I don't care one way or the other. It is just a pointless waste of time. It just changes the names of the freeloaders nothing more.
I'd be willing to bet a single elected president as a head of state, with little actual political power will be a hell of a lot cheaper than a whole family of freeloaders.
I'd be willing to bet a single elected president as a head of state, with little actual political power will be a hell of a lot cheaper than a whole family of freeloaders.
You see, I do not see the point of a president with no political power.
You see, I do not see the point of a president with no political power.
Then what is the point of an entire venerated family with no political power? I mean, Liz is a head of state with zero power so there's no point in us having her either.
We already have a political class that is corrupt beyond redemption.
We had a charlatan like Tony Blair in 10 Downing Street.
Anyone who doesn't realise that removing the Royal Family will not end the corruption is living is cloud cuckoo land.
The problem isn't the Royal Family singularly it is the whole system. Who turns a blind eye when the rich and powerful break laws and avoid the tax and other responsibility. Clue it is not the Royal Family.
Parts of what you're saying are perfectly true, but your analysis is flawed.
And just because there aren't other massive corruption problems it doesn't mean you ignore this one. As you say, it's the whole system, and the Royals are part of that system.
Thing is with the royals, so many people say what do u replace them with....but u don't replace them after getting rid of them (I guess the country would have to vote on this). All we need is the elected head of state, the priminister.
And by that logic there's no point in an unelected Royal Family either.
Well that is not strictly true.
There could be a point to an unelected Royal Family but only if they had political power. This could be a good or bad thing for the country. A hereditary monarchy could be a good thing as they would not have to pander to the electorate to remain in power. For example, in my opinion, political parties use tax cuts and financial handouts to win votes regardless of the long term damage to the economy. A sitting, hereditary, monarch could decide the best course of action for long-term rather than the short term electioneering we see from today's parties.
It all depends on the monarch we get. The same can be said for elected republics. Neither are perfect and both have their share of nastiness.
I find it naive in the extreme for people to believe that removing the Royal Family will change things beyond the cosmetic. My view is that both Labour and the Conservatives have badly failed this country in the past forty years and they have both pursued policies to look after the people at the top at the expense of the rest of us. And yet they will still be the parties receiving the votes at the next election. I do not have faith in the democratic process or people's willingness to remove failing leaders.
If I thought that removing the monarchy would make things better then I would be behind it but I am more interesting in us as a country pursuing corporate tax evaders than wasting our time with this.
There could be a point to an unelected Royal Family but only if they had political power. This could be a good or bad thing for the country. A hereditary monarchy could be a good thing as they would not have to pander to the electorate to remain in power. For example, in my opinion, political parties use tax cuts and financial handouts to win votes regardless of the long term damage to the economy. A sitting, hereditary, monarch could decide the best course of action for long-term rather than the short term electioneering we see from today's parties.
It all depends on the monarch we get. The same can be said for elected republics. Neither are perfect and both have their share of nastiness.
I find it naive in the extreme for people to believe that removing the Royal Family will change things beyond the cosmetic. My view is that both Labour and the Conservatives have badly failed this country in the past forty years and they have both pursued policies to look after the people at the top at the expense of the rest of us. And yet they will still be the parties receiving the votes at the next election. I do not have faith in the democratic process or people's willingness to remove failing leaders.
If I thought that removing the monarchy would make things better then I would be behind it but I am more interesting in us as a country pursuing corporate tax evaders than wasting our time with this.
That perhaps illustrates one of the dangers of hanging onto a relatively powerless Monarch. It allows the dangerous myth of the benefits of a dictatorship to survive. It gives those who would really favour an autocracy to present what almost sounds like a valid case. i.e. Those nice Royals would make great benevolent dictators.
They would not of course; given total power they would soon just become nasty tyrants like most of those who have absolute power.
That perhaps illustrates one of the dangers of hanging onto a relatively powerless Monarch. It allows the dangerous myth of the benefits of a dictatorship to survive. It gives those who would really favour an autocracy to present what almost sounds like a valid case. i.e. Those nice Royals would make great benevolent dictators.
They would not of course; given total power they would soon just become nasty tyrants like most of those who have absolute power.
So is it the Royal Family that is creating an unsustainable housing bubble to win the next election?
Was it the Royal Family that has been dragging in us into illegal wars?
Is it the Royal Family that is preventing us from having a referendum on membership of the EU?
Will it be the Royal Family possibly getting a parliamentary majority with 35% of the popular vote?
Is it not just the Royal Family that stinks in the establishment. Until we sort that out getting rid of the monarchy is just papering over cracks.
So is it the Royal Family that is creating an unsustainable housing bubble to win the next election?
Was it the Royal Family that has been dragging in us into illegal wars?
Is it the Royal Family that is preventing us from having a referendum on membership of the EU?
Will it be the Royal Family possibly getting a parliamentary majority with 35% of the popular vote?
Is it not just the Royal Family that stinks in the establishment. Until we sort that out getting rid of the monarchy is just papering over cracks.
Spot on; you illustrate my point. We can view the Monarchy through rose tinted specs precisely because they cannot make unpopular decisions; indeed because they never have to make any decisions at all.
