A few questions about GB
I am a humble American, and I have a few (probably naive) questions about matters in Great Britain. Some of my questions probably overlap other threads.
1. Some years after the Brexit vote, is there any general consensus as to whether it was a good idea? If the vote were to be repeated, would the result be the same? Does the Brexit vote make it more likely or less likely that Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland will want to separate from England?
2. Is there any general consensus about the problems of the royal family? Do people focus on the misbehavior of anyone in particular? Is there support for the reigning monarchy as an institution?
3. Are the British people satisfied with their form of government, or do they want major changes? Are they satisfied with their political parties? Are changes anticipated, e.g., in the vote of confidence/no confidence mechanism?
1. Some years after the Brexit vote, is there any general consensus as to whether it was a good idea? If the vote were to be repeated, would the result be the same? Does the Brexit vote make it more likely or less likely that Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland will want to separate from England?
2. Is there any general consensus about the problems of the royal family? Do people focus on the misbehavior of anyone in particular? Is there support for the reigning monarchy as an institution?
3. Are the British people satisfied with their form of government, or do they want major changes? Are they satisfied with their political parties? Are changes anticipated, e.g., in the vote of confidence/no confidence mechanism?
Comments
2. There is still wide spread support for the monarchy. I think views on Harry and Meghan are quite split.
The British attitude to the monarchy is quite weird, we often don't know what those around us think. I work for the NHS and after the queen died everyone was trying to be very tactful, because none of us knew which colleagues might be genuinely very upset, and who was annoyed about all the fuss. I happened to wear a black jumper to work (one of my normal work jumpers) and I suddenly realised that my boss thought I might be in formal mourning.
3. I think it is fair to say no one is very satisfied with the functioning of government, but there is no agreement on how to change it. I think the current acute cost of living and social problems mean that only very keen followers of politics are much exercised about the form of government - as opposed to wanting the goverment to act effectively on the immediate problems. I think a lot of people would like a general election, but I am not sure if that "alot" reaches a majority.
1 - I think the vote would be the same today, because people voted out for many reasons and the EU hasn’t changed. They are not likely to say so aloud or even on here (they didn’t feel that they could speak out at the time because of the name-calling but when in the ballot box they could have their say).
2 - A mild passing interest in H’s whinging, but generally it’s a yawn. Royalists remain loyal, those opposed have a little more ammo, many people couldn’t care less and prefer the monarchy to perceived alternatives.
3 - Not satisfied with either government or parties, but it’s in a hole few can see any way out of.
As regards the monarchy I personally do not give a gnat's fart, but my views may not be representative.
The Scottish Parliament is elected by a form of PR, so we might be less troubled by a UK-wide revision of the voting system, but I think is unlikely - particularly as Labour look likely to do well in the next GE under the current system.
In my circles, nobody mentions Brexit now, whether positively or negatively.
Sadness at the Queen’s death, especially amongst older people, general respect for the new King, and utter fedupness with Harry and especially Meghan.
Whatever their previous political leanings, I hear many people extremely dissatisfied with the current government and the state of the nation.
The behaviour of the EU since the vote has persuaded me that I voted the right way in the brexit vote. I don't think that the majority in Northern Ireland or Wales want to leave. The ruling party in Scotland are obsessed with independance to the detriment of everything else No general concensus but I suspect that, like me, the majority loath Harry and his wife. I like the King and the next in line. If the people wanted major changes they would vote for parties that advocated them. They wont.
Brexit is generally regarded as a good thing by the people who voted for it, and a fecking disaster by those who didn't. Demographic changes mean the latter now outnumber the former.
NI isn't part of GB; it's part of the UK. I'll leave further comment to people who live there as the place is a bloody mystery to the rest of us.
On the Royal Family it's more supported by older people than younger; I think a recent survey saw an adult age group - the youngest in the survey - show a net disapproval for the first time. Can't see the point of them myself.
I'd like to see the end of the House of Lords and some form of PR used to elect to both a primary and revising chamber, myself.
2. I think there are very mixed views about the Harry and Meghan saga. I don’t think anyone really considers it makes much difference to the monarchy either way. Personally, I have a great deal of sympathy for Harry and Meghan, but I don’t think they are acting very wisely.
3. I don’t feel very satisfied with the current form of voting, and I am very dissatisfied with the current government. Some kind of proportional representation would, I think, be an improvement. I can see a strong case for reforming the House of Lords, but I’m not convinced that having another “political” body like the House of Commons would be an improvement.
I can't comment on Scotland because I don't have a dog in the fight. What I will say is that an assumption on the part of some English people (and media) that British=English mayl be partly responsible for less than warm feelings towards England in those of us from the Western and Northern parts of the UK.
While there are many British people who see the monarchy as an anachronism, by and large the attitude towards the monarchy is If it ain't broke don't fix it.
The current situation vis-a-vis the Sussexes isn't seen as a problem for the monarchy, rather the unedifying spectacle of a troubled and embittered individual lashing out at the world in general and his family in particular.
