[The_Great_One]

WHats the point in replacing something that isn't broken with another system. No political party would ever do it because theirs no point it would be all pain and no gain. What's the point in having an old washed up here today gone tomorrow politician.

[AspiringGenius]

I feel really undecided on this issue. As a socialist-libertarian my instinct that any form of inherited power is wrong, however I do also believe in democracy and the fact of the matter is that the majority of people in this country are pro-monarchists. Rather ironically, in the interests of democracy it's probably better if we keep the monarchy for the time being.

Nostradamus predicted that Charles would be the last King, and he hasn't got much wrong yet

[Piprod01]

(Original post by Brussels_Junta)
ah yes an incredible 59p a year. but so do civil servants - i dont see you demanding an election for each one of them - and they actually govern us (there are probably tens of thousands of them).

youre just looking for any little excuse to impose your cultural marxist ways on the rest of us

That 59p figure is inaccurate. It's likely a lot more due to the fact the royals don't pay inheritance tax, and security isn't included in addition to the harm to the economy due to royal public holidays, ect,.

Aren't civil servants hired on our behalf by people we democratically elect to represent us, exactly because we can't micromanage every government decision such as employment.

Can't you say that anything that supports a more equal treatment of people, "Culturally Marxist", because I'm not exactly seeing why that's meant to be a bad thing you can accuse someone of being.

[bkeevin]

(Original post by Aramiss18)
I find the very idea of Royalty repulsive. That said, I respect Dear Old Lizzie and wouldn't like to see her ousted-much the same way I wouldn't want an old lady in any other form of life being forced out.

While you may be right about the origins and principles of it, our present royalty enables us to get the best of both worlds. She is apolitical hence she can be anything to everybody which would be much harder to achieve with an elected head. The royalty retains the mythical element in it that enhances our influence in the international stage far beyond our weight. I am yet to meet anyone(apart political anorachs) who knows the names of the presidents of Germany, Italy or Ireland but many will know who the head of state of Monaco is since it is a prince!!!

[Brussels_Junta]

(Original post by Piprod01)
That 59p figure is inaccurate. It's likely a lot more due to the fact the royals don't pay inheritance tax, and security isn't included in addition to the harm to the economy due to royal public holidays, ect,.

Aren't civil servants hired on our behalf by people we democratically elect to represent us, exactly because we can't micromanage every government decision such as employment.

Can't you say that anything that supports a more equal treatment of people, "Culturally Marxist", because I'm not exactly seeing why that's meant to be a bad thing you can accuse someone of being.

i am advocating equal treatment of people. i am recognising the celebrated role that her majesty has and im not going to insist you forgo your role as a middle class/privileged 'oh its all so unfair' activist to accommodate a genuinely poor person who deserves a chance to be as privileged as you .

[blueray]

Cough. They are the biggest benefit claimants. Cough.

[The Mr Z]

Here's my pro Queen argument. That's settled, we're keeping her.

[Semolina1]

I'd rather have a ruler who doesn't kill anyone or invade any country, breaking their laws [and our own] like hooligans under the command of the government. Making people believe it is 'ok' because they are doing it to save us and scare off terrorism.
You can't fight fire with fire.

[LouboutinLove]

(Original post by Piprod01)
That 59p figure is inaccurate. It's likely a lot more due to the fact the royals don't pay inheritance tax, and security isn't included in addition to the harm to the economy due to royal public holidays, ect,.

So what's the real figure more like then? £1? £5? £10? To be honest I'd be quite happy with any of those amounts from my tax going to the monarchy. Even if the supposed figure is 5x what they say it is, making it £2.95 that's what - a sandwich from Marks & Spencer? A pint of lager in a cheap pub? Can we really not sacrifice something that trivial for all the benefits the monarchy brings?

I don't understand how the economy is 'harmed' by Royal public holidays (I assume you mean the Royal wedding and the Jubilee) - yes, some production may stop, office workers may have the day off - but isn't it made up for by the extra retail and services spend on those days? Surely production is subsequently increased (albeit temporarily) from the increase in morale and goodwill from the event and everyone getting a day off?

[Piprod01]

(Original post by bkeevin)
While you may be right about the origins and principles of it, our present royalty enables us to get the best of both worlds. She is apolitical hence she can be anything to everybody which would be much harder to achieve with an elected head. The royalty retains the mythical element in it that enhances our influence in the international stage far beyond our weight. I am yet to meet anyone(apart political anorachs) who knows the names of the presidents of Germany, Italy or Ireland but many will know who the head of state of Monaco is since it is a prince!!!

Never heard of him... . I'm not really convinced that the UK's influence is best explained by the Queen being a recognisable "mythical" figurehead. I'd have thought the UK's colonial history, and our relationship with the USA do a better job at explaining the UK's current situation.

[bkeevin]

(Original post by Piprod01)
Never heard of him... . I'm not really convinced that the UK's influence is best explained by the Queen being a recognisable "mythical" figurehead. I'd have thought the UK's colonial history, and our relationship with the USA do a better job at explaining the UK's current situation.

You may not know of Prince Albert of Monaco, or his late father Prince Rainier or his mother Grace Kelly but they were/are very well known in the European celebrity circuit just like our royals.

Of course the existence of our royal family/the Queen alone does not explain our influence in the world but it sure helps since many people respect the weight of the tradition. An elected ceremonial president will only reduce it. Even the more powerful French presidents like Chirac or Sarkosy created a divided opinion both domestically and abroad and were subject to ridicule and ditto the US and Russia presidents but for different reasons.

[Architecture-er]

(Original post by tface)
She costs incredible amounts of taxpayers money. She represents the taxpayers as a country. She is the head of our state, and we have a choice in none of these things.

