|
Post by spitthedog on Mar 8, 2021 9:52:51 GMT
Other presidents are available....... Which one do you recommend? Outside of President Sturgeon I'm struggling Can you imagine against the backdrop of the views expressed on this place dropping another layer of part politics into the equation Why would you need another level of politics?
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Mar 8, 2021 9:56:43 GMT
Which one do you recommend? Outside of President Sturgeon I'm struggling Can you imagine against the backdrop of the views expressed on this place dropping another layer of part politics into the equation Why would you need another level of politics? Is it possible to have an ELECTED Head of State without the election being, at least in part, Political? I can't think of a country which has managed it, can you?
|
|
|
Post by spitthedog on Mar 8, 2021 9:58:01 GMT
Why would you need another level of politics? Is it possible to have an ELECTED Head of State without the election being, at least in part, Political? I can't think of a country which has managed it, can you? Why do we need an Elected Head of State? We have a Parliament and an elected Prime Minister
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Mar 8, 2021 9:58:06 GMT
Which one do you recommend? Outside of President Sturgeon I'm struggling Can you imagine against the backdrop of the views expressed on this place dropping another layer of part politics into the equation Why would you need another level of politics? And, even if it were, wouldn't it be just another level of actual representation of the public, replacing the unelected, unaccountable bunch we have currently?
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Mar 8, 2021 10:04:38 GMT
Is it possible to have an ELECTED Head of State without the election being, at least in part, Political? I can't think of a country which has managed it, can you? Why do we need an Elected Head of State? We have a Parliament and an elected Prime Minister I think that British Prime Ministers have enough to do (not that they always do it very well ) without having to carry out State visits and ceremonial duties at home and abroad. And all the other things that Heads of State do - I'd much rather have an impartial Head of State opening my factory, presenting me with the FA Cup or visiting me in hospital after a disaster, than a Prime Minister with whose politics I disagree. The whole point of a non political Head Of State is that they can stay above party politics.
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Mar 8, 2021 10:05:20 GMT
The Queen is 95 and the Windsors are all in full blown chaos mode again, there’s never been a better time to say goodbye to our outdated class system and all the pomp and ceremony bullshit that goes with it and move forward as a country. Britain’s biggest welfare swindlers need to retire to their country homes and let us get on with creating a modern society free from all this bollocks.... What would you replace the monarchy with? Maybe a President like the Irish President. Surely not like France or the USA? Your comment seems to be based on envy, calling them swindlers. What does the monarchy cost each UK citizen on average? Answer £1 per year. www.statista.com/chart/18569/total-cost-of-the-uks-royal-family-by-year/Tourism earns the UK in a normal year earns over £145 billion, over 7% of GDP (There some on this MB screaming because Brexit could cost 2 to 3 % GDP, which I believe is wildly exaggerated, gives us our sovereignty back, which I think is priceless, and will be hugely beneficial in generations to come.) There are over 3 million people employed in tourism in the UK, nearly 10% of the working population. How much damage would the loss of the royal family do to tourism, which costs less than 0.05% of the tourism benefit? A 1% loss in tourism would cost 20 times more than the cost of the royal family. I think we would be mad to give up the royal family given the economic benefit it helps to generate. www.visitbritain.org/visitor-economy-factswww.tourismalliance.com/downloads/TA_408_435.pdfI think there is an advantage in having a constitutional monarch as head of state to whom armed forces, judges, etc. swear allegiance, rather than "the state", or "the flag" or worst of all, a politician. Some of the royal family are wasters, but some also do a huge amount of work for charities and good causes like The Prince's Trust, which does a huge amount of good. You may not like royalty, but you should think out the full implications of doing away with it. If people don't like the alternative presidential system then let's create a new one. The Queen never blocks legislation or prime minister appointments anyway so the whole "holding government to account" argument has always been spurious. So lets create a system based on democratic principles not hereditary birth right, including getting rid of the House of Lords using the same argument. The tourism industry wouldn't be affected in my opinion, we could actually see more visitors if places like Buckingham Palace were accessible all year round
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Mar 8, 2021 10:11:49 GMT
I used to be a republican but the monarchy's attack on the nasty woke mob is just brilliant. Their popularity with the British people must be going through the roof this morning.