King Charles has said for many years that when he came to the throne he envisaged a slimmed-down monarchy: recent scandals involving his second son and his brother Andrew are in a way actually making that easier, although I'm sure he would have preferred less drama.
I can't answer these questions.
The question in 1975 was :-
The Government has announced the results of the renegotiation of the United Kingdom's terms of membership of the European Community. Do you think that the United Kingdom should stay in the European Community (the Common Market)?
By a solid majority the voters in the UK voted YES and I was one of them. If I had known what I know now I would have voted NO
That is a bizarre rewriting of history. For a start "this country" (whether England or the UK) doesn't have a 1500 year history of anything. These islands have a 3000 year history of migration, invasion and influence between the islands and between the islands and the mainland. Some of it resisted (Saxons, Vikings, Normans), some of it welcomed or invited (Heugenots, William of Orange, George I) or some combination of the two (Romans). The modern nations of these islands are shaped by these successive interactions with the continent and each other. The claim of some sort of separate "island story" distinct from the continent is a myth, albeit a popular one.
The proper title for what is often and incorrectly called simply England is The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. England is the largest and most populous constituent.
The United Kingdom (and a whole lot more) Explained
AFZ
There is growing dissatisfaction with the Cons. An election could happen this year but it depends on what the government thinks. If they think they will lose fewer seats by having an election this year instead of next year then they will go for it.
As to the royals? Most people see them as a benefit if a kind. William has respect and I feel Charles is seen as a temporary monarch.
Harry and Megan are seen as irritating more than anything else.
I think calling the whole thing England is something people outside the UK do. Sometimes the English can *act* as it it's all England but they tend to it by treating Britain/British as a synonym for England/English. Which is why some of the Welsh people I know say they're "Welsh, not British".
1. Brexit is more popular among a fair few at the bottom of the pile, now that the large local employers are advertising jobs locally instead of recruiting exclusively through overseas agencies. Among those who were already gainfully employed, opposition to Brexit has not changed, there have been no benefits to anyone in the white collar industries.
2. If local graffiti is anything to go by there is a call for Harry to be executed for treason and Andrew to be "cut off" in all senses of the phrase. I suspect that the appetite for monarchy has diminished greatly with the death of Queen Elizabeth. Even among die-hard monarchists of my acquaintance, there is only grudging respect for King Charles and none at all for the rest of the family apart from Princess Anne who seems to be immune from the mud slinging.
3. No-one is happy with the calibre of politician we have on either side of the house. The illusion of being ruled by our betters is well and truly shattered and will probably never return. However we still generally seem to believe that the form of government is the best it could be under the circumstances.
Andrew was close friends to people convicted of grooming underage women into prostitution, and it appears that Andrew met and likely had intimate relationships with at least one of the victims of Epstein. The scandal is that a member of the royal family was embroiled in the sexual abuse of young women.
Harry married a woman he loves. The scandal in this case is that so many members of the royal household, the media and the public considered that her race was even something to note. Harry hasn't done anything wrong, though appears to be angry at the way his wife has been treated, and who doesn't stand up and do what they can to protect those they love even against others that they love?
The treatment of Megan has highlighted the institutional racism within the royal household, and also the structural racism within wider British society with the attempts by the media and others to switch the blame from the racism within the royal household onto the victim of that racism and those who sought to protect her from that racism. The only possible similarity with Andrew is if his actions were known within the royal household and the institution sought to protect him, which could be a form of institutional misogyny.
He hasn't got a proper job and, in my opinion, he is making a lot of noise in order to generate income as a media celebrity. I have no time for him.
His father's job is monarch and his brother's job is heir to the throne. Both perform royal duties.
This seems like a strange observation from my perspective as a Canadian (nominally under the Crown as part of the Commonwealth, but not really impacted by it in day to day life except when I look at a $20 bill or a $1 coin). Just a few months ago we all watched the spectacle of England virtually grinding to a halt for a the days of official mourning on the Queen's death, and those incredible images of the miles-long queue and thousands of people filing through to pay their respects while she was lying in state. I can't think of anyone on this side of the Atlantic, either here in Commonwealth Canada or in the rebellious United States, who would command that level of public mourning upon their death.
I wasn't particularly interested in the Queen's funeral as such (though some of us here in Canada did get a day off in honour of it), but I was fascinated by the coverage of The Queue and the livestream of people paying respects to the late Queen -- the variety of people, of ages and ethnic backgrounds and apparent (based on clothing anyway) walks of life. It made me think that the institution of the monarchy must mean far more to a large proportion of people in England than I would have expected.
(Admittedly, we were there on vacation a couple of weeks later and nobody mentioned the late Queen or the new King to us or in our hearing, but the level of focus during the days of mourning certainly seemed intense).
I find it hard to s imagine how being head of state isn’t a “proper job,” even if one thinks that the duties of head of state should be defined differently or that the person holding that job should be chosen and compensated in a very different way.
