FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > shoud we get rid of the royal family?
shoud we get rid of the royal family?
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
No.
And we had this tread title few days ago, hence why ppl might not want to discuss. Opinions were already explained on that thread so maybe you should go take a look? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *nny OP Man
over a year ago
Glasgow |
"No.
And we had this tread title few days ago, hence why ppl might not want to discuss. Opinions were already explained on that thread so maybe you should go take a look?"
If you review the previous there was precious little discussion there.
People simply took positions which they attempted to defend. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"No.
You seem to be struggling with the concept of 'discuss'.
as do you with the concept of others answering a question that you asked..
Yes/ No answers ain't discussion."
yes or no is perfectly acceptable in response to 'should we etc etc..
perhaps rephrase your title to 'discuss whether we should get rid of the Royal family...? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ugby 123Couple
over a year ago
Forum Mod O o O oo |
"No.
You seem to be struggling with the concept of 'discuss'.
as do you with the concept of others answering a question that you asked..
Yes/ No answers ain't discussion."
Maybe they were just saying " no " to the demand of "discuss "  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *nny OP Man
over a year ago
Glasgow |
"No.
You seem to be struggling with the concept of 'discuss'.
as do you with the concept of others answering a question that you asked..
Yes/ No answers ain't discussion.
yes or no is perfectly acceptable in response to 'should we etc etc..
perhaps rephrase your title to 'discuss whether we should get rid of the Royal family...?"
The invitation was to 'discuss'. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"No.
You seem to be struggling with the concept of 'discuss'.
as do you with the concept of others answering a question that you asked..
Yes/ No answers ain't discussion.
yes or no is perfectly acceptable in response to 'should we etc etc..
perhaps rephrase your title to 'discuss whether we should get rid of the Royal family...?
The invitation was to 'discuss'."
will decline your invite and refer you to my answer..
to your question.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"No.
You seem to be struggling with the concept of 'discuss'.
as do you with the concept of others answering a question that you asked..
Yes/ No answers ain't discussion.
yes or no is perfectly acceptable in response to 'should we etc etc..
perhaps rephrase your title to 'discuss whether we should get rid of the Royal family...?
The invitation was to 'discuss'."
To be honest I can't be arsed to join in the invasion as its either cold as fuck up there or buzzing with midges the size of flying hamsters so I'm up for sending all the well hung nobility we have left to do the job and bang some back doors in after the victory.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *londeCazWoman
over a year ago
Arse End of the Universe, Cumbria |
"No.
And we had this tread title few days ago, hence why ppl might not want to discuss. Opinions were already explained on that thread so maybe you should go take a look?
If you review the previous there was precious little discussion there.
People simply took positions which they attempted to defend."
Does that not count as discussion then??? I'm guessing your position is "get rid of the royals" - others may say nay and then possibly add their reasons why - this thread doesn't give your reasons |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *nny OP Man
over a year ago
Glasgow |
"No.
And we had this tread title few days ago, hence why ppl might not want to discuss. Opinions were already explained on that thread so maybe you should go take a look?
If you review the previous there was precious little discussion there.
People simply took positions which they attempted to defend.
Does that not count as discussion then??? I'm guessing your position is "get rid of the royals" - others may say nay and then possibly add their reasons why - this thread doesn't give your reasons "
If they add their reasons, that's fine. Simply saying yes or no is not about discussion. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *londeCazWoman
over a year ago
Arse End of the Universe, Cumbria |
"No.
And we had this tread title few days ago, hence why ppl might not want to discuss. Opinions were already explained on that thread so maybe you should go take a look?
If you review the previous there was precious little discussion there.
People simply took positions which they attempted to defend.
Does that not count as discussion then??? I'm guessing your position is "get rid of the royals" - others may say nay and then possibly add their reasons why - this thread doesn't give your reasons
If they add their reasons, that's fine. Simply saying yes or no is not about discussion."
Quote "People simply took positions which they attempted to defend."
Discussion in my 'umble opinion
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"No.
You seem to be struggling with the concept of 'discuss'.
as do you with the concept of others answering a question that you asked..
Yes/ No answers ain't discussion."
