www.ditl.org

Happy fourth of July. And fifth of July, for that matter. May the fourth be with you.

Captain Seafort wrote:And we're still not the country that elected George Bush.

And we're no longer tied to a nation that is technically governed by someone with no mandate from the people, the elite, or even a requirement to show any kind of ability save the serendipity to be born to someone particular. W or not, I'll take what we've got over what you've got.

Mikey wrote:And we're no longer tied to a nation that is technically governed by someone with no mandate from the people, the elite, or even a requirement to show any kind of ability save the serendipity to be born to someone particular. W or not, I'll take what we've got over what you've got.

And I'd reckon we'd've been have been better off under an absolute monarchy under HMQ than any of the elected leaders either of us have had over the last sixty years. With the possible exception of Eisenhower.

Don't be too harsh. Tony was pretty good, though he may have been a better speaker than doer. Clinton was similar, though as far as practical concerns he did enjoy a considerable economic upswing. JFK could have been good, though his time was cut short after filling it with accomplishments that were done merely for the sake of accomplishment... and failed Castro assassinations... and being a jelly doughnut.

Mikey wrote:Don't be too harsh. Tony was pretty good, though he may have been a better speaker than doer. Clinton was similar, though as far as practical concerns he did enjoy a considerable economic upswing. JFK could have been good, though his time was cut short after filling it with accomplishments that were done merely for the sake of accomplishment... and failed Castro assassinations... and being a jelly doughnut.

TCB was one of the worst of the lot, Clinton came across as a) meh and b) a Provo-lover, and JFK was a silver-tongued crook.

Captain Seafort wrote:

Mikey wrote:Don't be too harsh. Tony was pretty good, though he may have been a better speaker than doer. Clinton was similar, though as far as practical concerns he did enjoy a considerable economic upswing. JFK could have been good, though his time was cut short after filling it with accomplishments that were done merely for the sake of accomplishment... and failed Castro assassinations... and being a jelly doughnut.

TCB was one of the worst of the lot, Clinton came across as a) meh and b) a Provo-lover, and JFK was a silver-tongued crook.

Like I said, the best of the available choices.

Mikey wrote:Like I said, the best of the available choices.

Nonetheless, an absolute monarchy would have been far superior over the period in question.

Really... That would have been superior to the leadership that brough us into a world super power. That's just stupid. Until Bush jr, the US was in an impressive upswing in it's economy. But, if it's so superior, why don't the english in here go back to that system?

Deepcrush wrote:That would have been superior to the leadership that brough us into a world super power.

Leadership didn't have much to do with you becoming a superpower - that was down to a combination of resources, population and Henry Ford. What little leadership was relevant was Roosevelt and Truman's first term - both of which occurred before the second Elizabethan Age began.

I trust you're just making a hyperbolic statement for the sake of a humorous argument. Otherwise, there's no control sample - HRH has never had any experience ruling as an absolute monarch, or even one who had an active, daily hand in the nitty-gritty of policy. If put to being the active, practical head of state in addition to the symbolic embodiment of the state, there's no way at all to tell how she'd have done.

Seafort, That is a huge pile of bullshit even for you. Leadership is always important the building or expansion of a nation. Not just the Head of State, but those beneath him that are also a part of the system. Without that, he population and resources end up going to waste.

Mikey wrote:HRH has never had any experience ruling as...one who had an active, daily hand in the nitty-gritty of policy.

Of course not. The Queen, on the other hand, does have experience of playing an active, daily role in running the country - she gets everything the PM gets, is well-known for making a point of reading it all, and several Prime Ministers, including Cameron, have commented on just how well informed and important her advice is. Some of them have been caught out on occasion by raising a point in the weekly meeting only to discover she knows more about it than they do. She obviously wouldn't be able to run the country on her own, but no-one could - that's what the Civil Service is for.

Captain Seafort wrote:

Mikey wrote:HRH has never had any experience ruling as...one who had an active, daily hand in the nitty-gritty of policy.

Of course not. The Queen, on the other hand, does have experience of playing an active, daily role in running the country - she gets everything the PM gets, is well-known for making a point of reading it all, and several Prime Ministers, including Cameron, have commented on just how well informed and important her advice is. Some of them have been caught out on occasion by raising a point in the weekly meeting only to discover she knows more about it than they do. She obviously wouldn't be able to run the country on her own, but no-one could - that's what the Civil Service is for.

That's my point - no matter how well-informed she is as to the running of the country, there's no precedent for how well she could do it the way an absolute monarch did way back when. L'etat, c'es moi doesn't mean the same thing it used to.

Mikey wrote:That's my point - no matter how well-informed she is as to the running of the country, there's no precedent for how well she could do it the way an absolute monarch did way back when.

Read the whole of my post - it's not simply a matter of her being well-informed, but that her advice is very important to whomever the incumbent PM is. They've all either realised from the start or learned very quickly that when she makes a suggestion it's a good idea to follow it.

Captain Seafort wrote:

Mikey wrote:That's my point - no matter how well-informed she is as to the running of the country, there's no precedent for how well she could do it the way an absolute monarch did way back when.

Read the whole of my post - it's not simply a matter of her being well-informed, but that her advice is very important to whomever the incumbent PM is. They've all either realised from the start or learned very quickly that when she makes a suggestion it's a good idea to follow it.

Making suggestions on what the political leaders should do, no matter how accurate they may be, and running the country single-handily as an absolute monarch are still worlds apart.