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Mar 8, 2021 10:17:02 GMT
They bring loads of money in apparently .....that’s the usual justification myth for those who rally around them Hopefully this is the beginning of the end Even if that myth has an element of truth in it wez, we're not getting rid of their history, soppy American and Japanese tourists will still come to see some of their solid gold houses which will still be standing. It's our future they need to be removed from. I suppose the question is, would you rather live in a world dominated by wealthy, well connected, millionaire, virtue signalling luvvies who have no concept of real life and hard work or Prince Charles who also has no idea about the real world. Its a dreadful choice admittedly but the former is just too unbearable. Long live the queen.
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Mar 8, 2021 10:17:45 GMT
People would still come and visit those sites in their droves anyway mate as they would come to see how where and how they used to live in just the same manner See Paris The fact that tourist attendance at places like Buckingham Palace, Balmoral, Sandringham and Windsor Castle is higher when the Royal family happen to be in residence suggests you are wrong. Of course Royal Palaces, Castles and buildings would still be big attractions even if the Monarchy were abolished but not as big as they are with a live Monarchy. You only have to look at the increased incidence of Foreign Tourism at the times of the various Jubilees and Royal Weddings and Funerals to see that Royalty itself is a big draw as well that of Royal properties. It's a fair point. Isn't there also a chance that even more would come to visit if they knew they could have a wander around those places like in Versailles?
|
|
|
Post by ColonelMustard on Mar 8, 2021 10:18:35 GMT
Its main defence seems to be that its embedded in the national identity and as such is part of brand UK. So great let's lean into it, fit cameras in all the rooms, get Davina back, and go full reality TV show. Loads of pointless tittle tattle for the rags and extra exposure for the brand. No brainer.
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Mar 8, 2021 10:23:51 GMT
What would you replace the monarchy with? Maybe a President like the Irish President. Surely not like France or the USA? Your comment seems to be based on envy, calling them swindlers. What does the monarchy cost each UK citizen on average? Answer £1 per year. www.statista.com/chart/18569/total-cost-of-the-uks-royal-family-by-year/Tourism earns the UK in a normal year earns over £145 billion, over 7% of GDP (There some on this MB screaming because Brexit could cost 2 to 3 % GDP, which I believe is wildly exaggerated, gives us our sovereignty back, which I think is priceless, and will be hugely beneficial in generations to come.) There are over 3 million people employed in tourism in the UK, nearly 10% of the working population. How much damage would the loss of the royal family do to tourism, which costs less than 0.05% of the tourism benefit? A 1% loss in tourism would cost 20 times more than the cost of the royal family. I think we would be mad to give up the royal family given the economic benefit it helps to generate. www.visitbritain.org/visitor-economy-factswww.tourismalliance.com/downloads/TA_408_435.pdfI think there is an advantage in having a constitutional monarch as head of state to whom armed forces, judges, etc. swear allegiance, rather than "the state", or "the flag" or worst of all, a politician. Some of the royal family are wasters, but some also do a huge amount of work for charities and good causes like The Prince's Trust, which does a huge amount of good. You may not like royalty, but you should think out the full implications of doing away with it. Since you brought it up...if only you'd applied the same degree of analysis to Brexit... But I think I've seen it all now...a Brexiteer arguing that we should keep an unelected, unrepresentative establishment which we can't vote to remove on the grounds that it doesn't cost us very much per capita and is good overall for the economy of the country. That's perfect! It is perfect. We can vote to remove the royal family if we choose to, that's democracy. There is never any mention of getting rid of the monarchy when Labour are in power, because it is what most people want, that's democracy. As I have stated there is a very good economic reason to keep the royal family. We have left the EU because most people voted to leave, that's democracy. No one can change the EU Commission (except maybe the German Chancellor) who are on a path to the United States of Europe where no citizens will have any influence on policy, just the thousands of business lobbyists in Brussels. How much influence did your vote for an MEP have in European Parliament with dozens of political parties. How much influence did your PM have in the EU Council; clearly Cameron had none. There are people dying today in the EU because of the ineptitude of the EU Commission on vaccine procurement. Something you have defended. The whole point of constitutional monarchy is that it is above politics. I will be the first to say get rid of the royal family when starts expressing political views, even if they were views I agreed with.
