London Bridge Has Fallen

[PhilHibbs]

1 hour ago, Ali the Helering said:

On the other hand, if it became known (via orchestrated leak to friendly news sources) what the Royal will was, I can't imagine any PM who would want to publicly disagree.  

I doubt it, that would rightly raise furious ire from republicans, and moderate monarchists such as myself. If it's the right thing to do, then sure the government might well do it. But if it were in any way controversial, I feel that leaking the royal opinion would be counterproductive and that's one of the reasons they don't do it.

Cameron's careless leaking of the Queen's opinion on Scottish independence was a PR disaster.

[g33k]

11 hours ago, svensson said:

I mean, we have problems with that in the US too. For just one example, in a recent Congressional vote the Republican Party shot down a bill to compensate veterans who suffered lung injuries due to toxic fumes from burning garbage and sewage at camps in Iraq and Afghanistan. The press [which does indeed have a liberal bias - - that allegation is absolutely true] lambasted the GOP over it and waaaay down at the bottom of the article they finally mentioned why the GOP voted it down. Turns out there was half a trillion dollars -- 450+ billion dollars- - of pork money that absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with veterans or health care. This is right on point for the GOP: their big thing to cut government waste and cut the budget.

Careful with the overbroad generalizations:  "the press" is very far from being a monolithic entity.

Sure, MSNBC has a major liberal bias; but Fox is even more-extreme it its conservative bias (fwiw, I cannot stand to listen to either one; they both make we want to throw large heavy objects at my TV).  And one of the biggest of the "small affiliate" conglomerates (Sinclair Media) is extremely conservative, as is much of "talk radio" news-and-discussion shows.

For example -- that "pork money" wasn't in  the toxic-burn "PACT act."  Instead, there was a loophole with mandatory-vs-discretionary spending that would have let Congress come back later and "backfill" that 400B of discretionary spending with other discretionary projects (but that's 400B across 10 years, not a single-year lump sum).
https://thenationaldesk.com/news/fact-check-team/fact-check-team-senate-passes-pact-act-to-help-veterans-exposed-to-toxic-burn-pits-senate-approves-bill-to-aid-vets-exposed-to-toxic-burn-pits-veterans-us-military-navy-army-marines-capitol-congress-legislation-passes
(n.b. "The National Desk" runs pretty hard conservative).

And I'm afraid the GOP's image of "fiscal conservatism" isn't really true, and hasn't been for a long time... or rather:  it isn't reliably true (some (R)'s are indeed fiscally-conservative; but a surprising number are not, where the legislative ink meets the paper).   Deficit-spending took a HUGE upturn under Reagan, and stayed that way under EVERY president since then (except Clinton, the only administration to reduce the deficit).
https://www.thebalancemoney.com/deficit-by-president-what-budget-deficits-hide-3306151#toc-list-of-presidents-budget-deficits-by-fiscal-year

All of which is rather beside the OP.

[svensson]

7 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

I doubt it, that would rightly raise furious ire from republicans, and moderate monarchists such as myself. If it's the right thing to do, then sure the government might well do it. But if it were in any way controversial, I feel that leaking the royal opinion would be counterproductive and that's one of the reasons they don't do it.

Cameron's careless leaking of the Queen's opinion on Scottish independence was a PR disaster.

Yeah, we heard the shouting about that comedy of errors all the way on the US West Coast.

[Ali the Helering]

3 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

I doubt it, that would rightly raise furious ire from republicans, and moderate monarchists such as myself. If it's the right thing to do, then sure the government might well do it. But if it were in any way controversial, I feel that leaking the royal opinion would be counterproductive and that's one of the reasons they don't do it.

Cameron's careless leaking of the Queen's opinion on Scottish independence was a PR disaster.

Cameron described her as 'purring' with pleasure at the referendum's result.  It was the 'purring' that caused offence both to all Scots and to the Queen, who jested (to the leader of the Scottish Nationalists) that he deserved physical punishment (six of the best) for lying about her.  Few of us doubted that she would be happy with the result, however.

[svensson]

Yeah, Cameron was pretty... 'gauche' I guess is the right word... in that instance.

And I object to that kind of 'House of Cards' [both the UK and US versions] undignified conduct in our politicians and gadflies here too.

Politics are weird for me in many ways. On the one hand I pride myself on seeing things as they are rather than through idealism or patriotism or any other -ism. I am a student of 'realpolitik' and there's not a lot that shocks or surprises me when it comes to political, economic, or military decisions [those are all the same thing in the end].

But on the other there is that old Boy Scout in the back of my head that still says, "Can't we all show just a little bit more class and dignity here?"

Thinking of the UK House of Cards, I'm gonna have to watch that again. This time I need to pay attention to the forms of parliamentary government [who does what and is responsible to whom] rather than just the plotline and dialogue.

[Ali the Helering]

11 hours ago, svensson said:

Thinking of the UK House of Cards, I'm gonna have to watch that again. This time I need to pay attention to the forms of parliamentary government [who does what and is responsible to whom] rather than just the plotline and dialogue.

Unfortunately we don't have an equivalent to "The West Wing" with its excellent education in the Constitution and the practise of government.  Shame that Trump didn't watch it.....

[svensson]

19 hours ago, Ali the Helering said:

Unfortunately we don't have an equivalent to "The West Wing" with its excellent education in the Constitution and the practise of government.  Shame that Trump didn't watch it.....

The West Wing was a myth wrapped in allegory with a large spoonful of bullshit thrown in for flavor.

The last US President that held St. Bartlett's level of moral high ground was George Washington, and even his boots were a little muddy when it came to the French Revolution. I will certainly grant that TWW was what people think the operations of government ought to be, but then so was 'Mr. Smith Goes To Washington'.

To quote Bismark, "Laws are like sausages. The people love them but they don't like to watch them get made..."

[Seriously, you'd think it would be a fellow member of Smartass Unlimited who quipped that one, Winston Churchill maybe or DeGaulle. NOPE! It was the old Prussian ramrod himself. 😂]

[Ali the Helering]

1 hour ago, svensson said:

The last US President that held St. Bartlett's level of moral high ground was George Washington, and even his boots were a little muddy when it came to the French Revolution. I will certainly grant that TWW was what people think the operations of government ought to be, but then so was 'Mr. Smith Goes To Washington'.

If you don't get fed the theory, you don't see the divergence in reality.  I loved it as light comedy, but interesting as an educative device.