Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
Do you think Britain be a republic or not?
I personally do not think there should be a monarchy.
I personally do not think there should be a monarchy.
The 'Monarchy Question'? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Mucca Mad Boys
- Start date
scroobiustom
New Member
100% yes, the entire constitution is based upon it.
although some may dislike the people personally, the importance of a monarchical society is the one thing that allows us to retain a sense of ourself and not fall into the federalist black hole that Germany and France have carved out called Europe. IMO
although some may dislike the people personally, the importance of a monarchical society is the one thing that allows us to retain a sense of ourself and not fall into the federalist black hole that Germany and France have carved out called Europe. IMO
We'll_live_and_die
Moderator
This is a proper random thread.
Houchens Head
Fairly well known member from Malvern
I couldn't give a toss one way or the other.... 
Well the millions of people who turned out to celebrate the Diamond Jubilee,not only in Britain but throughout the Commonwealth would suggest the Queen is still incredibly popular.
Despite the continued efforts by such subversive groups like Common Purpose who no doubt will only be staisfied when we have a Presideny Van Rompey as ou head of state,the Monarchy is still a popular and cherised institution.
Of course we could always 'elect' President Blair,at least he would definitely unite the nation.:jerkit:
Houchens Head
Fairly well known member from Malvern
Sorry, but the fact that it was a free holiday and an excuse for a good piss-up was more the reason!
WillieStanley
New Member
Ask Brighton Sky Blue.
Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
Actually, we don't have a written constitution.
How do we have a sense of 'ourselves' by having a family who rule us and are better than us!?
Feudalism and monarchies have had their epoch in history.
Also, don't you find it hypocritical that Britain are 'fighting for democracy', but we have an elected Head of State
I don't understand why a large portion of the public loves the monarch.
WillieStanley
New Member
They do, actually.
The other thing to remember is, a high percentage of those on welfare actually need it. There will always be people who take advantage of the system, but I'd rather have a system that lets a few take advantage yet serve those in desperate need, rather than one which ignores those in need in order to stop those taking advantage, which is where we are headed for at an increasing rate.
I'm all for a republic.
Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
It costs 50p per head to keep the monarch (in the whole of Britain, so 33m+?) whereas 'the wasters' you talk of each one would have considerably lower contribution of your taxes, sir.
I think we can actually add the royal family to the category of wasters.
Err what about the huge crowds that turned over several months when the Queen visited cities and towns across the UK.What about the hundreds of thousands who turned up to witness the flotilla along the Thames ,standing for hours in the pouring rain.Or the thousands who camped overnight to get a place by the Mall/St Pauls etc.Or the fact that certain tube stations in Central London were closed because they couldn't cope with the crowds.Ok maybe not as popular as the recent Police Commsioner elections,but pretty damn impressive.
WillieStanley
New Member
Oh my life... I actually cannot believe what I've just read.
In modern society, we have so many failings. So many ways in which society lets the most vulnerable down. The fact that 1 in 4 of us will suffer mental illness in our lifetime amongst the lack of growth in this country suggests that most of us here will become forced to rely on the welfare system at some point in our lives. Add to that the percentage of the population who haven't had the good fortune of a nurturing early life, or suffered tragedy in their life and therefore lack the basic life skills we so often take for granted. On top of that you have a society who tell them that they are wasters for living off the welfare state, or that hteir parents are wasters, or they have been neglected or raped and feel worthless because they don't have the family or social networks that most of us enjoy. Just left in a rut of self hate with the only thing making you feel good about you is alcohol or crack.
People are people and no matter what you say, no one wants to live a life without achievement or purpose and as a society, we have a responsibility to protect those people and help them establish themselves back into mainstream society and then maintain their stay there. It's not a case of workers vs wasters but a case of the fortunate passing on their knowledge as well as trying to reverse years of behaviour.
