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

Referendum against the monarchy Watch

  • View Poll Results: Monarchy or republic
    Monarchy
    130
    57.02%
    Republic
    98
    42.98%

    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    It makes me laugh witnessing the reactionary comments claiming 'We should keep the monarchy because it attracts Tourism'.

    I am sure if we cut off the Queens head, stick it upon a pitchfork somewhere in London, and turn Buckingham Palace into a museum, we would still attract just as much tourism, if not more.

    Down with the monarchy! Down with backwardness! Victory to democracy and equality of condition!
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Struggle)
    It makes me laugh witnessing the reactionary comments claiming 'We should keep the monarchy because it attracts Tourism'.
    Why am I reactionary just because I am monarchist? I am rather left-wing on the whole, both socially and economically.

    I am sure if we cut off the Queens head, stick it upon a pitchfork somewhere in London, and turn Buckingham Palace into a museum, we would still attract just as much tourism, if not more.
    Buck House would not be a museum, as it would become the residence of the President.

    Down with the monarchy! Down with backwardness! Victory to democracy and equality of condition!
    Good grief, what decade are you from, 1920s Russia?

    All this duckspeak about reactionaries and backwardness smacks of words absorbed without any intelligent consideration of their meaning.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pitch)
    Charles says:"Thank you for the money.Who cares if you must pay 700£ a month for university fees lol"
    you'd still have to pay £700 a month in fees without them + we'd be losing the most famous figure in the world... a hell of alot of people come to royal acasions bringing in billions. look out how much cash prince williams wedings is cost compared to the cash its predicted to bring in for many industries!

    alot of naive people think oo look they get everything for free and dont do anything for this country. well realistically neither do the flaming government. atleast the queen travels about and promotes the uk. mr cameron and his liberal lover just reduce funding! hell if he has to create some policy to ensure more than 55% of parliment have to hate him to remove him from power... says it all. everyone sat in that room seem to have no connection with the people they are suposed to create policies for! they've reverted on everything they've ever said and personally, i think they should be liable in court.

    you don't get false hope from the monarchy and kin. they just do things.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    Why am I reactionary just because I am monarchist? I am rather left-wing on the whole, both socially and economically.



    Buck House would not be a museum, as it would become the residence of the President.



    Good grief, what decade are you from, 1920s Russia?

    All this duckspeak about reactionaries and backwardness smacks of words absorbed without any intelligent consideration of their meaning.
    'Left Wing' means nothing to me if you are for inequality and class-division on a systematic scale, both of which are synonymous with a monarchy.

    Reactionary is a meaning in itself. I don't need to explain it in-length when it can be explained in a single word.

    Buckingham Palace would become what the people decide it become, it wouldn't necessarily become the Presidents residence.
    Eliminating the monarchy was one of the most progressive things the Soviets ever did.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Struggle)
    'Left Wing' means nothing to me if you are for inequality and class-division on a systematic scale, both of which are synonymous with a monarchy.

    Reactionary is a meaning in itself. I don't need to explain it in-length when it can be explained in a single word.
    So in essence, 'left wing' means conveniently what you agree with and 'reactionary' can be used to bundle anything you dislike - how neat and tidy for you

    Buckingham Palace would become what the people decide it become, it wouldn't necessarily become the Presidents residence.
    That may be - but somewhere would. Where would you suggest?

    Eliminating the monarchy was one of the most progressive things the Soviets ever did.
    I guess I can see the type of character I'm dealing with here. I think it's safe to say I have nothing to worry about if the likes of you (thoughtless, bigoted and ignorant) are representative of the republican cause
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I vote for a full republic. Or if we seem so dependent on royals we can take them down a couple notches and reform things. Think of it this way Buck House and all other royal properties WE own can be used for tours and visits and maybe even luxury banquet and event hire. There are many people who would pay big money for that. The royal family can live in thier places that THEY own and make money through tourist services and other things for thier property. Thier property is their money. Our Property is our money. They can still live lavish lifestyles they will just have to cut back a bit and take it easy.

    We don't need the royals for tourism. They dont generate all that much money.

    We can live without them. They can live without us. We do need to cut back and that Royal Gravy train cost millions of pounds which could even go towards giving us FREE tuition fees or we could be in line with the rest of Europe with students paying X1,000 per year or a simple x2,000 or so registration fee. Amongst other things.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sir Jonathan)
    I vote for a full republic. Or if we seem so dependent on royals we can take them down a couple notches and reform things. Think of it this way Buck House and all other royal properties WE own can be used for tours and visits and maybe even luxury banquet and event hire. There are many people who would pay big money for that. The royal family can live in thier places that THEY own and make money through tourist services and other things for thier property. Thier property is their money. Our Property is our money. They can still live lavish lifestyles they will just have to cut back a bit and take it easy.

    We don't need the royals for tourism. They dont generate all that much money.

    We can live without them. They can live without us. We do need to cut back and that Royal Gravy train cost millions of pounds which could even go towards giving us FREE tuition fees or we could be in line with the rest of Europe with students paying X1,000 per year or a simple x2,000 or so registration fee. Amongst other things.

    Assuming you'd get ALL the money back that the monarchy costs, that's £40m. Hardly enough to pay for the education budget!

    Anyway, you wouldn't get any of it back - what you are paying for, specifically, is building maintenance and the functions the Head of state carries out. Nothing more. Buckingham Palace is a State property reserved for the use of the Head of State in the same manner as Downing street is reserved for the Cabinet.

    Saying they should only use their own properties misses the point. We'd still be paying for them, for one thing - even revenue from functions, as you call it, wouldn't amount to much, and would be limited as the President would be living there. But also it's pretty unreasonable, about as unreasonable as expecting you to work at home all the time when your colleagues get a desk job.

