Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SamTheMan)
    What poll was this?
    I heard of it through word of mouth, but I could dig it up. The general message is that the inconsistency of the Canadian poll results lies in the wording of the questions, when not recent bits of bad publicity (i.e. Harry Hitler).
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    The House of Lords Act 1999 kicked out most of the hereditary peers, and as mentioned by someone earlier, the rest could go at any moment.
    Why do you repeat this? I'm saying that Life Peers were around hundreds of years ago. This isn't a progressive policy.

    Maybe you should stop drawing your conclusions from the speeches of failed politicians. The Lords are entirely seperate from the Monarchy, anyway, your points are irrelevant as they are part of entirely different subject.
    The Lords and the monarchy are of course linked (PM has royal perogative of appointing un elected peers for instance) And Benn is the greatest parliamentarian of the latter half of the 20th century.

    Perhaps you would like to provide some sources for a change.
    To prove someone doesn't do something?

    Then look at the way champaign socialists like fat Galloway openly abuse the charity funds of sick children!
    Galloway is tee total. He doesn't own fancy homes or a flash car. And he was cleared of all wrong doing in the Mariam Appeal, so what exactly are you talking about? And the Mariam Appeal was not a charity, so get your facts right. MP's claiming too muchmoney is a superficial problem, not one that goes to the heart of our power structure.

    Please state exactly how much this "vast amount" is.
    The Queen's "head of state expenditure" - official expenditure relating to her duties as head of state - is met from public funds. The total spend in 2000-01 was £35m, a figure which excludes the cost of security from the police and army, and of soldiers on ceremonial duty.

    The most controversial part of the expenditure is the Civil List, the money provided on a 10-year cycle for the running of the Queen's household. The spend was £6.5m in 2000-01, but has been fixed at £7.9m per year until 2011 - despite the fact that the Queen made a £35.3m profit out of the money provided for the previous 10 years.

    The £35m for 2000-01 also includes almost £1m which went to the Queen Mother and Duke of Edinburgh; £15.3m spent on funding the occupied royal palaces (listed above), and £5.4m spent on travel (much reduced since the decommissioning of the royal yacht). The rest went on pensions and other expenses incurred by government departments, including postal services, "equerries and orderlies", and the administration of honours. £1.5m went on the Palace of Holyrood House, Edinburgh.

    Most of the most modern countries in the world have a monarch as Head of Government.
    Not entirely sure that's true.

    Moving to another model (such as a Republic) would be insulting to British history and identity.
    So because I do not believe people should be born into privilage and power, and that the PM should not be able to use the Royal Perogative, I am insulting British identity? Get lost!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    Why do you repeat this? I'm saying that Life Peers were around hundreds of years ago. This isn't a progressive policy.

    The Lords and the monarchy are of course linked (PM has royal perogative of appointing un elected peers for instance) And Benn is the greatest parliamentarian of the latter half of the 20th century.

    To prove someone doesn't do something?

    Galloway is tee total. He doesn't own fancy homes or a flash car. And he was cleared of all wrong doing in the Mariam Appeal, so what exactly are you talking about? And the Mariam Appeal was not a charity, so get your facts right. MP's claiming too muchmoney is a superficial problem, not one that goes to the heart of our power structure.

    The Queen's "head of state expenditure" - official expenditure relating to her duties as head of state - is met from public funds. The total spend in 2000-01 was £35m, a figure which excludes the cost of security from the police and army, and of soldiers on ceremonial duty.

    The most controversial part of the expenditure is the Civil List, the money provided on a 10-year cycle for the running of the Queen's household. The spend was £6.5m in 2000-01, but has been fixed at £7.9m per year until 2011 - despite the fact that the Queen made a £35.3m profit out of the money provided for the previous 10 years.

    The £35m for 2000-01 also includes almost £1m which went to the Queen Mother and Duke of Edinburgh; £15.3m spent on funding the occupied royal palaces (listed above), and £5.4m spent on travel (much reduced since the decommissioning of the royal yacht). The rest went on pensions and other expenses incurred by government departments, including postal services, "equerries and orderlies", and the administration of honours. £1.5m went on the Palace of Holyrood House, Edinburgh.

    Not entirely sure that's true.

    So because I do not believe people should be born into privilage and power, and that the PM should not be able to use the Royal Perogative, I am insulting British identity? Get lost!
    The Civil List Northumbrian, is in exchange for the government using the £200 Million that comes from the Crown's Real Estate - The Crown Estates. £10,000,000 in exchange for £200,000,000 sounds a fair deal.