What's better, beggars on the street or the protective wall of society providing services and resources to help them on their feet and contributing to the community, making positive choices about their circumstances and the environment around them?
WillieStanley
New Member
Or we could get back to running our Victorian Mills, out our hands over our eyes and assume that everyone out of work is sub-human scum.
Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
May I add this, the one and true institutions that reflects 'Britishness', and by far the most 'underrated' and taken for granted institution is our very own NHS.
On nationalism, "workers have no country".
On nationalism, "workers have no country".
Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
You sound like a tea bagger in the USA! I don't think you actually know how foolish you've made yourself look here.
Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
Yes.
Republic.
At the mo we have a German and a Greek on the throne. British my arse!
Not forgetting the other dynasty's that had a weak claim to the throne and those who weren't even English, nor could speak English
Marty
Well-Known Member
You seem to have mis-understood, I agree that people who find themselves in a mess, or those that require daily care deserve the help. What I am talking about is the scum that have no ambition in life, the ones who have never worked a day in their lives, don't pay into the pot but are the first ones to take out.
If they don't want to work then fine, but why should I pay towards their up keep?
Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
Also whats a tea-bagger, never once heard that term before..
It's the 'tea party' faction of the Republican Party in the US, ultra RW economically, believe the US workforce is lazy and don't like the 'welfare state'. Their nickname being 'tea baggers'.
WillieStanley
New Member
Simply paying towards their upkeep isn't enough. As a society we need to be investing in building motivation, self-worth and skills and encourage them back into society. Most feel worthless, as if they are on the outskirts of society, maily because they are. They have been thrown on the "Scum" pile and become figures of resentment. So when they are awarded their outragious housing benefit, they see it as an achievement, because it is literally the only thing they have to show for themselves.
The question isn't "Why should I pay for their upkeep?" Its "Why should I pay for their up keep when they're just left to rot in their own self pity... what can I do to help"
More diverse services in the social sector mean a lower welfare bill. Unfortunatley the coalition can't see that, and by axing services or running them on the lowest possible budget is a false economy.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Actually, we don't have a written constitution.
How do we have a sense of 'ourselves' by having a family who rule us and are better than us!?
Feudalism and monarchies have had their epoch in history.
Also, don't you find it hypocritical that Britain are 'fighting for democracy', but we have an elected Head of State
I don't understand why a large portion of the public loves the monarch.
I don't love the monarchy and in my youth would have been fiercly opposed to it.
However, the reality is that a Presidential option is not an attractive alternative. When you look at the Presidential situation in Europe and in the US it shows the pitfalls of having an elected head of state who in essence has to be politically motivated. The cost is significant (look at the US election campaign) and often the political situation becomes paralysed as you find the lower house at odds with the upper house.
The real problem this Royal Family is the extended family which also benefits from the purse.
A significantly scaled down Scandanvian type model would be more attractive.
Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
Tell you what you are, 100% earthling, like the rest of the 6 billion of us, nations are merely tribes, we need to be united, in that event why would we need a monarch?
Marty
Well-Known Member
Ah fair enough. It's not a case of not liking the welfare system, It's a case of people getting what they deserve & people who don't contribute to the pot shouldn't get anything in return.
Otis
Well-Known Member
I know I am.
Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
There are lazy people who don't want to work, but some cases, they can get paid more on the dole, in that case, go for the higher wage. Also, the availability of jobs because of companies (and govs) desire to make profit means workers are devalued and are sacked.
The 'bourgeois' don't care that workers have families to feed.
Otis
Well-Known Member
Bit of a contradiction that me thinks because over the centuries many of the monarchs have been anything but British.
We've had kings on the throne who couldn't even speak a single word of English and were in fact German. We then had to ship in the German lot in the early and then in about 1914 they tossed aside their German moniker because of the war. That is the stock where the current queen has come from.
Last edited:
Tad
Member
I'd like to see what WillieStanley is basing his argument on. As a friend of mine works for the council repairing there houses etc. It drives him mad. So many people on benefits are milking the system for no real reason other them lazyness.. He also finds it alarming how so many of them come from a different country and have never worked.
