Turn on thread page Beta

Should the Monarchy be abolished? (reprise) watch

    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    So it's currently in between at 40%. That's still only £30,000 per hospital.
    As I said, I will write to Hari for his quote. It isn't mine.

    His total income is taxed, not what's left over after he's been spending.
    Add them all up and come to a figure. It'll be large.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Actually in regard to the Iraq war the polls showed an equal split between those who supported the war and those who opposed it when we went in. When we invaded, there was actually a majority in favour of the war. Also our elected representatives voted for the war. But I don't want to turn this into a debate on the Iraq war.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    Who says?

    Again, who says?

    What are you basing this on?

    The House of Lords would be elected. That's our upper house. How can we call ourselves a democracy when our upper house is not elected!
    Our upper house cannot stop legislation so it is irrelevant whether they are elected or not. How can you ask "who says" about those points? Every presidency in the first world (even more so in the third world) has those perks of office. Would you rather our representative to the world lived in a hut? It's the way it works, I didnt make it up. The PM also gets paid by the state till the day he dies. I'm basing it on other republics and on the PM.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The HoL still has a lot of influence and can block legislation; a force that really should not be there.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sleep)
    The HoL still has a lot of influence and can block legislation; a force that really should not be there.
    Do you think we should merge parliament and legislation then? I might add, this would mean removing the seperation of powers, the checks & balances that so many political theorists hold so dear.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sleep)
    The HoL still has a lot of influence and can block legislation; a force that really should not be there.
    They can't block legislation. The Parliament Act of 1911 ensures this. The reason the HoL has the function it has is because the house of commons is made up of people who are not highly qualified as professional politicians or lawmakers. This is increasingly a serious problem in fact. They are meant to balance the "populist" element of the commons. The Law Lords for example are very highly qualified, and the job of the Lords is to study legislation for political and constitutional soundness. The Commons are simply not always qualified to do this. Antony Sampson describes this function of the Lord in the second chapter of his Book "Who runs this Place?"

    (Original post by Chiron)
    They can't block legislation. The Parliament Act of 1911 ensures this. The reason the HoL has the function it has is because the house of commons is made up of people who are not highly qualified as professional politicians or lawmakers. This is increasingly a serious problem in fact. They are meant to balance the "populist" element of the commons. The Law Lords for example are very highly qualified, and the job of the Lords is to study legislation for political and constitutional soundness. The Commons are simply not always qualified to do this. Antony Sampson describes this function of the Lord in the second chapter of his Book "Who runs this Place?"
    Well said! Here here!
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Why don't we keep them since everyone loves them so much, but stop funding them with taxes?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by No Future)
    Why don't we keep them since everyone loves them so much, but stop funding them with taxes?
    We only fund their official duties. Until the Queen is not head of state - an official position - she will be funded. But she pays back more than most of us give her, in terms of service, respect and money.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Infinity Redux)
    I presume that you're not aware they bring in much more money in tourism than they have spent on themselves.


    Hence the bill that is currently in its second phase to create a senate and get rid of the Lords.
    And how do you measure how much they bring in toursim? At the same time dont you think people would still come to look at different palaces etc. thats what they do in Italy and they have no kings or queens.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Some of you forget that the roayl family and this includes a lot of people not just the queen, philip harry etc. own a lot of land add to this how much they get in a year and the total is pretty high.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alexdel)
    Some of you forget that the roayl family and this includes a lot of people not just the queen, philip harry etc. own a lot of land add to this how much they get in a year and the total is pretty high.
    The Crown Estate recieves a lot of the money from land owned by the Monarch. That earns the government hundreds of millions of pounds a year. Their private properties are kept up at their own expense.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Actually in regard to the Iraq war the polls showed an equal split between those who supported the war and those who opposed it when we went in. When we invaded, there was actually a majority in favour of the war. Also our elected representatives voted for the war. But I don't want to turn this into a debate on the Iraq war.
    Well you shouldn't talk about it! Every poll showed opposition to the war from late 2002, apart from a 5 week jingoistic period during, just before and just after the war.

    Our upper house cannot stop legislation so it is irrelevant whether they are elected or not.
    They can certainly put a spanner in the works e.g. fox hunting

    Would you rather our representative to the world lived in a hut?
    The PM doesn't live in a Hut. Why would a President get anymore than the current PM?

