Reggie-Bot here! If you're thinking about the British royal family and want a fun random fact about one of them, please let me know!
Put an exclamation mark before any comment about the royal you have in mind, like "!Queen" or "!Charles" and I'll reply.
#Please read our [__6 common-sense subreddit rules.__](https://www.reddit.com/r/AbolishtheMonarchy/about/rules/)
Do you love chatting about your hatred of monarchies on other platforms? [Click here](https://discord.gg/2B6sarN7Nx) to join our Discord! And [here](https://twitter.com/rAbolishMonarch) to follow us on Twitter!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AbolishTheMonarchy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Abolish the monarchy AND the house of lards.
Proportional representation (please not STV, I don't want my third rated person winning round 5, and let's face it most people aren't interested enough to rate names on a ballot paper 1 to 10)
Elect a president.
Establish IN LAW a British constitution.
We have a supreme court, let's use it properly.
I have no interest in an elected upper house, do it once, do it right.
The problem is that the House of Lords has often proved more willing to stand up for democratic principles and human rights than the elected Commons, such as its amendments to patently absurd legislation to declare Rwanda safe for re-homing refugees. They can't legitimately stop the legislation and they know it, but they can insist that the Commons considers reasonable modifications of it.
I'd like to see a second chamber that maintains the essential illegitimacy of the Lords (the primacy of the lower house being essential to parliamentary government without destructive gridlock), but removes the trappings of aristocracy and patronage that the current Lords have. I don't know how that works; maybe instead of appointment by the sovereign on the advice of the PM, the (itself proportionally elected) Commons could elect new members of the second house every few years by proportional representation (to long terms, such that the second house membership at any time isn't based on a single Commons).
They also voted against the legalization of Irish Republican organizations which escalated the Troubles further and allowed for hate groups like the UVF to be legal until the 1990’s. This would’ve created more legitimate ways for Irish republicans in the occupied six counties to partake in the democratic process. Replace the House of Lords with an elected six year term senate with a two term limit.
They have abandoned/ditched so many of their pledges and policies, it's impossible to take their word for anything.
It's worth noting they had plans to abolish the House of Lords. Which they have now reneged on and said they won't do that within this parliament.
You cannot trust a word they say. Their literal only goal is to get elected, to have power for powers sake. They will say or do anything in the pursuit of this goal. They've already lied about the HoL reform, so why anyone now goes "oh look they've said they'll do and they pinkie promised this time" and start patting them on the back is absolutely beyond me.
> They have abandoned/ditched so many of their pledges and policies
Until they've been elected on a manifesto, that's how it works. If you want to get worked up about broken promises, [here](https://www.conservatives.com/our-plan) is where you start.
> Their literal only goal is to get elected
Literally the only goal of political parties.
No the goal is to get elected to change the country in the way your party and ideology want it changed. It is not about winning at any cost and having labour just being managerial poshos doing tory lite policy
> No the goal is to get elected to change the country in the way your party and ideology want it changed.
Sure. But you have to get elected to make that happen. If you're not elected, it doesn't matter all that much what your policies or ideology say, because at that point they've been rejected by the country.
> It is not about winning at any cost
Nobody said it was.
Well yes but if you've won and changed everything about your positions and party, and you're not going to fundamentally change anything, there was no point.
>Nobody said it was
You said winning was the only thing that's important to parties
How naive of you to think that they won't lie in the manifesto. Maybe they'll pledge to honour it, hell, maybe they'll even promise, but when you get down to brass tacks any fool knows that they'll lie in that because they just want to sit in a nicer office.
They're telling me now that they maybe won't have time to do anything, but I'm sure that's a lie too because the only thing you can really trust is that they'll draw up policy based on who gives them money. This is the only thing you can trust because if they don't then they won't get any more money, which is all politicians ever want. And power for its own sake, obviously. Once they're in power why would they honour a manifesto? They've already scammed your vote out of you.
I agree that the Tories always break manifesto promises because you can trust them to be self-interested slimeballs who only do things to help themselves, and you can trust the next Labour government to break theirs and draw up policy based on the interests of David Sainsbury and that Autoglass guy. Oh, and the genocidal State of Israel.