It is if it is in answer to your request to 'discuss'. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I saw the queen and Philip today being driven along the embankment near blackfriars bridge with some outriders. The irony is there was a coach load of tourists all looking the other way |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *umourCouple
over a year ago
Rushden |
"Why pay for a government and a royal family thats just silly"
As I understand it, although we pay upfront for the Royals, the Nett gain to the country from having them is quite acceptable! At about £1 to £2 per year for each of us living in the UK (including children) I would say it is well worth the expense.
In 2007/8 it is estimated that the Crown estates (which we own as a country) brought in £200 million to the treasury compared to the £40 million that was paid out. The royal household also employs a large number of staff and is a landlord to many. Couple that with the other works they do behind the scenes, gotta be a great deal for the UK!
Yes some of that would still come in without the Royals, but I’ll wager that our Republican, elected officials would keep all the fine houses for their use!
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *nny OP Man
over a year ago
Glasgow |
As I said a week ago
"Keeping or getting rid of the disfunction inhabitants of Buckingham Palace, their offspring, their offspring's spouses and weans + assorted cousins etc ought not to simply be about cost.
Why anyone is happy to remain a subject, to be 'reigned over' by someone in position by no more than an accident of birth, defeats me."
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I'm more than happy to be "reigned over" by Queen Elizabeth and think she has done a sterling job as our nations figurehead for the past 61 years.
Personally I believe the royal family, the Queen, her husband, children and grandchildren, contribute far more to the country than they take out.
As for "being a subject....being reigned over" do you really believe that has any real impact on your life? I am a subject of Her Majesty The Queen, but I have never felt in any way subservient. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *nny OP Man
over a year ago
Glasgow |
That's to misunderstand the impact the Monarchy has on everyday life.
Let's not forget, it's not the British Government, it's HM Government, HM Revenue and Custom, HM Inspector of Schools, Prisons, Police and so on.
Then there's the areas where HM has been replaced with Crown, as in CPS etc. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Yes - it's frankly bizarre that the concept of monarchy still exists. Like some kind of Disney-sponsored mass delusion. I stopped believing in fairytales years ago, but I still have to pay for one which hasn't any rational basis to exist, and is a constant drain (and dangerous weapon) in the nations psyche. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *umourCouple
over a year ago
Rushden |
"That's to misunderstand the impact the Monarchy has on everyday life.
Let's not forget, it's not the British Government, it's HM Government, HM Revenue and Custom, HM Inspector of Schools, Prisons, Police and so on.
Then there's the areas where HM has been replaced with Crown, as in CPS etc."
And that makes a difference to you life, HOW? If there were a republic, those institutions would still exist, but with different names. Nett cost to you? The same! OK, the monarchy may cost you at most £3 per year (Highest estimates by the anti brigade is £184 million, disputed by most in the proper finance sector) But that is what taxation does! The HMRC takes from you and passes it to those that spend it. I’ll bet there are loads of things you would rather it wasn’t spent on, but I have not seen you mention those in isolation!
Anyhoo… I for one believe they bring in far more than they take out. Now I am going for a quiet lie down in a darkened room!
  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"That's to misunderstand the impact the Monarchy has on everyday life.
Let's not forget, it's not the British Government, it's HM Government, HM Revenue and Custom, HM Inspector of Schools, Prisons, Police and so on.
Then there's the areas where HM has been replaced with Crown, as in CPS etc."
Really!!!!...you surely don't suggest that the above mentioned are only there for the benefit of the monarchy. It wouldn't matter who was the figurehead, those entities would still exist. As much as I moan about the taxes I pay (as do a lot of taxpayers) I would not prefer to not pay taxes and not have the services you mention....can you even begin to imagine what life would be like. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I would absolutely LOVE IT if someone could prove all these ridiculous claims that the royal family bring in so much tourist money. It's complete cobblers and an urban myth. If you can prove it, do so - otherwise, your belief is no different than a rather odd religious fervour where you only say what everyone else is saying.
I wouldn't agree with "getting rid" of them, I would advocate discontinuing their public payments and let them continue to live off the billions they made granting crown licences to opium and heroin dealers during the mid 19th century that nearly ruined the entire nation of China.
Nobody should profit from the sales of class A drugs. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I would absolutely LOVE IT if someone could prove all these ridiculous claims that the royal family bring in so much tourist money. It's complete cobblers and an urban myth. If you can prove it, do so - otherwise, your belief is no different than a rather odd religious fervour where you only say what everyone else is saying.