|
|
|
Post by ColonelMustard on Mar 8, 2021 10:24:23 GMT
The fact that tourist attendance at places like Buckingham Palace, Balmoral, Sandringham and Windsor Castle is higher when the Royal family happen to be in residence suggests you are wrong. Of course Royal Palaces, Castles and buildings would still be big attractions even if the Monarchy were abolished but not as big as they are with a live Monarchy. You only have to look at the increased incidence of Foreign Tourism at the times of the various Jubilees and Royal Weddings and Funerals to see that Royalty itself is a big draw as well that of Royal properties. It's a fair point. Isn't there also a chance that even more would come to visit if they knew they could have a wander around those places like in Versailles? France/ Paris are regularly number 1 tourist destination in the world.
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Mar 8, 2021 10:53:58 GMT
What would you replace the monarchy with? Maybe a President like the Irish President. Surely not like France or the USA? Your comment seems to be based on envy, calling them swindlers. What does the monarchy cost each UK citizen on average? Answer £1 per year. www.statista.com/chart/18569/total-cost-of-the-uks-royal-family-by-year/Tourism earns the UK in a normal year earns over £145 billion, over 7% of GDP (There some on this MB screaming because Brexit could cost 2 to 3 % GDP, which I believe is wildly exaggerated, gives us our sovereignty back, which I think is priceless, and will be hugely beneficial in generations to come.) There are over 3 million people employed in tourism in the UK, nearly 10% of the working population. How much damage would the loss of the royal family do to tourism, which costs less than 0.05% of the tourism benefit? A 1% loss in tourism would cost 20 times more than the cost of the royal family. I think we would be mad to give up the royal family given the economic benefit it helps to generate. www.visitbritain.org/visitor-economy-factswww.tourismalliance.com/downloads/TA_408_435.pdfI think there is an advantage in having a constitutional monarch as head of state to whom armed forces, judges, etc. swear allegiance, rather than "the state", or "the flag" or worst of all, a politician. Some of the royal family are wasters, but some also do a huge amount of work for charities and good causes like The Prince's Trust, which does a huge amount of good. You may not like royalty, but you should think out the full implications of doing away with it. If people don't like the alternative presidential system then let's create a new one. The Queen never blocks legislation or prime minister appointments anyway so the whole "holding government to account" argument has always been spurious. So lets create a system based on democratic principles not hereditary birth right, including getting rid of the House of Lords using the same argument. The tourism industry wouldn't be affected in my opinion, we could actually see more visitors if places like Buckingham Palace were accessible all year round We are largely in agreement. I agree that the monarchy does not hold the government to account. It is the ballot box that does that, particularly under our present electoral system. My reservation about PR is that is just shuffles the pack, it doesn't actually change representation very much, and the political parties do deals behind closed doors to retain power. The monarchy acts as a figurehead for everyone who is above politics, and can patronise charities, etc. and be head of the judiciary, armed forces, etc. I would hate to have an army swearing allegiance to a government. I agree the HoL is an anachronism but the hereditary influence is very over stated these days. Most active peers are political appointees which is just as bad. The power of the HoL is also over stated; they can only amend and delay legislation, not stop it, and they have no authority on financial bills. But I agree it is important to have a system that is seen to be democratic. What is most important to me is the power of the people to choose their government, and the government is in control of the executive, which is not the case in the EU, where only the executive can draft legislation. In our Parliament MPs can introduce bills, which has lead to major change such as abolishing capital punishment. You say getting rid of the monarchy would not affect tourism. I disagree. Not many Europeans are interested in monarchy, but millions of Commonwealth, American, and Japanese are. You can actually visit parts of Buckingham Palace and Balmoral in normal times. Our "living monarchy" sets us apart from most of the world regarding tourism. If it wasn't for the importance of the monarchy, would anyone be bothered about what an ex royal couple were up to, or this thread?
