revolution saint

I agree - no point in having one really.

No Logo by Naomi Klein should be essential reading. Brands are a waste of money and no guarantee of quality.

The EU parliament and the Scottish Assembly have nothing to do with the monarchy or a replacement for it. Not sure why you've brought that up because it makes no sense. The pomp and ceremony, pageantry and traditions that you like so much can be performed without a monarchy easily enough. Finally the inability to choose your head of state does affect your democratic status.

I absolutely agree with you about the internal market - you really need to have worked in it to understand just how mental it is. I did 12 months on the information side of things and that was enough - little armies of us PCT lining up against Health care provider arguing over our share of the pot. There's a lot of things I'm proud about contributing to - the reduction in waiting lists is one of them but if we're talking about waste and too much beaurocracy then that's the internal market's fault. The stupid thing is that in the internal market world we justified ourselves - the more of us you had then the more money you got. In terms of the NHS as a whole we were a waste of resources.

Good post and good summary although given my username I'm obviously going to disagree with the sentiment though. I think you're right that as republicans we have to put forward and make the argument that an alternative is better. We do have to convince the public that abolishing the Monarchy is a good thing. Personally it annoys me that it's not the institution itself that is enough to convince people. Take Charles Windsor - there are quite a few people who it seems would seriously start to doubt the monarchy upon his coronation because they don't respect him as much as Liz Windsor. Surely that should be the whole point of it though - that you don't get to choose your head of state? You get the card you're dealt and there's nothing you can do about it. Perhaps that's what it would take for people to change their minds but for me it would be for the wrong reasons. Incidentally I'd feel a little sorry for Charlie as much of his problems stem from him actually having an opinion and trying to make his position relevant. Liz on the other hand has pretty much spent her time on the throne silent - none of us know what her opinions are or what she believes in. That seems to be what we want though a monarch that creates as few waves as possible. As for the future? You're probably right - abolition will be a long time coming. As is our nature the monarchy will evolve into something so watered down that at some point it will be purely ceremonial (you could argue that we're already there). I don't foresee any referendum coming up that's for sure. What I do think will happen is a gradual removal of constitutional powers. In many ways that would please the most people - a monarchy in name only that negates the need to talk about an alternative. Ironically I feel it's that fear of an alternative that is the royalists strongest defence - what would you replace them with? Personally I don't feel the need to replace them with anything at all but that's probably a hard sell. On the plus side I am encouraged by the way the debate is going now - we've moved on from people defending the monarchy because it is a decent and fair institution and instead talk about how they are essentially harmless and a nice irrelevancy. We've actually come a long way. I think attitudes are changing and a republican viewpoint no longer marks you out from the crowd, much like being an atheist has become a respected, or at least rational, position as well (you can see why I despise our national anthem!). I probably won't live to see an end to Monarchy but I'll be raising a glass with Tom Paine when it does fall.

Yeah I do too. It's also wrong, boring and obsessive.

Season ticket holder and go to some aways, chances are I go to more than you. Btw I still think you're deluded but frankly can't be arsed anymore. You're welcome to carry on in the mistaken belief we will bid for Hooper again (Note that's not signed but bid).

To be honest I have no problem with you getting upset that I called you a presumptious little twerp, I would as well. However the only reason I said that was because you quoted me, and then in the quote "corrected me" (your words). That's presumptious of you and so justified. If you don't like the reaction it provokes then don't do it. For the record I have no idea if you are a little twerp or not - that was just guesswork. Secondly you seem to placing a lot of store in the fact that Celtic made the bids public. Too much in my opinion. They have a huge fanbase and things like this are bound to get out, Hooper also has an agent pushing for an improved contract so did it ever cross your mind that Celtic and Lennon would be reacting to reports rather than starting them? Of course you are entitled to an opinion, and it's also my right to pull you up if I think it's wrong - so far we've had numerous denials of wanting to sell by Lennon, a statement by the player saying he's happy and not looking for a move, and a statement from Nigel saying any deal is now off. I'd say that the weight of evidence is on my side compared to your gut feeling that we will bid again based upon your own (flawed) guesswork. Of course I can't stop you living in dreamworld but you need to recognise that your opinion doesn't really stack up against the facts and therefore carries less weight. Cheers

I've had my kindle for nine months now and I was a bit sceptical about whether I'd get on with it or not. Needn't have worried though as I love it - easily the best gadget I have. I'd agree about reference books though - a kindle wouldn't be much good for them but everything else is great. Also the ability to share books is a long time coming as well as the ability for friends/family to buy books for you as presents and have them delivered to your kindle on birthdays, christmas day etc. Those are small niggles though and I actually prefer the reading experience on a kindle to a book. It also saves a huge amount of space and money. I've also taken a punt on books that were either free or cost a quid and been really surprised at how good some of them are, although some are duff.

Saintsweb Forum members being deluded shocker, you'll still be vainly clinging on to the hope of signing Hooper on the last day of the window just as you were with Rodriguez. I'm happy to accept different opinions just as I'm happy to explain why they are wrong. In this case you really can't find any more indicators as to why this deal won't happen.

