Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    People keep posting threads and voting for political parties but what do people actually want?

    It is clear to me that people don't want the British nation state, yet call themselves British. This is at the basis of all the issues people have I think. It seems to be people want to get rid of the aristocracy, monarchy and Church of England. That people want Parliament to have less ability to constrain the government. Basically people want more power and want to remove everything which means they have less power. However the governmental system hasn't changed to meet this.

    The people I dislike the most are the people who say the royal family, Church of England and aristocracy should remain because of tradition or there is nothing which could replace them. Yet these idiots don't want these institutions to have any power, making them pointless within the governmental system. If people want an elected second chamber, the disestablishment of the monarchy and Church of England. A constitution, an elected president they should actively support such a thing.

    I am Loyalist Reactionary High Tory of Church of England. I actively want the Monarchy, aristocracy and Church of England to have power. I want Parliament to have the ability to hold the government to account. I hate the governmental system we have, where the government and political parties alone have all the power and do what they like.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    :erm:nice rant. But CoE should have no power

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    :erm:nice rant. But CoE should have no power

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Well fine then disestablish it or replace it with something else. But to say it should exist within the governmental system and have no power is just stupid.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by william walker)
    Well fine then disestablish it or replace it with something else. But to say it should exist within the governmental system and have no power is just stupid.
    I never said it should exist within government because it shouldn't. It should lose all power except as a religious institution.
    Andvas for the queen you can give her a council house

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    I never said it should exist within government because it shouldn't. It should lose all power except as a religious institution.
    Andvas for the queen you can give her a council house

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I think it should and have power.

    Can't simply disestablish the Church of England you are going to have to take away its land and preeminence over all the other religions, churches and sects. It would mean the government or new state diminishing the Anglican Church as an institution. The sames goes for the Queen, you would have to take away the Royal families property and that of the aristocracy through massive death taxes. Again removal all the system which is build into the Monarchy. So state events and so on would have to change, but this could be done rather easily.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by william walker)
    Well fine then disestablish it or replace it with something else. But to say it should exist within the governmental system and have no power is just stupid.
    Let's replace it with Islam. Extremely tolerant chaps.

    On a serious note, Bill: we know you're a loyalist reactionary high Tory of the CoE. I think it's far more effective not to repeat it so often in such a mechanical fashion as you do in every post. At this point, everyone is aware of your position, but more importantly you must justify why these positions are correct and benefit us as a people.

    Just a suggestion, mate.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HigherMinion)
    Let's replace it with Islam. Extremely tolerant chaps.

    On a serious note, Bill: we know you're a loyalist reactionary high Tory of the CoE. I think it's far more effective not to repeat it so often in such a mechanical fashion as you do in every post. At this point, everyone is aware of your position, but more importantly you must justify why these positions are correct and benefit us as a people.

    Just a suggestion, mate.
    It wouldn't be us replacing putting in Islam, it will be Islam replacing the British state.

    I will say what I am as long as I can do so. I believe freedom is a duty and must be used. After all if freedom isn't used it is pointless.

    My positions aren't meant to benefit the people. They are meant to benefit certain institutions and weaken others. Namely I want to strengthen the Church of England and Monarchy. I want to weaken the government. It is very obvious that my views are aimed at creating a mono-culture within the British Isles based around the Protestant Faith, English language and environment of the British Isles. I want economic free trade within Britain and I want Britain to have geopolitical power. Most of all I want to protect and maintain the legacy of my ancestors back to founding of the British nation state in 1688-1690.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    Andvas for the queen you can give her a council house

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Expect a long extensive legal battle on that. The Queen owns the majority of her properties and so you can't take them from her.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    The people want what the people get.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    What? Why would you want any of that? I respect the customs of this country; and do my best to understand its history, if only so that I might understand the current state of affairs. I see no benefit in the transition of power from a Parliament of representatives to an aristocracy, church and the monarchy, or even that such a system could exist given the tendency in world history of all wealthy nations to follow a similiar path of progression (namely, monarchy has power, people want power, monarchy is not as bad as the more cruel monarchies or has little power so it is suppressed).

    I know what I want, to preserve the current order, to preserve the market economy and the liberties it protects, to trade freely with other nations, to travel freely to other nations, to promote the arts and sciences and above all to care for the welfare of the people, which must be done in a representative and market oriented framework. My political views combine pretty much everything; i'm a conservative in the sense I respect order, hierarchy and the family unit, a liberal in the sense I defend the rights of the individual, a socialist in the sense I defend welfare for the poor, a nationalist in the sense I promote national interests and duties of citizenship (i.e follow the laws).
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by william walker)
    I will say what I am as long as I can do so. I believe freedom is a duty and must be used. After all if freedom isn't used it is pointless.

    My positions aren't meant to benefit the people. They are meant to benefit certain institutions and weaken others. Namely I want to strengthen the Church of England and Monarchy. I want to weaken the government. It is very obvious that my views are aimed at creating a mono-culture within the British Isles based around the Protestant Faith, English language and environment of the British Isles. I want economic free trade within Britain and I want Britain to have geopolitical power. Most of all I want to protect and maintain the legacy of my ancestors back to founding of the British nation state in 1688-1690.

    You are free to say what you like, but I'm telling you to use some tact (and that's coming from me). There is little point in putting forward all of your desirable positions and giving it the title of "high Tory" unless you can justify and back each point as and when it's raised.

