Messages

May decide to sub. How are people finding Hachette? I subbed to the Marvel GN Collection. They were ok until I cancelled my sub then they were a nightmare to deal with.

For this series, I've found some of the packaging pretty poor (notably those books sent with free gifts), but Hachette has replaced those issues that I deemed in unacceptable condition, with said replacements showing up within a week. My preferred method of contact has been Facebook. I think the longest it's taken to get a reply from them is under two days, which I'm more than happy with.

Naturally, my last two books showed up in perfect condition, and then I dropped them on the floor, thereby dinging one of them. Some kind of weird book karma? I dunno. (And, no, I didn't ask for a replacement for those!)

Mm. The simplicity and elegance of the story is one of the reasons I rate it so highly. Yes, it's 'functional' at times, but it's also solid, has heart, and builds really nicely over time. It's not Lord Flashheart, but instead the faithful chum who's been with you over the years and pretty much never lets you down. (I'm also a big fan of the way in which it's one person's art — very few comics manage that for any length of time, and certainly only very few non-strip comics.)

Bookazines? Good grief. Someone at WHSmith HQ needs a slap for that, not least because 1. 'bookazine' is a wholly repellant term that everyone in publishing despises (excepting, perhaps, marketing depts.) and 2. because bookazines are a specific format that is nothing like those three titles on the bloody display. Gnh.

Still, maybe it'll sell some more Dredd, which'd be a good thing. (Frankly, though, after the experience I had recently with the company's mail order, I'm sticking with Wordery and Rebellion/FPI.)

Of course they're all the same - they all believe that this inhuman system we're saddled with can somehow magically lead to a humane society. All you're asking me to do is read the Koran instead of the Bible. There might be wisdom in there but it's all basically praying to an illusion in the sky. Until that illusion ("authority") is dispelled, anything suggested in its name is pointless.

In which case, I think I'm done with this discussion. Green policy might not be Shark's Perfect Utopia, but there's a hell of a lot of overlap with a whole load of things you talk about, but if you can't even be bothered to read a single manifesto (yet pepper this thread with a range of content), and hand-wave it away with "of course they're all the same", that's unhelpful. Also, any suggestion you would ever engage with the system is clearly laughable if you wave away the bloody Greens as being basically the same as the Tories, Labour, et al.

Iceland worked out a new constitution on the internet, in full public view and with full public participation.

Which basically amounted to shit, sadly.

but none of the parties are offering anything like that

The Greens constantly talk about a blank-slate for constitutional reform. But until the electoral system changes, they will 'be' Caroline Lucas (unless the boundaries change, in which case they'll maybe have zero MPs); even under STV, they'd only have a few. (Under list PR: 20.)

Still, perhaps you should read their manifesto. At the very least, it might give you food for thought, and an inkling that not all politicians are the same.

That's true.  After all, France is a republic, and hardly anyone goes there on holiday as a result.

Last I knew, France had been a republic for quite some time, not had a change within living memory. We don't know how a switch now would affect the UK. (And, as noted, I'm not thrilled at the prospect of voting in some shitbag every five years, who'll quite possibly be a much worse head of state, yet still cost us a ton of money in security and campaigning? Maybe—just maybe—the UK could mirror the likes of Ireland and Iceland, and have something quiet and simple, but I just get the feeling we'd want to be the USA, just a bit more rubbish.)

Simply changing from monarchy to republic is not the only thing we need to...

And those things all happen either via some kind of mass revolt that will lead to lots of people getting killed and imprisoned, or by voting in a progressive government that would initiate those changes. But too many of the people who want to see change don't vote.

Putting aside the issue of deciding our constitutional arrangements on the basis of how much money we can fleece from tourists, evidence for this please.

The briefest of Googling immediately finds:

• Is the Britigh Royal Family Worth the Money (The Atlantic)
• Mention of money passed to the Treasury from the Crown Estate, in The Telegraph
• Some interesting figures on Full Fact

Perhaps naturally, The Guardian counters with a pure 'strip it back to literal money pulled from visitors to Buckingham Palace, which is a bit mental.

The most obvious problem is it's hard to say for certain what the impact would be until a change is made. But, as I've said, I just don't see a great benefit in replacing the monarchy with a republic, given the nature of the British, and especially unless we have a massive overhaul of the electoral systems. Even if we did get those, it remains to be seen how tourism to the UK would change with the Royals being punted into the long grass and replaced by President Boris or President Jordan. Delving into the horrors of personal anecdotal 'evidence', it's clear a lot of Americans visit the UK in part because of its living monarchy. Maybe they still would anyway, because 'castles'. Maybe not.

Now you're getting it.

Not entirely. That's not an argument for the abolishment of the monarchy or a move to a republic per se, but for general reform. But we won't ever get to that stage while one right-wing party calls the shots on a tiny amount of the vote from middle England, largely because huge numbers of people can't be bothered to get off of their arses and vote. It just another case of:

- Oh, bloody hell, the Tories are in again, being wankers. We might have to move out, because of the bedroom tax.
- Who did you vote for, then?
- Oh, I didn't vote.