Right, first of all do not correct my post to what you think I might mean - I meant what I said so don't be a presumptious little twerp. Secondly stop looking for signs that are simply not there. I'll repeat again - is there anything that would convince you that this signing will not happen? It's not going to so stop dreaming.

Just out of interest what would convince you that the deal was dead? Celtic coming out and saying they weren't interested? Player coming out and saying he was happy and didn't want a move? Adkins coming out and saying the pursuit is over? Honestly what more evidence do you need? I'm not sure anything could convince you and it's also worth bearing in mind we did exactly the same thing in the summer with Rodriguez and we didn't sign him either. I think we do need another striker and I think NA does too; we wouldn't have gone for Sharp, Rodriguez or Hooper if that wasn't the case. The problem is we've wasted time on ambitious signings that we can't pull off. Tadanari Lee could be a good player, who knows? But if you look at it objectively then the odds are that he'll take time to settle and we probably won't see the best of him till next season. It's a big gamble whichever way you look at it and not one you'd want to count on. Adkins is quoted as saying that, "we will do everything possible to ensure this club has the best chance of going up as champions" but Jos signing aside there hasn't really been much evidence of that promise delivered. Obviously there's still time in the window for something to happen and we'll need it to - we haven't really played that well for a couple of months now (or sporadically at best). Yes, we beat Coventry and Notts Forest away but they are two of the poorest teams I've seen in the Championship and really doesn't prove much if you have aspirations of winning this league. The real test will be the tough games, home and away, and I'm not sure we have the squad for it.

Unless you live in Pompey where everyone is closely related to each other without needing to go back any generations.

Well you're assuming that a striker, any striker that costs a lot will get us to the prem but it's not that simple. We could sign Rooney but he wouldn't get us promotion on his own - the rest of the team contribute as well. Obviously that's just common sense so given that any transfer is a gamble let's look at potential players who could do a job for probably half the price: Sharp, Maynard, Sordell and Rodriguez off the top of my head - all have similar goal scoring records to Hooper in the Championship and could do as well in the SPL as Hooper has done. So whilst signing any of them would be a risk so also would Hooper, the only difference is he would cost twice as much. That said, I hope we do sign Hooper but let's not get carried away here - signing him is no guarantee of anything.

And so it comes down to sentimentality, tradition and fear of an alternative that have become a lynchpin for defending the Monarchy. None of those reasons are sophisticated or stand up to scrutiny. I'm not sure anyone, not even monarchists, would say this is a fair system (which in itself should be enough to bring the institution down) so I won't bother going down that road - republicans always win that argument. Instead let's talk about an alternative. Can anyone give me a reason why we need an alternative? What would be in the job description? No one so far has come up with any compelling reason why the current functions of mrs windsor couldn't be carried out by the elected government of the day. Unless anyone can point out why it's necessary to have a presidential replacement to do the square root of nothing then I think it's fair to say that we can get rid of an anachronistic, out dated institution without fear of any consequences.

I don't believe we need a replacement for the monarchy (ie a head of state, a president call it what you will). We can happily get rid of them, become a modern true democracy (you know - that thing we wage war in it's name) and suffer no consequence. The only people who defend a monarchy are tied to a dewy eyed, rose tinted vision of tradition. If that's all they've got then it's a pretty poor argument.

To be honest a journo has probably just asked him about Hooper and I'd expect him to answer as he did whether Hooper was staying or leaving. It doesn't really mean anything. Absolutely.

I don't actually think that's true but regardless of that I'm not sure you've made a compelling argument for a Head of State be it as a monarchy or elected.

How would it be communist? That doesn't make sense, and neither does having a head of state who doesn't actually do very much.

So there's no real need for a Head of State then? All those things can be done as part of the function of our current government.

Why do we need a head of state? Honest question - everyone seems to accept we do but I'm not convinced.

Not sure we should get too carried away with this. The only proof we have that further bids have been tabled are through the media (the same ones we rubbish when they report bids for saints players). As for Hooper being interested - we alledgedly went through the same thing with Rodriguez and he turned us down so I'm not getting my hopes up. I hope you're all right but can't help thinking that it's all a bit premature. My predicition is that we'll all be frantically pressing F5 throughout the last day of the transfer window and hoping we get that big striker signing.

Can't really be arsed to trawl through this thread - it crops up every few months anyway. Basically though a monarchy is an affront to democracy - it runs counter to everything a democracy stands for. I don't care if they cost a billion or a pound - I want to abolish them because I want to be a citizen and not a subject. They are not accountable, can't be removed and receive priviledge by way of "divine right". It's a system so laughable, ridiculous that it's pathetic. The only defence I ever hear about them is that: 1. They never use their constitutional powers - Great, no reason for them to have them then. 2. They bring in money due to tourism - plenty of republics do fine and I'd bet a fully open Buck House would probably bring in a few more. 3. The alternative would be another self serving politician as head of state - Yes, but we could choose and also remove them. Personally I don't see the need for an elected head of state anyway so I'd replace the head of state with nothing - it would be a massive improvement.

Bound to be.