    The civil list is the list of recipients of taxpayers' money that is given to immediate members of the royal family so as to perform their state duties and keep the royal household.
    Read a full list of how it is spent over here Guardian Report on Civil List (not long)

    What exactly is wrong with Royal Prerogative? Until we have a presidnt that will be necessary.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    Galloway is tee total. He doesn't own fancy homes or a flash car

    as well as his uk home, galloway has a holiday home in portugal - although I can't say whether its a 'fancy' home
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    esx -I'm well aware of this. But is this the sign of a champagne socialist, or simply someone who works damned hard and treats himself to a holiday every now and then?

    The civil list is the list of recipients of taxpayers' money that is given to immediate members of the royal family so as to perform their state duties and keep the royal household
    That 10m doesn't include grants from other governmental departments. Then one has all the other add on costs such as the rising cost of security etc. Then all the hangers on.

    I don't believe a leader should be able to go to war without the consent of parliament. I do not think important treaties should be able to b signed with consent from parliament. I do not think the PM should be able to appoint cronies to our upper chamber.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    esx -I'm well aware of this. But is this the sign of a champagne socialist, or simply someone who works damned hard and treats himself to a holiday every now and then?

    That 10m doesn't include grants from other governmental departments. Then one has all the other add on costs such as the rising cost of security etc. Then all the hangers on.

    I don't believe a leader should be able to go to war without the consent of parliament. I do not think important treaties should be able to b signed with consent from parliament. I do not think the PM should be able to appoint cronies to our upper chamber.
    Like I said, the money from the list in in exchange for a much larger sum that the government uses for our benefit. It's a far exchange. While he could, I am not sure our PM would go to war without the consent of parliament. Furthermore, at times, it is necessary for a leader to make decisions without excessive deliberation. I personally would prefer the Lords to be elected but that is not the case.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Like I said, the money from the list in in exchange for a much larger sum that the government uses for our benefit. It's a far exchange.
    Didn't it say 170m rather than 200m? And do you think ALL the costs of ALL the royals woud exceed even 200m?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    Didn't it say 170m rather than 200m? And do you think ALL the costs of ALL the royals woud exceed even 200m?
    It varies from year to year and depending on your source. I am not sure the significance of your last question though. By the way, what the queen pays in tax most probably makes up for what she takes out what she spends on her hangers on. Also I think you have a very exaggerated idea of how much their lifestyle costs, it wouldn't cost anywhere near £200million even if they were paying for it themselves. In any case, the sad (for you anyway) fact is, as long as the office of head of state remains - regardless of the holder - comparitively large sums of money (large compared to the average income anyway) will be needed to maintain the dignityof the office.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    Why do you repeat this? I'm saying that Life Peers were around hundreds of years ago. This isn't a progressive policy.
    Well, if we're "modernising ourselves back into the dark ages", regressing so to speak; we'll soon be be giving those 200 or so hereditary Lords their places back.

    The Lords and the monarchy are of course linked (PM has royal perogative of appointing un elected peers for instance).
    The French Prime Minister isn't elected; the US Secretary of State wasn't elected; we have millions of people employed in the new Labour bureucracy who weren't elected - does that make them all linked? The question explicitly relates to the system of the Monarchy, not the unelected judicial system, the landed gentry, the unelected quangos, the longetivity of Hitler moustaches amongst totalitarians or the harshness of Cuban cigars, speaking of which..

    He doesn't own fancy homes or a flash car. And he was cleared of all wrong doing in the Mariam Appeal, so what exactly are you talking about? And the Mariam Appeal was not a charity, so get your facts right. MP's claiming too muchmoney is a superficial problem, not one that goes to the heart of our power structure
    Do luxury villas and expensive suits count? The Mariam appeal was set up to help the needy, and was only made possible thanks to the donations of Galloway's selectively-charitable despotic & would-be-despotic buddies.. sounds like a charity to me. The Charity Commission cleared him of malicious intent. Most of the financial records were hidden away, but expensive chartered fights, caviar, luxury hotels and expensive wines featured on what was known.. modest, ay?

    Both the royals and the MPs are accused of misspending public funds through expenses, one thing we can agree exists. If millions mispent by MPs is superficial, then why not the millions accusedly misspent by the royals? You seem to think there is more to it than just misspending, you think it "goes to the heart of our power structure", whatever that means. Are you implying the royals are corrupt; laundering, or something?
    To prove someone doesn't do something?
    Provide sources that the publicly-released royal finances are lies. I doubt Murdoch would let them get away with it.

