjected to more dissenting views on the monarchy, and public opinion would likely be closer to majority-abolition as a result.
Or you can choose to believe that public support for the monarchy is magically manifest from some deep, reflective, critically thought out and well-informed public consciousness on the merits of the monarchy, in some wild deviation of the norm on literally every other issue... Does that seem remotely likely?
posted on 11/9/22
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 21 seconds ago
comment by Boy From The South (U3979)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 19 minutes ago
comment by Boy From The South (U3979)
posted 16 seconds ago
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 56 seconds ago
comment by RB&W - Whiteside has done it again (U21434)
posted 2 minutes ago
The only way the UK Monarchy can be abolished - apart from the unlikely event of a People's Revolution, would be through an Act Of Parliament that has been read and voted through both Houses Of Parliament in the appropriate manner.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
52 seems to think it would be a simple act of ‘democracy’ to enact abolition. It’s far from that.
The first past the post system and the house of lords makes it very difficult to achieve, even if a majority of the actual population were to be in favour of it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Which they aren't, sort of making this moot.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Surely the more interesting question is *why* are a majority of the populace seemingly delighted to have an unelected, wealthy & privileged upper class reigning over them (albeit in a fairly docile, non-interventionist way)?
Support for the very concept of a monarchy is one that has been promulgated, propagated & curated over a long, long period of time through subservient, fawning media & so on. It's very difficult to undo that level of damage inflicted upon a population (on any issue). It'll happen eventually; the 29% of the population who want abolition + the % of those who are polled as 'don't know' whether they're in favour or not will increase over time.
So I don't think there's any moot points to be had. I always think we have to examine why population X thinks/believes in issue/position Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Or maybe it's possible that many millions of people see a benefit that the monarchy bring which you don't happen to agree with?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe, but I don't think the preponderance of evidence points that way. We have plenty of excellent studies on the insidious role and distorting nature of our print & broadcast corporate media on issue after after, and we have studies on the public's attitudes and understandings of issues and an interesting measure of outcomes.
When we put the two together we see a powerful, status quo serving media and a marginalised, poorly informed public on pretty much every issue.
Do we really expect that the public happen to be uniquely informed about the monarchy in a way in which they consistently show that they aren't on every other issue?
And given that we know that 30% of the population are in favour of abolition, it's fairly easy to observe that media coverage of the Royals in both print & broadcast reflects nothing close to that prevalence of attitudes. I'd be surprised if even 1% of Royal coverage reflected anti-monarchy positions. To give a concrete comparison, only 9% of BBC new coverage in the lead up the US/UK attack on Iraq featured anti-war positions, and public attitudes to the war in March 2003 were close to 50/50 for/against. That's a remarkable figure given the bombardment of pro-war coverage and voices levelled at the public everyday. Do we imagine that more serious journalism that offered a great deal more dissent would have yielded similar public opinion in March 2003? Obviously not.
The same is surely true here. Public attitudes are carefully curated through PR. Were our media actually servants of the public rather than an arm of power, we'd all be subjected to more dissenting views on the monarchy, and public opinion would likely be closer to majority-abolition as a result.
Or you can choose to believe that public support for the monarchy is magically manifest from some deep, reflective, critically thought out and well-informed public consciousness on the merits of the monarchy, in some wild deviation of the norm on literally every other issue... Does that seem remotely likely?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But you've seen the light, clearly, and know better than anybody who disagrees?
posted on 11/9/22
comment by Boy From The South (U3979)
Maybe, but I don't think the preponderance of evidence points that way. We have plenty of excellent studies on the insidious role and distorting nature of our print & broadcast corporate media on issue after after, and we have studies on the public's attitudes and understandings of issues and an interesting measure of outcomes.
When we put the two together we see a powerful, status quo serving media and a marginalised, poorly informed public on pretty much every issue.
Do we really expect that the public happen to be uniquely informed about the monarchy in a way in which they consistently show that they aren't on every other issue?
And given that we know that 30% of the population are in favour of abolition, it's fairly easy to observe that media coverage of the Royals in both print & broadcast reflects nothing close to that prevalence of attitudes. I'd be surprised if even 1% of Royal coverage reflected anti-monarchy positions. To give a concrete comparison, only 9% of BBC new coverage in the lead up the US/UK attack on Iraq featured anti-war positions, and public attitudes to the war in March 2003 were close to 50/50 for/against. That's a remarkable figure given the bombardment of pro-war coverage and voices levelled at the public everyday. Do we imagine that more serious journalism that offered a great deal more dissent would have yielded similar public opinion in March 2003? Obviously not.