    The monarchy is actually not that opulent, and costs haven't risen for twenty years. Compared to some republics it's downright threadbare, moneywise.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Struggle)
    It makes me laugh witnessing the reactionary comments claiming 'We should keep the monarchy because it attracts Tourism'.

    I am sure if we cut off the Queens head, stick it upon a pitchfork somewhere in London, and turn Buckingham Palace into a museum, we would still attract just as much tourism, if not more.

    Down with the monarchy! Down with backwardness! Victory to democracy and equality of condition!
    What's so progressive about a republic?
    • Offline

      16
      (Original post by gladders)
      Why am I reactionary just because I am monarchist? I am rather left-wing on the whole, both socially and economically.
      Out of interest, how do you square the existence of a supreme overlord with your leftist views?
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
      Out of interest, how do you square the existence of a supreme overlord with your leftist views?
      What kind of question is that? :erm:

      Have you never met a leftist theist? Have you been to a British uni yet lol?!
      • Offline

        16
        (Original post by DJkG.1)
        What kind of question is that? :erm:

        Have you never met a leftist theist? Have you been to a British uni yet lol?!
        What?
        Offline

        13
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
        Out of interest, how do you square the existence of a supreme overlord with your leftist views?
        Because, while I consider elections ought to be the favoured method of appointment, I also believe the wisest approach is to first consider needs and determine which system appointment best serves that need.

        In the case of government, the need is to ensure the government is grounded in the public will and periodically held to account as the best way to minimise corruption and maximise good government. The best means to do this is election.

        In the case of the Head of State, we need best an impartial one which is sure to keep aloof from government, ensures continuity, and if possible is a symbol most can understand and appreciate. I feel hereditary monarchy achieves this.

        A thinking person would, I feel, do this approach in all they do, and not simply follow a world view slavishly without scrutiny. An unthinking right-winger would say it's good because it's old and conservative. An unthinking left-winger would say it's bad because it's old and conservative.

        Reason, not ideology, is my inspiration
        Offline

        13
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
        Out of interest, how do you square the existence of a supreme overlord with your leftist views?
        Oh wait...are you asking if I'm religious?

        I am atheist myself - though I have no beef with theists, and am in fact engaged to one
        Offline

        2
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
        What?
        Lefty Christians etc. are really common. Especially in university campuses.

        I say because you asked that guy how he squares his leftist views with a belief in God in a seemingly surprised tone (from what little can be judged by text anyway).
        Offline

        13
        ReputationRep:
        There have indeed been a great many left-wing theists - the Labour Party was founded on it, pretty much.
        • Offline

          16
          (Original post by gladders)
          Because, while I consider elections ought to be the favoured method of appointment, I also believe the wisest approach is to first consider needs and determine which system appointment best serves that need.

          In the case of government, the need is to ensure the government is grounded in the public will and periodically held to account as the best way to minimise corruption and maximise good government. The best means to do this is election.

          In the case of the Head of State, we need best an impartial one which is sure to keep aloof from government, ensures continuity, and if possible is a symbol most can understand and appreciate. I feel hereditary monarchy achieves this.

          A thinking person would, I feel, do this approach in all they do, and not simply follow a world view slavishly without scrutiny. An unthinking right-winger would say it's good because it's old and conservative. An unthinking left-winger would say it's bad because it's old and conservative.

          Reason, not ideology, is my inspiration
          I have argued this before, but, in my view, the most destructive governmental system involves democracy. So, I would bring back the hereditary peers in the Lords. I think the strongest argument for the Monarchy is that they have a very different type of interest in terms of how they rule. That is less economically damaging than democracy. I think there is a link in my sign if you want to know more about my opinion on that.

          But I was curious because I understand that the left see exploitation in authority and don't like the idea of inheritance, and so forth ... perhaps you're more of a centrist.

          Incidentally, I was talking about the Monarchy and not God. Congrats on your engagement.
          Offline

          0
          ReputationRep:
          (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
          I have argued this before, but, in my view, the most destructive governmental system involves democracy. So, I would bring back the hereditary peers in the Lords. I think the strongest argument for the Monarchy is that they have a very different type of interest in terms of how they rule. That is less economically damaging than democracy. I think there is a link in my sign if you want to know more about my opinion on that.

          But I was curious because I understand that the left see exploitation in authority and don't like the idea of inheritance, and so forth ... perhaps you're more of a centrist.

          Incidentally, I was talking about the Monarchy and not God. Congrats on your engagement.
          Have you read Hoppe? the guy's nuts...
          Offline

          13
          ReputationRep:
          (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
          I have argued this before, but, in my view, the most destructive governmental system involves democracy. So, I would bring back the hereditary peers in the Lords. I think the strongest argument for the Monarchy is that they have a very different type of interest in terms of how they rule. That is less economically damaging than democracy. I think there is a link in my sign if you want to know more about my opinion on that.

          But I was curious because I understand that the left see exploitation in authority and don't like the idea of inheritance, and so forth ... perhaps you're more of a centrist.

          Incidentally, I was talking about the Monarchy and not God. Congrats on your engagement.
          Thanks

          I think any system of government, be it inheritance, monarchy, democracy or otherwise, is good in small dose, but fundamentally harmful if untramelled. So I believe a balanced constitution is best, albeit one in which the elected portion of Parliament gets the last say. I am a supporter of an appointed House of Lords, and although I would not fight the removal of the remaining hereditaries, I think those that do reside there do no harm.
         
         
         
      • See more of what you like on The Student Room

        You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

      • Poll
        Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
        Useful resources

        Groups associated with this forum:

        View associated groups
      • See more of what you like on The Student Room

        You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

      • 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

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