5 ms·

> The bigger picture of why UK is hell bent on surveilling their citizens It's just their culture. It probably won't change till they get rid of the anachronis

> The bigger picture of why UK is hell bent on surveilling their citizens It's just their culture. It probably won't change till they get rid of the anachronistic monarchy.

garblegarble 3y ago
>It probably won't change till they get rid of the anachronistic monarchy. It's nothing to do with the monarchy - indeed, if anything I think the consensus amongst pro-monarchy folks is that the monarch is a constitutional escape hatch in the event of a government getting out of control. Both the Conservative and Labour parties have an authoritarian streak to them when in government, and a solid percentage of the population seem to trust that our institutions know what they're doing and can keep their databases secure (although I hope that's been shaken in the last month with a number of police and electoral register database leaks).
pipo234 3y ago
I don't understand enough about UK to see why anachronistic monarchy would be at the heart. (To lesser extent) we see a lust for surveillance in many other democratic countries too. Isn't an easier explanation that society is getting more complex while politicians double down on managing their reputation, which inevitably results in loosing trust in institutions? (Or something along those lines.)
- PrimeMcFly 3y ago
  > I don't understand enough about UK to see why anachronistic monarchy would be at the heart. Not saying the monarchy is at heart, just that the culture won't change until they have some sort of cultural revolution and get rid of it.
  - pipo234 3y ago
    Yikes! Historically, revolutions are bloody and generally do not end well. Cultural revolutions less so. Having said that, I would not mind seeing King Charles abdicate; England, Wales, Scotland, N-Ireland become proper republics; help the remnants of upper class strongholds adapt to reality, if that's what you mean. :-)
    - sph 3y ago
      > Historically, revolutions are bloody and generally do not end well. Cultural revolutions less so. Historically, major changes only come with a bloodshed, you forgot that part. We speak highly of Gandhi because he's an exception to this rule, not the norm. (And blood was shed in that case as well) The corollary is, don't expect much to change until there's a major societal break and pushback. That is, unless you have drunk the kool aid of modern politics and think your party will fix things for real, this time. In Britain, I'm less concerned about King Charles III and its effect on the populace, than Starmer, Sunak, and any other idiot in Westminster. They're the ones writing the government laws and budget for their own interests.
    - PrimeMcFly 3y ago
      > Yikes! Historically, revolutions are bloody and generally do not end well. Cultural revolutions less so. I specifically said cultural revolution because I tried to imply a non-violent revolution. Not all revolutions are violent. Think technological revolution.
      - pjc50 3y ago
        Unfortunately the usual referent of "cultural revolution" is the Maoist one which was extremely violent. You could try referencing the colour revolutions or the Portuguese "carnation revolution" maybe.
        PrimeMcFly 3y ago
        Generally when I've seen cultural revolution being used it has been in reference to the 60s or similar, but upon searching you are definitely correct; I just wasn't aware of that. There's still a lot of history I've yet to learn about.
jjgreen 3y ago
The other way around I'd say, the expense and misbehaviours of the monarchy are tolerated by the ~ 70% of the population who are authoritarian minded.
- PrimeMcFly 3y ago
  That's not the other way around, that's perfectly consistent with what I'm saying and I agree.
  - jjgreen 3y ago
    If the monarchy were to vanish into thin air for some reason, that 70% would still be there.
    - PrimeMcFly 3y ago
      Sure, but I wasn't talking about it vanishing into thin air, but a cultural revolution that would result in people willingly wanting it gone.
tcldr 3y ago
You realise the 'anachronistic monarchy' is just a tourist attraction/diplomatic lever at this point, right? Britain is a parliamentary democracy. I'm pretty confident Charlie doesn't have a hand in enabling sweeping snooping powers. More hacking scandals are the last thing his poor family needs!
- PrimeMcFly 3y ago
  > You realise the 'anachronistic monarchy' is just a tourist attraction/diplomatic lever at this point, right? It's not. It still has power, and it's still costing tax payers a shitton so one family can live above everyone else. More importantly there are plenty of royalists who support it.
  - tcldr 3y ago
    What interests do you think they have in boosting surveillance powers?
    - PrimeMcFly 3y ago
      What interest do UK authorities have in being so petty as to charge people for 'stealing' less than 10p in electricity? I'd say the answers are related.
      - tcldr 3y ago
        > I'd say the answers are related. How so?
        PrimeMcFly 3y ago
        Provide the answer to the question I asked and we can discuss it.
  - bananapub 3y ago
    christ alive buddy. the royal family costs the UK tax payer ~100m a year[0], which is about the cost of the three nuclear bombs in the US or less than one of the ill-advised F-32 purchases Australia is making. it's also maybe a 1/10th of the amount of money stolen by Tory mates for their various PPE crimes during the early pandemic. every country has very very dumb shit they piss money up the wall over, but it's not a game changing amount of money. 0: dodgy source: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/how-much-royal-family-costs-king-charles-b1009296.html https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/how-much-royal-family-cos...
pjc50 3y ago
It's more the press. The monarchy are irrelevant, but the press massively support authoritarianism as long as it's against other people.