    But she pays back more than most of us give her, in terms of service, respect and money.
    RESPECT? SERVICE? What does the monarchy do for ordinary people? And are you saying the monarchy works at a loss?!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I don't see any reason keeping a monarchy other than tradition, and I am firmly against tradition for tradition's sake. The royal family represents the archaic elements of British autocracy and is not a reflection of modern Britain in the slightest- they are lame ducks with no real purpose. Kick them out and open up Buckingham Palace etc as historical artefacts for the public to view.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    They can certainly put a spanner in the works e.g. fox hunting
    That's their job, to review legislation for legal and constitutional soundness. They are supposed to "put spanners" in it if they think it is not sound. As my parents would say "it's for your own good".


    The PM doesn't live in a Hut. Why would a President get anymore than the current PM?
    Because the PM is a more senior position and deserves compensation for the highest public office, and what would be a pretty stressful job. Furthermore, I personally want to put on the best display possible for our representative to the world.

    RESPECT? SERVICE? What does the monarchy do for ordinary people? And are you saying the monarchy works at a loss?!
    People show very little respect to a monarch who does work hard, and as her biographies will show, takes her job and duty to the people very seriously. What the monarch does for the ordinary people is to over see that government is fair and works to represent the people, not just petty politicians. You could read the last page or two in the first thread by this topic because it is to much to repeat it all. Yes the monarch does work at a loss. She gave up the Crown Estates to the government (as every monarch does) which earn 100s of Millions of pounds, in exchange for a subsidy of not more than £50million which has to cover, official duties and running of the household. So this isn;t pocket money, ALL of it is accounted for, and it doesn't cover treats, that comes out of her own pocket. That means the government uses the money from The Crown's property portfolio, for our services.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cheesecakebobby)
    I don't see any reason keeping a monarchy other than tradition, and I am firmly against tradition for tradition's sake. The royal family represents the archaic elements of British autocracy and is not a reflection of modern Britain in the slightest- they are lame ducks with no real purpose. Kick them out and open up Buckingham Palace etc as historical artefacts for the public to view.
    It's not just tradition. There's a whole constitutional reason why we keep her but as I said it would take too much out of me to repeat what several people have already said on the first thread. They absolutely therefore do have a real political purpose (the Queen at least). If you oppose tradition for tradition's sake should we abolish all our public holidays? Should we stop paying for the upkeep of our great buldings? Tradition is continuity, and the monarch fulfils that in a cultural and more importantly in a political role.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    i don't see why we couldn't replace them with something cheaper and more representative of the people. Public holidays give people days off from work and have very little to do with their original purpose- do you celebrate mayday? Great buildings are a part of our history which should be preserved- the queen is not, she is just the lame incarnation of what used to play a significant role (not that she should be given the power that former monarchs had- just that we shouldn't 'forget' things no matter how useful/ useless they were). Also, I think buildings such as St Paul's Cathedral are a far greater asset than an old woman who opens supermarkets.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I agree that the queen should play a bigger role within society and I hope prince william and harry are sent to fight abroad for their countries - and not given suck up status
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    That's their job, to review legislation for legal and constitutional soundness. They are supposed to "put spanners" in it if they think it is not sound. As my parents would say "it's for your own good".
    Then they should be elected

    Because the PM is a more senior position and deserves compensation for the highest public office, and what would be a pretty stressful job. Furthermore, I personally want to put on the best display possible for our representative to the world.
    I presume you mean President. We do not need an American style presidancy. We do not seem to think there's anything wrong with sending Tony Blair around the world with the privilages he currently enjoys.

    What the monarch does for the ordinary people is to over see that government is fair and works to represent the people, not just petty politicians.
    You honestly believe that? Even if it is true, why should the divine right of God giver her the right to influence the politics of a modern democracy?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The house of lords is an embarrassment. Senile old men in drooling half-dozes. They should chuck them all out and have elections.

    The queen is all right. We got a nice 'Queen's Birthday' public holiday yesterday (in Australia). Lovely long weekend. Do you get that holiday in Britain?

    I hate Charles, though. I couldn't stand it if he was king; imagine his massive nose on the back of coins; everytime I received change his smug face would be leering at me.

    I think the line of succession should somehow skip him.
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: August 25, 2005
The home of Results and Clearing

2,433

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?
Useful resources

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.