Something I just don't get about the British goverment

[Flying Dagger]

I don't think the military have a choice in that matter, do they? And isn't it still only her that can declare war?

I thought so, but someone said ultimate control rested with the Minister for Defence, so I'm now doubtful.

AFAIK the Queen is still head of the Military, hence she's the one that gets the parades/inspections and not the PM.

I said that the chain of command ends with the minister for defence, though as he is a politician i think all power rests on the head of the army who's term escapes me now.
it really just goes down to the head of the airforce, navy and army, whoever they decide to follow will be followed. though it's very unlikely that they would take the queen's side should she try to do anything, the fact that it would be going against the party that most people voted for would stop it.
the parades are just functions, more tourist traps.

 

[Azure-Supernova]

It's part of our heritage. Also she's a big tourist attraction! Tax payers money yes, but doting tourists will pay stupid amounts for little trinkets, visits to BUCKINGHAM and just about anything to do with the Royal Family.

Just to be pedantic seeing as I have family in Buckingham, very few to no tourists ever go there as it's a small town about a mile long that has nothing of particular interest, a few pubs and a very low down the list University perhaps but that's it. Now Buckingham Palace on the other hand, that's where all the tourists spend their money

Sorry about that, stupid forgetting to put Palace ¬_¬ I'm going to go give myself a chinese burn out in the hallway.

 

[Flying Dagger]

Do you know there are an estimated twenty intelligence agencies that operate above the President? They're known as the Shadow Government / G-Men / Men in Black, etc.
They pull the strings behind the curtains while the "Government" dances on the stage.
But, why would you listen to me, because I obviously, as you say, don't know what I'm talking about, regardless of the fact that I took U.S. Politics in college.

An estimated 20? I estimate that there are 30. You may now revise your number. Wait, you took U.S. Politics in college? No. Fucking. Way. That's definitely so much more reliable and independent of these mysterious groups you claim to know so much about than the schools. Seriously, this sort of facile reasoning undermines any legitimate claim to authority you may otherwise have had. The U.S. is in no way a democracy, instead being a plutocracy governed by lobbyists and business interests with politicians that they carry around in their pockets, like so many nickels and dimes (non-obscure ref), but then it is hardly news that money and fame grubbing hacks will serve those that paid for their campaign rather than the people. There's a long and documented history of that.

if only people would believe you!

 

[Earthbound Engineer]

An estimated 20? I estimate that there are 30. You may now revise your number.

Well, if you're counting the Official U.S. Intelligence agencies, then yes, there are 28. However, that's not what I was referring to.
As a matter of fact, I recall saying, "...operate above the President..."
All of those agencies are regulated by the government.

 

[Superbeast]

I said that the chain of command ends with the minister for defence, though as he is a politician i think all power rests on the head of the army who's term escapes me now.
it really just goes down to the head of the airforce, navy and army, whoever they decide to follow will be followed. though it's very unlikely that they would take the queen's side should she try to do anything, the fact that it would be going against the party that most people voted for would stop it.
the parades are just functions, more tourist traps.

I'm not thinking a generally racist party, but more like how Hitler got power in the 30s (his mobs beating the opponents up, "guarding" the polling stations etc) or the government from V for Vendetta. Someone that got in by suspect-at-very-best "democratic" methods

 

[Death on Trapezoids]

She's a figure head, and traditions die hard.

 

[Flying Dagger]

I'm not thinking a generally racist party, but more like how Hitler got power in the 30s (his mobs beating the opponents up, "guarding" the polling stations etc) or the government from V for Vendetta. Someone that got in by suspect-at-very-best "democratic" methods

more a case for police, i can't really see a scenario where this would happen.
i've heard stories from my late grandad, who was in reconaissence in france during the second world war, but when Oswald Mosely was trying to turn the hate on in england, a whole bunch of jewish ex-servicemen would show up every time they tried to force their beliefs on people, and any time violence broke out, all the jewish ex-servicemen would kick the heads of the nazi sympathizers in. i'm proud to say my grandad had a hand in that.

