Home Politics & Debate
Ongoing maintenance - the boards are undergoing some ongoing, intermittent maintenance. Pages might load slightly slower than usual and there may be very short periods where the boards are offline.

Queeeenie

13»

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Namaste wrote: »
    It depends on what you call 'success'. There's economics and distribution of economics. .

    That's just gobblygook. However, attempting to decipher what I think you mean I think you are saying that countries with economic inequality are not as succesful as those with greater equality, (I assume you are talking inequlaity not distribution of economics, which is a bit like say distribution of histories or distribution of physics as economics is the study of the economy)
    What I'm arguing is that I think any monarch is unnecessary and it doesn't make a country better or worse, there are so many factors. I was replying to your comment on arguments for Republicanism failing. I see our monarchy as one of the many wastes of cash and time in this country. .

    Your firstly arguing it doesn't matter "it doesn't make a country better or worse" then less than 20 words later you are saying it does matter "I see our monarchy as one of the many wastes of cash and time in this country" which seems a case of trying to have you cake and eating it. Especially as the waste of cash is one of the weakest arguments given it costs 62p per person http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10507329 and most of those costs would have to be met anyway (assuming you're not going to let places like Buckingham Palace fall into disrepair and you're going to have a head of state who meets foreign leaders).
    I come from Wales originally and I don't think I met many people who gave a toss about them to be honest

    Wales is part of the UK and support for the monarchy runs about 80% so anecdotes about how unpopular they are in relatively small parts don't invalidate the argument they're supported (and in Wales support is around 60% against 29% who support a republic , so a fair majority of monarchists)

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/8124065.stm
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    As someone with an overwhelming sense of indifference towards the Royal Family and the Queen, I think the most negative aspect is the way in which the existence of such status reinforces the class system in this country.

    Also, 62 pence per head of the population is a hell of a lot of money.

    I do recognise that the Queen has carried out her duties with a great sense of responsibility and grace, and that she is a great role model for the ‘work until you drop’ ethic that politicians are currently pushing. Trouble is, most people don’t have a job that takes them around the world to enjoy the best of everything wherever they travel. In fact, an increasing number of people don't have a job at all!

    In the 90’s, public opinion for the Royals was at an all-time low, but they have pulled back some public support since then. I think that’s partly because some members of the Royal Family learned to keep their mouths shut in relation to various things. While the Queen has carried off her duties with aplomb and diligence, most of her relatives have fallen well short of such standards.

    I think the Queen has also been able to win back some support because public opinion and respect for politicians has nose-dived in the last 10 years, and remains at an all-time low, i.e. a lot of people seem to have a need to hang on to a sense of their place in the hierarchy and show deference to those at the top of the pile. As politicians have fallen into disrepute, so the Queen has attracted such support.

    One of the pro Royalty arguments is that the Queen brings a lot of tourism to London, but if Buck House was turned into a museum with wax models of the Royals past and present, I think the revenue would go up.

    The Queen reminds some people of what a great nation Britain once was, but the reality is that she is a little old lady with a rather severe look on her face who comes from a small island off Europe that isn’t doing very well any more because most of our manufacturing industries have been closed down and the jobs once created by such industry have been exported to China.

    When I see all the pomp and ceremony, I often wonder if such regalia provides a short escape from reality for those that line up to ‘doff their caps’ with such enthusiasm and admiration for someone living a lifestyle that is planets away from their own.

    When the Queen goes, I suspect the clock will start ticking re the demise of the Royals – whilst they may hang their hopes on the appeal of the younger Royals, I can’t see that many young people being ready to identify with such wealth, privilege, and glamour. Why would they, when they live in a society that promotes self-reliance while offering it’s young people so little in the way of resources to build up such a lifestyle?

    If Tony Blair has his way, he'll become the President of the United States of Europe, then we'll all have someone to throw tomatoes at!

    ;)

    Jed
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    That's just gobblygook. However, attempting to decipher what I think you mean I think you are saying that countries with economic inequality are not as succesful as those with greater equality, (I assume you are talking inequlaity not distribution of economics, which is a bit like say distribution of histories or distribution of physics as economics is the study of the economy)
    How is it 'gobbledygook?