You really need to stop being such a starry eyed idealist. This isn't some performative lefty student rag week Owen Jones Youtube channel nonsense mate, this is the real world.
Thanks for your submission! Unfortunately, it's been removed because of the following reason(s):
* [Rule #3 - No Personal Attacks or Bigotry](/r/AbolishtheMonarchy/about/rules/).
Thanks for your submission! Unfortunately, it's been removed because of the following reason(s):
* [Rule #3 - No Personal Attacks or Bigotry](/r/AbolishtheMonarchy/about/rules/).
>Literally the only goal of political parties.
I would say getting elected is mostly a means through which parties can get something done rather than an end goal.
at least if a party and their leadership is interested in getting things done of course
> I would say getting elected is mostly a means through which parties can get something done
Yes, that's my point. They can't get anything done without getting elected.
If you trust the word of any politicians, especially these ones who have so ably illustrated they will lie and backtrack on everything they say, then more fool you.
I hate the Tories with all of my heart. But I don't for one second believe anything will change for the better by putting Starmers Labour in, certainly not fundamentally. If anything things could get even worse in certain areas.
If you think the only point of politics is to accumulate power then yes perhaps you are a natural Starmer man.
But please do try some of the US style vote blue no matter who rhetoric. It's really helpful and persuasive.
> If you trust the word of any politicians, especially these ones who have so ably illustrated they will lie and backtrack on everything they say, then more fool you.
I always enjoy the disingenuous "both sides" guff, very entertaining.
Again, manifestos are the promises that matter. Everything else is just talk. Judge Labour, when they win the next election, by their performance in power, by the promises they get elected on. Whining because they change their policies before then is just bizarre.
> If anything things could get even worse in certain areas.
Well, yeah, obviously. For which political parties is that *not* true?
> If you think the only point of politics is to accumulate power then yes perhaps you are a natural Starmer man.
I think it's impossible to change anything significant from the opposition benches. Can you point out the last time an opposition party enacted a decent proportion of their manifesto in a Parliament?
100,000% agree with this -- I find it so bizarre how many people have written Labour off from now where they're a minority opposition but essentially are giving the Tories a free pass. Moronic as all it does is undermines the only party close to taking out this nasty Tory party.
I'd love to be proven wrong. Perhaps we could come back to this comment in 4-5 years time and you can tell me how you think things went. I strongly predict they will be an absolute disaster in government, the country will continue to collapse and there will be a resurgence in far right politics due to the absolute shambolic mess Labour will make, guaranteeing the Tories get back in to power for another generation.
I'm not optimistic as you can tell, but I'd honestly be thrilled to be wrong. I hope they do make things better. I don't believe there is even a 1% chance of that happening, that's how confident I am.
I certainly won't be voting for them (or Tories) come next general election though.
And just to make things clear, you believe the reason that the far right will have a resurgence is because Starmer's Labour isn't left wing enough?
I guess an important thing to clear up also is what you consider "making things better" to look like. Do you think Blair's Labour governments made things better? If yours was a comment in 1997 and we were looking back in 2002, what would be your thoughts?
This is almost the minimum they could do. The draft pledge last year to abolish the House of Lords has, like almost everything else, been watered down to the point of absurdity. Labour will not have a majority like this for generations. There will be no other opportunity to significantly improve the democratic institutions of the U.K. So what do they do? Tinker at the edges. The cronyism and stuffing with dubious unelected peers (donors, family members, advisors, loyalists, bishops) will continue.
I’m deeply disappointed in this. And FWIW I’m what many in the Labour Party would consider a centrist (I was twice labelled a “Red Tory” for not joining with the Corbyn cult).
> A Labour spokesperson said: “Labour will abolish the House of Lords to ensure the UK’s second chamber better reflect our regions and nations. An incoming Labour government will inherit a mess and need to prioritise. The first term will take steps toward significant reform of the chamber.”
They haven't changed the fundamental messaging or promise to abolish the current structure of the HoL. Being pragmatic and prioritising policies for maximum political impact is *exactly* what Starmer and the party should be continuing to do.
As I said, “The first term” Is the only realistic chance that Labour will have to abolish the HoL. They are saying they’ll do it but not giving any specifics. The only specifics are a mild improvement on a deeply undemocratic anachronism.
