Great Britain...An Elitist State? - Maybe not...

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

I have always thought of my great country's government as an elitist one. Led by an elite few who look to put forward policies for the sole benefit of the elite and maintenance of the capitalist structure.

However, recently I have studied state theories and Great Britain, despite many flaws and problems, is actually, after all, quite democratic.

Yes, there is of course the arguments saying Britian is an elitist state. We have the public school system which breeds our future ruling elite. We have the House of Lords...need I say more. We have the fate and lives of millions in the hands of the few.

Or do we?

There are many concessions made by the government, checks and balances that allow the people to have more say in things than we think. This rght of opinion that we so crave is then taken for granted, as shown in the turnout figures of the last election. The more extreme Marxists of you will, understandably, say that such concessions are made just to maintain a dual consciousness, whereby workers will accept the capitalist system as it is at least showing some concern for them. The sorts of concessions I'm talking about are things like elections, minimum wage, trade unions etc. Do the rulers take our views into consideration after all? And who are we to complain when thigns don't go as we want them to, when 49% of us choose to stay home on election day.

Even in the great Houses of Parliament do I see a good deal of democracy. Yes..even the Lord's. Whilst watching a House of Lord's debate on BBC Parliament a few days back I was delighted to hear the input of Lord's such as Lord Ahmed of Rotherham. He is a character who has shown that the House of Lord's does contain some people who have genuine concern for the masses in Britain. He's also proven that the Lord's may be, after all, headng towards beholding members who do represent a more widespread sample of society.

The recent protests about fox hunting, student fee's and the war have also proved how tolerant our state is of peoples opinions. Allowing peaceful protest does sound like a normal thing, but remember in many countries, even the most peaceful of protests would be thwarted by police.

I am not saying the British state is perfect. I know it is not. But I do believe that we are headed by an intelligent government and an intelligent leader. He may be easily led astray by those with power (naming no names....Dubya), but he is, at the end of the day, a decent leader. I think we have many things to be proud of in this country and long may our democracy live.

[chamo]

I can agree with you on some points there, though there are more points to be made on the Royal Family and the House of Lords past.

However, it is sad to see that a lot of political debate goes on through the Media, and even worse, the tabloids. People who read different newspapers have political and social views influenced by those papers, although their view may have chosen for them what they read. However, the press holds too much sway in political opinion and predict beforehand what the outcome will be. The tabloid discussion is also why high-profile court cases fall through or are interupted.

More topically, Tony Blair does not seem to be doing things too democratically, even though the opinion polls on war have swung the other way, this is only after the illegal war had been declared, showing a lack of concern when things go past the point of protest. I don't thing Tony Blair will be in his position for too much longer.

......I was delighted to hear the input of Lord's such as Lord Ahmed of Rotherham. He is a character who has shown that the House of Lord's does contain some people who have genuine concern for the masses in Britain. He's also proven that the Lord's may be, after all, headng towards beholding members who do represent a more widespread sample of society.

It's good to see some change for the better, hopefully though, the house will be abolished, it is still too elitist.;)

I do agree with you on the points of leaders taking our views into consideration, such as does not happen in America. Britain could be a lot worse off, but may become so in the future.

[chamo]

Point to add on the ban on fox-hunting; I thought alot of the Lords were against the ban, as alot of them like the old canine murder themselves, and it took a parliament like Scotland's to get a ban through. I don't know maybe I'm wrong, maybe I've been influenced by the Mass Media ;)

[redstar2000]

Since there's no way to take your post seriously, Socialsmo, I presume it was intended as an example of the famous "dry British wit".

I was not amused.

:cool:

[Just Joe]

I wrote this post earlier:-

Britain needs a French Revolution. Britain doesn't even have basic equality laws. The media is dominated by tycoons who are clearly gonna put forward there own bug business agenda. The Mirror tends to be Left Populist, but not going to far to actually critisise the Capitalist system. And its really only Left because there is a market for working class readers. They put forward a left position so that working class folk will buy there papers. The irony of it all.