I wouldn't agree with "getting rid" of them, I would advocate discontinuing their public payments and let them continue to live off the billions they made granting crown licences to opium and heroin dealers during the mid 19th century that nearly ruined the entire nation of China.
Nobody should profit from the sales of class A drugs."
Try the official website of the British Monarchy.
re. your other point I agree in so far as much of this country's wealth was made by exploiting others. Yet we conveniently forget that when the discussions about foreign aid/immigration etc. come up. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I would absolutely LOVE IT if someone could prove all these ridiculous claims that the royal family bring in so much tourist money. It's complete cobblers and an urban myth. If you can prove it, do so - otherwise, your belief is no different than a rather odd religious fervour where you only say what everyone else is saying.
I wouldn't agree with "getting rid" of them, I would advocate discontinuing their public payments and let them continue to live off the billions they made granting crown licences to opium and heroin dealers during the mid 19th century that nearly ruined the entire nation of China.
Nobody should profit from the sales of class A drugs.
Try the official website of the British Monarchy.
re. your other point I agree in so far as much of this country's wealth was made by exploiting others. Yet we conveniently forget that when the discussions about foreign aid/immigration etc. come up."
I've read the official website of the British Monarchy, I've also read the official website of the Mormon church. They have as much credibility as each other. Buckingham Palace was hugely extended and improved using profits from their drug deals. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I would absolutely LOVE IT if someone could prove all these ridiculous claims that the royal family bring in so much tourist money. It's complete cobblers and an urban myth. If you can prove it, do so - otherwise, your belief is no different than a rather odd religious fervour where you only say what everyone else is saying.
I wouldn't agree with "getting rid" of them, I would advocate discontinuing their public payments and let them continue to live off the billions they made granting crown licences to opium and heroin dealers during the mid 19th century that nearly ruined the entire nation of China.
Nobody should profit from the sales of class A drugs.
Try the official website of the British Monarchy.
re. your other point I agree in so far as much of this country's wealth was made by exploiting others. Yet we conveniently forget that when the discussions about foreign aid/immigration etc. come up.
I've read the official website of the British Monarchy, I've also read the official website of the Mormon church. They have as much credibility as each other. Buckingham Palace was hugely extended and improved using profits from their drug deals."
lol - "Bring me evidence"
"No, not that evidence - the other evidence, the one that agrees with me" |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I would absolutely LOVE IT if someone could prove all these ridiculous claims that the royal family bring in so much tourist money. It's complete cobblers and an urban myth. If you can prove it, do so - otherwise, your belief is no different than a rather odd religious fervour where you only say what everyone else is saying.
I wouldn't agree with "getting rid" of them, I would advocate discontinuing their public payments and let them continue to live off the billions they made granting crown licences to opium and heroin dealers during the mid 19th century that nearly ruined the entire nation of China.
Nobody should profit from the sales of class A drugs.
Try the official website of the British Monarchy.
re. your other point I agree in so far as much of this country's wealth was made by exploiting others. Yet we conveniently forget that when the discussions about foreign aid/immigration etc. come up.
I've read the official website of the British Monarchy, I've also read the official website of the Mormon church. They have as much credibility as each other. Buckingham Palace was hugely extended and improved using profits from their drug deals.
lol - "Bring me evidence"
"No, not that evidence - the other evidence, the one that agrees with me" "
Ok, I take your point. How about showing me impartial evidence? Every religious text/web site tells me that their god is real, but just because they say it, doesn't make it true. In the same way, I wouldn't expect the official website of the British Monarchy to give an impartial accounting. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I would absolutely LOVE IT if someone could prove all these ridiculous claims that the royal family bring in so much tourist money. It's complete cobblers and an urban myth. "
I know its like tumble outside Buckingham palace and there were so many empty hotels and empty streets during the royal wedding it was shocking. 
A quick synopsis of value added by having the royal family comes out at £4.4 billion to British brands alone through branding, companies with a Royal Warrant or Coat of Arms and the perception of luxury it brings to products.
Branding expert David Haigh has put a figure on the value of Britain’s Royal Family as a brand as a whopping £44 billion to Britain, the products we produce and tourism in the UK.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Ok, I take your point. How about showing me impartial evidence? Every religious text/web site tells me that their god is real, but just because they say it, doesn't make it true. In the same way, I wouldn't expect the official website of the British Monarchy to give an impartial accounting."