The brilliant thing is, there's around 50 million of us. So it personally costs you 1/1000th of that frappamochacaffepinamoolah drink you have every day to wake yourself up.

p.s. Also I can't think of anyone more trained and prepared to be head of state than the Queen and whoever succeeds her.


p.p.s. One word. Parachutes.

[Arbolus]

(Original post by Fusion)
Rubbish. They'd hedge their bets just like financiers.

It's happened before in Spain (have a look at King Juan Carlos I and the 23-F attempted coup) and in Thailand. There's no reason why it couldn't happen here.

[Piprod01]

(Original post by LouboutinLove)
So what's the real figure more like then? £1? £5? £10? To be honest I'd be quite happy with any of those amounts from my tax going to the monarchy. Even if the supposed figure is 5x what they say it is, making it £2.95 that's what - a sandwich from Marks & Spencer? A pint of lager in a cheap pub? Can we really not sacrifice something that trivial for all the benefits the monarchy brings?

I don't understand how the economy is 'harmed' by Royal public holidays (I assume you mean the Royal wedding and the Jubilee) - yes, some production may stop, office workers may have the day off - but isn't it made up for by the extra retail and services spend on those days? Surely production is subsequently increased (albeit temporarily) from the increase in morale and goodwill from the event and everyone getting a day off?

Times that amount by 60 million and we start to get into a pretty large sums of cash. I don't really think there's really much of an upside to having a monarchy either.


It's pretty hard to find many sources that say the Jubilee was good for the economy, this is the most positive article I could find easilly:
http://bdaily.co.uk/news/business/05...sm-700m-boost/

Jubilee weekend gives UK tourism £700m boost

However, the Centre for Economics and Business Research has found that each bank holiday could cost the UK economy up to £2.3 billion, offsetting any increase caused by tourism.

Despite this however, the TUC believes that national holidays can “lift their national mood”, and therefore their value cannot be truly estimated.

I have no idea how to quantify that either, but I think relying on that unquantifiable factor to make up the shortfall is a bit... optimistic. A lot of people I know just wanted it to end, there is only so much queen coverage the human brain can tolerate.

[Darth Vader.]

(Original post by Snagprophet)
Tbh it matters not. We still get more back from tourism than what the taxpayers put in. In effect, tax isn't being taken from elsewhere because of the profits of the tourism. Then subsequent money, gets put back into the system.

(Original post by SillyEddy)
The rest of the time the Queen is a giant fundraiser for the country - She brings in far more money than she costs.

(Original post by justanotherposter)
she brings way more money in than she spends in the form of tourism so I don't see why we should get rid of her.

Ah, the tourism point which gets pedalled again and again. Source? Cause last time I checked the figures, the cost burdened by taxpayers was significantly more than anything tourism brought in (only a proportion of which was down to the Queen). What she brings in is negligible.

[anarchism101]

(Original post by Arbolus)
It's happened before in Spain (have a look at King Juan Carlos I and the 23-F attempted coup) and in Thailand. There's no reason why it couldn't happen here.

23-F failed because it didn't get the support of the army, and the King did nothing until the generals had told him so.

The King of Thailand is a semi-absolute monarch who's authorised and promoted more coups (usually against elected governments) than he's blocked.

The King of Italy didn't stop Mussolini. The Kings of Romania and Bulgaria didn't stop Stalinism after WW2. The Queen didn't stop apartheid.

[Fusion]

(Original post by Architecture-er)
The brilliant thing is, there's around 50 million of us. So it personally costs you 1/1000th of that frappamochacaffepinamoolah drink you have every day to wake yourself up.

p.s. Also I can't think of anyone more trained and prepared to be head of state than the Queen and whoever succeeds her.


p.p.s. One word. Parachutes.

Why is the cost of the monarchy always quoted in per capita terms when nothing else is.

Nobody says Fred Goodwin's pension pot only works out at 50p per head, or the tory's moat cost 0.00001p per head.

It's quite a clever tactic in fact.

[Architecture-er]

(Original post by Fusion)
Why is the cost of the monarchy always quoted in per capita terms when nothing else is.

Nobody says Fred Goodwin's pension pot only works out at 50p per head, or the tory's moat cost 0.00001p per head.

It's quite a clever tactic in fact.

Well I don't care either way, I just care about the ethics behind it. MP tax evasions or whatever you're talking about casts doubts about their morality when it comes to handling larger sums of money and pieces of legislation. But I don't care about funding the royal family.

[Piprod01]

(Original post by bkeevin)
You may not know of Prince Albert of Monaco, or his late father Prince Rainier or his mother Grace Kelly but they were/are very well known in the European celebrity circuit just like our royals.

Of course the existence of our royal family/the Queen alone does not explain our influence in the world but it sure helps since many people respect the weight of the tradition. An elected ceremonial president will only reduce it. Even the more powerful French presidents like Chirac or Sarkosy created a divided opinion both domestically and abroad and were subject to ridicule and ditto the US and Russia presidents but for different reasons.

Well assuming you're correct, I feel that sort of respect is ultimately undeserved. For the UK to be arbitrarily given more weight it must come at the expense of under-represented countries, and that doesn't sit right with me and doesn't seem to be something worth having; an attempt to hold onto something of colonialism.

[LouboutinLove]

(Original post by Fusion)
Why is the cost of the monarchy always quoted in per capita terms when nothing else is.

Nobody says Fred Goodwin's pension pot only works out at 50p per head, or the tory's moat cost 0.00001p per head.

It's quite a clever tactic in fact.

I actually wish they would do this with everything, it'd be quite interesting to see how much things like schooling and the NHS costs each person, and of course how much we each spend on junk like modern 'art' sculptures.