1. Brexit, was, is, and will be a crock of excrement dressed up as “sovereignty”. Anyone giving it any further oxygen than that is giving it a fool’s pardon.
2. The King is doing a great job. I am however bemused at the pure vitriol aimed at Harry and Meghan, while Andrew sails relatively speaking under the radar.
3. The two main parties have proved in the last decade that they are vulnerable to hijack by zealots. Sir Keir Starmer (Labour) and Rishi Sunak (Conservative) have been a necessary reaction to stupidity and extremism, the Liberal Democrats stubbornly remain in a distant third place because of the curse of First Past the Post and rotten boroughs known as “safe seats”. Meanwhile Scotland is in a fit of “no true Scotsman” in thrall to the nonsensical notion that an independent Scotland would be a land of milk and honey (southern Ireland’s first seventy years of independence would belie that); Northern Ireland’s community based politics mean that the extremes of the IRA apologists Sinn Fein and the Brexit useful idiots of the DUP have driven out the more pragmatic Ulster Unionists and the nationalist moderates the SDLP.
It will be a minor miracle if the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland remains intact in twenty years time.
I can recall when Diana officially opened Wolverhampton Police Station. Thousands turned up to see her and many of them got to meet her.
The difference is that the Duke of York is not betraying his family by writing books and appearing on tv all the time.
It's been devastating to business as the Financial Times has covered
The deafening silence over Brexit’s economic fallout - https://on.ft.com/3Qyfbih via @FT
Small businesses have suffered especially.
Scotland is the least monarchical part of the UK - support for the monarchy was down to 45% at one point. There may have been a wee sympathy boost with the queen's death - back up to 50% but only 41% want it to continue after independence. It's over 50s and especially over 65s who are pro-monarchy. Younger people prefer an elected head of state by a huge margin 63-17 in the 16-24 age group and they overwhelmingly think the monarchy is bad for Scotland.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/may/15/scottish-support-for-monarchy-falls-to-45-poll-reveals
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2022/10/11/do-scots-want-keep-monarchy-independent-scotland
I am not satisfied with the Westminster first past the post system which I think has been an antiquated disaster (ironically as my party does very well out of it in Scotland) But I do like the far more responsive additional member system in Scotland a lot. It meant that if you had two really bad main parties you could quickly bring up another party to reflect people's concerns without worrying so much that a really destructive minority opposition party would get in through the middle by splitting the vote and wreak havoc.
Right. Clearly worse than “no sweat” Andrew, then, it seems, for some.
Nobody expects post-independence Scotland to be perfect. Just better than tory/Blairite rule. And the comparison with Ireland is facile, given that partition cost Ireland its industrial heartland. Rather look at the independence of New Zealand, or Canada.
Meghan had become public enemy number one long before all this started. Why was there so much hatred towards a woman that most people had never met and actually knew very little about? Because the tabloid press told them to hate her and they went along with it.
As for Harry, all his life he’s had to endure speculation from the gutter press as to the identity of his father. Again, the populace have gone along with this crap.
It’s not surprising he’s hit back.
Indeed it isn't, however much we may be weary of hearing about it all. I wonder how many people really believe that Meghan is destroying the lives of their children, or whatever ghastly evil it is for which she is supposed to be responsible?
Even if the rage and hate die away for a while, they'll be back again in time for the Coronation...
I can recall when Diana came to Wolverhampton to open the new offices of what was then the Marriage Guidance Council. A smallish crowd assembled to watch. I was teaching in a room directly across the road. Some of my students speculated on the reason for her spending such a long time inside the offices (which were not very extensive).
In what way, exactly, is Prince Harry becoming *a threat to national security*?
Yes, and then suddenly the press turned against her for some reason. Why was that?
For all I know she may be a lovely person. On the other hand, she may be an utter bitch. Never having met her, I’ve no way of knowing. The same is true for any other member of the Royal Family as well,
The press, including “Royal Correspondents” are in exactly the same position. They don’t know any more about the royals than the rest of us, they just put themselves forward as “experts” on all things royal and people fall for it.
You need to listen to the experts. His boasts of killing all those Afghan fighters is going to make some people very angry.
If the media really had a down on her, they would surely have started a hate campaign before the wedding.
The difference is that the Princess of Wales does the job perfectly.
What devotion.
Yeah that's definitely the difference, in the minds of people who say things like "William did it right, he married a lovely English rose." (clip seen online from some UK phone-in show; no idea how representative that attitude is).
I don't really care about the royal family but I care a lot about how bad our media is and how it harms people.
That's an apples-and ironies comparison. The colonies were always expected to be self-sustaining and were, and are, not part of the centralized British state. The courts, police, hospitals, education, pensions, all of it was paid for from purely local funds before independence was ever discussed.
That's not the case in Scotland so until it is, the independence comparison is false. Plus Canada was considered an economic backwater and rather a failure until the 1940's. For many decades we had more people emigrate to the US than immigrated to Canada.
That's not what they say. They say something about understanding the job she signed up for
Are you saying that you actually believe what's in his book?