    You tend to use the term 'success' ambiguously. I was using the term 'distribution' to mean 'distribution of wealth' which would be considered a hallmark of equality? You talked about the USA being successful and earlier referred to some countries in Scandinavia. The USA's wealth inequality for example, is one of the highest in the world's bigger economies.
    Your firstly arguing it doesn't matter "it doesn't make a country better or worse"
    Whether a country has a monarchy or not, does not make a huge difference alone, as other factors, such as economics, the role of religion, aspects of the state make a difference too. It's not about isolating in absolute, whether or not a country is made better in entirety, by a monarch (as it appeared you were getting at, when you referred to Scandinavian countries and said republicans can't provide an alternative).

    then less than 20 words later you are saying it does matter "I see our monarchy as one of the many wastes of cash and time in this country" which seems a case of trying to have you cake and eating it.
    One of the many wastes of cash, but I'm not so naive as to think if we got rid of the monarchy tomorrow, we'd have a happy society and no poverty. I just think it's a waste of cash, just as I feel politicians shouldn't get second homes, the Trident replacement is a waste of cash and so on...

    Removing a monarch tomorrow could direct the cash in to building hospitals, or it could line the pockets of businessmen or be put in to waging a new war... Again, it depends on how its distributed (does that make more sense?).

    Especially as the waste of cash is one of the weakest arguments given it costs 62p per person http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10507329 and most of those costs would have to be met anyway (assuming you're not going to let places like Buckingham Palace fall into disrepair and you're going to have a head of state who meets foreign leaders).
    re Wales: The survey was of almost 1000 people. What kind of people would be taking part do you think? Is this kind of research more likely to attract participants from an affluent part of Monmouthshire, or from a more deprived area such as Rhyl? I'm only speaking from my own experience, of people in a working class area, granted...

    Especially as
    the waste of cash is one of the weakest arguments given it costs 62p per person http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10507329 and most of those costs would have to be met anyway (assuming you're not going to let places like Buckingham Palace fall into disrepair and you're going to have a head of state who meets foreign leaders).
    If I could have my 62p spent on an unelected head of state, or to have that 62p put towards helping somebody from a less affluent background, or with a health condition, or to schools, I know where I'd put it...

    Even though it's 'only' 62p, it all adds up. It's money at the end of the day and whilst it won't put most of us out of pocket, it still could be better spent elsewhere. The queen has a £310 million fortune, around £100 million worth of art and is number 262 on the Sunday Times Rich List!

    I don't understand why people are happy to pay any money to her... I'd at least rather give my cash to an elected head of state of my choosing, or anybody's choosing if they were elected.

    I see the Queen as not a great part of the problem, but one of many problems, as I've said before... I won't fly the flag of republicanism, or lick her arse either.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Put the Royal Family on ebay, and the Americans would pay a fortune for them! - Pay Pal only please, and no returns!

    We could then use the money to downsize the deficit.

    Simples!

    Jed
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Namaste wrote: »
    How is it 'gobbledygook?

    You tend to use the term 'success' ambiguously. I was using the term 'distribution' to mean 'distribution of wealth' which would be considered a hallmark of equality? You talked about the USA being successful and earlier referred to some countries in Scandinavia. The USA's wealth inequality for example, is one of the highest in the world's bigger economies.


    Whether a country has a monarchy or not, does not make a huge difference alone, as other factors, such as economics, the role of religion, aspects of the state make a difference too. It's not about isolating in absolute, whether or not a country is made better in entirety, by a monarch (as it appeared you were getting at, when you referred to Scandinavian countries and said republicans can't provide an alternative).



    One of the many wastes of cash, but I'm not so naive as to think if we got rid of the monarchy tomorrow, we'd have a happy society and no poverty. I just think it's a waste of cash, just as I feel politicians shouldn't get second homes, the Trident replacement is a waste of cash and so on...

    Removing a monarch tomorrow could direct the cash in to building hospitals, or it could line the pockets of businessmen or be put in to waging a new war... Again, it depends on how its distributed (does that make more sense?).



    re Wales: The survey was of almost 1000 people. What kind of people would be taking part do you think? Is this kind of research more likely to attract participants from an affluent part of Monmouthshire, or from a more deprived area such as Rhyl? I'm only speaking from my own experience, of people in a working class area, granted...

