steviedeluxe

Voting in a President is surely quite commonplace; quite a lot of countries do it. You don't have to be a Republican to see that it's quite feasible, even if you have no desire to establish that kind of system

rugbymatt

Yeah some understanding of how our political system and the structuring of it would help here I guess... You can't just vote for one... it needs to go through quite a few hundred hoops before it is even considered, let alone changing several constitutional issues. It would be very difficult for it to happen and would require the agreement of both houses and all parties... can you see that ever happening?

steviedeluxe

You make it sound as though countries that were once monarchies, never become republics. Constitutional change does happen - even in the UK where women and most men were once unable to vote. Hard to say how it will pan out in the UK though - I think the issue of Scotland will have to be resolved first, which in turn will make Northern Ireland even more difficult... There again, I suspect Charles, when he becomes King, will be more sensible than most people make out. Time will tell.

rugbymatt

Woah there Silver... you are going off on a tangent... my original comment was in response to the Daily Mail style attitude of "BLAIR TO BECOME NEW PRESIDENT NEXT WEEK!"

Yes, we could have a president, hell we could also become a bloody Communist state, but the likelihood of it ever happening is slim to buggery, in fact I will go so far as to state that it will never happen. With that in mind I would prefer not to reply to your other comments regarding Scotland and NI...

jimenato

I bloody well hope so! He is a seriously deluded meddler in things he doesn't know about right now.

rugbymatt

I'm interested in why you say that.

Dick Dasterdly

Hard to say which is the worst of the two evils,
Blair as President or Charlie as King.
Quite agree with jimento,Charlie doesn't have a clue about anything, but likes to think he's the expert on everything.
Even his own father thinks he's an eejit.

rugbymatt

Ok... firstly.... you know this because? Secondly... this, IF TRUE coming from a bloke who is legendary in the foot in mouth consortium!

Dick Dasterdly

No doubt Phil is well known for his foot and mouth problem, but apart from ruffling a few feathers here and there, he's not really done any great harm and is quite a likeable chap, unlike the rest of the house of hanover boring farts.
Anyone who has followed his various casual remarks over the years would likely get the same impression that he doesn't rate his eldest son too highly.
Much the same views appear seem to be shared by the media in general.
Unfortunately Charlie appears to insist on having much more influence on various things than his old man, which does not bode well for the future.
Would have been nice if he was prepared to stand to one side and let one of his lads take over, but unfortunately he's likely too pig headed to do that.

rugbymatt

Well aside from the fact that Philip has been quite racist over the years, albeit quite humorously, he has come out with stuff that a head of state really shouldn't. Now... Charles.... one of his biggest campaigns is organic food... now when you consider he was the first major landowner to turn his holdings over to organic some 30 years ago I'd say he is pretty well placed to comment at that... architecture? Well, Pondsbury was his vision and I would rather live there than lego house hell... no?

Dick Dasterdly

He appears to have a lot of high and mighty principles, but comes across as very naive and not exactly the sharpest pencil in the box.
You only need look at some of the incidents he's been involved in to see that.
I wonder if he still thinks,despite research to the contrary,that all organic products are better than non organic products.
I hate to think what would happen if the country had to rely on produce from places like his own in order to live from day to day.
His production costs are probably as astronomical as his prices and 95% of the population would likely die off rather than ever be able to afford such produce.
It's easy enough mouthing off about the way things should be when you're rolling in dosh, but the guy simply doesn't come across as having a practical and feasible common sense approach to anything he messes about with.

rugbymatt

Hold on hold on hold on.... There are a large amount of organic producers now, a very large amount, and by and large at the most they have lost the 10-15% margin on their crops. Producing organic food isn't just about what is good for you or if you can taste the difference, nine times out of ten you simply cant... Its also about resources... its absolutely ludicrous that we are burning oil to produce something that we are then chucking on our land to grow food. Especially when were disposing of so much valuable animal manure... any idea how much chickenshit is being burned a year? Tons... and tons and tons... madness! What I will tell you is this. If you laish grassland with high nitrogen feeds and phosphorus to make it grow, pretty soon you will have to plough up and reseed... which is what many large scale hay and silage farmers in the lowlands do... so.... why wouldn't a more holistic approach be better? Why wouldn't it be better to stop the madness of destroying top end fertilizer simply to line the pockets of fertilizer companies?
There are also some concerns, quite legitimate in many cases, about the long term effects of using so many chemicals on our food, not just to us but also to wildlife... take a stroll around any commercial farm in East Anglia and compare the wildlife numbers to ones who farm organically.... the difference is deafening... quite literally. What we should be asking ourselves is why, when as a country we are producing such high quality foods in this country, are we buying grain from Russia and the States and lamb from New Zealand and beef from South America! "Organic" farming is about a lot more than just chemicals and pig shit... its about the holistic approach to farming.

St. John

The last time I saw an article about retaining the death penalty for certain actions was a very long time ago and there were 2 acts for which it could apply.
1. Carnal knowledge of the heir to the throne (Camilla watch out)
2. Causing a fire in Her Majesty's Dockyards. (Or should that be 'Majesties?).

Dick Dasterdly

I'm not against organic farming,in fact just the opposite and I fully agree regarding the best use of resources.
However there's nothing like enough cow shit,pig shit,chicken shit or even human shit, which has also been utilised for more years than I can remember, to cover a fraction of the Worlds corn growing land alone,for instance.
The plain truth is that without the widespread use of chemical aids there would be many millions more starving ppl.in the World.
There are certain other resources such as lime for instance which if not used in large quantities in combination with chemicals in many poor acidic areas for instance, would result in crops not even worth the expense of harvesting. The margins you mention may be possible on first class land but in many poor areas would rarely be practical or profitable under organic systems.
According to recent research, inorganic chemical aided produce often contains higher feed value and protein content than organic.
Not too familiar with E.Anglia of late but I do recall forty or more years back encouraged by the govt.of the day, they ripped out most of the hedgerows and natural habitats of wildlife.
It was not the case in my area,and apart from much increased mechanisation, farming methods have not greatly changed in the same period.
However quite a lot of conservation work has been carried out,much of it by the farmers themselves,resulting in a significant increase in the flora and fauna and making the countryside an even nicer place to be.
With regard to Charles I doubt very much if he has done an honest costing of his own produce.However no doubt he doesn't need to with the prices of his produce, as it's not everyone can put the royal family stamp on their produce, and not many outside the royal family can afford to buy it.

Dick Dasterdly

So Camilla should be carted of to the Tower of London to get her head chopped off ?
Don't suppose there'd be too many tears shed over that.

As for her Majesty's dockyard, I didn't know she still had one.
Wasn't the Royal Yacht broken up for scrap not so long ago?