The same is surely true here. Public attitudes are carefully curated through PR. Were our media actually servants of the public rather than an arm of power, we'd all be subjected to more dissenting views on the monarchy, and public opinion would likely be closer to majority-abolition as a result.
Or you can choose to believe that public support for the monarchy is magically manifest from some deep, reflective, critically thought out and well-informed public consciousness on the merits of the monarchy, in some wild deviation of the norm on literally every other issue... Does that seem remotely likely?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But you've seen the light, clearly, and know better than anybody who disagrees?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the evidence shows the redundancy of the monarchy or any undemocratic institution in 2022, and seemingly a growing number of people feel similarly.
But my arguments are grounded in the evidence. It's not really about 'me'.
And let's get real... If my arguments for abolition are stronger than the opposite position, then yes, technically that would be "knowing better", unless you think all views are equally valid simply because they're held? I'm sure you don't think that, so I'm struggling to understand your tone.
posted on 11/9/22
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Boy From The South (U3979)
Maybe, but I don't think the preponderance of evidence points that way. We have plenty of excellent studies on the insidious role and distorting nature of our print & broadcast corporate media on issue after after, and we have studies on the public's attitudes and understandings of issues and an interesting measure of outcomes.
When we put the two together we see a powerful, status quo serving media and a marginalised, poorly informed public on pretty much every issue.
Do we really expect that the public happen to be uniquely informed about the monarchy in a way in which they consistently show that they aren't on every other issue?
And given that we know that 30% of the population are in favour of abolition, it's fairly easy to observe that media coverage of the Royals in both print & broadcast reflects nothing close to that prevalence of attitudes. I'd be surprised if even 1% of Royal coverage reflected anti-monarchy positions. To give a concrete comparison, only 9% of BBC new coverage in the lead up the US/UK attack on Iraq featured anti-war positions, and public attitudes to the war in March 2003 were close to 50/50 for/against. That's a remarkable figure given the bombardment of pro-war coverage and voices levelled at the public everyday. Do we imagine that more serious journalism that offered a great deal more dissent would have yielded similar public opinion in March 2003? Obviously not.
The same is surely true here. Public attitudes are carefully curated through PR. Were our media actually servants of the public rather than an arm of power, we'd all be subjected to more dissenting views on the monarchy, and public opinion would likely be closer to majority-abolition as a result.
Or you can choose to believe that public support for the monarchy is magically manifest from some deep, reflective, critically thought out and well-informed public consciousness on the merits of the monarchy, in some wild deviation of the norm on literally every other issue... Does that seem remotely likely?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But you've seen the light, clearly, and know better than anybody who disagrees?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the evidence shows the redundancy of the monarchy or any undemocratic institution in 2022, and seemingly a growing number of people feel similarly.
But my arguments are grounded in the evidence. It's not really about 'me'.
And let's get real... If my arguments for abolition are stronger than the opposite position, then yes, technically that would be "knowing better", unless you think all views are equally valid simply because they're held? I'm sure you don't think that, so I'm struggling to understand your tone.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So basically your arguments seem to be centered around the premise that the UK population is generally uneducated or misinformed about a number of subjects.
And because of this, you think they should be given the choice to elect our head of state?
Frankly all your points do are reinforce to me why I prefer an unelected, apolitical and unifying HOS.
posted on 11/9/22
Good posts, BK.
I’ve always been a bit conflicted on it myself. Usually because there’s bigger issues, but with the Queen’s death I’ve really become in favour of abolition now.
I’ve always acknowledged my conflict comes from a sense of romanticism, but obviously it’s not a rational way to run a country.
posted on 11/9/22
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 9 seconds ago
Good posts, BK.
I’ve always been a bit conflicted on it myself. Usually because there’s bigger issues, but with the Queen’s death I’ve really become in favour of abolition now.
