The 'Monarchy Question'? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Mucca Mad Boys
- Start date
Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
Out of 210+ countries? So about 1/4 of the world's countries... So the majority do not have monarchs, their epoch is over.
Jimmy Carr found that one out after his irreverent spot down at the Buck House Jamboree when the establishment went after him.
It took a couple of years of it to drive Gordon Brown from office ,something that Jeremy Vine still tries to dine out on for breaking the Bigot story.:jerkit::jerkit:
Houchens Head
Fairly well known member from Malvern
Houchens Head
Fairly well known member from Malvern
coundonskyblue
New Member
So on here we have people who want a republic, and also dislike Cameron. Which do you want then, Queen Elizabeth or President Cameron?
As for the cost, its been proven that a president costs more than a monarch.
As for the cost, its been proven that a president costs more than a monarch.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
The 'proof' depends on the nations you wish to compare. If Dave were the man elected leader (unlikely that he'd get it but still), I'd have no problem with it. Why? Because at least he'd be there by popular vote rather than surname.
deanocity3
New Member
President Nathen Cameron sounds better
Blue Maniac
Member
Bit heavy-going in here. I might run off back to the LCFC boards to talk about crisps or summat.
Johnnythespider
Well-Known Member
I don't want either, i was thinking President Boris 
coundonskyblue
New Member
Well Cameron, Brown, Blair, Thatcher all saw themselves as these great world leaders, swanning around the world, using Britains declining power to feed their own egos. Do you really think any of those politicians are going to be a small time president? They would want to be treated like Barrack Obarma (who certainly costs a lot more than the Queen).
Now I'm not an out & out monarchist, but I think we need to look at practicality rather than principle.
Do I think its right that I, or any of us can never be the head of state of the UK? No, in a democracy anyone should be able to become head of state.
If I was setting up a new country of course there would be no monarchy. But our monarchy brings in millions in revenue through tourism, the Queen and Duke are easily the hardest working members of the establishment, and it gives our country and identitiy.
In principle a country should be a republic. In practice however a monarchy in Britain works very well.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
I disagree with you so strongly I'm not meriting this a response.
coundonskyblue
New Member
Apart from that one
It's President Milliband that scares me
50p a year to keep nasel Ed away from head of state seems like good value for money to me!
I wonder how many of those who moan about the undemocraticness (is that a word?) of the monarchy bother to vote in local & national elections?
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Probably no different to the general voter apathy which is already prevalent.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
No many countries have military led dictatorships.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
We simply have a benevolent one.
Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
I don't low why people are saying 'President 'X'' sounds bad? At the end of the day whether David Cameron is PM or President, he still exercises power... President is just a title.
It was the word milliband that scared me. President is fine
The World is carved up by Multi-nationals and the G20 ,thats the reason no-one votes,It makes minimal difference to the outcome .
IF Eds not your type ,how about Evette Cooper,She'd trounce DC in a general election.
WillieStanley
New Member
Id go with President Elizabeth if she were elected. I wouldn't be happy about it, in the same way I'm not happy with DC4PM but the fact that the people voted for him gives him a right to his tenure. We also know that we have other options with different political ideals we can chose from next time.
coundonskyblue
New Member
See im a great believer in you only change something if its going to make it better. How will getting rid of the queen & replacing her with a politician make my life better?
WillieStanley
New Member
Because the voice which decides who the head of state is will include yours! That's got to be better, right?
WillieStanley
New Member
So would I, but if republicans don't stand now you can add another 30 or 40 on top of that
Disorganised1
New Member
Yeah - like we have so much ability to effect things now - who voted for a coalition ?
We give up our freedom for the right to mark a cross on a piece of paper once every 5 years. In reality government is decided by the few constituencies that actually can change. I've had Robinson for years as my MP ~ can anyone explain how that is a choice.
We give up our freedom for the right to mark a cross on a piece of paper once every 5 years. In reality government is decided by the few constituencies that actually can change. I've had Robinson for years as my MP ~ can anyone explain how that is a choice.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Economically speaking a lot more money would be going the public's way in a large part due to the duchies and Crown Estates being handed back to the state. Furthermore with places like the Palace being free to visit all year round, tourism would likely benefit and bring more money in to the UK. Why are you so in favour of having a hereditary leader? The idea that a Windsor is 'better' than 60 million people just because they are Windsors should have everyone's blood boiling-on the contrary, few here have a problem with it.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Because GR has been elected by his constituents.
Disorganised1
New Member
Yes very good - however I meant that there have been many questions over Mr Robinson's activities down the years, yet he has still been elected - I am saying that in most seats the winner is known in advance, thus Tony Blair's son being lined up for a Coventry seat.
The conservative party wins more votes than Labour, but comes second, the Liberal Democrats would have more seats if PR was introduced, my point is that for the majority of us, we do not have any influence on who is elected ~ so where is trhe democracy ?
The conservative party wins more votes than Labour, but comes second, the Liberal Democrats would have more seats if PR was introduced, my point is that for the majority of us, we do not have any influence on who is elected ~ so where is trhe democracy ?
jimmyhillsfanclub
Well-Known Member
Voting is pointless.....
Mainly due the fact that even if you do effect a change of MP.....its just swapping one ex-public school boy with a silver spoon in his mouth for another....they just wear different colour ties....
....Ideology died in the 1980's.....
Now, we have a "choice" of 3 parties of bland over-privileged political class yes-men who have never had a proper job or lived in the real world since the day they were born (into the lap of luxury).
Tories, Labour, Lib Dems.....Same set of lying rich bastards with different colour ties.:jerkit:
Mainly due the fact that even if you do effect a change of MP.....its just swapping one ex-public school boy with a silver spoon in his mouth for another....they just wear different colour ties....
....Ideology died in the 1980's.....
Now, we have a "choice" of 3 parties of bland over-privileged political class yes-men who have never had a proper job or lived in the real world since the day they were born (into the lap of luxury).
Tories, Labour, Lib Dems.....Same set of lying rich bastards with different colour ties.:jerkit:
You can t really make people's blood boil though can you? Like you can t force your opinion on others. There are lots of things that make my blood boil that you would probably not have a problem with. Everyone is different, for now at least
