Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

TSR Republican Society

Announcements Posted on
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zjs)
    On the plus side: makes tourism even less credible as a pro-Monarchy argument.
    I always find it hilarious (or equally sad as this is the level of discourse people use) when people bring up the monarchy being beneficial to tourism, WHEN THERE IS NOT A SINGLE SHRED OF EVIDENCE TO BACK UP THIS CLAIM. Even the official UK Tourism Board doesn't include a sub-factor for the monarchy and how much tourism it brings to the UK, as the effect is deemed negligible/not important enough.

    That and the myth that the royal family costs us 69p each every year (yes because all 60 million people in the country, including children, are taxpayers!) are the most moronic excuses to justify such a system.
    • 26 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zjs)
    Sorry, but, can you be more precise with your question?

    It's unclear whether you're asking what's the difference between anyone aspiring for their children to become the Head of State as opposed to the PM or whether you're asking what the difference is between the current Monarch telling their children they could reign, as opposed to anyone else telling them they could become the PM.
    I'm asking what the difference is between a parent in a hypothetical UK republic telling their child they could one day become head of state, and a parent in the modern-day United Kingdom telling their child that they could one day become PM.
    • 19 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by manchild007)
    I always find it hilarious (or equally sad as this is the level of discourse people use) when people bring up the monarchy being beneficial to tourism, WHEN THERE IS NOT A SINGLE SHRED OF EVIDENCE TO BACK UP THIS CLAIM. Even the official UK Tourism Board doesn't include a sub-factor for the monarchy and how much tourism it brings to the UK, as the effect is deemed negligible/not important enough.

    That and the myth that the royal family costs us 69p each every year (yes because all 60 million people in the country, including children, are taxpayers!) are the most moronic excuses to justify such a system.
    Saying the Monarchy is a necessity is a bit like saying a building that is an eyesore and gets in the way of the large plot of land being used for something else - a new business etc - should not be demolished because people occasionally travel to see the building and it is a focal point of the area.

    (Original post by Addzter)
    I'm asking what the difference is between a parent in a hypothetical UK republic telling their child they could one day become head of state, and a parent in the modern-day United Kingdom telling their child that they could one day become PM.
    I don't believe there's any substantial difference. I suppose - if we want a parallel for the discussion - we can use the President of the USA. In the US, running a Presidential campaign involves spending a lot of money, and most Presidents have tended towards being members of the upper-middle class. You could - theoretically - transfer this across to suggest that the increased prestige and power of the position would involve a more comprehensive and expensive campaign trail.

    Ultimately though, there's little real difference.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by manchild007)
    This isn't about just domestic tourism - please do feel free to provide actual evidence, which documents international tourist numbers by each tourist site. Money from tourism is money from tourism.

    Moreover, good on you for ignoring the rest of the post (i.e. questions/arguments you couldn't argue or provide a retort against) :rolleyes:
    There is no need to be patronise me with your little eye rolling emoticons. That is how good natured debates turn to crap. Just deliver your argument.
    If it is the case that NBC have cut broadcasting then fair enough. Although they are not the only channel in the USA broadcasting the event.
    It is purely a matter of international tourism with regards to my original argument as I was talking about the importance of the monarchy to how our country is perceived by the outside world. I am not trying to suggest that individual royal attractions hold a monopoly on tourism as tourism in the UK is largely domestic especially outside London. What I am suggesting is that the role of the royal family is part of the whole appeal of the UK as a tourist destination just as much as the British Countryside or the Globe. If it were to no longer be a present institution and become an historical one, then it would be no more attractive than the french monarchy. Whenever I meet someone foreign as I often did at school, they would always ask about the Queen. We do get associated with the royal family frequently just as much as football.
    I did provide evidence in my original argument. I stated the number of international tourists and the site most visited by international tourists.
    I can see why you have such a negative reputation... so abrasive... have confidence in your views without having to be hostile
    • 26 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zjs)
    bstantial difference. I suppose - if we want a parallel for the discussion - we can use the President of the USA. In the US, running a Presidential campaign involves spending a lot of money, and most Presidents have tended towards being members of the upper-middle class. You could - theoretically - transfer this across to suggest that the increased prestige and power of the position would involve a more comprehensive and expensive campaign trail.
    Or you could say that if we adopt a Presidential system of government, election campaigns will be - even more than they currently are - nothing more than competitions between parties to see who can spend the largest amount of money, and style would be much more important than substance.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JHalpin)
    There is no need to be patronise me with your little eye rolling emoticons. That is how good natured debates turn to crap. Just deliver your argument.
    This isn't me being patronising, but rather trying to get a good natured debate going - simply picking and choosing what points you can retort (and thus leaving all other valid points made in a post aside), is not exactly the recipe for a civil discussion now is it.