    The Queen's "head of state expenditure" - official expenditure relating to her duties as head of state - is met from public funds. The total spend in 2000-01 was £35m, a figure which excludes the cost of security from the police and army, and of soldiers on ceremonial duty.
    Yeah, and all the world's heads of state fund their security and transport from their own back pockets.. :rolleyes:

    Not entirely sure that's true.
    The UK, Sweden, Norway, Monaco, New Zealand, Australia, Canada, Luxemborg, Japan, Spain, Denmark.. That's got to be most of the developed nations. Then I think Italy, Germany, and most of eastern Europe had their monarchies removed by foreign powers, not a French/US style revolution, and would probably still have them now, otherwise.

    If the little extra expense of all that royal pomp is so bad, there are lots of people who would gladly chip in their own money to pay for it - myself included.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    The French Prime Minister isn't elected; the US Secretary of State wasn't elected; we have millions of people employed in the new Labour bureucracy who weren't elected - does that make them all linked?
    The link is the ryal perogative. Just because other Republics have undemocratic features (e.g. electoral college) does't mean we should use them as a base for a proposed British Republic.

    Do luxury villas and expensive suits count?
    Who said it was a luxuary villa? o you know his tailor?

    The Mariam appeal was set up to help the needy, and was only made possible thanks to the donations of Galloway's selectively-charitable despotic & would-be-despotic buddies.. sounds like a charity to me.
    It was not a registered charity. It was a political campaign to help pay for one child's treatment and to raise awareness about sanctions. It did both.

    The Charity Commission cleared him of malicious intent.
    No, he was cleared of all wrong doing. He was cleared of malicious intent in the War on Want inquiry.

    Most of the financial records were hidden away
    The Charity Commission had every bank statement, cheque, etc that had anything to do with the appeal. All they didn't have were the accounts, which show nothing extra. These accounts were moved to the midle east when George was no longer Chairman.

    but expensive chartered fights, caviar, luxury hotels and expensive wines featured on what was known.. modest, ay?
    Source please. I think you are making this up!

    Are you implying the royals are corrupt; laundering, or something?
    I'm implying the Royals are inherently expensive as part of our political system, where as individual MP's who claim or mispend too much money are not representative of our parliamentary system.


    Provide sources that the publicly-released royal finances are lies.
    When did I say that?

    Yeah, and all the world's heads of state fund their security and transport from their own back pockets..
    We have a Blair and a Queen though. As well as several hangers on etc

    If the little extra expense of all that royal pomp is so bad, there are lots of people who would gladly chip in their own money to pay for it - myself included.
    Quicker to give to them than charity i'd expect :rolleyes:
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Ireland, Findland, France, Russia, China, Italy, Greece, Germany, Poland, USA, Austria, Switzerland.....(apologise for any mistakes)
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    No, of course it shouldn't be abolished.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'm implying the Royals are inherently expensive as part of our political system, where as individual MP's who claim or mispend too much money are not representative of our parliamentary system.
    Please explain to me the significance of £10 million pounds coming from a state that spends £600 billion (1/60000th) per year. Hell, those loose EU funds which has vanished without trace a few years ago, could pay for the monarchy for an excess of 300 years.

    Quicker to give to them than charity i'd expect :rolleyes:
    That would be a last resort. The Republicans are firmly in the minority, and probably will be for a long time.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    The link is the ryal perogative. Just because other Republics have undemocratic features (e.g. electoral college) does't mean we should use them as a base for a proposed British Republic.
    Do you argue that they are undemocratic nations? As your line of logic would suggest you have to.


    I'm implying the Royals are inherently expensive as part of our political system, where as individual MP's who claim or mispend too much money are not representative of our parliamentary system.
    Again the financial argument? Give me a break. We put that to bed ages back I thought. Something to do with the Queen giving £90 million per year net, after the civil list is paid; and the prince of wales paying £50 million in tax.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    It's not just the civil list. she still receives tens of millions from the estate and then security etc.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    It's not just the civil list. she still receives tens of millions from the estate and then security etc.
    The estate? Which is owned by the Windsors?

    I seriously doubt security, if indeed as you say it is not paid for by the Queen, would exceed £90 million per year.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Where does the 90m come from? Where would it be if there wasn't a monarchy?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    Where does the 90m come from? Where would it be if there wasn't a monarchy?
    It would be put in a big pot and pissed away down a large drain with the rest of our money.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    It's not just the civil list. she still receives tens of millions from the estate and then security etc.
    They own the estate don't they?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    It would be put in a big pot and pissed away down a large drain with the rest of our money
    You mean it would be democratically accountable in the hands of an elected government?
 
 
 
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

2,389

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.