|
|
|
Post by adri2008 on Mar 8, 2021 11:08:10 GMT
I have no problem with the 'top level' monarchy i.e the queen and the direct succession - they have global interest, respect and a big draw for the country. We can certainly do without the rest of the hangers on though.
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on Mar 8, 2021 12:04:48 GMT
I used to be a republican but the monarchy's attack on the nasty woke mob is just brilliant. Their popularity with the British people must be going through the roof this morning. We should replace them with Stormzy
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2021 12:21:37 GMT
The queen is clearly a lizard who feasts on the flesh of innocent care home children. But she’s very old so Andrew uses his penis to tenderise them first for her.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2021 12:25:49 GMT
Abolishing the Monarchy would mean yet more elections - for a president! So, for that reason I am against it. I rather like the idea of a Head of State who: a) most of the world's leaders REALLY want to meet and b) who does not spend their time in direct competition to the Prime Minister and c) who probably pays their own way in terms of the amount of foreign tourist income they and their family generate directly and indirectly. I'd much rather abolish the House of Lords and move to a democratically elected second chamber (elected by PR) than worry about the Monarchy. Some good points for sure I have to begrudgingly admit. However, despite the problems with our own democratic process, I still think we’d do a much better job at the president system than a lot of countries with that system. I’m also just highly sceptical about point c. I hear this argument being made but has any independent review into this claim ever been released? And could we not make more money by turning Buckingham palace into a hotel and charging Middle Eastern oil trillionaires a billion a night to sleep in the queen’s bed and shit in her bog? If we manage to eradicate this antiquated system before the queen snuffs it, we could even give her a job as a high class prostitute for the new hotel and just leave her in the bed for the guests.
|
|
|
Post by xchpotter on Mar 8, 2021 12:39:52 GMT
No. Some individuals are questionable, but I have more faith and trust in the Queen every single day of the week than I do with politicians and the usual suspects jumping up and down for Republicism and wanting to undermine the country and its history at every conceivable opportunity.
If the Queen wasn’t so old, I’d quite happily see her lead the country for a term as a PM would do. I suspect she has far better judgement and interest in the country and it’s people than politicians do...unless everyone believes what happened in The Crown was true along with the Diana conspiracy theories.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Mar 8, 2021 12:43:34 GMT
Abolishing the Monarchy would mean yet more elections - for a president! So, for that reason I am against it. I rather like the idea of a Head of State who: a) most of the world's leaders REALLY want to meet and b) who does not spend their time in direct competition to the Prime Minister and c) who probably pays their own way in terms of the amount of foreign tourist income they and their family generate directly and indirectly. I'd much rather abolish the House of Lords and move to a democratically elected second chamber (elected by PR) than worry about the Monarchy. Some good points for sure I have to begrudgingly admit. However, despite the problems with our own democratic process, I still think we’d do a much better job at the president system than a lot of countries with that system. I’m also just highly sceptical about point c. I hear this argument being made but has any independent review into this claim ever been released? And could we not make more money by turning Buckingham palace into a hotel and charging Middle Eastern oil trillionaires a billion a night to sleep in the queen’s bed and shit in her bog? If we manage to eradicate this antiquated system before the queen snuffs it, we could even give her a job as a high class prostitute for the new hotel and just leave her in the bed for the guests. Many years ago (around 30) I was a Devon County councillor. One of the many reports we used to get to read each year was one on Tourism - we had it to help us plan the county's tourism policy. One of the things which stuck in my mind was the benefit to the country of foreign tourism and the amount of foreign tourism which was related to the Monarchy, the Royal Family and Royal properties. I can't remember the exact figures (and, to be fair they would have changed by now) but a large percentage of foreign tourists reported the Monarchy and Royalty as being a major factor. There are many figures which have been put on the cost/benefit of Royal Tourism and most seem to come down on the side of saying that the Royal Family is a net benefit to our economy in financial terms. It is very hard to find an in depth study which says otherwise. But, I suppose, many people will tend to believe only what suits their agenda!