As the papers are controlled by big business, it seems only nature that the parties will be also. All three main parties are financed by Industralists. The days of Labour being financed by trade unions will be over if Blair continues his anti-worker stances. If all media is controlled by Industrialists, and they influence who can stand as candidates, because other parties don't have the finances to mount serious challenges, It all means your average Briton has a choice between three parties with little or no difference in policies. There brainwashed by the media into thinking these parties actually care about them, and they have no choice on election day because these parties are the only ones who have enough finance to put forward candidates. It leaves the question, what good is an active Parliment, If the people there do not really represent the views of the people?

Now onto the farce that Britain calls the Royal Family. They do nothing. show me any Royalist with any argument for keeping the Royals, and I'll blow the fucker away in 5 minutes. Any argument can be countered so easily, theres no point bothering with them. a typical example would be the tourist industry the royals bring in. This is wrong because people visit the Versailles Palace in France, and the French are a Republic. Buckingham Palace would still draw millions in even if there were no Royals there. The wankers hardly ever live there anyway.

Now onto the most injust institution of Britain. The Lords. unlike the Royals, these unelected half witted codgers actually have power. They have blocked numerous laws that have been supported by the people. Fox hunting being just one. There can be no equality of oppurtunity, while there are people stopping laws through birthright.

The school system is an easy one. I suspect its litte different in the US. Only in Britain, its more openly unequal. morons get through there A-Levels at Eton while bright kids struggle in oversized classes with problem children in the inner cities.

Then there is British policy. unashamedly imperialist at best, colonialist at worse. Britain continues to deny Ireland its self determination as a nation. They continue to deply troops and colude with Loyalist bigots in the killing of Irishmen. There recent upsurge in Imperialism comes as a suprise to some. But some of us knew that a Leppard never really changes its spots. They just can' help themselves. Like a criminal doing 'one last job', although it never turns out to be the last one, does it England.

That brings us to civil rights. I want bore you with Britains appaling civil rights record in the six counties, I'll take that as fairly obvious to anyone. what I will say is that Britain is increasingly a Police state. I don't know if anyone recalls a Charlton Athletic fan who was charged with making racist comments at a football match. What happened, is a special police informant, yes you heard me INFORMANT, was placed in the ground the specially listen out for any racist comments. sickening as racism is, It is a basic human right to say as you please. it is a violation of free speech. And to have the special informant there just to listen for racist comments, to me, is an invasion of privacy and free speech. KGB, anyone?

But I stopped in full anti-British flow when I realised this must be an April Fools. Tell me I'm right SOM. Youre too intelligent to go for this.

[mentalbunny]

Just Joe, you generalise too much, this post would be more effective otherwise. I'm not saying you're wrong, it's just a bit rhetorical.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

JustJoe, again you are coming from a biased perspective. I am not criticising you for having such views and you are correct in some of them. However you must take into consideration that there are big plus points with the British state which we take for granted. Things that are not given to people in other countries. Do not get me wrong, I know Britain is far from a perfect democracy. Im just suggesting maybe we do have a somewhat pluralist state. There's still this sort of fragmented elite which we have in this country, but I think the people of our country are given many benefits which we must be grateful for.

As for redstar, it's just the ususal, "I can't actually argue against, but I disagree and want to disagree for the sake of disagreeing, so I'll just tell them that". You don't know enough to comment, so you just disagree and trash other peoples posts. If you did know enough, you would be able to accept some of the things I've said as fact. You're, not worth responding to anymore, redstar.

[Just Joe]

I appreciate your view SOM, I just don't agree with it. Many wouldn't if they were too look into the British state in depth. In the context of western so called democracies, Britain is last when it comes to democratic values. mainly because democratic values have not been thrust upon Britains in a revolution; they have been slowly gained through gradual reforms.