    Especially as
    If I could have my 62p spent on an unelected head of state, or to have that 62p put towards helping somebody from a less affluent background, or with a health condition, or to schools, I know where I'd put it...

    Even though it's 'only' 62p, it all adds up. It's money at the end of the day and whilst it won't put most of us out of pocket, it still could be better spent elsewhere. The queen has a £310 million fortune, around £100 million worth of art and is number 262 on the Sunday Times Rich List!

    I don't understand why people are happy to pay any money to her... I'd at least rather give my cash to an elected head of state of my choosing, or anybody's choosing if they were elected.

    I see the Queen as not a great part of the problem, but one of many problems, as I've said before... I won't fly the flag of republicanism, or lick her arse either.

    So its boils down to 62p* a year and other than that it doesn't make a real bit of difference, because other things shape society. It's hardly a clincher for republicanism...

    Look, I know you want a socialist society, but the main barrier to that isn't the Queen but her people. I'm saying that I've not heard any good arguments for getting rid of the UK monarchy and I don't think a good argument is one that is arguing that the Queen is an impedient for a society hardly anyone wants and that by getting rid of the monarchy we don't suddenly all want to become a nicer version of the USSR (or even Sweden).

    * and as I said if the Queen goes that money will still be spent mainly as it is now, upkeep of palaces and paying the costs of State Visits
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Are you saying that if it was called "The United Republic's* armed forces" instead, you wouldn't be in it?

    * Would it be called "kingdom" without a monarchy?

    I think tyou missed the point, i swore an oath to the queeen and my country, it cant be argued whether i would be in an armed forces if the name was changed, it still stands that i have sworn my oath.
  • Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Warming up? Posts: 16,688
    G-Raffe wrote: »
    I think tyou missed the point, i swore an oath to the queeen and my country, it cant be argued whether i would be in an armed forces if the name was changed, it still stands that i have sworn my oath.
    That sounds to me like saying that, since when I had to choose a book the red one wasn't available, I'd choose the blue book even if it had been.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The thing is that the royal family provide an apolitical constant for the UK. I like that they're there her majesty has been the head of state for 60 years and seems immutable and incorruptible in the face of change. That is not to say that she is inflexible because the royal family have adjusted according to the way society shifts.

    Opposite to that one has politician, who I think most people have lost faith in. Even the most honest politician makes you want to check your pocket for your mobile phone... We've got expenses scandals, and recession, and phone hacking cases and paying to see the PM, fucking kitchen suppers, and saying to keep a jerry can in your garage. Who fucking has a garage these days?!

    Her majesty, and the royal family at large, are steady and stable. They can be given allegiance because they can do nothing with it.
  • Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Warming up? Posts: 16,688
    There's a question that popped in my mind, which might or might not belong in this thread. I'm not sure but I'll ask it anyway:
    Suppose that the queen went crazy tomorrow, and announced something like that she wanted every citizen whose vision is not perfect executed. What's the law on that, would it have to happen?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Nothing would happen. All her power is theoretical. Also, that's retarded, and we're not.
  • Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Warming up? Posts: 16,688
    Fiend_85 wrote: »
    All her power is theoretical.
    Good to know. That would have been the main argument against monarchies, if it was otherwise.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think it sounds like something that is quite difficult for others to understand unless they have been there and done it.

    The lines you hear in films and tv shows along the lines of "When it comes down to it, its all about the man to your left and the man to your right, brothers in arms" does actually ring very true.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Miss_Riot wrote: »
    Huge waste of money on both fronts...

    I'd much rather be a republic

    *thinks the idea of the republic of miss_riot sounds awesome*

    Just as an interesting aside, we actually make money off the royals, because of the 'royal assets' which the revenues are collected by the government, put into a kitty, then a small amount of that is given to the royals as an allowance.

    Technically those assets are still legal property of the royal family, and if they wanted to end the 'special relationship' they could get the government to stop getting the revenues from them.

    We would lose out about £90million off the top of my head.
Sign In or Register to comment.