And even in the current system, some votes do have a hell of a lot of power.

Has Space Usagi ever been collected?

I have a trade of it, so yes. Amazon suggests it's had a couple of prints to date: 1998 and 2008. Might be erroneous, though, because, well, Amazon.

[The sovereign has not refused to consent to any bill affecting crown interests unless advised to do so by ministers.]

A Buckingham Palace spokeswoman said: "It is a long established convention that the Queen is asked by parliament to provide consent to those bills which parliament has decided would affect crown interests. The sovereign has not refused to consent to any bill affecting crown interests unless advised to do so by ministers.

Lots of hand-waving and "that isn't even true, but even if it were" on there. Also, it's utterly laughable, as that site does, to compare the costs of the British monarchy to that of the Irish presidency. It's also notable that "It has no power – it's just for decoration" sidesteps the problem of power consolidation, in that certain powers have historically been transferred from the monarch to MPs or the PM. But the monarchy has fuck-all power now.

Also, as others have rightly said, tying reform to republicanism would kill the former stone-dead remarkably quickly. Plenty of people are perfectly happy with the Royals but like the idea of a more representative democracy. I don't really give two hoots either way about the Royals, but am desperate for political change.

All the pans? Hardly. Yes, this is a family supported by the state, but the civil list has been stripped right back, and there's plenty of evidence to show that they bring in (as a living, breathing, active monarchy) a shit-load of tourist money in return for that minor outlay per tax-payer. That wouldn't be the case if we headed towards republicanism, and you can bet a British president would be closer in nature to a US one than, say, the Icelandic one. (i.e. loads of money for campaigning, overtly political regardless of whether they are technically so, etc.) However, we'd still be paying the taxes.

Objectively, I recognise the monarchy is an archaic, outdated concept, but the Queen's done a decent job as head of state and also has effectively no power anyway. Charles... well, he needs to step back regarding lobbying, but there are plenty of worse bodies lobbying the British government. As I said earlier, I'd sooner see electoral reform than an attack on the monarchy. PR + senate + Queen seems a perfectly decent 'compromise' to me. And if Charles turns out to be rubbish, you'll see growth in republican sentiment anyway.

Hawk: I'd have a tendency to wait. The Fantagraphics stuff sets up the world, and unlike, say, Dredd, it's pretty much fully-formed from the get-go.

Colin: I have some major-series gaps here, too, although I've read the two you mentioned. Preacher's one of those for me that is on the cusp of "sell all the trades", but I liked it enough on the last re-read to keep them. Transmetropolitan never really clicked with me, though, despite me being a jobbing journo, although the setting is nicely bonkers, and the writing is strong. (Well, it's Ellis, so you'd expect that.)

If you fancy a punt, I'd be happy to offload my entire trade collection (mostly in good nick, although two of the lot I bought off eBay were ex-library, so you'd need to replace them if keeping the series long-term) at cost (40 quid, say) + postage. Let me know if you're interested. (Although we're having house renovations at the mo', so it'll be a couple of weeks before I can actually get to the box they're stored in.)

I would be far more inclined to vote in a republic than a monarchy.

Given your replies to date, I can't imagine if the Royals were ousted tomorrow that you'd be any more inclined to vote. And given how little power the Royals have, I'm not sure they matter. Frankly, given the choice between PR Commons/Senate/Royals forever and FPTP Commons/Lords/Republic, I'd go for the former every single time.

As for republic rather than monarchy... Well, let's hope that spontaneously happens as your desire for constitutional reform will seemingly never be expressed democratically.

Exactly. There's a lot of fuss right now about electoral reform. People hiding away and saying "that doesn't affect me" won't result in change. Millions of people being VERY PISSED OFF about the systems in the UK might instigate change. It's a long road and a tough battle (the Tories are already doubling down; Labour remains broadly silent), but if Labour gets on board, there's a possibility we could finally see a mature and modern system where very many more votes actually count for something by 2025.

Regardless, I just find the non-voting thing very sad, because, as I said, it's by and large those people who get hit hardest. Had the under 35s voted en masse at the same rate as pensioners, and the trends remained broadly as they were in the actual vote (unlikely—those who don't vote are less likely to vote conservative/Conservative), we'd almost certainly have a minority Labour government right now. The only way that could have survived is by support of the SNP, which would have either forced Labour to commit suicide by bringing its own government down, or to reduce austerity measures. But, well, people didn't vote.

Also, I can't imagine 'none of the above' would win very often, if at all. If people had a version of PR that resulted in a broadly representative Commons and Senate, that means no safe seats. Parties and politicians will make more effort. People will want to vote for someone, rather than nothing, to a big enough extent that 'they're all bastards' won't do that well.

As for the issue of right-wing nutters, I covered that in Do you want 80 UKIP MPs?