Hamlet
Manic Depressive
What do you think?
Constitutional future of Britain
- Thread starter Hamlet
- Start date
I ask out of pure lack of knowledge: Is there a big push to get rid of them from the government? I mean, further than they already are?
I figure it will stay around for quite a while longer, but that is just a gut opinion, I have no real basis for making it.
I figure it will stay around for quite a while longer, but that is just a gut opinion, I have no real basis for making it.
I think the Monarchy is too much a fact of life in Britain. It may be scaled back somewhat like the Swedish or Spanish models, but it'll stay. In a country that developed its entire legal and political system on the concept of precedent, I think the monarchy is too much a part of the plumbing to go away. The republican precedent in English/British history is not too inspiring....
Hamlet
Manic Depressive
No, none of the major political parties advocate getting rid of them. Yet.
Hamlet
Manic Depressive
Cromwell wasn't too bad. Save from being overly religious, he was a good statesman and soldier. He beat The Dutch, The Scottish and The Irish, for starters. Certainly made his point regarding an insitution that had gone unchallenged politically for hunderds of years, sigh.
Thorgalaeg
Deity
Frankly, dear, I don't
give a damn.
give a damn.
Hamlet
Manic Depressive
Aside from the fact that they cost £80 Million (I think that's about $120 Million) a year to finance, and the terrible way in which they conduct themselves, it's mostly principle. Damn good, meritocratic, democratic ones, too.
I knew there was a cost, I just wasn't sure how much it was. What does that buy you? ....Uh perhaps I should ask what that is supposed to buy you.
Also, is that just Pound outlay, or is part of that represented by special tax breaks? For instance, are there taxes on Buckingham palace, or are they waived?
Also, is that just Pound outlay, or is part of that represented by special tax breaks? For instance, are there taxes on Buckingham palace, or are they waived?
Hamlet
Manic Depressive
Bugger all, as far as I'm aware.
God knows. Ask the government.
That's the money that they recieve per annum. They have been, until recently, totally exempt from taxation.
The Monarch is the Head of State, whilst the PM is the Head of Government. In the US these two titles form into one, in the shape of The President. Essentially The Head of Government runs the Government (Surprise, surprise) and The Head of state oversees constitutional aspects, such as disolving parliament, etc, and performs ceremonial tasks.
The Monarch has no political power, and is simply a figurehead, basically. Even those powers which the monarch does have are mostly excercised on the advice of the PM/Government, such as declaring war, appointing ministers, etc.
All major political and policy decisions are taken by The Cabinet, (theoretically) which forms the most senior ministers and The PM. In theory it is not a 'one man shooting match' like in The US, with The President, and although the PM's position has become increasingly important over that of cabinet's, The PM still needs the support of his/her senior ministers to survive, (As evidenced by Margaret Thatcher's downfall) as The PM is both part of The legislature and Head of their respective party.
Elections to The Commons must take place at least every 5 years, or earlier if the Government decides to declare a fresh one. The Monarch then 'invites' the leader of the largest political party in The Commons to form a government.
Any idea if that money pays for the security? Of course the payment for the guards that don't move could be considered an investment in tourism.
It does seem like a lot of money to pay for a national soap opera.
What if they eliminated the money, but kept the duties and ceremony? Would that be enough, or would principle demand that they be removed entirely from any official capacity?
It does seem like a lot of money to pay for a national soap opera.
What if they eliminated the money, but kept the duties and ceremony? Would that be enough, or would principle demand that they be removed entirely from any official capacity?
Hamlet
Manic Depressive
I believe so.
Possibly.
It does indeed.
Certainly not for me. The money aspect is persuasive, but for me not the deciding thing. I'm completely opposed to the thing in principle. Anything that has no democratic value has no place in modern society.
Blackadder
Rooted to the spot
Now thats not completely true. The queen acts like an overpriced ambassodor, going to countries in the Commonwealth and other nations for free holidays.
Still, our prime-minister (or since he doesn't like the monarchy, should that be future President
) goes about to places of political interest and talks about all the great things Britain, His nation, can do for the world. Oh that reminds me, where is our beloved Prime-minister right now? How is transport in Britain? Have we suddenly become a world power? We are a commercial people, not a war-like nation, sending troops all over the world. We barely have enough policemen for crying out loud!As for the monarchy, the choice is this : Either give them complete power or allow them royal status in name only. If we get rid of them, it will only be met with opposition.
P.S How much would a president cost the British people?
CurtSibling
ENEMY ACE™
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2001
- Messages
- 29,455
Originally posted by Cylore
How does the gov't work in England now, with both the PM and the Monarch? I've been thinking that the PM handles foreign affairs mostly and the Monarch handles domestic? That's how it seems, but...? How does Parliment fit in?
/me as no idea
Haw Haw!
The UK Monarchy is merely a fugurehead,
and a rather outmoded and expensive one too.
Power here lies with the parliaments in England and Scotland.
I find your above comment amusing, It's like saying:
"Is there still old men in wigs running America?"
No offence but;
Please learn about the world!
CurtSibling
ENEMY ACE™
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2001
- Messages
- 29,455
Does anyone give a damn about Spain, except holiday goers?
Probably not...
Hamlet
Manic Depressive
Originally posted by Blackadder
Now thats not completely true. The queen acts like an overpriced ambassodor, going to countries in the Commonwealth and other nations for free holidays.
The Queen is an overpriced ambassador, fs.
There isn't much evidence to suggest that.
Originally posted by Blackadder
should that be future President
I'd prefer him representing our country than Mad Lizzie. Not sure about his self-apointed 'US ambassador to the world' title, though.
So you resent him trying to bring stability to Asia or something?
I doubt it would make any difference whether Blair is sitting at Westminster all the time or no. Unless you want to do possibly the most tiring job in The UK? Thought not.
Will it? As far as I remember, the majority of people were apathetical about it.
A far lot less than 80 Million, I'd wager. The PM isn't even payed a quarter of a million each year. You work it out. One person doing a good job Vs A load of money grabbers.
To be fair, a president will cost more than just his or her salary. You'll still need the security and the staff and all of the travel expenses. There's probably a host of other costs too. Not that this is a reason not to have one, but don't think that it will only cost 1/4 million a year.
As for the Gone With the Wind Quote, he left out the word "My," but don't blast all of Spain because of his one post.
As for the Gone With the Wind Quote, he left out the word "My," but don't blast all of Spain because of his one post.
Hamlet
Manic Depressive
Granted, although it will be only paying one politician, and providing security, expenses for him/her. The Queen gets 7.6 million in salary alone, fs. I can't believe for one moment that it would be anywhere near the total amount that is used on The Royal family at present, in any case.
Similar threads
