So, we're in a recession, we have high unemployment, our neighbours in Europe are in a crisis that seemingly has no end, in Syria men, women and children are being raped and murdered, so what our parliamentarians need to spend their time doing is renaming the clock tower at the Palace of Westminster.
What a joke. Whilst the British public are sick with worry over their jobs, a higher cost of living and whether they can keep a roof over their heads our elected representatives are busying themselves organising in order to rename the tower. Of course, this won't just be a renaming of the tower as apparently this Jubilee weekend isn't enough to sate Ms. Windor's appetite for fawning blind sycophancy. No, there'll have to be another ceremony and another celebration to go with it.
However, being a massive waste of time (and let's not even think about the costs involved) is not the reason I am livid at this forelock tugging stupidity. Nor is it that this has been announced without a debate or a vote. The reason this is so galling is because it is a genuine affront to the principle of democracy.
Why this tower? Why not something else like Trafalgar Square, Westminster Abbey, another bloody part of the Palace of Westminster.
The clock tower, sometimes named St. Stephen's tower, or by those a little less up on their London knowledge, Big Ben ("that's the bell, that's the bloody bell", I can hear you shout) is a global symbol of democracy. Renaming this strong, much-loved, memorable, easily identifiable and globally famous emblem of democracy after an institution that is anti-democratic is an affront. It's a good job that the statue of Cromwell isn't facing the tower. As someone with Irish roots I know he was far from perfect, but give the man his due, he had the right idea about monarchy.
I'm not alone in this belief. Though apparently this has been decided, it hasn't been debated in the house, there has been no vote in the house, merely some MPs have signed a letter. Perhaps those MPs should pay a bit more attention to the wishes of those who put them there than she they are forced to swear an oath of allegiance to. Nationally 44% of those polled are against the idea (with only 30% in favour), in London this increases to 53% against - there just is not the will nor the support of the public to do this. Source:
What could be less democratic than changing the name of a global-brand for democracy without a debate or a vote when it wasn't in any manifesto and it's against the will of the public? They may as well defecate on the magna carta and give black rod a massive snog when he drifts up and be done with it.
And whilst it's galling that MPs should sign up for this assault on the fundamental point of their jobs, and even more distressing that Ed Miliband, who leads a party whose mission is to build a "community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few" should hop on board quicker than one can say "did we get the right brother".
Ms. Windsor herself actually has a responsibility to decline this offer. Her role is 'defender of the faith' and as such it would be both immoral and direct opposition to this role for Liz to usurp St. Stephen, whom to many has lent this tower its name.
However, regardless, haven't we done enough? Each year she and her ragtag bunch of various incompetents and hangers on are paid millions, they've recently been given a new deal which will see them receiving much higher income, she's waited on hand and foot, people are expected to bow to her and call her ma'am and we're currently in the middle of a party in her honour so costly that it will slow down our economy, no doubt leading to many more of her subjects finding themselves on the dole queue.
What more does she need? Isn't it about time she started showing a bit more gratitude back than this constant drone of one-way sycophancy? Will she be naming wings of the palaces we pay for after great parliamentarians like Attlee or Churchill or even just great Britons like the Pankhursts or Darwin?
What else are we expected to do? Build a structure depicting her visage so large it's visible from space so any visiting aliens can see just how grateful 60 million plebs are that someone's managed to shake a few hands (with her gloves on) whilst having people kneel or bow before her and happily spunk millions, nay billions of quids keeping her in the lap of luxury for 60 WHOLE YEARS?!
Imagine, 60 years of wandering around a few civic centres a week - poor love deserves every ounce of gratitude and then some. Maybe renaming this symbol of democracy (which let's face it, democracy is an insult to her abilities as a leader we may as well do away with it) isn't enough, maybe we need to change the name of our country. All stand for the national anthem of Elizaland!
Sounds crazy doesn't it? Well so is renaming that tower, that tower that houses Big Ben, it is ours, it's a symbol of British democracy and it must not be renamed for Elizabeth or anything else that is a direct challenge to the concept to democracy, an ideal so powerful our forebears fought and died for it. This madness must end here.
Follow Mat Morrisroe on Twitter: www.twitter.com/brndrmnc
Carl Packman: Orwell's England is One the Left Should Appeal To
Boats take to Thames for the Queen's Jubilee flotilla
Bumming a smoke from the queen: When the security bubble bursts
The Queen's Diamond Jubilee and Flotilla: US live TV coverage announced
When the Queen showed her true colours
Queen's cousin tells of monarch's 'sacrifice' for royal duty
So please, rather than looking to attack me personally, which only reflects on you, stick to the points at hand. The renaming of the clock tower.
Practically every well-intended, well-structured comment by a "monarchist" is responded to with some kind of twisted, barbed response. This latest piece is so pathetic, it doesn't even deserve intelligent comment.