Well personally I'd take them to be as credible as any other large corporation or Govt. Dept that publishes it's 'transparency' - with a pinch of salt, but as credible as you're likely to be able to obtain.
The broader figures about tourism are obviously much more flimsy and there's never going to be a winner in that argument.
Now I'm off to feed the fairies in the back garden. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I would absolutely LOVE IT if someone could prove all these ridiculous claims that the royal family bring in so much tourist money. It's complete cobblers and an urban myth.
I know its like tumble outside Buckingham palace and there were so many empty hotels and empty streets during the royal wedding it was shocking.
A quick synopsis of value added by having the royal family comes out at £4.4 billion to British brands alone through branding, companies with a Royal Warrant or Coat of Arms and the perception of luxury it brings to products.
Branding expert David Haigh has put a figure on the value of Britain’s Royal Family as a brand as a whopping £44 billion to Britain, the products we produce and tourism in the UK.
"
So why do we have to pay them so much money from the civil list? There are tens of thousands of volountary workers in this country who give their time for free and don't have the huge fiancial holdings that the royals have.
The money that the lesser royals leech from the taxpayer would open and run 5 hospitals per year. I would rather have a healthier population than contribute to the lavish lifestyle of drug profiteers. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I would absolutely LOVE IT if someone could prove all these ridiculous claims that the royal family bring in so much tourist money. It's complete cobblers and an urban myth.
I know its like tumble outside Buckingham palace and there were so many empty hotels and empty streets during the royal wedding it was shocking.
A quick synopsis of value added by having the royal family comes out at £4.4 billion to British brands alone through branding, companies with a Royal Warrant or Coat of Arms and the perception of luxury it brings to products.
Branding expert David Haigh has put a figure on the value of Britain’s Royal Family as a brand as a whopping £44 billion to Britain, the products we produce and tourism in the UK.
So why do we have to pay them so much money from the civil list? There are tens of thousands of volountary workers in this country who give their time for free and don't have the huge fiancial holdings that the royals have.
The money that the lesser royals leech from the taxpayer would open and run 5 hospitals per year. I would rather have a healthier population than contribute to the lavish lifestyle of drug profiteers. "
In comparison from other areas they get money from we don't pay that much. Royals visit many countries and these are little more than trade visits. Think of them as super reps, look how much military equipment has been sold to the middle east, cars and clothes in the US and hundreds of other countries.
Brand royal sells British products through its luxury association in other country's its a simple fact.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I would absolutely LOVE IT if someone could prove all these ridiculous claims that the royal family bring in so much tourist money."
I think point proved or do you still disagree? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I would absolutely LOVE IT if someone could prove all these ridiculous claims that the royal family bring in so much tourist money. It's complete cobblers and an urban myth.
I know its like tumble outside Buckingham palace and there were so many empty hotels and empty streets during the royal wedding it was shocking.
A quick synopsis of value added by having the royal family comes out at £4.4 billion to British brands alone through branding, companies with a Royal Warrant or Coat of Arms and the perception of luxury it brings to products.
Branding expert David Haigh has put a figure on the value of Britain’s Royal Family as a brand as a whopping £44 billion to Britain, the products we produce and tourism in the UK.
So why do we have to pay them so much money from the civil list? There are tens of thousands of volountary workers in this country who give their time for free and don't have the huge fiancial holdings that the royals have.
The money that the lesser royals leech from the taxpayer would open and run 5 hospitals per year. I would rather have a healthier population than contribute to the lavish lifestyle of drug profiteers. "
"I would absolutely LOVE IT you could prove the ridiculous claim that you could substantiate that you can run 5 hospitals for less than the lesser royals. Personally I think its cobblers but as you said it prove it with some facts and figures. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I would absolutely LOVE IT if someone could prove all these ridiculous claims that the royal family bring in so much tourist money. It's complete cobblers and an urban myth.
I know its like tumble outside Buckingham palace and there were so many empty hotels and empty streets during the royal wedding it was shocking.
A quick synopsis of value added by having the royal family comes out at £4.4 billion to British brands alone through branding, companies with a Royal Warrant or Coat of Arms and the perception of luxury it brings to products.