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Mar 8, 2021 12:44:57 GMT
Most of the historic statues have been taken down so it was only a matter of time before the Royal Family were next. Now I’ve never been a fan of the Royal family (huge one of the Royle family). Andrews a total creep and should be dealt with for what he’s done in relation to the Epstein ring but they are a huge part of this countries identity and make us unique and should remain. William will be an excellent king. He’s a modern royal and has never behaved in any other way than impeccably and has setup some great initiatives and charities. All these trigger reactions based on what? A 2 hour interview that we don’t even know is true. Both sides need to be heard before we get a more balanced view. This thread being opened is as predictable as night turning to day. Nope. I've been screaming this since I was 16 mate. I don't consider myself a progressive, as such, but in a society that should be looking for real progress as it were, the Royals are fucking archaic. How is it, that when children in this very country are living on the poverty line, we continue to allow a single family to have extraordinary wealth due to their bloodline? Their children are born into immense privilege because why exactly? The Royals are a fucking relic of a time that we should be desperate to forget. And tourism? Lol. The old tourism argument.... as if no fucker would come to London because old Lizzy was booted out of her big house. London is one of the major capital cities in the world, one of the G8 capitals in fact and has a huge number of tourist attractions beyond the Royal family. The tourism argument is bollocks, it always has been. Fuck them off.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2021 12:47:16 GMT
Some good points for sure I have to begrudgingly admit. However, despite the problems with our own democratic process, I still think we’d do a much better job at the president system than a lot of countries with that system. I’m also just highly sceptical about point c. I hear this argument being made but has any independent review into this claim ever been released? And could we not make more money by turning Buckingham palace into a hotel and charging Middle Eastern oil trillionaires a billion a night to sleep in the queen’s bed and shit in her bog? If we manage to eradicate this antiquated system before the queen snuffs it, we could even give her a job as a high class prostitute for the new hotel and just leave her in the bed for the guests. Many years ago (around 30) I was a Devon County councillor. One of the many reports we used to get to read each year was one on Tourism - we had it to help us plan the county's tourism policy. One of the things which stuck in my mind was the benefit to the country of foreign tourism and the amount of foreign tourism which was related to the Monarchy, the Royal Family and Royal properties. I can't remember the exact figures (and, to be fair they would have changed by now) but a large percentage of foreign tourists reported the Monarchy and Royalty as being a major factor. There are many figures which have been put on the cost/benefit of Royal Tourism and most seem to come down on the side of saying that the Royal Family is a net benefit to our economy in financial terms. It is very hard to find an in depth study which says otherwise. But, I suppose, many people will tend to believe only what suits their agenda! No I believe you and it’s a good point and insight, despite my agenda. But as metal head hypothesises, it’s just way more complex than saying they provide a net benefit because you would have to compare the (speculated) revenue they generate now, with the revenue that would be generated in an English republic. So basically it’s impossible to be anything but speculative. I was only semi-joking with my hotel idea for example, but turning the palaces into state owned hotels for the super rich is one way new income could be generated in a post-monarchist Britain.
