General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both !uk_politics@feddit.uk and !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
!ukpolitics@lemm.ee appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(
Yet the king sits on a golden throne and wears jewels worth more than those kids will earn in their life times
Given how old, the crown jewels are. IE when that Money was spent.
How much difference do you think selling them or even never having purchased them would make.
Selling them. Divided between 66m people. Pennies,
Never having purchased them. Remember money doesn't disappear. The people making them were paid. Hired others and spread the money through society.
Land purchases are less of an asset to society. But spending on building palaces has always resulted in money going to the rest of society and improving the lives of the rest of the nation. Not somehow removing it from people I'd say the modern royal post George III spending deal. Where all crown land is managed by the government and its income goes towards the general tax fund, In exchange for (currently 20%) being used to maintain palaces and funding crown/royal family events etc.
Is under austerity governments. More harmful, in preventing that income, funding jobs for lower income people.
Corporate trickle-down economics argument to reduce taxation may be utter crap.
But the history of royal spending and more modern (1940s+) government spending def has a trickle down effect ignored by modern capitalism supporting governments.
People still lapring these bootlicker talking points?
Cute...
Should these parasites pay taxes?
Asking for a friend
Your aversion to data seem stupid. How the hell you expect to even have a point if all data is seen as "lapring these bootlicker talking points?" rather then something you need a valid answer to.
Yes, they should pay tax. And do. Although only on their personal income rather than crown estates since the 90s.
Crown estates technically pays 80% tax since 1690s
My aversion is to paraites getting preferential treatment from the state while half the country is living in poverty champ;)
Cool, don't entirely disagree.
But while the death of ER2 means the republican view is definatly on the rise.
There is no indication that it is something the majority of the UK wants.
So childish insults in answer to historical facts and economic data only harms the case. Republicans do no have the might to win this as a war. They did in 1690. And found their own religiose crap lost them support. So Cromwell built our current system.
So if you want to tear that system down. Unlike the puritans of the 1690s. You need to take the population of the nation with you. And convice them your ideas are better.
"lapring these bootlicker talking points?" is just like saying. I have no answers, here is an insult.
Honestly, I am likely a good few decades older than you. And have expected the republican movement to gain ground after ERs death since the late 80s. As she was all that held it together.
I am sort of disappointed at how long it is taking for a viable argument to be formed and pushed to the people.
I am not even talking any over haul of the system per se... just abolish clown laws enabling these parasites not paying taxes.
Also, they are also collecting rents from UK treasury, that also has to stop. I am not British, from outside these laws makes america look a "decent" place with our own clown extraction regimes.
Also, the tone because this is largely a futile fight, just doing some rabble rousing.
It is amazing how population is willing accept this status quo but here we are.
just abolish clown laws enabling these parasites not paying taxes.
Grins constitutional monarchy. Honestly, yes, you need to overhaul the system to do that.
This is why the queen volunteered to pay taxes on her income in the 1990s. (As I said they do pay taxes)
Remember, while our current royals are technically powerless. Our parliament is still only using their power. This is the literal meaning of parliament is sovereign.
Think of our Parliament as a regent. Because that is sort of how the power structure works.
This means it's hard for parliament as is to create laws that affect the king. As such laws would lack constitutional support.
Same with our justice system. Anyone in the UK taken to court. It is technically them vs the king. As such, it is actually impossible for the king to be prosecuted.
My understanding is that the estate pays no taxes and extracts money from the treasury.
Unwillingness of the parliament to fix it, is that just.
But I understand, the rich rule us and fuck all we can do.
I am more amazed at working class accepting as oh well to some being in favour of it lol
This is a miss understanding.
The estate is run by the government. All its profit goes to the government. From that they fund the royal family with (currently 20% but historically less)
So pay no taxes is a huge misunderstanding. It works more like a nationalised company. But is owned by the crown.
History of this is related to Giii fight against US independence. At that time armies etc belonged to the crown. (Still answer to them technically) but no longer funded by them.
Royal families personal property is different. And until 1990s did not pay tax. But the Queen set up a voluntary offer to do so. Rather then force the UK government to become a Republic. Something they did not have the votes or support to do.
As for why the UK put up with it. Long and complicated. But the fact that our last republic was the same people who left the UK to form the US. Having banned Xmas and anything fun due to religiose ideals.
Left a pretty long bad taste in the UK for republics.
While most don't worry about that. The US lack of health care workers rights etc still leaves folks pretty uncomfortable with a change.
As I said. Most folks sorta liked the Queen. Her working as a nurse during WW2 (before being queen) won her a lot of respect. It has been expected from the 70s that Charles would be the start of a Republic.
Selling them. Divided by 66m people. Pennies,
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Jewels_of_the_United_Kingdom
I think you're severely misrepresenting how much value is in the crown jewels.
The people making them were paid.
Were they paid a fair value for their labour? Looking at the exploitation of workers throughout history, probably not.
You also fail to mention that many of these jewels were likely extracted using slave or poverty wage labour.
But spending on building palaces has always resulted in money going to the rest of society and improving the lives of the rest of the nation
If instead of building one huge fucking building on one huge estate for one family we spread the land between the people and built multiple homes for multiple people there would be far more money going to the rest of society and many more people's lives would be improved.
The monarchy are a parasite and you're an apologist for that. You seem to think you're using facts and logic to explain their being but there's glaring holes in your analysis.