Branding expert David Haigh has put a figure on the value of Britain’s Royal Family as a brand as a whopping £44 billion to Britain, the products we produce and tourism in the UK.
So why do we have to pay them so much money from the civil list? There are tens of thousands of volountary workers in this country who give their time for free and don't have the huge fiancial holdings that the royals have.
The money that the lesser royals leech from the taxpayer would open and run 5 hospitals per year. I would rather have a healthier population than contribute to the lavish lifestyle of drug profiteers.
"I would absolutely LOVE IT you could prove the ridiculous claim that you could substantiate that you can run 5 hospitals for less than the lesser royals. Personally I think its cobblers but as you said it prove it with some facts and figures. "
I'm not going to do all your research for you, and anyway, you wouldn't believe what I wrote. If you're that interested, here's an example for you to check out. Look at the annual cost of running Alder Hey (figures in The Lancet) then look at the cost of tax-payer funded 24 hour special branch security for any one of the lesser royals - then come back and tell me which you'd rather pay for, 200 ten year olds alive and healthy per year, or 1 ten year old to have 24 hour security. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Funding Alder Hey and the Monarchy are not really comparable though in the context of one arguably contributing money to the economy, and one being a valuable beneficiary.
Although that nurses have to pay to be able to park at Alder Hey and that royal visitors don't is a sore point
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Funding Alder Hey and the Monarchy are not really comparable though in the context of one arguably contributing money to the economy, and one being a valuable beneficiary.
Although that nurses have to pay to be able to park at Alder Hey and that royal visitors don't is a sore point
"
I disagree that the funding of Alder Hey and the monarchy are not really comparable, because they both take money. Just plain old cash money. The waters are only muddied by accountants, bankers and politicians. It all comes from one big pot.
And I fully agree that nurses shouldn't pay for parking at work - it's safety for them out of hours to park in a well-lit, secure place and not have to fork out for it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *nny OP Man
over a year ago
Glasgow |
The question of tourist value is surely about whether people visit the UK solely to view the Royal family or if they'd come anyway.
I can't imagine anyone coming just to see them, after all, places like Edinburgh, Stratford and St Andrews get plenty of tourists and are thankfully mostly Royalty-free zones.
Londonn, I needen't remind people, has plenty of other attractions too. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I wonder how the US, France, Germany manage without a 'royal brand' and super-reps to sell their stuff for them.
Are we saying that as a nation we as can't compete in business or tourism without them. Nonsense.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
i can think of no elegant cost effective replacement for them tbh.
A presidency would cost far more and we would lose that fine balance constitutionally. The Govt of the day still need the sanction and signature of the monarch to call out the troops.
A nice caveat to consider if a transient despot has in mind to plan a coup d'etat |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I would absolutely LOVE IT if someone could prove all these ridiculous claims that the royal family bring in so much tourist money. It's complete cobblers and an urban myth.
I know its like tumble outside Buckingham palace and there were so many empty hotels and empty streets during the royal wedding it was shocking.
A quick synopsis of value added by having the royal family comes out at £4.4 billion to British brands alone through branding, companies with a Royal Warrant or Coat of Arms and the perception of luxury it brings to products.
Branding expert David Haigh has put a figure on the value of Britain’s Royal Family as a brand as a whopping £44 billion to Britain, the products we produce and tourism in the UK.
So why do we have to pay them so much money from the civil list? There are tens of thousands of volountary workers in this country who give their time for free and don't have the huge fiancial holdings that the royals have.
The money that the lesser royals leech from the taxpayer would open and run 5 hospitals per year. I would rather have a healthier population than contribute to the lavish lifestyle of drug profiteers.
"I would absolutely LOVE IT you could prove the ridiculous claim that you could substantiate that you can run 5 hospitals for less than the lesser royals. Personally I think its cobblers but as you said it prove it with some facts and figures.
I'm not going to do all your research for you, and anyway, you wouldn't believe what I wrote. If you're that interested, here's an example for you to check out. Look at the annual cost of running Alder Hey (figures in The Lancet) then look at the cost of tax-payer funded 24 hour special branch security for any one of the lesser royals - then come back and tell me which you'd rather pay for, 200 ten year olds alive and healthy per year, or 1 ten year old to have 24 hour security."
That would be true of any public funding though ,the assumption your making is that the money saved would go to the hospital,are you saying all govt spending apart from hospitals is waste ?