The mindset of a lot of Brits is still very imperialist; even if they don't know it. That is not biased as I have lived in England on and off for years. This is not all there faults. They have it drilled into them. Even a lot of anti-war Brits won't be free from imperialism. A lot of them are simply scared of the come-back. Hardly any have any problem with the thought of actually invading another independant country.

The only other Western government that is less democratic than Britain is Germany. They do have an excuse though. They're country was destroyed by people who abused there Democratic process.

For Britain to re-gain any credibily as a decent state in my eyes, it must look at implementing the following:-

grant self determination for Ireland, Scotland and Wales
withdraw from NATO
stop privatisation
become a Republic
dissolve the house of lords
change there 'first past the post' voting system

And thats just for starters. I won't mention the chavenistic attitudes of the media, or the immigration witch hunt the Labour Party is engaging in presently to divert attention to the problems they have not solved.

I know youre not saying Britain is a paradise; that it is not as bad as some say, but I just disagree.

[mentalbunny]

#Moderation Mode

I really think this is more suited to Politics, it's barely theoretical and it will get more responses in Politics.

Moved here (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=11&topic=3327)

[Angie]

The thing about Great Britain that's entertaining me at the moment is the lack of viewpoint re this war, that we're hearing from the Royal Family. Seriously, there's been next to nothing. Weeks back there was something from Prince Charles and it was very pro-Muslim and anti-war, so Blair's been doing his damnedest to silence the Prince's voice wherever possible. Makes you wonder if his viewpoint is rather commonly held amongst the rest of the family, considering the general silence from them.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

mentalbunny, I request that my forum be moved back into THEORY please.

I think that what you said what completely wrong. My forum was meant to assess the British state with use of theories of elitist states and pluralist states. These are theories of states. Therefore, this belongs in THEORY.

I was not talking political, but theoretical.

[redstar2000]

Actually, Mentalbunny, Socialsmo's threads usually belong in Opposing Ideologies and this one is no exception.

JustJoe's detailed refutations don't require any elaboration from me. So I'll just mention a few sentences to show how far Socialsmo departs from a rational evaluation of Britain.

"And who are we to complain when things don't go as we want them to when 49% of us choose to stay home on election day?"

You don't understand, Socialsmo, why people don't vote; in capitalist elections, there's no one worth voting for. They're all bastards!

"...the House of Lords does contain some people who have genuine concern for the masses in Britain." Pull the other one, Socialsmo, it's got bells on it.

And Britain "allows peaceful protest"? Isn't that nice of them? But have they not the right to stop allowing it any time they wish, in the name of public order? Where do you think, Socialsmo, the expression "read the riot act" originated? And have you ever heard of Peterloo?

"There are many concessions made by the government, checks and balances, that allow the people to have more say in things than we think."

Yes, that's why Britain could go to war inspite of the polls showing a majority of the people against it. (!)

"I do believe we are headed by an intelligent government and an intelligent leader...he is, at the end of the day, a decent leader."

When you realize that's Tony Lapdog he's talking about there, you may fairly criticize my original post...Socialsmo is amusing, in a sick kind of way. Who else would call a war criminal a "decent leader"?

"I think the people of are given many benefits for which we must be grateful for."

When it's time to queue up for the privilege of kissing Tony Blair's bum, Socialsmo will be found towards the front of a very short line. "Gratitude" makes powerful demands. :o

The [b]reason, Sr. Muerte, that I "trash" your posts is because they consistently turn out to be...well, trash! Specifically, pro-capitalist trash.

If you would cease "littering", I would happily stop picking it up.

:cool:

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 6:36 pm on April 2, 2003
Actually, Mentalbunny, Socialsmo's threads usually belong in Opposing Ideologies and this one is no exception.

JustJoe's detailed refutations don't require any elaboration from me. So I'll just mention a few sentences to show how far Socialsmo departs from a rational evaluation of Britain.