We're poor as a people and a nation because we allow and give excuses for the ultra rich to be rich. There's always going to be people who value wealth and those who don't but to allow those who value wealth to hoard so much that we as a society struggle to function is moronic and should be abolished. I'm just an Internet nerd who likes to read, not a politician, so I don't know where the line should be drawn on personal wealth but allowing a handful of people to have more wealth than huge swathes of society is morally and functionally wrong.
Please look at this website to help try and wrap your head around the sheer vast wealth that is accumulated by the richest in society.
I think you’re severely misrepresenting how much value is in the crown jewels. 6 to 8 billion. Where the UK is current deficit is 120billon a year. And a huge % of the jewel's value is entirely due to their history. Hence, the fact no one really has a clear idea what they would raise. But as I said, selling them is not going to effect the lives of the UK's poor in any way that is measurable. A quick search, Our GDP is 2.274 Trillion 6 to 8 billion extra is not even notable.
The people making them were paid.Were they paid a fair value for their labour? Looking at the exploitation of workers throughout history, probably not.
Yep, fair for the time. Your attitudes about labour rates over the last 800 years (age of the collection oldest) are correct. But there have always been skilled jobs that earned more respect and freedom than most. For most of the time included, jewellery making was more specialised than smith or artist. Both ion demand buy wealthy to the point they would have been the closest to middle class in the 1200 and well and truly a part of the middle class by the 1600s as tradesmen started to become the middle class official.
You also fail to mention that many of these jewels were likely extracted using slave or poverty wage labour.
Here is where I have 0 disagreement. But until we invent reverse time travel (we already have forwarded, but the speed of light likely means going back will never happen) Fixing the arsehole past of the human race is not an option. And do not forget, these attitudes of abuse being acceptable were far from a unique action of the rich or royal.
If instead of building one huge fucking building on one huge estate for one family we spread the land between the people and built multiple homes for multiple people there would be far more money going to the rest of society and many more people’s lives would be improved.
Agreed, and if you manage to discover faster than light travel. Ill look forward to never having lived in that world.
But also remember looking back on people over the past. Who literally had to build in a way that allowed their property to protect against war. Remember, the King/Queen of England did not actually have an army until post revolution. But was required to win the support of lords under his/her reign to keep the kingdom safe.
The simple fact is, trying to judge people of the past on today's expectations is silly.
The serfs (public) of the time genuinely believed God was responsible for promoting families to kingship. As did the Kings and Queens. All evidence (and gowd there is a lot) indicate the royals of the 1200 to 1700s Genuinely believed in the religiose bullshit the spouted.
(the time most of the happened and is actually documented to some extent. Before gets harder.)
The monarchy are a parasite and you’re an apologist for that. You seem to think you’re using facts and logic to explain their being but there’s glaring holes in your analysis.
Really, no there is not. That is the thibg about facts and history. Trying to apply 2024 emotions and logic to the actions of people of the past has to involve understanding the mindset of those people. Wishing they were different dose not change the facts or the analysis.
Assuming that because I have an interest and understanding of history and the mindset of the people of the time. I somehow agree with them existing now. Is your error, not mine. All I did was point out the actual economic logic of complaining about the crown jewels.
But at the end I will give you a run down of my politics.
We’re poor as a people and a nation because we allow and give excuses for the ultra rich to be rich. There’s always going to be people who value wealth and those who don’t but to allow those who value wealth to hoard so much that we as a society struggle to function is moronic and should be abolished. I’m just an Internet nerd who likes to read, not a politician, so I don’t know where the line should be drawn on personal wealth but allowing a handful of people to have more wealth than huge swathes of society is morally and functionally wrong.
Yep agree. You seem to assume I am right wing because I have a logical understanding of our past economics and the world it was created in. To be clear I consider our past to be horrible. I just do not think blaming the children of the perpetrators is an effective solution. That does not mean I object to the UK becoming a republic.
But I do strongly believe that if the UK was to destroy royal land and palaces. Then our ancestors would not have a past to learn from. It is the documentation and image of that history that raised you to be offended by it. To think you would be the same person you are now if the horrors of the past did not exist. Is naive.
Like it or not. You today have opinions your grand children will be disgusted by. I can't tell you what they are. But that is the point society evolves. For that to happen your great-grandchildren will need to see evidence of the shit your generation does. And weigh it with the good.
Having kids for many people is literally ticket into poverty.
At least plebs are voting with their wallets on this one.
In migration is then used to make up the difference since low fertility results in labour shortage and wage pressures. Owners are allergic to pay the anything above subsistence wage to vast majority of population.
Brain dead alt right wants to make it about race when it is really about class and nationality. Domestic population is less likely to take abuse so they get cut down via shite social policy.
Also, poor kids are a lot easier to fuck over since anglo society has a special disgust for the poors. At least in continental Europe they pretend to "care"
Having kids for many people is literally ticket into poverty.
If you're not financially stable enough to have kids, you shouldn't have kids.
yeah but this attitude in any half way developed society will lead to population collapse within 2 generations without in migration etc
Maybe it will give governments the kick up the arse they need to sort out the country then.
Government is just the tool the for the rich and the rich made their position clear. Plebs are just in denial about it.
Social policy of western regimes speaks for itself. Extract surplus value of labour from domestic population, if they don't reproduce, import people to make the uo difference.
The answer is never to make life decent for the worker tho
5th/6th largest economy in the world...
I don't intend to ever have kids. Just couldn't afford it. And I'm sure there are many people like me out there.
Then the birth rate drops and everyone is scratching their heads.