What about cancelling trident as we have no one to fire it at anyway and if we did we couldn't as we need permission first. The royal family costs are nothing compared to that . |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *nny OP Man
over a year ago
Glasgow |
"i can think of no elegant cost effective replacement for them tbh.
A presidency would cost far more and we would lose that fine balance constitutionally. The Govt of the day still need the sanction and signature of the monarch to call out the troops.
A nice caveat to consider if a transient despot has in mind to plan a coup d'etat "
Would there have to be a President and, if so, why would it have to cost more than the current set-up? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *nny OP Man
over a year ago
Glasgow |
" .............
What about cancelling trident as we have no one to fire it at anyway and if we did we couldn't as we need permission first. The royal family costs are nothing compared to that ."
The reason we have (almost) no one to fire it at is because we have Trident.
Yes, most decisions re operational use are made in the Pentagon but, given that only a small %age of Trident equipped boats (ours and theirs) are at sea at any one time, the Yanks won't withhold consent if the appropriate circumstance. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"i can think of no elegant cost effective replacement for them tbh.
A presidency would cost far more and we would lose that fine balance constitutionally. The Govt of the day still need the sanction and signature of the monarch to call out the troops.
A nice caveat to consider if a transient despot has in mind to plan a coup d'etat
Would there have to be a President and, if so, why would it have to cost more than the current set-up?"
The cost of securing the safety of the President of the United States of America and former presidents and their families (United States Secret Service) is approx. $1.6 Billion per annum.
I'm kind of guessing that security costs for our Royal family are considerably lower than that.... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Well if you can provide a rock solid case that removing the monarchy would be beneficial then I'm in favour. But I haven't heard it yet - all we have so far is a simplistic view of cost.
I favour the idea of a meritocracy, so I'm in no way in favour of people born to unearned wealth. However as things stand we don't have that, or anything remotely close to creating it, and all things considered, as things are, I think the present monarchy are a good thing.
The issue for this discussion is they're already here. The argument to be made is not to prove they should stay, but to prove they should go. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"i can think of no elegant cost effective replacement for them tbh.
A presidency would cost far more and we would lose that fine balance constitutionally. The Govt of the day still need the sanction and signature of the monarch to call out the troops.
A nice caveat to consider if a transient despot has in mind to plan a coup d'etat "
Who says we have to replace with anything we have mps who run place queen just there for fleecing us. We can still have democracy without royalty or president. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *nny OP Man
over a year ago
Glasgow |
"i can think of no elegant cost effective replacement for them tbh.
A presidency would cost far more and we would lose that fine balance constitutionally. The Govt of the day still need the sanction and signature of the monarch to call out the troops.
A nice caveat to consider if a transient despot has in mind to plan a coup d'etat
Would there have to be a President and, if so, why would it have to cost more than the current set-up?
The cost of securing the safety of the President of the United States of America and former presidents and their families (United States Secret Service) is approx. $1.6 Billion per annum.
I'm kind of guessing that security costs for our Royal family are considerably lower than that...."
So let's not have a President then. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
As an Englishman, then it is my strong belief, that we should keep the Royal Family and get rid of Scotland. Scotland is the largest coucil estate in Europe and is a complete drain on our economy. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" .............
What about cancelling trident as we have no one to fire it at anyway and if we did we couldn't as we need permission first. The royal family costs are nothing compared to that .
The reason we have (almost) no one to fire it at is because we have Trident.
Yes, most decisions re operational use are made in the Pentagon but, given that only a small %age of Trident equipped boats (ours and theirs) are at sea at any one time, the Yanks won't withhold consent if the appropriate circumstance."
With the USS saratoga and others in that class having a 12000 mile range they do not need to be at sea to hit most major cities on the planet.
However MAD as a concept is fine by me no problem ,but why nice new shiny ones surely the old ones kill as effectively ?
Re the royal family the cost to the civil list in last years budget for the royal family it costs 69p a year for every person in Britain, or £1.33 per taxpayer.
In return, besides the Crown Estate profits, there is the tourist effect but that is difficult to estimate in terms of value.
A republican head of state is shown to be more expensive lets eliminate the cost of the US president as a aberration.
The German presidency costs about the same as the Queen, but how many tourists line the streets of Berlin to catch a glimpse of – er – what is his name?