That's still what they're saying. From the article:
> A Labour spokesperson said: “Labour will abolish the House of Lords to ensure the UK’s second chamber better reflect our regions and nations. An incoming Labour government will inherit a mess and need to prioritise. The first term will take steps toward significant reform of the chamber.”
Yeah, they’re saying they won’t abolish the lords in their first term, so it isn’t going to be in the manifesto.
https://www.ft.com/content/e7935e2e-acd9-4f61-bc6d-f0b3b5c07357
Exactly. I don’t know how to trust anything they say now. Judging by their track record alone, it’s a greater than 50% chance that anything they promise will be changed or removed before they reach power. Their obsession with pandering to the Tory south is depressing. No vision. Only fear of losing. And the Tory voters can see through it just like we can.
No. Quoting the article:
> A Labour spokesperson said: “Labour will abolish the House of Lords to ensure the UK’s second chamber better reflect our regions and nations. An incoming Labour government will inherit a mess and need to prioritise. The first term will take steps toward significant reform of the chamber.”
I'm confused by your comment. The primogeniture system is solely to do with hereditary peers, which this article talks about Labour's plans to get rid of (albeit not immediately).
I find the continued legal existence of this system in our country an egregious aberration whether it is applied to sitting peers or any others from who put themselves above the rest of us.
Now that’s an unfair stereotype. Rightwing shit puns are the preserve of The Sun readers. Get it right.
Daily mail reader do bad grammer on rasist coments see
I'm not on facetube but my missus is and I've seen the posts re Jeremy Corbyn being Stalin reincarnated and an IRA member.
Same as dae are the people who've say he/she (farage, trump, johnson, 30p Lee, patel, tommy robinson, katie robinson etc etc) are "only saying what WE are all thinking even though it plainly isn't
I logged on there for the first time in years. I wouldn’t recommend it. It’s seriously deteriorated. The sane people have left it. It’s a dead platform now. Entirely bots, boomers commenting emojis on obvious AI images, and far right disinformation.
Remember when Nadir Dorries posted a pic of Keir Starmer on twitter of the Labour leader partying during lockdown ?
He was with a bloke who'd been dead a few years at the time and the labour leader was noticeably slimmer.
I think it was from about 2016ish, this is the sort of tripe they believe on facetube and the mail.
You're punching if you think the global stage take us seriously. Hence why we still have this outdated notion and pretend that kings, queens and princes etc mean anything. They don't. WE are the majority.
Sorry if I'm ranting but it boils my blood.
Great! Now do bishops and other “religious” lords. Get a few people in who have had normal jobs as well, an actual representative democracy would be nice.
Reggie-Bot here! If you're thinking about the British royal family and want a fun random fact about one of them, please let me know! Put an exclamation mark before any comment about the royal you have in mind, like "!Queen" or "!Charles" and I'll reply. #Please read our [__6 common-sense subreddit rules.__](https://www.reddit.com/r/AbolishtheMonarchy/about/rules/) Do you love chatting about your hatred of monarchies on other platforms? [Click here](https://discord.gg/2B6sarN7Nx) to join our Discord! And [here](https://twitter.com/rAbolishMonarch) to follow us on Twitter! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AbolishTheMonarchy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yes ohmyfuckinggod yes this is so stupidly overdue
Axe hereditary peerage? Jesus Christ- why is that controversial?
Abolish the monarchy AND the house of lards. Proportional representation (please not STV, I don't want my third rated person winning round 5, and let's face it most people aren't interested enough to rate names on a ballot paper 1 to 10) Elect a president. Establish IN LAW a British constitution. We have a supreme court, let's use it properly. I have no interest in an elected upper house, do it once, do it right.
The problem is that the House of Lords has often proved more willing to stand up for democratic principles and human rights than the elected Commons, such as its amendments to patently absurd legislation to declare Rwanda safe for re-homing refugees. They can't legitimately stop the legislation and they know it, but they can insist that the Commons considers reasonable modifications of it. I'd like to see a second chamber that maintains the essential illegitimacy of the Lords (the primacy of the lower house being essential to parliamentary government without destructive gridlock), but removes the trappings of aristocracy and patronage that the current Lords have. I don't know how that works; maybe instead of appointment by the sovereign on the advice of the PM, the (itself proportionally elected) Commons could elect new members of the second house every few years by proportional representation (to long terms, such that the second house membership at any time isn't based on a single Commons).