So Mr.Morrisroe and his sympathisers have free rein to respond to this as they wish, safe in the knowledge that I'm not going to bother answering their "spoilt child" (as described elsewhere in this thread) straw-clutching comments.
The support for the Queen this weekend is reason enough to dismiss the idea of republicanism, but the prospect of Britain being ruled by Mr.Morrisroe and his ilk is a much more powerful reason.
That you are unable to respond to a single point made in my blog and instead attack me (or indeed republicans in general) shows how specious the case is.
Finally, for someone who is so clearly filled with hatred for me, why read my blog? Please either remain civil or go elsewhere.
I'm a day late but what the heck. Morrisroe moans about politicians being involved in this idea rather than doing some meaningful work. SO - why isn't Morrisroe helping down at the soup kitchen rather than writing about a non-event. (In his eyes)
Secondly - you could call Big Ben any name you like, even, ''Morrisroe tower' because it will alays be known as Big Ben.
Morrisroe - you'll find a list of soup kitchens in the Sally army handbook.
However, I do my bit. How on earth discussing the clock tower has turned into an attack on me for not working soup kitchens is quite astonishing to me? What an extraordinary and bonkers leap. Stick to the point.
How about a word or two about the present state of our democracy? Do you, for instance, feel that a democracy like ours, run on behalf of an oligarchical banking cartel is in a fit state to run anything? You seem front of the queue in trumpeting it's superiority, even going so far as to suggest it provide us with a president to replace the Queen in a previous post.
I think you're a bit neurotic to be honest. By the time you had finished penning you're post, which turns from the renaming of Big Ben into your anti monarchy rant you were obviouly spitting feathers, and the only thing that irks you about doffing ones cap, is the fact that, deep down, you think the plebs ought to be doffing it to you in the light of your obvious superior intellect.
Many things can be changed if people hold onto their beliefs, you may see it as pissing in the wind but how many other causes were unpopular 20 years ago that are common-place now (or have achieved their goal)?
I believe in a strong democracy, with a state that is accountable to its people. I can see you're no expert on government but let me explain that having a parliament that swears alligience to a monarch rather than its people is one of the reasons that MPs don't take their electorate that seriously.
More seriously, I will accept the use of mental health-based pejoratives to attempt to score points because someone disagrees with you offensive in the extreme.
Finally, I now know that rather than read the blog you just fired off your bile from the headline. Had you actually read the blog you'd know the tower is not called Big Ben, that's the bell.
-----------------------
What's with the cheap rhetorical flourishes? I would like to see a republic but as long as this country is a democracy and a majority favour the monarchy we are stuck with it. So, instead of ranting pointlessly to show how politically sound you are, how about some simple ideas that take us one step forward?
My suggestion: convert Buckingham Palace to a public art gallery for the Queen's pictures. Make the gardens into a public park. The Royal Family can live in one of the other palaces.
We need a more modest monarchy. And to achieve that we need civil debate. Unless you think democracy - which you love so much - means screaming and being stupidly rude to get what you want..
Actually as a compromise I have suggested the monarchy be privatised which you can read here if you'd like: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/mat-morrisroe/monarchy-privatise_b_1063855.html
I have to say that, me aiming a few admittedly barbed but humorous (maybe not to you, but yes to some) asides is hardly as rude as writing directly to someone telling them 'unless you think democracy - which you love so much (why add that?) - means screaming and being stupidly rude'. Please do stay on point as it seems we're probably not a million miles apart if the insults are excluded.
So they're going to call a tower after Her Majesty. In what way does that affect his life in any which way possible? Instead of b!tching about it, maybe he should just learn to live with the inevitable, Britain is a Monarchy of which 80% of us approve and that isn't going anywhere soon!
Please engage in debate or go elsewhere, thank you.
My point is, even if we did remove the Queen as Head of State (never going to happen BTW) we then have to appoint someone to take over those duties. We're better off with someone who brings in approx 15.6 billion ponds a year to these country than some no-name functionary nobody cares about.
In future you should say "Everyone should be equal instead of everyone IS equal".Poverty,skin colour,size,hair colour,disibilities,sex,education,religion, etc etc .......are all viewed as discrimination and used as factors when viewing others as one's equal.I didn't say it was fair but that is real life.
To me all are born equal. If you think I am depressing (depression being a real illness by the way) then may I suggest you read something else?
The ad hominen attacks on monarchists, 'forelock tugging', 'blind sycophancy'.
The straw man argument. If we gotrid of the monarchy, we'd have no unemployment or poverty. Oh yes? Look at the USA. Seems to have both despite being a republic for centuries.
I don't particularly like the re-naming of the clock tower, but since near everyone mis-names it Big Ben anyway, they are going to continue to do so. And I've never heard anyone, anywhere before claim that St. Stephens clock tower is 'a global symbol to democracy'! Give us some concrete examples. Mr. Morriscoe.