    It is purely a matter of international tourism with regards to my original argument as I was talking about the importance of the monarchy to how our country is perceived by the outside world. I am not trying to suggest that individual royal attractions hold a monopoly on tourism as tourism in the UK is largely domestic especially outside London. What I am suggesting is that the role of the royal family is part of the whole appeal of the UK as a tourist destination just as much as the British Countryside or the Globe. If it were to no longer be a present institution and become an historical one, then it would be no more attractive than the french monarchy. Whenever I meet someone foreign as I often did at school, they would always ask about the Queen. We do get associated with the royal family frequently just as much as football.
    You have not given even one single shred of evidence for any of the comments you've made above. Explain to me why the UK Tourism Board deems the royal effect being so negligible on tourism, that they don't even have it as a sub-factor within their statistics? Why the Top 20 sites for tourism in the UK only includes on royal residence? [and spare me the "its only international tourism that matters", as this is simply clutching at straws - the benefits of tourism are the same, whether these people come from the UK, USA or Mars].

    I did provide evidence in my original argument. I stated the number of international tourists and the site most visited by international tourists.
    Nonsense (see my post number 28 below). Are you saying you have exact statistics on the number of international only tourists, for various UK sites (as one is simply not good enough). Moreover within this evidence, it should be made clear that a monarchy is what made the tourists visit the sites in the first place, as simply assuming is somewhat deluded.
    • 19 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Addzter)
    Or you could say that if we adopt a Presidential system of government, election campaigns will be - even more than they currently are - nothing more than competitions between parties to see who can spend the largest amount of money, and style would be much more important than substance.
    This is not necessarily the case though. Removing the Monarch and installing a Presidential system does not necessitate a system similar to the US and based solely on contributions - though it seems overwhelmingly likely that campaigns bankrolls will increase ten-fold.

    In terms of style-over-substance, this is not necessarily true either. Take the last General Election. Nick Clegg was certainly a very stylish politician, but this was rejected when it came to the votes, with people more interested in the substance.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JHalpin)
    Americans make up the bulk of tourists to the UK, the Tower of London (owned by the monarchy) being the most visited site (2 million).
    The British Museum (source: league table put out by the tourism board ALVA) is the most visited tourist site in the UK, not the Tower of London. Moreover, how do you know these supposed 2 million tourists visiting the Tower of London are doing so b/c we have a monarchy, and that they would not thus visit if we abolished it?

    Also, please provide me an official source which breaks down domestic vs international tourist numbers to the site, since you seem to be so concerned about the latter.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by manchild007)
    This isn't me being patronising, but rather trying to get a good natured debate going - simply picking and choosing what points you can retort (and thus leaving all other valid points made in a post aside), is not exactly the recipe for a civil discussion now is it.



    You have not given even one single shred of evidence for any of the comments you've made above. Explain to me why the UK Tourism Board deems the royal effect being so negligible on tourism, that they don't even have it as a sub-factor within their statistics? Why the Top 20 sites for tourism in the UK only includes on royal residence? [and spare me the "its only international tourism that matters", as this is simply clutching at straws - the benefits of tourism are the same, whether these people come from the UK, USA or Mars].



    Please provide an official source for this.

    Moreover, are you saying you have exact statistics on the number of international only tourists, for various UK sites (as one is simply not good enough). Moreover within this evidence, it should be made clear that a monarchy is what made the tourists visit the sites in the first place, as simply assuming is somewhat deluded.
    I believe that I have now responded to your points prior to this post so you can drop that now.
    Why do you consider the UK Tourist Board's lack of a royal sub-section as evidence? This has more to do with how they choose to set up their website rather than evidence based upon statistics.
    Once again, domestic tourism is irrelevant to my original argument. Once again, the top 20 you are referring to is heavily weighted by domestic tourism. Also, as I stated before, I am not talking about individual sites, I am talking about how the country is perceived as a whole. I am talking about the UK's appeal as a sum of all it's parts. I am arguing that without the royal family, there would be a different perception which may not be as enticing to tourists, in particular those across the pond.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by manchild007)
    The British Museum (source: league table put out by the tourism board ALVA) is the most visited tourist site in the UK, not the Tower of London. Moreover, how do you know these supposed 2 million tourists visiting the Tower of London are doing so b/c we have a monarchy, and that they would not thus visit if we abolished it?

    Also, please provide me an official source which breaks down domestic vs international tourist numbers to the site, since you seem to be so concerned about the latter.
    If you would have studied geography you would understand that tourism can be very broadly defined. A tourist to the British museum could be from Reading. This is the case with all the museums. This is why it is important to differentiate between domestic and international.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JHalpin)
    I believe that I have now responded to your points prior to this post so you can drop that now.
    No you haven't and you know this, so stop clutching at straws and trying to escape out of arguments you have no retort for. See also post number 27.

    Once again, domestic tourism is irrelevant to my original argument. Once again, the top 20 you are referring to is heavily weighted by domestic tourism
    Please provide evidence for this claim - I have never seen any domestic/international breakdown, nor any insinuation by the conductors of the league tables, that domestic tourism had a dominating effect on the outcome at all.