In France, Nicolas Sarkozy set an annual budget for his establishment at the Elysée of 110 million euros (£90 million). Last year, the French head of state's expenses were audited for the first time since the reign of Louis XVI; it revealed a flower bill of 275,809 euros and 3,000 euros in fines for late payment of electricity and gas, that's without the cost of elections and changing the letterheads etc every 5 years.
I just think if its not broken why change it imho. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Well if you can provide a rock solid case that removing the monarchy would be beneficial then I'm in favour. But I haven't heard it yet - all we have so far is a simplistic view of cost.
I favour the idea of a meritocracy, so I'm in no way in favour of people born to unearned wealth. However as things stand we don't have that, or anything remotely close to creating it, and all things considered, as things are, I think the present monarchy are a good thing.
The issue for this discussion is they're already here. The argument to be made is not to prove they should stay, but to prove they should go."
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" .............
What about cancelling trident as we have no one to fire it at anyway and if we did we couldn't as we need permission first. The royal family costs are nothing compared to that .
The reason we have (almost) no one to fire it at is because we have Trident.
Yes, most decisions re operational use are made in the Pentagon but, given that only a small %age of Trident equipped boats (ours and theirs) are at sea at any one time, the Yanks won't withhold consent if the appropriate circumstance.
With the USS saratoga and others in that class having a 12000 mile range they do not need to be at sea to hit most major cities on the planet.
However MAD as a concept is fine by me no problem ,but why nice new shiny ones surely the old ones kill as effectively ?
Re the royal family the cost to the civil list in last years budget for the royal family it costs 69p a year for every person in Britain, or £1.33 per taxpayer.
In return, besides the Crown Estate profits, there is the tourist effect but that is difficult to estimate in terms of value.
A republican head of state is shown to be more expensive lets eliminate the cost of the US president as a aberration.
The German presidency costs about the same as the Queen, but how many tourists line the streets of Berlin to catch a glimpse of – er – what is his name?
In France, Nicolas Sarkozy set an annual budget for his establishment at the Elysée of 110 million euros (£90 million). Last year, the French head of state's expenses were audited for the first time since the reign of Louis XVI; it revealed a flower bill of 275,809 euros and 3,000 euros in fines for late payment of electricity and gas, that's without the cost of elections and changing the letterheads etc every 5 years.
I just think if its not broken why change it imho. "
There is little meat on the bone for the people who demand an end to our Royal family on the basis of the cost of the civil list, because as you have quite rightly pointed out other alternatives are equally if not more expensive to the tax payers of other countries....
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"As an Englishman, then it is my strong belief, that we should keep the Royal Family and get rid of Scotland. Scotland is the largest coucil estate in Europe and is a complete drain on our economy. "
United we stand-divided we fall,how can "they" be a drain on "our" economy when it is their economy too ?
I agree with you re royals though .
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
European and American style presidents are not comparative.
The British head-of-state is (nominally) an apolitical role, though it has taken many years of progression against similar irrational resistance to make it thus.
The Irish presidency is a better and more likely example to follow (if it is needed at all). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
" There is little meat on the bone for the people who demand an end to our Royal family on the basis of the cost of the civil list, because as you have quite rightly pointed out other alternatives are equally if not more expensive to the tax payers of other countries....
"
The *only* other oft trotted out response is the reluctance to doff one's cap to someone born into a life of privilege, but let's face it, if it wasn't a Royal you doffed your cap to it would be a President who only gained the right to have a cap doffed to him/her because he/she was elected into it. It still doesn't make him/her any better than anyone else.
I don't call the current monarch Queen simply because she was born to be so, I do it because Elizabeth has more than earned my respect, but you can bet your bottom dollar that if Charles, and then William, doesn't live up to the very high standard she has set then I too will be calling for some constitutional changes. I can't say fairer than that can I. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *nny OP Man
over a year ago
Glasgow |
" ........I don't call the current monarch Queen simply because she was born to be so, I do it because Elizabeth has more than earned my respect, but you can bet your bottom dollar that if Charles, and then William, doesn't live up to the very high standard she has set then I too will be calling for some constitutional changes. I can't say fairer than that can I. "
At the risk of an accusation of pedantry, she wasn't actually born to be Queen.
Had it not been for the fact her uncle fancied shagging an American divorcee, she'd never have been in the running. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