"And who are we to complain when things don't go as we want them to when 49% of us choose to stay home on election day?"

You don't understand, Socialsmo, why people don't vote; in capitalist elections, there's no one worth voting for. They're all bastards!

"...the House of Lords does contain some people who have genuine concern for the masses in Britain." Pull the other one, Socialsmo, it's got bells on it.

And Britain "allows peaceful protest"? Isn't that nice of them? But have they not the right to stop allowing it any time they wish, in the name of public order? Where do you think, Socialsmo, the expression "read the riot act" originated? And have you ever heard of Peterloo?

"There are many concessions made by the government, checks and balances, that allow the people to have more say in things than we think."

Yes, that's why Britain could go to war inspite of the polls showing a majority of the people against it. (!)

"I do believe we are headed by an intelligent government and an intelligent leader...he is, at the end of the day, a decent leader."

When you realize that's Tony Lapdog he's talking about there, you may fairly criticize my original post...Socialsmo is amusing, in a sick kind of way. Who else would call a war criminal a "decent leader"?

"I think the people of are given many benefits for which we must be grateful for."

When it's time to queue up for the privilege of kissing Tony Blair's bum, Socialsmo will be found towards the front of a very short line. "Gratitude" makes powerful demands. :o

The [b]reason, Sr. Muerte, that I "trash" your posts is because they consistently turn out to be...well, trash! Specifically, pro-capitalist trash.

If you would cease "littering", I would happily stop picking it up.

:cool:



You clearly know nothing at all.

The thing about the elections;

"You don't understand, Socialsmo, why people don't vote; in capitalist elections, there's no one worth voting for. They're all bastards!"

You said that. Well, if there are 49% of the electorate in this country who don't vote because there's nobody to vote for, surely a few of those people can create a party of their own? Sounds unrealistic, but it does not need much to start a political party, so long as you know politics. Wait....maybe they don't know anything about politics. Oh, and who's fault is that? They're own. Well, the majority of them anyway.

Other than that, they could vote tactically. If there was that much concern and opposition to Labour, 49% of the population actually turning up could've changed things massively.


""...the House of Lords does contain some people who have genuine concern for the masses in Britain." Pull the other one, Socialsmo, it's got bells on it."

Then you said that. I like the way you use selected pieces of information you know. Even if you are a complete idiot when it comes to morality, tolerance and actually political knowledge, you at least have the intelligence to be a propaganda minster or something. Of course, if you'd presented all of what I'd said about the House of Lord's, you would've said that I did actually say the House of Lords should be abolished or at least fully elected. You would've also pointed out that I used an example of one of the few in the Lords who are representing changing times in that institution.

As for your comment about me loving Mr. Blair. I said he was a decent leader. I did not say I agreed with his policies. There is a difference. I do not like the way he follows Bush. I do not agree with the top up fee's. I do not agree with the NHS pay structure. I do not agree with the new immigration laws he wants to introduce. That's just to name a few. But to acknowledge someone as a good leader, you do not have to agree with their policies. Hitler was the greatest leader ever, how can anyone disagree. Does anyone agree with his ideology? Well, very few people.

You can put me in opposing ideologies. I wouldn't care. If you mean I am opposing against intolerant radicalism and a rational analysis of issues, then I am guilty.

However, I stress again that I would like this to return to THEORY. As it is based on a theoretical approach to the state.

[redstar2000]

"Hitler was the greatest leader ever, how can anyone disagree?"

What kind of definition of "leader" are you using when you say things like this, Socialsmo?

What exactly did Hitler do for the German people besides lose a major war, costing the Germans around 10 million dead and who knows how many life-crippling injuries...and establish Germany as the world-class leader in barbarous infamy...the "gold standard" of depravity. Why do you think I refer to America as "the 4th Reich"? I'm making a comparison that everyone over the age of seven can understand immediately.