> The bigger picture of why UK is hell bent on surveilling their citizens It's just their culture. It probably won't change till they get rid of the anachronistic monarchy.

garblegarble 3y ago

>It probably won't change till they get rid of the anachronistic monarchy. It's nothing to do with the monarchy - indeed, if anything I think the consensus amongst pro-monarchy folks is that the monarch is a constitutional escape hatch in the event of a government getting out of control. Both the Conservative and Labour parties have an authoritarian streak to them when in government, and a solid percentage of the population seem to trust that our institutions know what they're doing and can keep their databases secure (although I hope that's been shaken in the last month with a number of police and electoral register database leaks).

pipo234 3y ago

I don't understand enough about UK to see why anachronistic monarchy would be at the heart. (To lesser extent) we see a lust for surveillance in many other democratic countries too. Isn't an easier explanation that society is getting more complex while politicians double down on managing their reputation, which inevitably results in loosing trust in institutions? (Or something along those lines.)

PrimeMcFly 3y ago
> I don't understand enough about UK to see why anachronistic monarchy would be at the heart. Not saying the monarchy is at heart, just that the culture won't change until they have some sort of cultural revolution and get rid of it.
- pipo234 3y ago
  Yikes! Historically, revolutions are bloody and generally do not end well. Cultural revolutions less so. Having said that, I would not mind seeing King Charles abdicate; England, Wales, Scotland, N-Ireland become proper republics; help the remnants of upper class strongholds adapt to reality, if that's what you mean. :-)
  - sph 3y ago
    > Historically, revolutions are bloody and generally do not end well. Cultural revolutions less so. Historically, major changes only come with a bloodshed, you forgot that part. We speak highly of Gandhi because he's an exception to this rule, not the norm. (And blood was shed in that case as well) The corollary is, don't expect much to change until there's a major societal break and pushback. That is, unless you have drunk the kool aid of modern politics and think your party will fix things for real, this time. In Britain, I'm less concerned about King Charles III and its effect on the populace, than Starmer, Sunak, and any other idiot in Westminster. They're the ones writing the government laws and budget for their own interests.
  - PrimeMcFly 3y ago
    > Yikes! Historically, revolutions are bloody and generally do not end well. Cultural revolutions less so. I specifically said cultural revolution because I tried to imply a non-violent revolution. Not all revolutions are violent. Think technological revolution.
    - pjc50 3y ago
      Unfortunately the usual referent of "cultural revolution" is the Maoist one which was extremely violent. You could try referencing the colour revolutions or the Portuguese "carnation revolution" maybe.
      - PrimeMcFly 3y ago
        Generally when I've seen cultural revolution being used it has been in reference to the 60s or similar, but upon searching you are definitely correct; I just wasn't aware of that. There's still a lot of history I've yet to learn about.

jjgreen 3y ago

The other way around I'd say, the expense and misbehaviours of the monarchy are tolerated by the ~ 70% of the population who are authoritarian minded.

PrimeMcFly 3y ago
That's not the other way around, that's perfectly consistent with what I'm saying and I agree.
- jjgreen 3y ago
  If the monarchy were to vanish into thin air for some reason, that 70% would still be there.
  - PrimeMcFly 3y ago
    Sure, but I wasn't talking about it vanishing into thin air, but a cultural revolution that would result in people willingly wanting it gone.

tcldr 3y ago

You realise the 'anachronistic monarchy' is just a tourist attraction/diplomatic lever at this point, right? Britain is a parliamentary democracy. I'm pretty confident Charlie doesn't have a hand in enabling sweeping snooping powers. More hacking scandals are the last thing his poor family needs!

PrimeMcFly 3y ago
> You realise the 'anachronistic monarchy' is just a tourist attraction/diplomatic lever at this point, right? It's not. It still has power, and it's still costing tax payers a shitton so one family can live above everyone else. More importantly there are plenty of royalists who support it.
- tcldr 3y ago
  What interests do you think they have in boosting surveillance powers?
  - PrimeMcFly 3y ago
    What interest do UK authorities have in being so petty as to charge people for 'stealing' less than 10p in electricity? I'd say the answers are related.
    - tcldr 3y ago
      > I'd say the answers are related. How so?
      - PrimeMcFly 3y ago
        Provide the answer to the question I asked and we can discuss it.
- bananapub 3y ago
  christ alive buddy. the royal family costs the UK tax payer ~100m a year[0], which is about the cost of the three nuclear bombs in the US or less than one of the ill-advised F-32 purchases Australia is making. it's also maybe a 1/10th of the amount of money stolen by Tory mates for their various PPE crimes during the early pandemic. every country has very very dumb shit they piss money up the wall over, but it's not a game changing amount of money. 0: dodgy source: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/how-much-royal-family-costs-king-charles-b1009296.html https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/how-much-royal-family-cos...

pjc50 3y ago

It's more the press. The monarchy are irrelevant, but the press massively support authoritarianism as long as it's against other people.