 

[Flying Dagger]

An estimated 20? I estimate that there are 30. You may now revise your number.

Well, if you're counting the Official U.S. Intelligence agencies, then yes, there are 28. However, that's not what I was referring to.
As a matter of fact, I recall saying, "...operate above the President..."
All of those agencies are regulated by the government.

Ok, I revise my estimate to 500. Get my point now? It's about the word 'estimated'. Evidence of your claim please, I'm certainly not about to believe you because you claim you "studied U.S. Politics at college" (and no I don't mean evidence that you studied U.S. Politics at college, I mean evidence of your rather bold claim).

if you were simply taking the piss out of him, then i apologise for sarcquoting you, though it wasn't very clear.

 

[Flying Dagger]

Yeah, I was trying to parody his point. I guess I didn't think big enough in the first instance. I presumed that you hadn't understood me but didn't work out what to do about it yet, fortunately that's been sorted out now. EVIDENCE people, we need EVIDENCE.

i get tired of conspiracy theories, people aren't all that easy to manipulate if you ask me, and somehow there's never "hard" evidence. usually just negatives to what people have seen with their own eyes.

 

[tkioz]

Anyone who says the Queen is powerless is a total fool, she's there to ensure continuity, the government can change every few years, but the Queen has been in power for 50 years, and her family for centuries, people can look and see a long standing position of power.

The US has it's constitution for this purpose, England and other Commonwealth Nations (like my own Australia) have the royal family, the Queen is highly respected internationally, known to work behind the scenes to accomplish things that governments have failed to do time and again, because short of her death, she's not going anywhere.

As for real power, do you honestly believe that if the Queen called for her subjects to take up arms against an unjust government nothing would happen? I know a lot of people in the Australian army that hold little regard for our government, considering them self serving twits, that would die for the Queen, and regardless of the law, would follow her orders to the letter. I imagine that it's only more true in England.

 

[Earthbound Engineer]

Evidence of your claim please, I'm certainly not about to believe you because you claim you "studied U.S. Politics at college" (and no I don't mean evidence that you studied U.S. Politics at college, I mean evidence of your rather bold claim).

The fact that I studied politics was not the point of my post, and certainly not reason for you to believe me. I simply said that directly to the user that quoted me, because that particular user was claiming that I knew nothing of politics, when I was discussing a controversial subject, and then proceeded to quote his junior high textbook. It was un-called for.
It would be the equivalent of me lecturing about the possible existence of extra-terrestrials, and then for that user to flame me and say human technology has not come far enough to travel great distances in the vacuum of space, therefore aliens don't exist, and I know nothing of science.

 

[Kortney]

Your ignorance is showing...
You could say the exact same thing about the President. Like the Queen, the President barely has any power whatsoever in the Government, because that's left up to Congress. The President is more of a spokesman for the country.

As is yours.

The president has the power to veto/approve/alter anything that congress passes. Can authorize the use of nuclear weapons. Declare martial law. Declare war. Pardon people of crimes. And many many other things if he choses to, and he can do these all on his own. It's just that in modern times a good president will go through congress and reach an agreement instead of just working towards his own personal agenda.

You should know what you are talking about before you go calling people ignorant.

Ah, yes indeed. And where did you come across this fact? Oh, that's right! You learned it from a textbook that was mandated as part of the curriculum in a school regulated by the government.
Take off your rose colored glasses, and stop being so naive. The "three branches of government" and the whole thing about "checks and balances" that you probably learned about in elementary school is a lie.
Do you know there are an estimated twenty intelligence agencies that operate above the President? They're known as the Shadow Government / G-Men / Men in Black, etc.
They pull the strings behind the curtains while the "Government" dances on the stage.
But, why would you listen to me, because I obviously, as you say, don't know what I'm talking about, regardless of the fact that I took U.S. Politics in college.