This is your idea of "the greatest leader ever"? The guy who (temporarily) gets the most "public worship"? The guy who "acts as if he were a god" and gets away with it...temporarily?

Great-Leader-worship is a sickness, Socialsmo, and it is frequently fatal. But the cure is readily available...learn some real history and not the bourgeois clap-trap you've been reading in school.

:cool:

[peaccenicked]

#Moderation Mode



Moved here (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=22&topic=2072)

[peaccenicked]

#Moderation Mode

peaccenicked
Moderation mode

Moved here (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=22&topic=2073)

[peaccenicked]

#Moderation Mode

peaccenicked
Moderation mode

Moved here (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=22&topic=2074)

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

First of all, I know I said I wouldn't care if you idiots moved this to opposing ideologies, and I don't, but it's nothing short of disgrace. Are you "moderators" so stupid that you cannot see this is a theoretical debate. It was redstar who turned it into something a little less intelligent than it originally was.

Secondly, redstar, the definition of a leader that I am using is actual leadership regardless of policies.

"What exactly did Hitler do....learn some real history and not the bourgeois clap-trap you've been reading in school"

oh.....my....god....What the fuck sort of history do you read then? I really cannot believe you. Hitler only brought Germany out of the ruins, gained the fanatical following of one of the world's most powerful nations and was very close to taking over Europe...possibly the world. No, he didn't take over in the end, but which leader has ever been perfect. Oh wait, don' tell me redstar, Stalin.
I'm not going to go into ~"What Hitler did" because this was not intended to be a forum on History.....it IS a forum on THEORY. But everyone knows what Hitler did for Germany and how he brought the country up from ruins to be what it was before the war broke out. Everyone except you, apparently redstar.

Intolerant and idiotic radicals like you infuriate me. You cannot appreciate anything unless it complies with your radical political beliefs. Everything is "capitalist" this, "moderate" that, "right wing" this. It is stupidity. You cannot critically analyse anything. Not even Adolf Hitler. YOU are the one who needs to learn real history. After you've got over the fact that however "cool" you may think you are being radical, all it is doing is making you look and sound like a fuckin idiot.

[redstar2000]

Yes, Socialsmo, your assertions do have theoretical implications and for that very reason belong in this forum.

If Tony Blair is a "decent leader" and Adolph Hitler is a "great leader" --your words--what does that say about your theoretical understanding of "leadership"?

Whatever answer you might make to this question, it clearly would have no more in common with socialism/communism/anarchism than it would have with the surface temperature of the planet Mars.

Your concept of "leadership" is drenched in bourgeois "great man" ideology. It positively reeks of servility to any self-appointed elitist bastard with a gift for manipulation and plausible-sounding lies.

If Hitler had conquered the world, I swear you'd be praising the TURD! :o

Tell me, Socialsmo, will you be part of Tony Blair's party at the victory parade in Baghdad? I have heard the flight has been delayed... :cheesy:

:cool:

[chamo]

A good leader is one who will lead for the good of his people, not for the good of business, the economy, power for himself. A good leader is one who will transform the country to something equal, fair and just. A good leader is a modest one who does not use his own greatness to his own accord.
A great leader is not one who lies, backstabs, and uses military bullying to achieve his aims.

[mentalbunny]

I would like to add that popular does not mean good, but I am confused abuot great, it depends on your meaning of the word, what do you mean, SoM?

[smith196]

Quote: from Just Joe on 7:34 pm on April 1, 2003
I appreciate your view SOM, I just don't agree with it. Many wouldn't if they were too look into the British state in depth. In the context of western so called democracies, Britain is last when it comes to democratic values. mainly because democratic values have not been thrust upon Britains in a revolution; they have been slowly gained through gradual reforms.

The mindset of a lot of Brits is still very imperialist; even if they don't know it. That is not biased as I have lived in England on and off for years. This is not all there faults. They have it drilled into them. Even a lot of anti-war Brits won't be free from imperialism. A lot of them are simply scared of the come-back. Hardly any have any problem with the thought of actually invading another independant country.