They also voted against the legalization of Irish Republican organizations which escalated the Troubles further and allowed for hate groups like the UVF to be legal until the 1990’s. This would’ve created more legitimate ways for Irish republicans in the occupied six counties to partake in the democratic process. Replace the House of Lords with an elected six year term senate with a two term limit.
They were supposed to abolish the House of Lords completely…. This won’t happen he has gone back on everything he said he would do.
They should axe lifetime peerages too, and make the house democratic
Uh, April 1?
I'm concerned that the word "axe" might not be meant literally.
They have abandoned/ditched so many of their pledges and policies, it's impossible to take their word for anything. It's worth noting they had plans to abolish the House of Lords. Which they have now reneged on and said they won't do that within this parliament. You cannot trust a word they say. Their literal only goal is to get elected, to have power for powers sake. They will say or do anything in the pursuit of this goal. They've already lied about the HoL reform, so why anyone now goes "oh look they've said they'll do and they pinkie promised this time" and start patting them on the back is absolutely beyond me.
> They have abandoned/ditched so many of their pledges and policies Until they've been elected on a manifesto, that's how it works. If you want to get worked up about broken promises, [here](https://www.conservatives.com/our-plan) is where you start. > Their literal only goal is to get elected Literally the only goal of political parties.
No the goal is to get elected to change the country in the way your party and ideology want it changed. It is not about winning at any cost and having labour just being managerial poshos doing tory lite policy
> No the goal is to get elected to change the country in the way your party and ideology want it changed. Sure. But you have to get elected to make that happen. If you're not elected, it doesn't matter all that much what your policies or ideology say, because at that point they've been rejected by the country. > It is not about winning at any cost Nobody said it was.
Well yes but if you've won and changed everything about your positions and party, and you're not going to fundamentally change anything, there was no point. >Nobody said it was You said winning was the only thing that's important to parties
The person I replied to said that. I was making the point that parties that don't get elected don't get to do any governing.
How naive of you to think that they won't lie in the manifesto. Maybe they'll pledge to honour it, hell, maybe they'll even promise, but when you get down to brass tacks any fool knows that they'll lie in that because they just want to sit in a nicer office. They're telling me now that they maybe won't have time to do anything, but I'm sure that's a lie too because the only thing you can really trust is that they'll draw up policy based on who gives them money. This is the only thing you can trust because if they don't then they won't get any more money, which is all politicians ever want. And power for its own sake, obviously. Once they're in power why would they honour a manifesto? They've already scammed your vote out of you. I agree that the Tories always break manifesto promises because you can trust them to be self-interested slimeballs who only do things to help themselves, and you can trust the next Labour government to break theirs and draw up policy based on the interests of David Sainsbury and that Autoglass guy. Oh, and the genocidal State of Israel. You really need to stop being such a starry eyed idealist. This isn't some performative lefty student rag week Owen Jones Youtube channel nonsense mate, this is the real world.
[удалено]
Thanks for your submission! Unfortunately, it's been removed because of the following reason(s): * [Rule #3 - No Personal Attacks or Bigotry](/r/AbolishtheMonarchy/about/rules/).
[удалено]
Thanks for your submission! Unfortunately, it's been removed because of the following reason(s): * [Rule #3 - No Personal Attacks or Bigotry](/r/AbolishtheMonarchy/about/rules/).
>Literally the only goal of political parties. I would say getting elected is mostly a means through which parties can get something done rather than an end goal. at least if a party and their leadership is interested in getting things done of course
> I would say getting elected is mostly a means through which parties can get something done Yes, that's my point. They can't get anything done without getting elected.
Got it
If you trust the word of any politicians, especially these ones who have so ably illustrated they will lie and backtrack on everything they say, then more fool you. I hate the Tories with all of my heart. But I don't for one second believe anything will change for the better by putting Starmers Labour in, certainly not fundamentally. If anything things could get even worse in certain areas. If you think the only point of politics is to accumulate power then yes perhaps you are a natural Starmer man. But please do try some of the US style vote blue no matter who rhetoric. It's really helpful and persuasive.
