I’ve been wondering, since the Queen and Old Spamface are, effectively, family (5th cousins, in Cameron’s case via a bastard son of William IV), isn’t there a something of a conflict of interest on the Queen’s part? At the very least.
When the monarch and the prime minister are related, what happens to the traditional checks and balances, like the withholding of the royal assent for bills that will damage the country?
What does that do to the “constitution” when it’s arguably the Queen’s duty to withhold that assent from bills which are quite clearly extremely damaging to the best interests of her subjects, presented by an out of control PM with an anti-disability personal agenda, to whom she is, no matter how distantly, related?
Which comes first, country or family? Where do the Queen’s loyalties actually lie?
That the old bat has rubber-stamped every goddamn thing Cameron’s put in front of her with nary a quibble – signing into private hands the National Health Service her own father signed into law, likewise trashing the Welfare State, and denying access to justice to almost all but those with deep pockets, including those who need it most – sick and disabled people at odds with the DWP and Atos – gives us our answer. Family, even descendents of royal bastards, comes first.
Between them, they have us stitched up.
It is, though, supposed to be the Queen’s duty to protect her subjects, and the country, from predators like Cameron and IDS, and incompetent arseholes like Osborne – a duty at which she has failed, miserably.
In fact, she has a record of failing miserably, as she rolled over for Thatcher when she sold off every nationalised industry – and look how much of a fuck-up that’s turned out to be, with much of our infrastructure now owned by foreigners over whom we, as a country, have little control.
Does it worry you to know that our gas supplies, for example, rely to a considerable extent on not pissing off Russia, and that “our” Queen, whose actions made that possible when she could have stopped it,** has demonstrated repeatedly that she gives not the tiniest shit for her “subjects”? Because it bloody well should.
**Please don’t tell me that withholding the royal assent would cause a constitutional crisis and probably trigger a general election – that’s the whole point!
Is there a latter-day Cromwell in this House of Commons? If so, step forward – your country needs you, and your hour has come…
But, hey, who am I kidding? – all we have is that appalling waste of blood and organs, Ed the Gutless. Check out this picture http://www.lbc.co.uk/mm/image/19345.jpg Is a man who displays such ingratiating body language really the only alternative?
Mr. Ed would be more goddamned use right now.