Haha, I'm not going to indulge in stupid pseudo-conspiracy theory rubbish. Nearly all of what you said cannot be proven, and is all bullshit, so I'm not going to address that. If you believe that the president does nothing and the US is really controlled by a the mysterious shadow men, then there is no point discussing anything because I'm not buying that for a second.

Regardless of all that, it's still irrelevant. I responded to your comparison between the President and the Queen and how you stated they both do nothing. Surely your US Politics college course must have told you about how the President is able to give any order he wants, and that order is automatically higher than anything or anyone's orders in the country. Even taking into account all your paranoia and all your beliefs about the Government, that statement is still true. The views of a President can and do influence the whole country's actions, and he holds the most power. Now compare all that with the Queen. See the difference? This is what I was talking about. I wasn't trying to make some statement about how the US Government works, I was simply saying that the President does a lot and holds the highest power in the US, whilst the Queen does not do a lot and does not hold the highest power in the UK. That's all

 

[72Chevy]

Your ignorance is showing...
You could say the exact same thing about the President. Like the Queen, the President barely has any power whatsoever in the Government, because that's left up to Congress. The President is more of a spokesman for the country.

As is yours.

The president has the power to veto/approve/alter anything that congress passes. Can authorize the use of nuclear weapons. Declare martial law. Declare war. Pardon people of crimes. And many many other things if he choses to, and he can do these all on his own. It's just that in modern times a good president will go through congress and reach an agreement instead of just working towards his own personal agenda.

You should know what you are talking about before you go calling people ignorant.

The president does not have the power to declare war, that is a Congressional matter.

 

[ygetoff]

Your ignorance is showing...
You could say the exact same thing about the President. Like the Queen, the President barely has any power whatsoever in the Government, because that's left up to Congress. The President is more of a spokesman for the country.

As is yours.

The president has the power to veto/approve/alter anything that congress passes. Can authorize the use of nuclear weapons. Declare martial law. Declare war. Pardon people of crimes. And many many other things if he choses to, and he can do these all on his own. It's just that in modern times a good president will go through congress and reach an agreement instead of just working towards his own personal agenda.

You should know what you are talking about before you go calling people ignorant.

Ah, yes indeed. And where did you come across this fact? Oh, that's right! You learned it from a textbook that was mandated as part of the curriculum in a school regulated by the government.
Take off your rose colored glasses, and stop being so naive. The "three branches of government" and the whole thing about "checks and balances" that you probably learned about in elementary school is a lie.
Do you know there are an estimated twenty intelligence agencies that operate above the President? They're known as the Shadow Government / G-Men / Men in Black, etc.
They pull the strings behind the curtains while the "Government" dances on the stage.
But, why would you listen to me, because I obviously, as you say, don't know what I'm talking about, regardless of the fact that I took U.S. Politics in college.

You realize that this is impossible to argue, right? You don't have any proof, but then again neither do I.

 

[Withard]

Interesting post.

"The Queen receives money from the Civil List,about 12.2 million pounds,which she uses to run her office.
"Head of State expenditure is the official expenditure relating to The Queen's duties as Head of State and Head of the Commonwealth.

Head of State expenditure is met from public funds in exchange for the surrender by The Queen of the revenue from the Crown Estate. In the financial year to 31 March 2006 the revenue surplus from the Crown Estate paid to the Treasury amounted to £190.8 million.
Head of State expenditure for 2006-07 was £37.4 million. This was 0.03% less than in the previous year (decrease of 2.7% in real terms).

Head of State expenditure has reduced significantly over the past decade, from £87.3 million (expressed in current pounds) in 1991-92.

http://www.royal.gov/uk/output/Page4965.asp

75% of her 'income' goes towards paying her staff. So....you'd be putting a fuck of a lot of people out of a job, for a start.

Do you really think most of these people who come for a nice holiday would give a rats toss about England if it weren't for the royals? Without them, we'd just be a piss-poor little pointy country with rain. With them, we're a historical tourism site for everyone who wants to take photos of Buckingham Palace, guards in bearskins and tea. Personally I certainly think we'd lose more than £25mil or so in tourism a year without them."
__________________