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Mar 8, 2021 12:57:00 GMT
Since you brought it up...if only you'd applied the same degree of analysis to Brexit... But I think I've seen it all now...a Brexiteer arguing that we should keep an unelected, unrepresentative establishment which we can't vote to remove on the grounds that it doesn't cost us very much per capita and is good overall for the economy of the country. That's perfect! It is perfect. We can vote to remove the royal family if we choose to, that's democracy. There is never any mention of getting rid of the monarchy when Labour are in power, because it is what most people want, that's democracy. As I have stated there is a very good economic reason to keep the royal family. We have left the EU because most people voted to leave, that's democracy. No one can change the EU Commission (except maybe the German Chancellor) who are on a path to the United States of Europe where no citizens will have any influence on policy, just the thousands of business lobbyists in Brussels. How much influence did your vote for an MEP have in European Parliament with dozens of political parties. How much influence did your PM have in the EU Council; clearly Cameron had none. There are people dying today in the EU because of the ineptitude of the EU Commission on vaccine procurement. Something you have defended. The whole point of constitutional monarchy is that it is above politics. I will be the first to say get rid of the royal family when starts expressing political views, even if they were views I agreed with. "We can vote to remove the royals if we choose to..." Not in the way that you've been arguing for and have had a huge problem with elsewhere There are very good economic reasons not to leave the EU too, but again not such an issue here! The middle para is just a bizarre rant! Not sure where I've ever defended the fact that people are dying because of the ineptitude of EU vaccine procurement! Like I said, funny how precisely the same criteria can be applied completely differently when it suits...
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Mar 8, 2021 12:58:27 GMT
Abolishing the Monarchy would mean yet more elections - for a president! So, for that reason I am against it. I rather like the idea of a Head of State who: a) most of the world's leaders REALLY want to meet and b) who does not spend their time in direct competition to the Prime Minister and c) who probably pays their own way in terms of the amount of foreign tourist income they and their family generate directly and indirectly. I'd much rather abolish the House of Lords and move to a democratically elected second chamber (elected by PR) than worry about the Monarchy. Do what some other countries do, elect a head of state who has no political power but elect them for 10 years or 20 Someone who 'everyone' likes who can smile and wave and pin medals on chests President Michael Palin With no hangers on Sorted
|
|
|
Post by Chewbacca the Wookie on Mar 8, 2021 12:58:46 GMT
Most of the historic statues have been taken down so it was only a matter of time before the Royal Family were next. Now I’ve never been a fan of the Royal family (huge one of the Royle family). Andrews a total creep and should be dealt with for what he’s done in relation to the Epstein ring but they are a huge part of this countries identity and make us unique and should remain. William will be an excellent king. He’s a modern royal and has never behaved in any other way than impeccably and has setup some great initiatives and charities. All these trigger reactions based on what? A 2 hour interview that we don’t even know is true. Both sides need to be heard before we get a more balanced view. This thread being opened is as predictable as night turning to day. Nope. I've been screaming this since I was 16 mate. I don't consider myself a progressive, as such, but in a society that should be looking for real progress as it were, the Royals are fucking archaic. How is it, that when children in this very country are living on the poverty line, we continue to allow a single family to have extraordinary wealth due to their bloodline? Their children are born into immense privilege because why exactly? The Royals are a fucking relic of a time that we should be desperate to forget. And tourism? Lol. The old tourism argument.... as if no fucker would come to London because old Lizzy was booted out of her big house. London is one of the major capital cities in the world, one of the G8 capitals in fact and has a huge number of tourist attractions beyond the Royal family. The tourism argument is bollocks, it always has been. Fuck them off. I’ve never been a royalist as they are too elitist for me but regardless of my personal views they have been around from year dot and in the case of some of the previous kings and queens they’ve done far worse than what’s been alleged here. That said they’re a massive part of this country and like others that have been recently dismissed as “embarrassing” theirs been good and bad members (Andrew). I think if the Royal family were bombed out it would be a sad day. It just feels like this whole situation has been forced by one interview which everyone appears to be taking as gospel if they have a certain political view. I think we need to get the other sides perspective before we can truely make our mind up and let’s not forget what person in an interview isnt economical with the truth.