    Keep saying what you stand for, just don't expect anyone else to be convinced if you don't adjust the rhetoric, starting with the title you give your overarching views. I also think it's more effective to tackle each institution individually (what's wrong with the current incarnation and why your vision is better), such as marriage, Anglican church, the monarchy and government.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jakeel1)
    I see no benefit in the transition of power from a Parliament of representatives to an aristocracy, church and the monarchy, or even that such a system could exist given the tendency in world history of all wealthy nations to follow a similiar path of progression (namely, monarchy has power, people want power, monarchy is not as bad as the more cruel monarchies or has little power so it is suppressed).
    Balance of power.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HigherMinion)
    Balance of power.
    We have a (minor) seperation of powers that works fine, the Lords balances the Commons. When was the last time we had a civil war?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by william walker)
    People keep posting threads and voting for political parties but what do people actually want?

    It is clear to me that people don't want the British nation state, yet call themselves British. This is at the basis of all the issues people have I think. It seems to be people want to get rid of the aristocracy, monarchy and Church of England. That people want Parliament to have less ability to constrain the government. Basically people want more power and want to remove everything which means they have less power. However the governmental system hasn't changed to meet this.

    The people I dislike the most are the people who say the royal family, Church of England and aristocracy should remain because of tradition or there is nothing which could replace them. Yet these idiots don't want these institutions to have any power, making them pointless within the governmental system. If people want an elected second chamber, the disestablishment of the monarchy and Church of England. A constitution, an elected president they should actively support such a thing.

    I am Loyalist Reactionary High Tory of Church of England. I actively want the Monarchy, aristocracy and Church of England to have power. I want Parliament to have the ability to hold the government to account. I hate the governmental system we have, where the government and political parties alone have all the power and do what they like.
    Just out of curiosity, I noticed that there is a UKIP candidate named William Walker standing for election, is that you?

    Unfortunately, as a traitor anarchist liberal of the secular EUSSR I won't be voting for you!
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Just out of curiosity, I noticed that there is a UKIP candidate named William Walker standing for election, is that you?

    Unfortunately, as a traitor anarchist liberal of the secular EUSSR I won't be voting for you!
    Lol anarchy is too extreme for me. I've considered the idea and followed its thinkers closely, I think it is fantasy best discussed in poetry for the time being...
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Just out of curiosity, I noticed that there is a UKIP candidate named William Walker standing for election, is that you?

    Unfortunately, as a traitor anarchist liberal of the secular EUSSR I won't be voting for you!
    No that isn't me. But I am a UKIP member.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jakeel1)
    We have a (minor) seperation of powers that works fine, the Lords balances the Commons. When was the last time we had a civil war?
    The house of Lords sadly has become corrupt. The title used to be hereditary and because of that you had a clash of opinions and real discourse. Now they can be appointed on a whim.

    Here's what you do, Bill- write out a thread detailing each point and expand on why: a mini-manifesto, perhaps. It's the only way you'll get support. Because, let's be honest, you made this thread to say what YOU actually want, not other people; so be honest and write that thread now.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jakeel1)
    Lol anarchy is too extreme for me. I've considered the idea and followed its thinkers closely, I think it is fantasy best discussed in poetry for the time being...
    Most generic anarchist thinkers are talking utter nonsense, you're right.

    If you look at so e of the gradualist anarchist thinkers (prominently Proudhon) and some liberal thinkers such as Alex Wendt, we can see that there has been a gradual increase in personal freedom, paired with widening international institutions (UN, EU...), thus the typical anarchist revolution is pointless as it will occur naturally and gradually.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HigherMinion)
    The house of Lords sadly has become corrupt. The title used to be hereditary and because of that you had a clash of opinions and real discourse. Now they can be appointed on a whim.
    I agree there are genuine concerns that party leaders simply appoint Lords as a way of competing with other parties, this was a mistake in my view; however the Lords has balanced the Commons recently concerning the existence of secret trials which was overuled, which to me demonstrates it is doing its job still.

    (Original post by Davij038)
    Most generic anarchist thinkers are talking utter nonsense, you're right.

    If you look at so e of the gradualist anarchist thinkers (prominently Proudhon) and some liberal thinkers such as Alex Wendt, we can see that there has been a gradual increase in personal freedom, paired with widening international institutions (UN, EU...), thus the typical anarchist revolution is pointless as it will occur naturally and gradually.
    I have found that a gradual approach to things is always the saner option, to think that everything can be solved by revolution is a most troubling position due to the complexities of human behaviour. I have never heard of Wendt although I personally know of Proudhon (have not read his works with much interest though) his pretense that property is theft always struck me as an extreme position and has put me off reading his writings out of fear he is unworthy of my time.

    I struggle to see exactly how society could function without some organisational apparatus like the state, and have always disliked reference to 'inevitibility' and 'wading away'. The state is a neccesary evil in my opinion.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jakeel1)
    We have a (minor) seperation of powers that works fine, the Lords balances the Commons. When was the last time we had a civil war?
    No the Commons took control of the Lords with the Blarite reforms. The Lords isn't independent or the Commons, they are both controlled by political parties. The Lords must have for Lords, not commoners put in place by political parties from the Commons. We had a massive conflict in Ulster where 3,500 people were murdered and over 30,000 were hurt. So...
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.