[aljolson]

(Original post by Birchington)
You need 250 posts to vote here. Have a big posting spree and you'll be able to take part.

I read 150, pooh to you too

[Birchington]

(Original post by aljolson)
I read 150, pooh to you too

My mistake. I was only trying to help.

[aljolson]

(Original post by TopHat)
You can actually vote even if you have neg rep, you just need to PM the speaker (Metrobeans) with your vote.

Thanks for the advice, but Mr flibble say's Pooh to metrobeans with double knobs on. Stupid frigging rule.

[aljolson]

(Original post by Birchington)
My mistake. I was only trying to help.

I never negged you though.

[Birchington]

If you're taking part in this debate but not sure what the TSR House of Commons is or does, check out the official HOC newspaper, Ad HOC, right here.

[Birchington]

(Original post by aljolson)
I never negged you though.

I haven't negged you either.

[ninth2]

"United Republic"? That sounds horrible and it actually makes me cringe. It sounds like a crappy summertime single from some rapper.

Do I want our Prime Minister to be the foremost figure of our society? NO.WAY.

I'm happy we have a royal family. The pomp and pageantry factor is the only major card we have to play, and without them, when will we showcase what we do better than any other country in the world?

[Mazzini]

(Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
Well plausibly but since we wouldn't be paying for extended retinue, multiple palaces and an extended family that figure would come down.

You would still have to pay for the president and his family though. There would also still have to be multiple residences - there are six for M. Hollande. He also earns 21,000€ per month (roughly £16,800). Furthermore, only HM the Queen and HRH the Duke of Edinburgh are paid for by Parliament - the rest of the Royals are funded by themselves.

[Tahooper]

(Original post by Birchington)
I think the last description can be applied to certain royals as well.

It can be applied to more politicians than royals.

[TopHat]

(Original post by Mazzini)
You would still have to pay for the president and his family though. There would also still have to be multiple residences - there are six for M. Hollande. He also earns 21,000€ per month (roughly £16,800). Furthermore, only HM the Queen and HRH the Duke of Edinburgh are paid for by Parliament - the rest of the Royals are funded by themselves.

Not really. Given the electorate would be writing the rules of the new constitution, they could quite easily say that a new head of state would have only one residence, for example. The rest of the Royals do not really fund themselves, either. They use the proceeds from the Duchies - which would become state property if the Monarchy was dissolved as they are held by the Sovereignty in trust for the Sovereign, rather than being personal property of the monarch and their family.

[Tahooper]

(Original post by JPKC)
My Nan's gracious, kind and stoic, should she be the queen?

No because she is not royalty.

[Birchington]

(Original post by Tahooper)
It can be applied to more politicians than royals.

At least said politicians have a democratic mandate to govern.

[Tahooper]

(Original post by Birchington)
At least said politicians have a democratic mandate to govern.

Through the use of dishonesty and propaganda.

I'd rather have an honest non-democratic elected figurehead than someone who was democratically elected who deceives and lies to the very people who elected them.

[Birchington]

(Original post by Tahooper)
Through the use of dishonesty and propaganda.

I'd rather have an honest non-democratic elected figurehead than someone who was democratically elected who deceives and lies to the very people who elected them.

An incredibly poor defence of the monarchy.

[temia07]

YES!!

[internetguru]

(Original post by Tahooper)
Through the use of dishonesty and propaganda.

I'd rather have an honest non-democratic elected figurehead than someone who was democratically elected who deceives and lies to the very people who elected them.

I am a back bench Conservative MP in the MHOC when have I lied or deceived anyone?

[Tahooper]

(Original post by Birchington)
An incredibly poor defence of the monarchy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw

[JPKC]

(Original post by Tahooper)
No because she is not royalty.

So why are "Royalty" so much better than everyone else? I thought that, as a society, we'd reached the point where we could stop blindly glorifying toffs. My Nan, and most normal people, are just as able as the Windsors, they just don't benefit from being birthed with a prenatal silver spoon. You need to find an actual reason for giving them more rights than everyone else.

[Tahooper]

(Original post by internetguru)
I am a back bench Conservative MP in the MHOC when have I lied or deceived anyone?

I was talking about real life of course.

[Democracy]

(Original post by JPKC)
Seriously you need to shut up or put up. You spout these random lines of nonsense and never provide any logical explanation for them. Here's your task for the day: try and write an argumentative post with more than 200 words explaining why you think elected heads of state are dictators.

And I though you were a West Wing fan: was Bartlet a dictator? Is Francois Hollande a dictator? What about Obama?

I understand your position, but please try to use more temperate language