The only other Western government that is less democratic than Britain is Germany. They do have an excuse though. They're country was destroyed by people who abused there Democratic process.

For Britain to re-gain any credibily as a decent state in my eyes, it must look at implementing the following:-

grant self determination for Ireland, Scotland and Wales
withdraw from NATO
stop privatisation
become a Republic
dissolve the house of lords
change there 'first past the post' voting system

And thats just for starters. I won't mention the chavenistic attitudes of the media, or the immigration witch hunt the Labour Party is engaging in presently to divert attention to the problems they have not solved.

I know youre not saying Britain is a paradise; that it is not as bad as some say, but I just disagree.


Why would you say that Britain has the worst democratic values out of Western democracies? I don't think British people are imperialist. What gives you this impression?

Self determination- Scotland, Ireland and Wales all want to remain in the union. It would be a very bad idea for the union to spill up. It would lead to a decrease in living standards and military capabilities for the new states.

NATO- I also support the UK's withdrawal from NATO.

Stop privatisation- Well I suppose this one depends on your economic views. I think the railways should be renationalised but the NHS needs reform, which in the end might include privatisation. I have some ideas for the NHS. I'll post them if you like.

Republic- I'm totally against this. I think Britain would be a much worse nation if we lost the monarchy. I think constitutional Monarchy is a good form of Government.

Lords- I'll agree that the Lords need reform but I don't think it should be abolished. I mean how would this make Britain a better state?

Voting system- I think this would be good as well. Proportional representation is more democratic and it would mean some smaller parties would win more elections.

I also dislike the media but the immigration policies are good. Why do you oppose them? We get far to many as it is at the moment.

[chamo]

Quote: from mentalbunny on 8:49 pm on April 3, 2003
I would like to add that popular does not mean good, but I am confused abuot great, it depends on your meaning of the word, what do you mean, SoM?


What I believe SoM thinks a great leader is, is one who is popular, as you said, or one who has a cult following or one who will go down in history.

Great leaders who have the popular vote are often so because they corrupt their world, the people who stand by them are corrupt, they vote for them because it is them who will benefit, who am I talking about? The bourgeois.

Hitler came to power in Germany through making promises to the bourgeois, telling them that he can create for them a workforce that will greatly improve their production and profit. The bourgeois, having their exploitative power over the workers, then enforced this idea.
As Germany was in a deep economic depression, Hitler brought Capitalism back up in the country, and all the top German businessmen were members of the Nazi Party, and contibuted money to it.

Hitler used propaganda constantly. He somehow made the way a mathematical sum is carried out in the classroom derogatory to Jews. He came to power through hate, but not for him, for minorities.

By getting a people to follow you in the destruction of another race, they will lose any sense of moral decency, and they will be putty in your hands.

Hitler may have been intelligent. But he was evil and corrupt. Tyranny is not greatness, it is selfishness, Som will have to decide which is a true sign of greatness, brutal control, or decent comradeship.

(Edited by happyguy at 10:01 pm on April 3, 2003)

[mentalbunny]

I definitely agree about the elction process, it's awful at the moment, we should definitelty have proportional representation, isn't that what they have in the Netherlands?

I don't really know about anything else, I'm not really in favour of getting rid of the monarchy as it stands at the moment because it would cause too many headaches.

If things got sorted out over Brussels way I would definitely consider more involvement in the EU, leading perhaps to a socialist European State, but as it stands that's another "no".

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

The definition of power and leadership that I'm talking about is where you completely diregard policies. Disregard policies and look at how they actually led their country and their people.

There are many different types of power/authority. Rational legal power, charismatic power, forceful power to name a few. Then you can go into decision making, non-decision making and shaping desires. There are so many ways to look at power, authority and leadership. ALL of these require you to pay no attention to policies.