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Mar 8, 2021 12:58:49 GMT
Why would you need another level of politics? Is it possible to have an ELECTED Head of State without the election being, at least in part, Political? I can't think of a country which has managed it, can you? Ireland
|
|
|
Post by spitthedog on Mar 8, 2021 12:59:52 GMT
Yes ma'am, No ma'am, three bags full ma'am.
It's no real surprise the Royal Family are still publicly sponsored. They hold vast amounts of private wealth. Since we sponsor them , why don't we get a cut in that?
Servile deference towards the Establishment still rules the waves here. Look how they rally when there is the slightest bit of interrogation.
They've got no chance of being toppled with this mentality.
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Mar 8, 2021 13:01:06 GMT
Do you even need a head of state, other than the PM?
Is there a specific constitutional reason why you can't just get rid of them and replace them with nothing?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2021 13:02:33 GMT
What would you replace the monarchy with? Maybe a President like the Irish President. Surely not like France or the USA? Your comment seems to be based on envy, calling them swindlers. What does the monarchy cost each UK citizen on average? Answer £1 per year. www.statista.com/chart/18569/total-cost-of-the-uks-royal-family-by-year/Tourism earns the UK in a normal year earns over £145 billion, over 7% of GDP (There some on this MB screaming because Brexit could cost 2 to 3 % GDP, which I believe is wildly exaggerated, gives us our sovereignty back, which I think is priceless, and will be hugely beneficial in generations to come.) There are over 3 million people employed in tourism in the UK, nearly 10% of the working population. How much damage would the loss of the royal family do to tourism, which costs less than 0.05% of the tourism benefit? A 1% loss in tourism would cost 20 times more than the cost of the royal family. I think we would be mad to give up the royal family given the economic benefit it helps to generate. www.visitbritain.org/visitor-economy-factswww.tourismalliance.com/downloads/TA_408_435.pdfI think there is an advantage in having a constitutional monarch as head of state to whom armed forces, judges, etc. swear allegiance, rather than "the state", or "the flag" or worst of all, a politician. Some of the royal family are wasters, but some also do a huge amount of work for charities and good causes like The Prince's Trust, which does a huge amount of good. You may not like royalty, but you should think out the full implications of doing away with it. Since you brought it up...if only you'd applied the same degree of analysis to Brexit... But I think I've seen it all now...a Brexiteer arguing that we should keep an unelected, unrepresentative establishment which we can't vote to remove on the grounds that it doesn't cost us very much per capita and is good overall for the economy of the country. That's perfect! I was and still am a very strong brexiteer so it confuses me to see the support for the monarchy amongst my former bedfellows. They are contradictory stances in my eyes. If your interest is in lowering the height of the power pyramid so that the summit is closer to the masses at ground level, then how can you ever be in favour of having a monarchy at the top? It baffles me.
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Mar 8, 2021 13:03:53 GMT
Yes ma'am, No ma'am, three bags full ma'am. It's no real surprise the Royal Family are still publicly sponsored. They hold vast amounts of private wealth. Since we sponsor them , why don't we get a cut in that? Servile deference towards the Establishment still rules the waves here. Look how they rally when there is the slightest bit of interrogation. They've got no chance of being toppled with this mentality. Got to agree with that. Given how privilege, class and birth"right" dominate so much of our country's problems, you'd think most folk would be keen to move out of that kind of feudal arrangement, but it's amazing how many love to know their place!
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Mar 8, 2021 13:04:32 GMT
Since you brought it up...if only you'd applied the same degree of analysis to Brexit... But I think I've seen it all now...a Brexiteer arguing that we should keep an unelected, unrepresentative establishment which we can't vote to remove on the grounds that it doesn't cost us very much per capita and is good overall for the economy of the country. That's perfect! I was and still am a very strong brexiteer so it confuses me to see the support for the monarchy amongst my former bedfellows. They are contradictory stances in my eyes. If your interest is in lowering the height of the power pyramid so that the summit is closer to the masses at ground level, then how can you ever be in favour of having a monarchy at the top? It baffles me. Precisely the point, well said, sir! And don't forget the accountability aspect...
|
|