Oh fer christ's sake, this has turned into another thread about America's bloody internal schisms!
Piss off you obsessed lot, we are laughing at the Brits here!
Isn't he officiating at the baseball game?
I believe that if you asked Brits about their own class divisions, they would be well aware of the current state:
1 Old style divisions still exist
2 Our society is more socially mobile than it ever has been
3 There's still a long way to go
I take the point about the Monarchy and House of Lords. On the latter, changes are proposed and are slowly being put into effect. To change the workings of a system in which the democratically-elected house has all the real power is not something which needs revolution - just a continuous move to a meritocracy rather than aristocracy in the second house is needed. Whether it should be independently elected is a question for another thread.
I used to be opposed to the Monarchy on the grounds that it perpetuates one of the fundamentals of the class system, i.e. "if you're not born to it, you can't have it".
However, since "W" was elected, I'm aware that there is a useful disctintion between the representative of the State (in the sense of the British people) and the politicians who represent current interests of the majority. I feel deep sympathy for the 49% of the US population who didn't vote for Bush but who have their own country represented (not only in a political sense) by a man against whom they have strong objections.
I'm happy that we have an independent representative of "Britishness", albeit one with inheirited power and wealth. In person, I think the Queen has done a wonderful job and cannot imagine anyone doing that job better. Whether Prince Charles will also get this kind of support from me remains to be seen.
KP
kitchenpete wrote:I feel deep sympathy for the 49% of the US population who didn't vote for Bush but who have their own country represented (not only in a political sense) by a man against whom they have strong objections.
I'll take issue with this statement... It's meaningless. Where did you get that 49% figure? First, only something like 28% of the US voting age population did not vote for Bush (30% did vote for Bush...the other 42% simply did not vote). Secondly, you'd be better off looking at job approval ratings which are abysmal for Bush, but such ratings can't be interpreted as having "strong objections" to Bush. I myself don't think Bush is doing that well so would be counted in the bin of those who "somewhat disapprove" of Bush's CURRENT job performance, but I still strongly support him against any alternatives I see on the horizon.
I presume that you feel similar deep sympathy for the large majority of British that didn't vote for Blair or the Queen.
You miss my point but it was not intended to be "anti-American".
If potential voters don't decide to vote that's their problem but my point is not about political representation. It is about the symbol of the Nation.
I don't like the fact that the Queen has her job through chance of birth does not please me. My point is that she is not political and therefore our representative of Britain is "above" the divisions of party politics, which is something that cannot be said for an elected president such as Bush.
I hope that sounds better to you.
KP
Quote:First, only something like 28% of the US voting age population did not vote for Bush (30% did vote for Bush...the other 42% simply did not vote).
Technically, not voting at all means that the population 'didn't vote for Bush.' They didn't vote for Kerry either.
Looking at it that way, 70% of voting adults didn't vote for Bush.
Cycloptichorn
I am wondering . . . does this mean that the folks in Merry Old think that we are vulgar builders of empire, or builders of vulgar empires . . .
You are most certainly vulgar. Whether you are building anything is another matter.
BTW Setanta.
Is that ace essay you did on the imams and mullahs any guide to those American religious leaders who are not affiliated to Rome.