I’ve always acknowledged my conflict comes from a sense of romanticism, but obviously it’s not a rational way to run a country.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They don't run the country.
posted on 11/9/22
comment by GregUnited (U1192)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Ignacio Varga (U11781)
posted 1 hour, 11 minutes ago
comment by Beeb (U1841)
posted 3 minutes ago
Anybody left that would fight and die for King Charles?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
MU52
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, there are plenty. Folk that don't mucg give a damn either way and just want a job. Doubt there are many, if any, that sign up because they love their monarch?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Will they sign up for their love for truss?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well that was like choosing a punch in the throat over a kick in the balls so doesn't count.
posted on 11/9/22
Are you being deliberately thick?
posted on 11/9/22
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 52 seconds ago
comment by GregUnited (U1192)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Ignacio Varga (U11781)
posted 1 hour, 11 minutes ago
comment by Beeb (U1841)
posted 3 minutes ago
Anybody left that would fight and die for King Charles?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
MU52
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, there are plenty. Folk that don't mucg give a damn either way and just want a job. Doubt there are many, if any, that sign up because they love their monarch?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Will they sign up for their love for truss?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well that was like choosing a punch in the throat over a kick in the balls so doesn't count.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Or a punch in the tiiit if you're female?
posted on 11/9/22
comment by Boy From The South (U3979)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So basically your arguments seem to be centered around the premise that the UK population is generally uneducated or misinformed about a number of subjects.
And because of this, you think they should be given the choice to elect our head of state?
Frankly all your points do are reinforce to me why I prefer an unelected, apolitical and unifying HOS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My point extends beyond whether or not we have a monarchy etc... I think it's fairly safe to say that any functioning democracy requires that its population has access to adequate information. We have a media system that does the opposite of inform and educate the population to adequate levels on almost every issue (certainly every major issue).
So I wouldn't expect the UK population to make a good or better decision on the status of the monarchy any more than I would expect good outcomes on other issues (PM's, Brexit or whatever else...).
More than anything my point is lament out corporate media and to try and better understand *why* people think and believe the things that they do.
An unelected, apolitical(ish) HOS, *might* be superior to an elected, political one... But that depends on the choices on offer and the public's access to information that helps make a truly informed choice about who or what that HOS should be.
posted on 11/9/22
comment by Boy From The South (U3979)
posted 5 minutes ago
So basically your arguments seem to be centered around the premise that the UK population is generally uneducated or misinformed about a number of subjects.
And because of this, you think they should be given the choice to elect our head of state?
Frankly all your points do are reinforce to me why I prefer an unelected, apolitical and unifying HOS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I would rather our population was more educated and given more balanced information that supported what ought to result in a better decision. I fail to see why anyone would not believe that to be an altogether more desirable outcome, no?
posted on 11/9/22
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 7 minutes ago
Good posts, BK.
I’ve always been a bit conflicted on it myself. Usually because there’s bigger issues, but with the Queen’s death I’ve really become in favour of abolition now.
I’ve always acknowledged my conflict comes from a sense of romanticism, but obviously it’s not a rational way to run a country.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Abolition isn't a hill I'm attempting to die on by any means - there's certainly bigger issues to tackle. As much as anything I loathe the blind devotion that large parts of the public have for the institution, and the servile media that keeps the charade going.
There's other things... The de facto arms sales rep role the monarchy plays, the royal prerogative, the wealth accumulation and so on. But these things are not exclusive to the Royals... I hate all of those things in all cases.
posted on 11/9/22
BK
That’s something that so many fail to see in the argument. It’s not simply about removing the monarchy in isolation, it’s that and so much more that people want to change in this country.
posted on 11/9/22
I think if the more pressing needs in the UK were to be addressed then the fall of the monarchy would become a direct consequence of that. Issue will be addressing those issues for the reasons your posts highlight.
posted on 11/9/22
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 7 minutes ago
Good posts, BK.
I’ve always been a bit conflicted on it myself. Usually because there’s bigger issues, but with the Queen’s death I’ve really become in favour of abolition now.
I’ve always acknowledged my conflict comes from a sense of romanticism, but obviously it’s not a rational way to run a country.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Abolition isn't a hill I'm attempting to die on by any means - there's certainly bigger issues to tackle. As much as anything I loathe the blind devotion that large parts of the public have for the institution, and the servile media that keeps the charade going.
There's other things... The de facto arms sales rep role the monarchy plays, the royal prerogative, the wealth accumulation and so on. But these things are not exclusive to the Royals... I hate all of those things in all cases.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I do totally agree with you on the arms deal thing, interestingly it's something Charles has spoken about his distate for but that's our elected government forcing him into that position. Make of that what you will.
posted on 11/9/22
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 4 minutes ago
I think if the more pressing needs in the UK were to be addressed then the fall of the monarchy would become a direct consequence of that. Issue will be addressing those issues for the reasons your posts highlight.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Absolutely. It's one of the reasons I always come back to the role our media play in shaping & distorting public attitudes. As you say, if the public held better views on other issues, the issue of the monarchy would inevitably (I think) take care of itself.