Last edited:
Marty
Well-Known Member
That's what schools are for aren't they? building the necessary skills for these people to succeed in life, whether that is giving them a good basis to go onto higher education (college/uni's) or entry level jobs as soon as they leave school.
Maybe if people had to fend for themselves, I'm sure their attitudes would quickly change.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
The NHS is now totally different to the concept when created. It is a collosal drain on resources and needs to be re-addressed.
It should exist for those who cannot afford alteratives. Those who can should be encouraged through tax breaks to take Private Health Cover and the NHS should not indulge in cosmetic and other non-essential work.
The State is too cumbersome and is not working.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Republicanism is a cause I feel extremely strongly about and is something I have got up and protested for in the past. Many of those in favour of monarchy will readily tell you that 'If we had a choice, monarchy probably wouldn't be the system we'd go for'-so that being the case, why should we keep (and fund) it? Some here have criticised those who sponge off welfare and government money because they can't be bothered to do a day's 'proper work'. I ask you, what have the infalliable Royals *done* for this country which merits adoration from all parts of the media and Old Etonians in the House?
You will be told that hosting banquets, cutting ribbons, and greeting foreign guests is all part of a hard day's labour for HM. Since when did eating a very large meal qualify as a hard day's graft (John Clarke aside)? It does not. A good number of Royals have taken part in some kind of military service over the years-good on them, but what gives them any more right to praise than all the others putting their lives on the line all over the globe? A life full of luxury and privileges for having the surname Windsor-yes, Britain really can call itself a true modern democracy. Like it or not, the system we have now *is* an unchallenged dictatorship-the total opposite to what a democracy ought to be.
Heck, HM had to be coerced into paying tax in the early '90s-any other family that tried to avoid it for so long would've been chucked into prison a long time ago. Even now, this tax rate is of the Queen's choosing (what a system eh), and cannot be disclosed owing to their exemption from the FOI act (funny, that doesn't seem to apply to anything else costing substantial public money). The Royals are also allowed the right to refuse any Parliamentary bill if it interferes with their personal interests-they have yet to actually do this, but for such a right to exist on the accident of birth cannot surely be taken as fair in anyone's mind.
So, why do we keep them? You'll often hear 'But they bring in tourism', 'But they're a part of our history', 'But we'd need to rewrite the constitution', as common arguments. Well-where do you think Buckingham Palace features in the 'most visited' UK attractions? Below the likes of Alton Towers and Thorpe Park is where it is-and this is a building which the taxpayer funds to maintain. Imagine if the Palace were free for all to explore all year round-without a monarchy, it's likely that tourism would actually increase. The likes of Germany and France don't seem to struggle in this area, I might add. So, the 'history' argument-if everything that is 'historic' is good, then shall we reintroduce rationing, slavery, and feudalism? The monarchy is a total anachronism in this day and age and has no place in a country that wants to consider itself progressive.
What of the alternative? 'President Blair' would only be so if he were the person chosen by the electorate-and he was 3 times on the spin. Yes, the voters may not always make the 'right' decision-but that is why elected heads of state are accountable; if a leader performs poorly, they do not get back in. If the monarch has a total free ride for 60 years, the voter is powerless to do anything about it-because the constitution is written to give unwavering privilege to the Windsor line. The Crown Estates and duchies would be returned to the government (as the latter were appropriated from peasants in the first place), giving yet more strength to the public purse-or do we all actually want £200 million a year to go to the Windsors for no justifiable reason, over things like our beleagured NHS? Now more than ever, it is so wrong for these people to be bathing in luxury off the back of their surname whilst the majority struggle seriously hard to pay the bills-but even if they were not, it makes the system no less out of place.