    I am arguing that without the royal family, there would be a different perception which may not be as enticing to tourists, in particular those across the pond.
    Again, evidence for this claim? You CANNOT make such a proposition but then provide no back-up for it.
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Do people sincerely believe that we would see a significant reduction in tourism to our historial/cultural sites if there was no monarchy? If so, what are you basing that belief on?

    In either case, it seems bizarre to try and justify a system of governance based on the tourism revenue it generates as a result of being an anachronistic curiosity.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JHalpin)
    If you would have studied geography you would understand that tourism can be very broadly defined. A tourist to the British museum could be from Reading. This is the case with all the museums. This is why it is important to differentiate between domestic and international.
    That is a weak argument, but I shall accept it, b/c it takes me onto my main point (which curiously you have avoided answering the post of mine you have quoted - why?). Please answer the following questions, which I state AGAIN for the second/third time in hopes of a logical answer from you.

    How do you know these supposed 2 million tourists visiting the Tower of London are doing so b/c we have a monarchy, and that they would not thus visit if we abolished it?

    Also, please provide me an official source which breaks down domestic vs international tourist numbers to the site, since you seem to be so concerned about the latter.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by manchild007)
    No you haven't and you know this, so stop clutching at straws and trying to escape out of arguments you have no retort for. See also post number 27.


    Please provide evidence for this claim - I have never seen any domestic/international breakdown, nor any insinuation by the conductors of the league tables, that domestic tourism had a dominating effect on the outcome at all.



    Again, evidence for this claim? You CANNOT make such a proposition but then provide no back-up for it.
    If there are any points that I haven't responded to then it is not out of avoidance, simply that I don't remember what those points were in the first place. Nor do I see where I am clutching to straws, I have not strayed from my initial argument.
    If I find statistics on the internet then I will direct you, however, even in this century, some statistics are reduced to the pages of text books...
    Obviously I could not provide evidence for my final point. It is a suggestion and nothing more. It is more of a hypothesis. As you know, a hypothesis comes before the search for empirical evidence rather than being based upon it.
    I originally argued in favour of the monarchy on such a slim premise in the first place because no-one else saw tourism as a justified reason. I don't believe it is an important reason to prevent the monarchy from being dissolved but it is a reason nonetheless.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JHalpin)
    If there are any points that I haven't responded to then it is not out of avoidance, simply that I don't remember what those points were in the first place. Nor do I see where I am clutching to straws, I have not strayed from my initial argument
    Well can you answer any of the questions in my below post; questions which I've now asked FOUR times, to complete avoidance. They relate to your central premise of tourism and the monarchy connection, yet you provide no evidence whatsoever to back these claims - even I could say now that I once saw a figure on the internet saying 70% of people are against the monarchy, but without providing others this source and thus verifying its credibility, using such statistics/evidence is moot.

    Many times (in fact all), you make an outlandish claim - such as domestic tourism figures having impacted greatly the top 20 destination lists - yet provide NO SHRED OF EVIDENCE to back up this claim - an important one given your case.

    (Original post by manchild007)
    That is a weak argument, but I shall accept it, b/c it takes me onto my main point (which curiously you have avoided answering the post of mine you have quoted - why?). Please answer the following questions, which I state AGAIN for the second/third time in hopes of a logical answer from you.

    How do you know these supposed 2 million tourists visiting the Tower of London are doing so b/c we have a monarchy, and that they would not thus visit if we abolished it?

    Also, please provide me an official source which breaks down domestic vs international tourist numbers to the site, since you seem to be so concerned about the latter.
    • 63 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    excellent new society Republicanism for the win!
    • 9 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Hi guys! :wavey:

    Am I the only Conservative here? :unsure:
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    So I see in the absence of any interest in the meat and drink of the republicanism/monarchy question, both sides descend into debating the utterly pointless tourism issue.

    (Original post by Addzter)
    I sort of agree with Republicanism really, but just to play devil's advocate: what's the massive difference in telling your kids they could one day be the head of state, to telling your kids they could one day be Prime Minister?
    Very good question - I'd say none, and the idea that people will seriously believe they are able to become Head of State, or that it will somehow make people feel better about things, is laughable.

    Moreover, those that do make it, will be politicians.
    • 13 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    An excellent society!
    • 26 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    Very good question - I'd say none, and the idea that people will seriously believe they are able to become Head of State, or that it will somehow make people feel better about things, is laughable.

    Moreover, those that do make it, will be politicians.
    I agree. I think when the Republican movement chastises Monarchists for making awful arguments in favour of the Monarchy, we should refrain from making awful arguments against it.

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?

    this is what you'll be called on TSR

  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?

    never shared and never spammed

  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide the button to the right to create your account

    Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: September 2, 2012
New on TSR

What are your A-level predictions?

Join our AS and A2 results day chat thread

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.