Hitler obviously led in more than one of these ways, as most dictators do. A blend of charismatic, forceful and rational legal power and a huge lump of shaping desires gave him control over Germans. What is the most important fact when looking at his leadership? THE GERMAN PEOPLE LOVED HIM. Yes, he massacred Jews in one of the most sickening acts of brutality in history but you must forget this when looking at leadership. Infact, you could use it to show how good he was with the fact that many Germans actually supported it because he and Goebbels persuaded everyone that it was legitimate to persecute Jews.

Again, though, this WAS NOT my original point. Why is nobody talking about Britain. redstar, why can you not look at an issue rationally and analytically. Everyone on these forums seems to think you are intelligent....you are oneof the most idiotic people on here. You CANNOT critically analyse ANYTHING. I think maybe you went and bought a load of history books from Stalinist Soviet Union and just took those interpretations as fact. If you could critically analyse this situation, you would be able to say that Britain is one of the most democratic western powers.

I KNOW we have an elite. I KNOW the House of Lords should probably be abolished, reformed at least. I KNOW Tony Blair is in the wrong to give into Dubya.

I also know that we have free elections, minimum wage, trade unions andmany other concessions. I KNOW that these are in place, maybe, just to keep everyone happy for now. But at least they are there.

I think you've all made the mistake of taking the forum away from it's original point.

[Just Joe]

Why would you say that Britain has the worst democratic values out of Western democracies? I don't think British people are imperialist. What gives you this impression?

All of what I said in my first post. From informants inside football grounds listening to any racist remarks, to unelected cronies stopping laws being passed because of there parents. Gun laws would be another area I think Britain falls short in the democratic rights.

Self determination- Scotland, Ireland and Wales all want to remain in the union.

There is no country called Ireland. the shabby partition we were given in 1921 does not constitute the Irish nation. If a vote were held across the real Irish nation, we would have unified Ireland. And I didn't say Scotland and Wales should be independant, but given a far shot at self determination.

The usual unionist argument about how living standards would fall is pure garbage. The industrial North would compliment the free states economy well. And military capability means nothing in the age of the EU and a Euro army.

Republic- I'm totally against this. I think Britain would be a much worse nation if we lost the monarchy. I think constitutional Monarchy is a good form of Government.

Why?

I also dislike the media but the immigration policies are good. Why do you oppose them? We get far to many as it is at the moment.

Britains immigration control should be determined by the people. I am for more open borders myself, but I'd go with what the people want because thats democracy. What I am against and can not stand is the scapegoating of immigrants by papers like the Sun and, increasingly, The Labour Party. Its pathetic.



(Edited by Just Joe at 11:33 pm on April 3, 2003)

[Just Joe]

Socialsmo o Muerte

millions of war dead wouldn't think Hitler was a good leader. He was the worst thing that has happened to Germany and the world since the dawn of man.

he may have been a skillfull, charismatic politician, but how anyone who leads his country to the most destructive war in history can be considered a good leader, is beyond me.

youre view on Britain is a strange one for a lefty. its seems like saying, slavery isn't all bad, because at least its regular work. I don't buy that myself. Britain has some good things, but most of those are just comprimises to keep the people on there arses watching TV, instead of actually doing something about the situation.

(Edited by Just Joe at 11:31 pm on April 3, 2003)

[redstar2000]

Well, Socialsmo, do you want to discuss theory or do you just wish to churn out blather for the British Chamber of Commerce?

I think the other responses deal adequately with your ridiculous claims about British "democracy". If you wish me to take a turn at slicing that odious ham, I'll be glad to do so.

But what is your "theoretical" contribution to this discussion? It looks to me like bourgeois "great leader" worship.

"The Germans loved Hitler." Many did, some hated him, some were indifferent. Is that the measure of "greatness"?

Tony Blair is a "decent leader" who just happens to have this small character flaw...being guilty of war crimes.

