Turn on thread page Beta

Should we scrap the monarchy? watch

  • View Poll Results: Should the monarchy be abolished once The Queen dies?
    Of course. I'm a diehard republican.
    131
    41.07%
    No - they are doing no harm.
    151
    47.34%
    I'm undecided.
    22
    6.90%
    What?
    15
    4.70%

    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Doctor_Einstein)
    Don't worry about the cost, we'll take that from the royal family's estate.
    All of the queens properties belong to the state, her personal belongings would still be hers, it wouldn't be some Bolshevik revolution. Even if it was it wouldn't put a dent in the costs. You would need an executive power to redress the balance of power or else you might as well abolish the HOL too and then we'd only have one chamber which means our laws would be far less scrutinised which is bad for all.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    Yeah, it would. Given that there's been tons of new countries established over the past twenty years, and each on of them has established a Head of State - many of them ceremonial, like ours - what makes you think you're smarter than the world's statecrafters?

    Where would the responsibilities go?
    You think the Queen has real responsibility?

    Also the world's statecrafters don't do what they think is the smartest thing, but rather the thing that gives the people at the top the most money and power.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AverageExcellence)
    All of the queens properties belong to the state, her personal belongings would still be hers, it wouldn't be some Bolshevik revolution. Even if it was it wouldn't put a dent in the costs. You would need an executive power to redress the balance of power or else you might as well abolish the HOL too and then we'd only have one chamber which means our laws would be far less scrutinised which is bad for all.
    I'm no lawyer, but I would still keep two houses - a lower house and a senate. If a bill passes through both houses have it accepted into law. I would have the upper house voted in every 6 years and the lower house voted in every 3 years.

    The predominant party of the lower house would form the government of the day.

    Surely it won't cost too many billions to set something like this up.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Doctor_Einstein)
    I'm no lawyer, but I would still keep two houses - a lower house and a senate. If a bill passes through both houses have it accepted into law. I would have the upper house voted in every 6 years and the lower house voted in every 3 years.

    The predominant party of the lower house would form the government of the day.

    Surely it won't cost too many billions to set something like this up.
    Why would either of those proposals be any better than we have except create needless symbolic changes, erode a big tourist industry and offer no tangible positive change.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AverageExcellence)
    Why would either of those proposals be any better than we have except create needless symbolic changes, erode a big tourist industry and offer no tangible positive change.
    As a symbol to the world that we care about equality.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Doctor_Einstein)
    Don't worry about the cost, we'll take that from the royal family's estate.
    The solution is to seize the estates of those who have considerable disdain of the monarchy, and send them in to exile (Ashmore and Cartier Islands [An Island of the coast of Australia {Uninhabited}] or the South Sandwich Islands [A British overseas territory] ), thus funding the crown and relieving stress on the NHS and Government, simple solution.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Doctor_Einstein)
    You think the Queen has real responsibility?
    Of course. Being a national symbol is an important function and great care is needed for it to be done right.

    Also the world's statecrafters don't do what they think is the smartest thing, but rather the thing that gives the people at the top the most money and power.
    How convenient for your highly-conceited opinion of yourself :rolleyes: shame that it doesn't given the Queen much money or power then, does it?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    Except, as has been pointed out many times already, that money isn't given to the Queen as a personal stipend or salary...it's to meet the costs of the office: building maintenance, staff salaries and benefits, administration and logistics. Not a penny is given to the Queen for her to buy so much as a cup of tea.



    What a poor argument. Ignoring the fact that the monarchy has fallen in cost in real terms every year since 1992, while on average the cost of every government department has increased fifteenfold since that year...but as the work of the office is essential (I hear you scoff), why argue the way you do?

    If we had a republic with a president (who may well cost more for the same work, plus a salary), I doubt you'd be arguing at all that it's wrong to pay the president while we cut hospitals. Your argument smells strongly of a personal vitriole against the monarchy and not based on logic at all.

    And I say this as someone who would otherwise share your disapproval of the government's cost-cutting and privatisation policies.
    Yeah i totally complain about the ministers taking money, and no i dont expect them to do it for no money but the amount we pay them is astronomical (10% pay rise recently while other people are fighting to simply not have a pay cut). not a thing the queen does is indispensable, many countries don't have a monarchy and they function perfectly well.
    You said the queen takes no personal expenses, however a moment ago you said the wedding security was paid for by taxpayers. So taxpayers include people standing on a picket line because they've just lost half their salary, and they're paying for security for someone who will always be far richer than anyone of those taxpayers? Doesn't sound fair to me.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    Of course. Being a national symbol is an important function and great care is needed for it to be done right.



    How convenient for your highly-conceited opinion of yourself :rolleyes: shame that it doesn't given the Queen much money or power then, does it?
    I don't get it, the queen has over one hundred million dollars in personal savings and is highly influential given her position.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SophieBarlow87)
    Yeah i totally complain about the ministers taking money, and no i dont expect them to do it for no money but the amount we pay them is astronomical (10% pay rise recently while other people are fighting to simply not have a pay cut). not a thing the queen does is indispensable, many countries don't have a monarchy and they function perfectly well.
    Firstly, do you actually know the difference between ministers and MPs? Because ministers voluntarily took a pay-cut.