posted on 11/9/22
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 34 seconds ago
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 4 minutes ago
I think if the more pressing needs in the UK were to be addressed then the fall of the monarchy would become a direct consequence of that. Issue will be addressing those issues for the reasons your posts highlight.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Absolutely. It's one of the reasons I always come back to the role our media play in shaping & distorting public attitudes. As you say, if the public held better views on other issues, the issue of the monarchy would inevitably (I think) take care of itself.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Out of interest BerbaKing, do you think you could potentially hold better views? Or do you hold the correct view on all subjects and everybody else should conform to your way of thinking?
posted on 11/9/22
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 4 minutes ago
I think if the more pressing needs in the UK were to be addressed then the fall of the monarchy would become a direct consequence of that. Issue will be addressing those issues for the reasons your posts highlight.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Absolutely. It's one of the reasons I always come back to the role our media play in shaping & distorting public attitudes. As you say, if the public held better views on other issues, the issue of the monarchy would inevitably (I think) take care of itself.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep. Sadly it seems we are going even further towards the likes of America on that front, so it’s difficult to see it being rowed back when these institutions hold such power in swaying public opinion. Hopefully the next generation can break the mould.
posted on 11/9/22
comment by Boy From The South (U3979)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 34 seconds ago
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 4 minutes ago
I think if the more pressing needs in the UK were to be addressed then the fall of the monarchy would become a direct consequence of that. Issue will be addressing those issues for the reasons your posts highlight.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Absolutely. It's one of the reasons I always come back to the role our media play in shaping & distorting public attitudes. As you say, if the public held better views on other issues, the issue of the monarchy would inevitably (I think) take care of itself.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Out of interest BerbaKing, do you think you could potentially hold better views? Or do you hold the correct view on all subjects and everybody else should conform to your way of thinking?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't have sufficient knowledge of "all" subjects to even have a view, so yes, plainly I could hold better views on many (most!) subjects!
I think my positions on the subjects I've taken serious time to learn about are reasonably water tight, but I'm always happy to be shown differently and change my mind where they might be leaky.
You seem to have a bit of a bee in your bonnet about something but I'm not sure what or why. Everything I've said about media/public understanding comes from easily cited studies and analysis by multiple independent sources - I'm not giving my own opinion (because my opinion isn't worth much).
posted on 11/9/22
You seem to have a bit of a bee in your bonnet about something but I'm not sure what or why.
———
Because he’s a Tory monarchist that also bootlicks Repbulicans.
posted on 11/9/22
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 5 seconds ago
comment by Boy From The South (U3979)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 34 seconds ago
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 4 minutes ago
I think if the more pressing needs in the UK were to be addressed then the fall of the monarchy would become a direct consequence of that. Issue will be addressing those issues for the reasons your posts highlight.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Absolutely. It's one of the reasons I always come back to the role our media play in shaping & distorting public attitudes. As you say, if the public held better views on other issues, the issue of the monarchy would inevitably (I think) take care of itself.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Out of interest BerbaKing, do you think you could potentially hold better views? Or do you hold the correct view on all subjects and everybody else should conform to your way of thinking?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't have sufficient knowledge of "all" subjects to even have a view, so yes, plainly I could hold better views on many (most!) subjects!
I think my positions on the subjects I've taken serious time to learn about are reasonably water tight, but I'm always happy to be shown differently and change my mind where they might be leaky.
You seem to have a bit of a bee in your bonnet about something but I'm not sure what or why. Everything I've said about media/public understanding comes from easily cited studies and analysis by multiple independent sources - I'm not giving my own opinion (because my opinion isn't worth much).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No bee in a bonnet here, frankly I quite respect the eloquent and articulate nature of your postings even if we disagree.
What I have always had issue with in these sorts of debates is the notion that people could only possibly think differently to you because they've been swayed by the media and can't just simply have a different opinion based on their own reasonings.
It's this constant "I know better" attitude that I find quite sickening on a wide range of subjects.
I very much respect the viewpoint of abolitionists and I understand much of the reasoning behind why they believe it should be removed, I just don't agree.
posted on 11/9/22
What I have always had issue with in these sorts of debates is the notion that people could only possibly think differently to you because they've been swayed by the media and can't just simply have a different opinion based on their own reasonings.
-----
How are people supposed to discuss media influence over public opinion then? If they are accused of this when they bring it up? Media influence over public opinion is a fact of life.
Page 7 of 21
8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12