What conclusion can be reasonably drawn from your remarks? Do you even understand what you are actually saying?

I note in passing that, like all the pro-capitalists on this board, you have a marked tendency to resort to a good deal of personal abuse in response to criticism. Why not stop calling me "stupid" and "idiotic" and offer a coherent response to my points?

That's not asking too much, is it?

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 12:17 am on April 4, 2003)

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Firstly, JustJoe, I know that the concessions are made just keep people happy like you said. I didn't say this was all perfect, I was just pointing out that we have a better system than many other countries.

redstar, you're point about Hitler. About some liking him, some not...that is what I said. Hence the personal abuse I throw at you for being stupid. You arguing my points with my points.

I also did not say Britain was a complete democracy. I know we have huge flaws in the system. For the last time.... MY POINT WAS, OUR STATE ISN'T COMPLETELY ELITIST AND IS MORE DEMOCRATIC THAN MANY OTHER PLACES. ELITIST THEORIES ON THE STATE SUCH AS THE MARXIST ONE DO NOT FIT COMPLETELY AND SOME ASPECTS OF PLURALIST AND FUNCTIONALIST THEORIES OF THE STATE FIT, SHOWING THAT WE DO HAVE SOME DEMOCRACY.

mentalbunny, explain why you think the monarchy is valuable. please. What headaches would be caused by getting rid of that woman who appears in public now and then to wave?

smith196, same for you. Why do you want to keep the monarchy? We have a "Constitutional Monarchy"....but,really, what the fuck does the monarchy do as a contribution to government. Absolutly nothing...I'll save you your answer. We would not be a worse nation without our monarchy. It would just mean one less old, dated British tradition to dwell on when speaking of our country.

[chamo]

There is absolutley no reason to keep the monarchy and the House of Lords, they are only trademarks and representatives of the elite. I would not want my tax money going towards paying for the monarchy and being abused in Parliament.

SoM, the title of this thread, "Great Britain...An Elitist State?", is above your comment "»Maybe not..."

"Not" being the operative word here, and yet you claim that the elite do infact have much more power, so which is right?

"The Germans loved Hitler." - I don't think they do anymore. He left Germany worse off in the eyes of the rest of the world than he started with. Brainwashing and lies made him popular, this does not make him aspire to greatness.

[Invader Zim]

Joe the reason why the UK has not got equil rights as you put it is bacause there is no written constitution governing the running of government or industry. So your quite right, however as the UK is in the EU we abide by there equality rules and regulations. Hence the reason why if for example you were black, catholic or what ever and you were sacked because of that or were unfairly paid a substancialy piad a lesser wage than other employees. That company can be taken to the european court of human rights. You can also sue for unfair dismissal any way in the local assizes or in the majistraits. (typo i know)

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

happyguy, my point was that Britain is not a complete elitist state.

I know there are elitist aspects, but there are also pluralist and functionalist aspects which suggest that there is a certain extent of democracy in Britain which you don't often see in other countries.

[Just Joe]

Quote: from AK47 on 6:04 pm on April 4, 2003
Hence the reason why if for example you were black, catholic or what ever and you were sacked because of that or were unfairly paid a substancialy piad a lesser wage than other employees. That company can be taken to the european court of human rights. You can also sue for unfair dismissal any way in the local assizes or in the majistraits. (typo i know)


I don't think even deserves a responce.

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from Just Joe on 9:38 pm on April 4, 2003

Quote: from AK47 on 6:04 pm on April 4, 2003
Hence the reason why if for example you were black, catholic or what ever and you were sacked because of that or were unfairly paid a substancialy piad a lesser wage than other employees. That company can be taken to the european court of human rights. You can also sue for unfair dismissal any way in the local assizes or in the majistraits. (typo i know)


I don't think even deserves a responce.

think what you like Joe think what you like... Your Bias attitude of course means that no argument made with you about the UK can possibly end up as a serious debate... So im not going to bother wasting my time on you.