User talk:RWRW

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Archives for this talk page: , (new)


Your beliefs seem confusing.[edit]

How do you reconcile a support for the UK Monarchy with Libertarianism? - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 04:41, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I don’t think it’s particularly contradictory. The fact that it’s a constitutional monarchy is key, I would not be in favour of any absolute monarchies. And I respect the fact that The Queen is able to command far more respect and affection from the public than any elected ceremonial president ever could. You should have asked me about my prior support for lockdowns and mask mandates, issues that seem far more incompatible with libertarianism and frankly something I have no real answer to. --RWRW (talk) 17:15, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
That doesn't address government funding for the royal household. Does the household actually need these funds to perform its duties? The Crown Estate's finances are largely opaque, so the public may never know, but indications are that its profits have always far exceeded government funding. The likelihood is then that the royal household is a form of government welfare for the rich. Bongolian (talk) 18:15, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
As I understand it, all Crown Estate profits goes to the Treasury, with about a quarter of it coming back to the royals in the form of the Sovereign Grant (which funds the upkeep of palaces, pays its staff, pays for entertaining foreign leaders so is useful with diplomacy etc etc).
Would it be cheaper to become a Republic? Unless the republicans want to bulldoze Buckingham Palace and other estates (which I don't think they do), then these places will still need money for upkeep (old building like these often need work). Minus from the equation the money the royals generate through tourism, I don't see any substantial economic benefit for abolishing the royals. But assuming abolishing the royals would save us money, all estimates I have seen show that keeping the royals costs everyone in the county between 60p - £1 per year. I would rather be £1 worse off per year than have some failed ex-politician or some celebrity serving as our head of state. --RWRW (talk) 17:06, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I thought you’d enjoy this—you old Tory (my tongue just pierced my cheek)[edit]

LeucippusSalva veritate 03:26, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