    For one thing, the 10% pay-rise was imposed by IPSA, because we all complained in 2009 that it was wrong for MPs to set their own pay. And then when IPSA proposes a pay increase and a corresponding cut in the amount MPs can claim in expenses, we all seize upon the pay-rise side as myopic little twerps, and demand that break the law and block the pay rise.

    You said the queen takes no personal expenses, however a moment ago you said the wedding security was paid for by taxpayers. So taxpayers include people standing on a picket line because they've just lost half their salary, and they're paying for security for someone who will always be far richer than anyone of those taxpayers? Doesn't sound fair to me.
    Why should security come under expenses? It is a duty of the police to ensure public safety. Large crowds, freely assembled, can pose security risks. It does not matter what the cost is - the police have to police it.

    Complaining about it is like complaining about football when the police have to police football games. Would you then propose banning football?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Doctor_Einstein)
    I don't get it, the queen has over one hundred million dollars in personal savings and is highly influential given her position.
    Those personal savings are not increased by taxpayers money but by personal investment portfolios.

    And yes, she is influential, but only in the most slightest and technical ways. There is no way she can dictate policy to ministers. The Prince of Wales' 'black spider memos' are a testament to the limits of royal influence.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alastair H)
    The solution is to seize the estates of those who have considerable disdain of the monarchy, and send them in to exile (Ashmore and Cartier Islands [An Island of the coast of Australia {Uninhabited}] or the South Sandwich Islands [A British overseas territory] ), thus funding the crown and relieving stress on the NHS and Government, simple solution.
    So the very first action of your revolutionary state is to treat people of a different opinion as criminals. How inspiring.

    I'll keep our monarchy in that case, thanks.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    Those personal savings are not increased by taxpayers money but by personal investment portfolios.

    And yes, she is influential, but only in the most slightest and technical ways. There is no way she can dictate policy to ministers. The Prince of Wales' 'black spider memos' are a testament to the limits of royal influence.
    She is very influential. Legally, she doesn't have much influence or power, but in reality her position gives her easy access to the ears of those who do possess the legal and other powers, and in daily life she can get whatever she wants.

    The true powers of the Queen are exerted from behind closed doors.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Doctor_Einstein)
    She is very influential. Legally, she doesn't have much influence or power, but in reality she has easy access to those who possess the legal and other powers, and in daily life she can get whatever she wants.
    That's her constitutional responsibility, as described by Walter Bagehot - to be informed, to encourage and to warn. Hard to do that without 'easy access'. Anyway, the only way she can persuade ministers is through good argument and persuasion, i.e. through evidence. Ministers remain entirely at liberty to ignore her if they wish, as they are responsible to Parliament, not the Queen.

    So if they ignore her, it's on them. If they adopt her advice, it's on them.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DarkSenrine)
    I agree.

    What about the fact that they bring in a lot of tourism etc.?

    I find it repugnant that the Queen is exempt from tax and has only volunteered to pay it since the 1990s!
    Sorry, but this is a genuine question:
    Were you serious or are you being sarcastic??
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    That's her constitutional responsibility, as described by Walter Bagehot - to be informed, to encourage and to warn. Hard to do that without 'easy access'. Anyway, the only way she can persuade ministers is through good argument and persuasion, i.e. through evidence. Ministers remain entirely at liberty to ignore her if they wish, as they are responsible to Parliament, not the Queen.

    So if they ignore her, it's on them. If they adopt her advice, it's on them.
    I agree with everything you said above. But I also believe that this is a very enviable position for a citizen to be in.

    The Queen definitely has an edge up on the regular citizen for being born into this privileged position.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Doctor_Einstein)
    I agree with everything you said above. But I also believe that this is a very enviable position for a citizen to be in.

    The Queen definitely has an edge up on the regular citizen for being born into this privileged position.
    Except it's her job - and she has to be responsible. Compare this to, say, Rupert Murdoch who can demand even more of ministers, without responsibility, and can force their hand by threatening consequences if they don't comply. I don't think the Queen is your concern.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reue)
    Violence is not the answer.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    Except it's her job - and she has to be responsible. Compare this to, say, Rupert Murdoch who can demand even more of ministers, without responsibility, and can force their hand by threatening consequences if they don't comply. I don't think the Queen is your concern.
    Sure, but it isn't it unfair that the Queen can be born into this job without having to earn it?

    And sure I know that many people are born into prestigious, wealthy families, but to think that the government explicitly supports this as demonstrated through the royal family is quite shocking.

    Instead the Queen should be a job that people apply for if you think the job is important.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Doctor_Einstein)
    Sure, but it isn't it unfair that the Queen can be born into this job without having to earn it?
    Not at all, as there are many different kinds of legitimacy. The Queen is not a politician, which is refreshing. She also, unlike the rest of us, cannot speak her mind freely in public, cannot vote, and cannot pursue pressure on ministers by other means. So it balances out (much to the Queen's disadvantage, I would consider).

    And sure I know that many people are born into prestigious, wealthy families, but to think that doesn't mean the government should explicitly support it as demonstrate with the royal family.

    Instead the Queen should be a job that people apply for if you think the job is important.
    That's a nice statement of an ideal, but in practice, not desirable. If we elected the position, there's a high risk that the president would use their elected status to start demanding more things of the government (and costing a lot more). If they were appointed by parliament, we'd lose a lot of advantages the monarchy gives us, like not being a politician and not being a steady and positive symbol through enormous change.

    To name a few.
 
 
 
Poll
Who is most responsible for your success at university
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.