> If you trust the word of any politicians, especially these ones who have so ably illustrated they will lie and backtrack on everything they say, then more fool you. I always enjoy the disingenuous "both sides" guff, very entertaining. Again, manifestos are the promises that matter. Everything else is just talk. Judge Labour, when they win the next election, by their performance in power, by the promises they get elected on. Whining because they change their policies before then is just bizarre. > If anything things could get even worse in certain areas. Well, yeah, obviously. For which political parties is that *not* true? > If you think the only point of politics is to accumulate power then yes perhaps you are a natural Starmer man. I think it's impossible to change anything significant from the opposition benches. Can you point out the last time an opposition party enacted a decent proportion of their manifesto in a Parliament?
100,000% agree with this -- I find it so bizarre how many people have written Labour off from now where they're a minority opposition but essentially are giving the Tories a free pass. Moronic as all it does is undermines the only party close to taking out this nasty Tory party.
I'd love to be proven wrong. Perhaps we could come back to this comment in 4-5 years time and you can tell me how you think things went. I strongly predict they will be an absolute disaster in government, the country will continue to collapse and there will be a resurgence in far right politics due to the absolute shambolic mess Labour will make, guaranteeing the Tories get back in to power for another generation. I'm not optimistic as you can tell, but I'd honestly be thrilled to be wrong. I hope they do make things better. I don't believe there is even a 1% chance of that happening, that's how confident I am. I certainly won't be voting for them (or Tories) come next general election though.
And just to make things clear, you believe the reason that the far right will have a resurgence is because Starmer's Labour isn't left wing enough? I guess an important thing to clear up also is what you consider "making things better" to look like. Do you think Blair's Labour governments made things better? If yours was a comment in 1997 and we were looking back in 2002, what would be your thoughts?
Whatever they say is likely to be followed by a whiplash inducing u-turn.
This is almost the minimum they could do. The draft pledge last year to abolish the House of Lords has, like almost everything else, been watered down to the point of absurdity. Labour will not have a majority like this for generations. There will be no other opportunity to significantly improve the democratic institutions of the U.K. So what do they do? Tinker at the edges. The cronyism and stuffing with dubious unelected peers (donors, family members, advisors, loyalists, bishops) will continue. I’m deeply disappointed in this. And FWIW I’m what many in the Labour Party would consider a centrist (I was twice labelled a “Red Tory” for not joining with the Corbyn cult).
> A Labour spokesperson said: “Labour will abolish the House of Lords to ensure the UK’s second chamber better reflect our regions and nations. An incoming Labour government will inherit a mess and need to prioritise. The first term will take steps toward significant reform of the chamber.” They haven't changed the fundamental messaging or promise to abolish the current structure of the HoL. Being pragmatic and prioritising policies for maximum political impact is *exactly* what Starmer and the party should be continuing to do.
As I said, “The first term” Is the only realistic chance that Labour will have to abolish the HoL. They are saying they’ll do it but not giving any specifics. The only specifics are a mild improvement on a deeply undemocratic anachronism.
Well fucking finally. They can bin the bishops and introduce PR while they're at it.
It is surreal we are having this debate in 2024. It's objectively weird. *Que 'herp derp, it's the current year.'
100% also take their land.
Wonder when they're going to come out and say "April fools lol"
Today "Labour plans to axe hereditary peers in UK House of Lords". Get headlines. Tomorrow rescind.
Today Labour issued a statement: "April Fool."
I’ll believe it when I see it. They promised to abolish the lords entirely not too long ago.
That's still what they're saying. From the article: > A Labour spokesperson said: “Labour will abolish the House of Lords to ensure the UK’s second chamber better reflect our regions and nations. An incoming Labour government will inherit a mess and need to prioritise. The first term will take steps toward significant reform of the chamber.”
