Sheffield Forum
Your message here

The Royal Family 2018

Home > General > General Discussions

Reply To Topic
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Yesterday, 13:55   #141
woodview
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2011
Total Posts: 248
Status: Online
Quote:
Originally Posted by glennpickard View Post
A meritocracy definition says people advance on only ability, not social position or money.
Its somewhat utopian, but good luck in finding what what you're looking for. One thing I would point out concerning ability in leaders in the UK's democracy.
The Queen has in my opinion, an extraordinary ability to deal with situations and people from all walks of life, and does it so well. That's why I consider her to be a very significant asset to the UK and the Commonwealth, and part of the glue that holds the program together for us all.
By definition, the Queen isn't there through merit. She is there through inheritance, and you happen to think she is good at what she does.
There would be thousands of other people equally or better able if promoted to that same position through merit.
Unfortunately we don't live in a meritocracy. Having a queen 'responsible' for the things she is, is as equally silly as allowing a goverment minister with no experience of management of anything, or the subject, head a governemnt department responsible for that thing.
  Reply With Quote
Yesterday, 14:40   #142
truman
Registered User
truman's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2009
Total Posts: 20,372
Status: Online
Quote:
Originally Posted by woodview View Post
By definition, the Queen isn't there through merit. She is there through inheritance, and you happen to think she is good at what she does.
There would be thousands of other people equally or better able if promoted to that same position through merit.
Unfortunately we don't live in a meritocracy. Having a queen 'responsible' for the things she is, is as equally silly as allowing a goverment minister with no experience of management of anything, or the subject, head a governemnt department responsible for that thing.
What do you imagine the Queen to be responsible for?
_______
I started out with nothing and I've still got most of it left...
  Reply With Quote
Yesterday, 15:01   #143
Anna B
Registered User
 
Joined: Sep 2006
Total Posts: 11,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by truman View Post
What do you imagine the Queen to be responsible for?
Keeping the crown on her head and in the family. That's it.

Please note they (and the men in grey suits) are prepared to go to any lengths to achieve just that. ...Did somebody mention the word 'ruthless'....
  Reply With Quote
Yesterday, 15:28   #144
alchemist
A typical Tyke
alchemist's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2003
Location: Gods Own County
Total Posts: 4,333
Quote:
Originally Posted by woodview View Post
By definition, the Queen isn't there through merit. She is there through inheritance, and you happen to think she is good at what she does.
There would be thousands of other people equally or better able if promoted to that same position through merit.
Unfortunately we don't live in a meritocracy. Having a queen 'responsible' for the things she is, is as equally silly as allowing a goverment minister with no experience of management of anything, or the subject, head a governemnt department responsible for that thing.
You mean like is the case now?? (my bold)

---------- Post added 22-10-2018 at 15:36 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jomie View Post
Donít know what Australians make of this, but their taxpayers are stumping up over one million dollars for the current royal tour: link, link. New Zealand taxpayers also - link. Hopefully they are getting value for money! On top of this is the cost to the British taxpayers.

Meanwhile, ordinary folk can be suitably impressed by Ms Markle in her jewellery and attire - Meghan Markle wore almost £2,000 of her favourite luxury jewellery brand yesterday. Meghan Markle stuns in nearly $A30,000 worth of designer outfits in four days on royal tour of Australia.

Aside from the games, for which Harry could have funded his own travel etc, perhaps we could be forgiven for wondering what itís all about and if it is really necessary
Only a million dollars? Cost 18 times that to have a fat orange idiot from the states pop over for a couple of days golfing
  Reply With Quote
Yesterday, 15:44   #145
woodview
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2011
Total Posts: 248
Status: Online
is as equally silly as allowing a goverment minister with no experience of management of anything, or the subject, head a governemnt department responsible for that thing.
You mean like is the case now?? (my bold)

Quote:
Originally Posted by alchemist View Post
You mean like is the case now?? (my bold)[COLOR="Silver"]
Exactly what I mean. Lots (most?) Ministerial appointments suck. Meritocracy or technocracy for me please.
  Reply With Quote
Yesterday, 16:14   #146
truman
Registered User
truman's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2009
Total Posts: 20,372
Status: Online
Quote:
Originally Posted by woodview View Post
is as equally silly as allowing a goverment minister with no experience of management of anything, or the subject, head a governemnt department responsible for that thing.
You mean like is the case now?? (my bold)



Exactly what I mean. Lots (most?) Ministerial appointments suck. Meritocracy or technocracy for me please.
Given there's no mention of either when voting for MPs how do you suggest that would work in the HoC?
_______
I started out with nothing and I've still got most of it left...
  Reply With Quote
Yesterday, 16:25   #147
Anna B
Registered User
 
Joined: Sep 2006
Total Posts: 11,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by woodview View Post
is as equally silly as allowing a goverment minister with no experience of management of anything, or the subject, head a governemnt department responsible for that thing.
You mean like is the case now?? (my bold)



Exactly what I mean. Lots (most?) Ministerial appointments suck. Meritocracy or technocracy for me please.
I tend to agree, but what other democratic system do you suggest?

Remember ministers are guided by civil servants and an army of advisers, think tanks, experts, and 'wise heads' (I use the words loosely..) in the house of Lords - all at great expense I might add, and still they get it wrong.

IMO the biggest problem is short-termism and being far too influenced by the need to get re-elected at any cost.

However I've often said we need to take elections and election candidates far more seriously. I want to know much more about those who want my vote, and a quick flyer through the door at election time extolling their virtues just doesn't cut it.

Last edited by Anna B; Yesterday at 16:28.
  Reply With Quote
Yesterday, 16:28   #148
woodview
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2011
Total Posts: 248
Status: Online
Quote:
Originally Posted by truman View Post
Given there's no mention of either when voting for MPs how do you suggest that would work in the HoC?
I simply don't think a someone solely with experience of local party politics, who's made their way up the slimy ladder, should be head of a department of thousands and budgets of billions.
  Reply With Quote
Yesterday, 16:31   #149
truman
Registered User
truman's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2009
Total Posts: 20,372
Status: Online
Quote:
Originally Posted by woodview View Post
I simply don't think a someone solely with experience of local party politics, who's made their way up the slimy ladder, should be head of a department of thousands and budgets of billions.
How do you pick them then ? How do you select who can and can't stand for election to parliament? 'cos they're going to be the ones running and making decisions for departments.
_______
I started out with nothing and I've still got most of it left...
  Reply With Quote
Yesterday, 16:35   #150
woodview
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2011
Total Posts: 248
Status: Online
Quote:
Originally Posted by truman View Post
How do you pick them then ? How do you select who can and can't stand for election to parliament? 'cos they're going to be the ones running and making decisions for departments.
Why have a political mp as minister? They've put that woman heading dept for NI who clearly has no clue for example.
Ps this.is now.a bit off.topic....
  Reply With Quote
Reply To Topic

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:53.
POSTS ON THIS FORUM ARE NOT ACTIVELY MONITORED
Click "Report Post" under any post which may breach our terms of use.
©2002-2017 Sheffield Forum | Powered by vBulletin ©2018