That's the guy who mocked Harold Macmillan to his face, right?
Hey, the Conservatives don't need to hypnotise people into forgetting about the cost of living crisis when the media and opposition MPs only want to talk about Partygate. I want to hear people ask Johnson what more he can do to bring down energy prices, but all I ever hear is people saying "Are you going to resign, Prime Minister?" --RWRW (talk) 13:03, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Yes, Peter Cook did it in a Beyond the Fringe performance, one which Macmillan had come to watch. From what I’ve read Macmillan was a good sport and took it on the chin.
I put “tongue in cheek” in parentheses because: (a) I don’t believe that someone who is conservative would actually fit the straw man presented in this sketch nor do I believe that you RWRW fit into the confines of such a straw-man, (b) the sketch that appears in the video is (I think) intended to be tongue-in-cheek, with certain simplicities made in order to emphasise the comedy aspect; and in addition Peter Cook did not subscribe to any straightforward political position (I believe he once branded himself, somewhat ironically, as a “Tory Anarchist”)—he certainly didn’t pursue the heavy-handed satire we now see on Mock of the Week or Have I got News for you.
Lastly, with regard to your point about Partygate: would you not agree that a Prime Minister who has violated Parliamentary codes and has broken the law (who is a criminal!) has made his position untenable, and cannot dutifully serve his constituency and country. Yes, it might appear that some mps are obscuring important issues such as energy prices, but Johnson needs to be held to account, if we don’t address his violations now it will likely offer him more opportunities for deadcatting and misdirection, and thus it makes it more likely that he will evade justice. Granted, Johnson’s stance on certain issues, for example green issues, is better than the insane Tory backbenchers such as Steve Baker (who is a very dangerous individual, if you ask me), but Johnson’s stance pales in comparison to the policy advanced by the Labour party—and, indeed—other western nations such as Germany, France, and the US.
Addendum: I do find the current Conservative party odd, particularly in their calling themselves “conservative”. Their politics is quite alien (and insulting) to the conservatism of the 20th century, even to Maggie’s flavour of conservatism, they instead practice something that I think Hitchen’s summed up nicely as “socialism for the rich”; they forego caution, moderation, a respect for complex institutions such as the NHS, Universities (see letting foreign investors flood in dirty money into our top unis, and even, most recently, the Church of England!), UK business (Thatcher obviously; allowing countries like Russia and China to pursue projects in the UK, see nuclear power, whilst contributing very-little out of what they could contribute, to our economy), science (see the UK’s exclusion from research grants which are conferred upon European researchers, plus see Patel’s pathetic policies for encouraging “the best and brightest” whilst systematically making immigration incredibly difficult, and providing nothing that is salient-enough to attract scientists away from their current research and grants offered by the EU or the US)—and principle.LeucippusSalva veritate 16:19, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
EC thing is parties on lockdown should be a distraction. a misdemeanour warranting a slap on the wrist dont do it again. legally speaking is a misdemeanour. pay the fine get back to work. it should be nothing but bojo and co and really made sure its significant. really made sure its not about office parties. holding parties are trivial but not so trivial that bojo and co felt the need for denials. repeated denials. fined by the police and still denying any knowledge. lying to parliament is a big deal btw. lying to the general public is par for course these days, but its just contemptuous is this case. lockdowns saw businesses go under. jobs lost. it impacted mental health. schooling was disrupted. but we all put up with it for the greater good. xmasses cancelled. weddings postponed. funerals banned. for the greater good. bojo said it needed to be done. sacrifices have to be made. i hadnt seen any family for two years towards the end. i have dead relatives i didnt even see buried. for the greater good. while the public had to grieve for lost loved ones, alone, its was party time at number 10. the hypocrisy was bad enough. but to continually lie about it. lie about and tell us we are over reacting and lie about it some more. the sheer fucking contempt they have for us. the sacrifices people made and they cannot even come clean over some drinks at the office.
this just the latest in the hypocrisy of this government and the contempt they show us. you want to talk about about the cost living living crisis? the chancellor of the exchequer tells us we gonna have to suck it up while his billionaire missus avoids millions in taxes.
or lets talk about the time bojo's pal was about to be suspended for being a crooked piece of shit and bojo thought that would be a good tine to set up a committee investigating the disciplinary process for MPs and delay his good pals suspension. “I believed that there would be cross-party support for the idea,” says boris, so convinced was he of that the vote was a 3 line whip. he seemed genuinely perplexed at the outrage.
or why paterson was being suspended in the first place - lobbying to get lucrative ppe contracts for his firm. and he werent the only one. 60 percent of all covid related contracts were directly awarded, avoiding any tendering process. companies run by tory donors. with no experience in supplying ppe awarded contracts worth 100s of millions. reminds me of way back in may's government when Seaborne Freight had won £13.8m contract despite never having run Channel service.
sheer fucking contempt. this is the tip of the iceberg. and they cant even be honest about some illicit piss ups. of course they cant. that would set a very dangerous precedent for bojo and his cabinet AMassiveGay (talk) 17:16, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
@Leucippus that is Peter or Christopher Hitchens? I know Peter Hitchens thinks the Conservate Party is just a social democratic party pretending to be conservative (and he cites their support for same-sex marriages, no fault divorce etc etc).
For what its worth, I'm also angry with Johnson over Partygate. I never bought the argument that he didn't know it was against the rules, and I think it’s clear that he misled Parliament (ironically if he does get forced out over this it will be like Nixon and Watergate, it won't be the action that takes him down but the attempted cover-up). And I can't disagree with AMG's points about how insulting it is to all of us who obeyed the rules.
But I’ll be honest I’m torn on whether I want him to resign. Like I said above, Partygate has been a disaster and a mess of his own making. I now think there is so much baggage that I question whether he could win the next election.
On the other hand I still have a lot of fondness for Johnson. I like his persona and charisma, and I’ll always see him as the man who got Brexit over the finishing line. I also think he’s done a lot of good – we discussed Ukraine recently but think about the vaccine rollout last year. Look how Merkel and Macron demonised the AstraZeneca jab, calling it dangerous and ineffective. The end result was empty vaccination centres and tens of thousands of AstraZeneca jabs wasted. Johnson on the other hand managed to make it a patriotic act to get vaccinated and kept vaccination levels in the UK high, and frankly I can’t think of any British politician who could have pulled it off like that. --RWRW (talk) 01:26, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
@RWRW Sorry for not responding sooner. I intended to refer to Christopher Hitchens, albeit through paraphrase (as I can’t remember the exact quote nor its proper citation). As for the other Hitchens brother, Peter, I find him to be prima facie somewhat of a charlatan, and hence, I haven’t been interested in learning more about his views etc.
Yes, the parallels with Watergate are quite striking. It’s a very difficult situation for Boris, nigh insuperable, but, then again, any hypothesis can be saved with sufficient modification of background assumptions and auxiliary hypotheses—something analogous may be attainable for Bojo.
True, the UK had the best rollout in Europe. But was that due to Bojo or, as I recall reading, due to shrewd outside-advisers (i.e. politically neutral) working with SAGE.
I can’t compare Johnson to Churchill though, nor to other great prime-ministers of yore—indeed, I wouldn’t! As an aside, have you read Churchill’s Marlborough: his life and times, which was considered by the then Nobel prize committee to be one of his best books. LeucippusSalva veritate 23:04, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
No worries, sorry for my very late reply. Fairs. I’m sort of the opposite, I’ve seen and read a lot more of Peter than Christopher (though I’m more often amused by many of Peter’s views than persuaded by them).
I wouldn’t liken him to Churchill either, though frankly I don’t think any of the present day-politicians can be compared to Churchill, Attlee, MacMillan etc etc. I haven’t actually read it but I’ll look into it for sure --RWRW (talk) 14:21, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Nomination[edit]

You've been nominated to the RationalMedia Foundation election. Please accept or decline here; if you accept, you may wish to campaign.