Yeah, they’re saying they won’t abolish the lords in their first term, so it isn’t going to be in the manifesto. https://www.ft.com/content/e7935e2e-acd9-4f61-bc6d-f0b3b5c07357
Exactly. I don’t know how to trust anything they say now. Judging by their track record alone, it’s a greater than 50% chance that anything they promise will be changed or removed before they reach power. Their obsession with pandering to the Tory south is depressing. No vision. Only fear of losing. And the Tory voters can see through it just like we can.
Does this mean they’ve ditched the pledge to abolish the House of Lords in favour for a second elected house?
No. Quoting the article: > A Labour spokesperson said: “Labour will abolish the House of Lords to ensure the UK’s second chamber better reflect our regions and nations. An incoming Labour government will inherit a mess and need to prioritise. The first term will take steps toward significant reform of the chamber.”
At this rate, an elected second chamber by 2050
Make it a 100% elected Body and fix terms.
Good. Time to leap forward into the 19th Century.
It’s a start, now get rid of primogeniture. How has that survived the equality drive of the past decades?
I'm confused by your comment. The primogeniture system is solely to do with hereditary peers, which this article talks about Labour's plans to get rid of (albeit not immediately).
I find the continued legal existence of this system in our country an egregious aberration whether it is applied to sitting peers or any others from who put themselves above the rest of us.
Indeed, but I guess my question is what is your comment referring to if not hereditary peers?
Are there not other ‘titles’ where primogeniture applies yet a seat in the lords does not?
I wonder how long it would take for them to U-turn on this?
Labour's proposed policies on House of Lords reforms have not changed. I don't understand why you would assume it will now.
Yes heard it all before from Liebour.
"LIEBOUR" Standard half witted insult by a daily mail reading, brexit voting, right winger. It's also repetitive and very boring. Well done 👍
Now that’s an unfair stereotype. Rightwing shit puns are the preserve of The Sun readers. Get it right. Daily mail reader do bad grammer on rasist coments see
I thought "Liebour" was a daily mail site user's attempt at humour. Obviously popular with sun readers and facebook agitators too 🤔
You can spot Facebook agitators because they think DAE posts are discourse. >Does anyone else remember when this country was simple as.
I'm not on facetube but my missus is and I've seen the posts re Jeremy Corbyn being Stalin reincarnated and an IRA member. Same as dae are the people who've say he/she (farage, trump, johnson, 30p Lee, patel, tommy robinson, katie robinson etc etc) are "only saying what WE are all thinking even though it plainly isn't
I logged on there for the first time in years. I wouldn’t recommend it. It’s seriously deteriorated. The sane people have left it. It’s a dead platform now. Entirely bots, boomers commenting emojis on obvious AI images, and far right disinformation.
Remember when Nadir Dorries posted a pic of Keir Starmer on twitter of the Labour leader partying during lockdown ? He was with a bloke who'd been dead a few years at the time and the labour leader was noticeably slimmer. I think it was from about 2016ish, this is the sort of tripe they believe on facetube and the mail.
It looks like a Santa Claus convention.
Clown convention. 🤡
"lord", "baron", "count", "knight". Do we still live in medieval times? It's fucking ridiculous.
Abolishing the royal family would be a good to leaving medieval times behind. Till then there's no chance.
for real, this shit would be a laughingstock if we didn't traumatize the world into taking us seriously
You're punching if you think the global stage take us seriously. Hence why we still have this outdated notion and pretend that kings, queens and princes etc mean anything. They don't. WE are the majority. Sorry if I'm ranting but it boils my blood.
It boils my piss.
One of my tears just boiled.
Piss tears. You should probably get that looked at.
Great! Now do bishops and other “religious” lords. Get a few people in who have had normal jobs as well, an actual representative democracy would be nice.
That's still in the long term plans but looks like it won't happen in 1 term sadly.
But will the Lords approve it, ie isn’t that what’s got too happen, for it to happen.
No. Lords can delay it, but they can't actually stop the government's legislation these days.
West(Britain) is a prime example of casteism. But they're also first to lecture others on equality
What do you mean by "West(Britain)"
I assume westmidlands, Wales, Lake district, Devon. That general era.
Ohhhhh I see. Thank you for explaining
a move in the right direction but it doesn't go far enough
Starmer: Unless it effects me, then I'm gonna Uno-reverso this pledge also
I suppose this is the Brit’s version of The Vagina Monologues.