Royals cost Britain £37m a year

Originally Posted by markymoan

we could go down the they are german road but then again st george was a turk and we are a multi racial nation.

and i apologise for the council estate comment as where i live there is a good sense of community and i wouldnt live anywhere else.
everybody is entitled to there opinion this is a free country and thats what makes britain great

No offence taken ... In the five years I lived there I saw more evidence of patriotic flag-waving than anywhere else I've ever stayed.

[marky]

i think i'll hang up my keyboard ( feeling defeated )and go down to the british legion for a pint or 8 and talk about what value for money we get for our 65p a year whilst moaning about how much tax is on beer and fuel

65p is good value for a head of state. As I said earlier, if I was a republican (and while I'm sure we need to overhaul our constitution, I'm not sure if I'm an out-and-out republican), I wouldn't be using the cost of the monarchy as an argument for getting rid of it. It's a very weak argument.

Originally Posted by Chris T

65p is good value for a head of state. As I said earlier, if I was a republican (and while I'm sure we need to overhaul our constitution, I'm not sure if I'm an out-and-out republican), I wouldn't be using the cost of the monarchy as an argument for getting rid of it. It's a very weak argument.

I'm not sure how weak the argument is (I don't trust the £37m figure for starters) but it is just one of many.

Originally Posted by andyl

I'm not sure how weak the argument is (I don't trust the £37m figure for starters) but it is just one of many.

It's extremely weak, when set against the billions that go on health, education and defence (or, to take a different tack, the estimated one TRILLION that is the combined consumer debt of British citizens today )

But I agree, there are many arguments. Simple democracy is probably the most persuasive.

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by Chris T

Simple democracy is probably the most persuasive.

However our constitutional monarchy IMHO gives a good stabilising influence at the top, though Prez B seems to be riding roughshod over that far more than any other PM in my experience.

I think it is healthy that the person at the top can take long term views without worry of the next election or their limit of 8 years in power and can excercise guidance to that end.

Originally Posted by SMHarman

However our constitutional monarchy IMHO gives a good stabilising influence at the top, though Prez B seems to be riding roughshod over that far more than any other PM in my experience.

I think it is healthy that the person at the top can take long term views without worry of the next election or their limit of 8 years in power and can excercise guidance to that end.

Hmmm. When did the Queen last take an executive decision? IMO we should also not get caught up in the widespread dislike of the boy Blair when discussing the merits of ditching the monarchy and creating either another head of state or extending the existing powers of our highest elected official. Having said that I'm now thinking President Major and, aargh, President Thatcher

Originally Posted by SMHarman

However our constitutional monarchy IMHO gives a good stabilising influence at the top, though Prez B seems to be riding roughshod over that far more than any other PM in my experience.

I think it is healthy that the person at the top can take long term views without worry of the next election or their limit of 8 years in power and can excercise guidance to that end.

The problem with that of course is that the Queen's long-term view and guidance is so heavily cloaked in tradtion and secrecy that we have absolutely no idea whether it's any good or not. And by definition, it can only really be any good when the position has been held by someone for a long time, as with our Queen.

Once she pops off - and she is now quite an old lady - her brainless twerp of a son will be in the top job. What kind of advice is he going to be dishing out? And in the monumentally unlikely event of the succession passing straight to William, as some have demanded, what then? He's barely out of nappies! Who the smeg is he to give advice to someone like Tony Blair? Love him or loathe him, Blair has got more top-table experience of life in his little finger than young Wills has in his entire over-privileged body.

The notion of someone in the top post who can bring stability and a long-term veiw is a very good one, but the lottery of a hereditary monarchy is IMO a bad way of fulfilling it.

[philip.j.fry]

Originally Posted by Chris T

The notion of someone in the top post who can bring stability and a long-term veiw is a very good one, but the lottery of a hereditary monarchy is IMO a bad way of fulfilling it.

I've been pondering on this, and one thing that has suggested itself is what if the monarchy were replaced with some kind of jury or magistrate system? Beyond that suggestion though I have no idea how it would work and it also doesn't satisfy the innate need people seem to have for a singular person to focus on (a.k.a a figurehead).

Originally Posted by philip.j.fry

I've been pondering on this, and one thing that has suggested itself is what if the monarchy were replaced with some kind of jury or magistrate system? Beyond that suggestion though I have no idea how it would work and it also doesn't satisfy the innate need people seem to have for a singular person to focus on (a.k.a a figurehead).

Anything that gets us away from personality politics and policy by media would get my vote.