Printable View
I suggest it be ditched now before it is usurped by the POTUS next month.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-u...i-theresa-may/
That's just one existential cost to the public. There are many more such as this, https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...m-palace-works.
The only benefit I can see for the general public is tourism. Is it worth the cost?
I have not so far found a number that includes security costs.
The Crown Estate isn't public money. It's a... thing. Property of whoever the current reigning monarch is. Something like that? I'm really indifferent on whether we should be a Republic but the cost of the monarchy is piss-all compared to the scale of the overall economy, or government spending. It's not a good argument. If we had a president or a lord protector or whatever the fuck instead as head of state, you think that would magically be free? That they wouldn't need security?
Also, Trump's not coming next month, in May: that is actually the surname of the Prime Minister. He's coming in June.
Also, we're not changing our government just because you lot can't elect a proper president. Get his ass impeached by June if you're that bothered about it.
Trump's bullshittery aside, I've always been a vicarious republican when it came to the UK. And I had an argument a while back (in which I was roundly criticized) for suggesting that the Crown Estate should actually be the property of the UK government and not the monarch. But at the end of the day, other than offending democratic sensibilities and being occasionally ludicrous, I suppose the royals don't do all that much harm - the actual budgetary outlay is relatively manageable.
I'm a republican but out of principle.
The cost argument is ludicrous, a President/whatever would cost a comparable amount. And even if we took the Crown Estate into public hands which I think it should be [though legally it is the personal property of the monarch] then we would have to pay the costs for maintaining the Palaces etc
For what its worth I don't believe in the tourism argument either. Yes people come to stare at Buckingham Palace [and for 1 month a year can go inside], but then again people go to Paris year-round and actually go inside Versailles.
Ultimately the cost and tourism arguments are redundant to the debate. What should matter is simply whether we want to keep the monarchy or not. And like virtually all British republicans I recognise that's not a debate worth having while QEII is alive.
Sweden is also a Monarchy, I think we should ditch that too.
I seriously have a hard time to see any advantage that would motivate it in a modern world over the principle, as to say.
I'm also Republican by principle. However, our previous queen and current king are as far as i can tell doing a pretty good job, so i don't really care that much at the moment. My main problem with royalty is that there's not much you can do if they're not good or causing problems.
We're a Constitutional Monarchy. If the monarch started causing problems we could very rapidly become a republic.
I'd be really disappointed if we lost our monarchy. Something that oozes so much history and tradition is interesting and kinda romantic.
I'm a bit frustrated that I feel this way because objectively I don't really see the value they bring, but I know that I'd probably feel more regret and sadness if we got rid of them.
Shrug.
I think there's some value in the head of state being non-political. And if they're non-political, there's not a whole lot of point in electing them.
Plenty of parliamentary democracies have non partisan presidents as head of state - and it seems to work out without a hereditary system.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
That's my thoughts as well. Which in turn keeps them in line, i guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Sure, but it's a valid question: what is the point of electing a non partisan head of state?Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
They're usually "non-partisan", not non-partisan. They're either elected politicians with prior political affiliations and thus inherently partisan figures, or else appointed by parliament/the government and therefore also partisan. I'm not, like, an expert on the political history of every state that uses these parliamentary republic style systems but I don't think there's a president anywhere where the tradition of neutrality for the head of state is quite as strong as it is here: Elizabeth II doesn't seem to ever express opinions on anything publicly.Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
That said, it remains to be seen how much of the tradition comes from institutions and how much comes from her personal conviction, since basically the entire modern history of the institution of the monarchy has been under her, so we'll see how her successors do with it.
That in itself should be a reason to abolish the monarchy: keeping a person in a position where he is not to express any thought on current affairs is tantamount to violation of human rights.
Other than that I see the constitutional monarchy as a harmless relic. And as soon as it becomes a nuisance we can get rid of it.
If the monarch wants to express thoughts on current affiars they can do so. Abdication is an option.
Looks like some of the monarchy is beginning to step away of their own accord,
https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/...m2A?li=BBnb7Kz
The true - and most burdensome - cost of the English monarchy is the utter vileness it brings out in the English public. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EOAPm8PW...pg&name=medium
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
I considered saying that instead, but the two exist in symbiosis, and it's not like the vileness of the press arose ex nihilo.
Mmmm to some degree I suppose.
The UK press is rabid and vociferous in its own right though, tripping over each other to dig the latest dirt, hack the latest voice messages, rummage through the seediest celebrity dustbins to get the scoop before a rival publication can. The public will consume whatever is published.
It is the UK press that has the reputation here. I suspect that (a particular segment of) the UK public has become so inured to the vileness over the last few decades they don't know what a respectful press looks like. If all you are fed is fast food, then all you will continue to eat is fast food if it is available. In that I suppose is your symbiosis.
~
As for Harry and Meghan? *shrugs* Young famous modern couple in a modern world struggling in the limelight duty-bound to the requirements of an ancient and outdated institution.
I mean, they wouldn't do if it didn't shift newspapers, so clearly there's an appetite for it.
I was speculating earlier today if there was anything they could possibly do in their royal/celebrity coverage that was so blatantly false, intrusive, unfair and/or outright racist that it would get people to actually stop buying their newspapers in any significant numbers.
I concluded that there was not.
It's strange though that the UK has such a crappy press.
I would agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Thinking about it, i can think of one instance which has stopped large sections of the public buying tabloid papers - Liverpool, Hillsborough and the Sun over the football disaster ...
Many, if not most, visitors arrive into Liverpool by train. As you exit Liverpool Lime Street, like most stations, you come face to face with a long line of taxis, eager to capitalise on weary and confused travellers. But, unlike most stations, nearly every taxi has the words “Do not buy The Sun” emblazoned on the side in place of an advert or the company’s phone number.
The taxi has taken you to wherever you want to be in Liverpool. Perhaps that’s the Tate at the Royal Albert Dock, one of the cathedrals that can be seen from all over the city like overbearing parents, or perhaps you want to go to Anfield, home of Liverpool Football Club.
One thing in common with all these places, and in fact everywhere in Liverpool, is that you won’t see anyone buying, selling, or reading The Sun. Even major supermarkets such as Tesco have stopped selling the newspaper in the area citing “no demand”.
The reasons are clear. After the Hillsborough disaster in 1989 in which 96 Liverpool fans were crushed to death in overcrowding, the Murdoch-owned newspaper printed pages of false claims that not only blamed Liverpool fans for the disaster, but accused them of urinating on police officers and other fans, beating up officers attempting CPR, and pickpocketing the dead. These reports have since all been proven as fabrication.
I've never bought or read The Sun and never will. Its a shame the rest of the country doesn't follow our example. Its not just Liverpool itself, I'm from the other side of the water (Birkenhead) originally and you won't find The Sun being bought, read or sold all across Merseyside.Quote:
Originally Posted by Timbuk2
I'm not going to sit here and tell anyone that Liverpudlians aren't like 9000% justified in their anger at the Sun, but it was only because it targeted their community specifically.
Absolutely agreed. And targeted them in a vile manner too. People do have a tendency to take a special interest in that which targets them. Hence groups like Hacked Off too, they're not bothered by principles but because they're upset at what happened to them (some of whom I have little sympathy with).