I would agree with the whole article. I guess the push-back some anti-monarchists might have would be:
The monarchy does have ‘vital’ importance in terms of the amount of money it takes from the taxpayer, which I think is around 30+million pounds annually. (I would counter this by saying this is probably less than the amount of money the monarchy contributes to the economy annually – although I don’t have hard evidence estimates have reached over 1 billion pounds – even a tenth of this estimate is a lot more than 30 million).
The monarchy represents a past of inequality and lack of social mobility. i.e. it is ‘outdated’. It encourages dangerous perceptions of how society should be ordered. (My counter would be that nowadays, the monarchy is not at the top of some feudal hierarchy, it is very much the monarchy, and the rest of society which does embody the principles of equality and social mobility in general).
So the article is correct, and anti-monarchists need to have some fun and enjoy the jubilee instead of moaning!
Prashant Kotak
1 year ago
Instead of leaving the ‘dignified’, elements alone, I recommend the left should fully embrace them, by crowning a monarch. That then would only leave the question of a properly grandiose surname for the new socialistical dynasty – Saxe-Coburg-Gotha will not do at all…
I suggest the quintuple-barelled but appropriately proletarian: Kier-Bev-Jones-Class-Traitor. What do you think?
Last edited 1 year ago by Prashant Kotak
Sam Sky
1 year ago
“The old, pre-liberal British constitution allows greater scope for radical action” – arguably only with the abandonment of respect for common law, however.
Andrew Fisher
1 year ago
Chilling that this guy appears to be ADVOCATING this! I wonder why, since the British Constitution has remained largely unchanged – and certainly gives huge power to the Prime Minister – for 100 years, we don’t already live in a socialist paradise!
This article sounds like a paean for Leninism. We don’t want any constraints on imposing a class (actually activist / commissar led) dictatorship! What an utter catastrophe that has been for humanity.
Indeed. Republicans value form over substance.
I would agree with the whole article. I guess the push-back some anti-monarchists might have would be:
So the article is correct, and anti-monarchists need to have some fun and enjoy the jubilee instead of moaning!
Instead of leaving the ‘dignified’, elements alone, I recommend the left should fully embrace them, by crowning a monarch. That then would only leave the question of a properly grandiose surname for the new socialistical dynasty – Saxe-Coburg-Gotha will not do at all…
I suggest the quintuple-barelled but appropriately proletarian: Kier-Bev-Jones-Class-Traitor. What do you think?
“The old, pre-liberal British constitution allows greater scope for radical action” – arguably only with the abandonment of respect for common law, however.
Chilling that this guy appears to be ADVOCATING this! I wonder why, since the British Constitution has remained largely unchanged – and certainly gives huge power to the Prime Minister – for 100 years, we don’t already live in a socialist paradise!
This article sounds like a paean for Leninism. We don’t want any constraints on imposing a class (actually activist / commissar led) dictatorship! What an utter catastrophe that has been for humanity.