The current system insinuates that 60 million people in the UK are unfit to choose, let alone become, the leader of their own country. By birth, you are guaranteed to be no better than some descendent of Victoria because a piece of paper says so. A man with no understanding of environmental science is given all the scientific clout he pleases because mummy is the Queen. The people of this country deserve so much better than to have this farce of a system imposed upon them-inherited privilege sparks scorn when it comes to snooty peers in the House of Lords, so why is HM any different? She is not-and her and the rest of her family have enjoyed so much at our expense 'because they're British'. The UK will never move forward until these tax avoiding parasites are removed from their position and an accountable, efficient, and elected leader is put in their place-for 5 years, rather than however long they feel like it.
/rant.
You will be told that hosting banquets, cutting ribbons, and greeting foreign guests is all part of a hard day's labour for HM. Since when did eating a very large meal qualify as a hard day's graft (John Clarke aside)? It does not. A good number of Royals have taken part in some kind of military service over the years-good on them, but what gives them any more right to praise than all the others putting their lives on the line all over the globe? A life full of luxury and privileges for having the surname Windsor-yes, Britain really can call itself a true modern democracy. Like it or not, the system we have now *is* an unchallenged dictatorship-the total opposite to what a democracy ought to be.
Heck, HM had to be coerced into paying tax in the early '90s-any other family that tried to avoid it for so long would've been chucked into prison a long time ago. Even now, this tax rate is of the Queen's choosing (what a system eh), and cannot be disclosed owing to their exemption from the FOI act (funny, that doesn't seem to apply to anything else costing substantial public money). The Royals are also allowed the right to refuse any Parliamentary bill if it interferes with their personal interests-they have yet to actually do this, but for such a right to exist on the accident of birth cannot surely be taken as fair in anyone's mind.
So, why do we keep them? You'll often hear 'But they bring in tourism', 'But they're a part of our history', 'But we'd need to rewrite the constitution', as common arguments. Well-where do you think Buckingham Palace features in the 'most visited' UK attractions? Below the likes of Alton Towers and Thorpe Park is where it is-and this is a building which the taxpayer funds to maintain. Imagine if the Palace were free for all to explore all year round-without a monarchy, it's likely that tourism would actually increase. The likes of Germany and France don't seem to struggle in this area, I might add. So, the 'history' argument-if everything that is 'historic' is good, then shall we reintroduce rationing, slavery, and feudalism? The monarchy is a total anachronism in this day and age and has no place in a country that wants to consider itself progressive.
What of the alternative? 'President Blair' would only be so if he were the person chosen by the electorate-and he was 3 times on the spin. Yes, the voters may not always make the 'right' decision-but that is why elected heads of state are accountable; if a leader performs poorly, they do not get back in. If the monarch has a total free ride for 60 years, the voter is powerless to do anything about it-because the constitution is written to give unwavering privilege to the Windsor line. The Crown Estates and duchies would be returned to the government (as the latter were appropriated from peasants in the first place), giving yet more strength to the public purse-or do we all actually want £200 million a year to go to the Windsors for no justifiable reason, over things like our beleagured NHS? Now more than ever, it is so wrong for these people to be bathing in luxury off the back of their surname whilst the majority struggle seriously hard to pay the bills-but even if they were not, it makes the system no less out of place.
The current system insinuates that 60 million people in the UK are unfit to choose, let alone become, the leader of their own country. By birth, you are guaranteed to be no better than some descendent of Victoria because a piece of paper says so. A man with no understanding of environmental science is given all the scientific clout he pleases because mummy is the Queen. The people of this country deserve so much better than to have this farce of a system imposed upon them-inherited privilege sparks scorn when it comes to snooty peers in the House of Lords, so why is HM any different? She is not-and her and the rest of her family have enjoyed so much at our expense 'because they're British'. The UK will never move forward until these tax avoiding parasites are removed from their position and an accountable, efficient, and elected leader is put in their place-for 5 years, rather than however long they feel like it.
/rant.