So is it the Royal Family that is creating an unsustainable housing bubble to win the next election?
Was it the Royal Family that has been dragging in us into illegal wars?
Is it the Royal Family that is preventing us from having a referendum on membership of the EU?
Will it be the Royal Family possibly getting a parliamentary majority with 35% of the popular vote?
Is it not just the Royal Family that stinks in the establishment. Until we sort that out getting rid of the monarchy is just papering over cracks.
Just because we rarely get to hear their political opinions doesn't mean they are not fecktards in that respect too. I'd prefer to decide democratically.
His Most Honorific President For All Of Eternity He For Whom All Words Manifest As Pleasing Rainbows And Birdsong Worshipped By The Faithful Defender Of The Common Man And Scourge Of The Traitorous Dogs Holder Of The Secret To Higher Wisdoms And Riches Biffo
His Most Honorific President For All Of Eternity He For Whom All Words Manifest As Pleasing Rainbows And Birdsong Worshipped By The Faithful Defender Of The Common Man And Scourge Of The Traitorous Dogs Holder Of The Secret To Higher Wisdoms And Riches Biffo
Can you wear a crown on the ceremonials? I like a bit of pomp and show.
I suggest something similiar to the crown of upper and lower Egypt, not in solid gold though, that would cause a few problems over the years I would think.
Comments
It won't damage him it just won't change anything for him. The corruption is beyond the Royal Family.
I don't care one way or the other. It is just a pointless waste of time. It just changes the names of the freeloaders nothing more.
sorry, I thought you meant we would be worse off. I get your post now
I'd be willing to bet a single elected president as a head of state, with little actual political power will be a hell of a lot cheaper than a whole family of freeloaders.
You see, I do not see the point of a president with no political power.
Then what is the point of an entire venerated family with no political power? I mean, Liz is a head of state with zero power so there's no point in us having her either.
Parts of what you're saying are perfectly true, but your analysis is flawed.
And just because there aren't other massive corruption problems it doesn't mean you ignore this one. As you say, it's the whole system, and the Royals are part of that system.
And by that logic there's no point in an unelected Royal Family either.
About as much point as a whole family, born into wealth and privilege as figureheads with no political power either.
At least with a president we'd only be paying for one of them, and can vote them out if we don't like them.
We'd have to change the name of the UK.
United Republic? United ex-Kingdoms?
And if Scotland leave... 'No longer United ex-Kingdom'
What difference does that make?
Well that is not strictly true.
There could be a point to an unelected Royal Family but only if they had political power. This could be a good or bad thing for the country. A hereditary monarchy could be a good thing as they would not have to pander to the electorate to remain in power. For example, in my opinion, political parties use tax cuts and financial handouts to win votes regardless of the long term damage to the economy. A sitting, hereditary, monarch could decide the best course of action for long-term rather than the short term electioneering we see from today's parties.
It all depends on the monarch we get. The same can be said for elected republics. Neither are perfect and both have their share of nastiness.
I find it naive in the extreme for people to believe that removing the Royal Family will change things beyond the cosmetic. My view is that both Labour and the Conservatives have badly failed this country in the past forty years and they have both pursued policies to look after the people at the top at the expense of the rest of us. And yet they will still be the parties receiving the votes at the next election. I do not have faith in the democratic process or people's willingness to remove failing leaders.
If I thought that removing the monarchy would make things better then I would be behind it but I am more interesting in us as a country pursuing corporate tax evaders than wasting our time with this.
That perhaps illustrates one of the dangers of hanging onto a relatively powerless Monarch. It allows the dangerous myth of the benefits of a dictatorship to survive. It gives those who would really favour an autocracy to present what almost sounds like a valid case. i.e. Those nice Royals would make great benevolent dictators.
They would not of course; given total power they would soon just become nasty tyrants like most of those who have absolute power.
So is it the Royal Family that is creating an unsustainable housing bubble to win the next election?
Was it the Royal Family that has been dragging in us into illegal wars?
Is it the Royal Family that is preventing us from having a referendum on membership of the EU?
Will it be the Royal Family possibly getting a parliamentary majority with 35% of the popular vote?
Is it not just the Royal Family that stinks in the establishment. Until we sort that out getting rid of the monarchy is just papering over cracks.
Spot on; you illustrate my point. We can view the Monarchy through rose tinted specs precisely because they cannot make unpopular decisions; indeed because they never have to make any decisions at all.
As opposed to the non elected tossers the monarchy throw up?
Certainly - far more fun and a tradition.
Some damned Blairalike in a suit with no power is just SO boring. I can't understand why anyone thinks it's preferable.
Just because we rarely get to hear their political opinions doesn't mean they are not fecktards in that respect too. I'd prefer to decide democratically.
Can you wear a crown on the ceremonials? I like a bit of pomp and show.
I suggest something similiar to the crown of upper and lower Egypt, not in solid gold though, that would cause a few problems over the years I would think.
Well, yeah.
Enough of this Commie talk. >:(
Seriously(ish)...Fry or Palin? Or maybe Alan Bennett, but he's getting on a bit...