Rioting students attack Royal car

[Furunculus]

The President doesn't need a wage higher than the Prime Minister or a higher consumption of resources. Why would he need one?

I never understood the argument that it would be somehow vastly more expensive. Please explain that to me.

i believe rory has beaten me to it.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I would start by using the example of every President in existence on the planet.

The president of Germany? Of Austria? Of Ireland? Of Switzerland?

The alternative for a hereditary monarchy for the UK is not a US / French style presidency. The more fitting solution is to remain a parliamentary democracy, with a ceremonial presidency. President David Attenborough is more likely than a president Blair, which is much more at odds with British political traditions.

In Switzerland they don't even know who their president is. Maybe that woman who claims she is, maybe one out of a rotating council of seven, maybe all of them simultaneously. The total costs are about 12,35 swiss Franks a year, for changing the name on the official national seal every year.

[lars573]

The president of Germany? Of Austria? Of Ireland? Of Switzerland?

The alternative for a hereditary monarchy for the UK is not a US / French style presidency. The more fitting solution is to remain a parliamentary democracy, with a ceremonial presidency. President David Attenborough is more likely than a president Blair, which is much more at odds with British political traditions.

In Switzerland they don't even know who their president is. Maybe that woman who claims she is, maybe one out of a rotating council of seven, maybe all of them simultaneously. The total costs are about 12,35 swiss Franks a year, for changing the name on the official national seal every year.

I think, Monsieur, their fear is that any president of Great Britain wouldn't remain in the German/Irish/Austrian mold for long. That some power hungry, smooth talking, Cromwell wannabe C-U-Next-Tuesday will come along and promulgate and act similar to the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, 1983. Where the powers of the offices of President and Prime Minister are combined into 1 office (for our purpose Lord Protector of the Commonwealth). And this new Lord Protector will be chosen in the same fashion as a Prime Minister, also weakening parliamentary authority over the government's actions.

[Furunculus]

The president of Germany? Of Austria? Of Ireland? Of Switzerland?

The alternative for a hereditary monarchy for the UK is not a US / French style presidency. The more fitting solution is to remain a parliamentary democracy, with a ceremonial presidency. President David Attenborough is more likely than a president Blair, which is much more at odds with British political traditions.

In Switzerland they don't even know who their president is. Maybe that woman who claims she is, maybe one out of a rotating council of seven, maybe all of them simultaneously. The total costs are about 12,35 swiss Franks a year, for changing the name on the official national seal every year.

not that i am disagreeing with the possibility, but were this to be the case how we would argue that the result was an improvement over that which we already have?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

All-in-all, I am beginning to suspect that Charles is not an auspicious name for British monarchs.

[Beskar]

not that i am disagreeing with the possibility, but were this to be the case how we would argue that the result was an improvement over that which we already have?

Abolish hereditary succession.

[Beskar]

All-in-all, I am beginning to suspect that Charles is not an auspicious name for British monarchs.

He will be King George (the VII) when crowned.

[Strike For The South]

He will be King George when crowned.

:O
.

[HoreTore]

not that i am disagreeing with the possibility, but were this to be the case how we would argue that the result was an improvement over that which we already have?

Because:

1. You would save a ton of money.
2. You would no longer have inbred hereditary dictators to represent you or interfere with your politics.

[Devastatin Dave]

Leaches tend to get very aggressive when the host starts to run out of blood...

[Louis VI the Fat]

Leaches tend to get very aggressive when the host starts to run out of blood...

Nah, they both looked too stunned and scared for that.

[Devastatin Dave]

Nah, they both looked too stunned and scared for that.

I'm sure Charles had a complete melt down when he went back to the palace. Whether its the Royal leaches or the "student" leaches, Britain is in big trouble and I hope all my American friends are taking note because its going to happen here soon enough. Getting your society addicted to entitlements sets a very dangerous condition whether it be from the citizens or the elites....

[rory_20_uk]

Your "Royals" have powers that those in the UK can only dream of.

[Furunculus]

Abolish hereditary succession.

what to replace them with a pointless German style figurehead........................?

show me how it will be a definitive improvement if you wish to persuade me to replace a system that works VERY well already.

having faith that; change for the purpose of being 'progressive' is by definition a good thing, is not a belief system that i adhere to.

[Furunculus]

Because:

1. You would save a ton of money.
2. You would no longer have inbred hereditary dictators to represent you or interfere with your politics.

1. rubbish. the royal family costs peanuts.
2. the system works VERY well, convince me that an alternative will prove to be a superior system.............?

[gaelic cowboy]

1. rubbish. the royal family costs peanuts.

Rubbish there getting millions of pounds when they have thousands and thousands of acres of land and properties they could use to make there own money.

figures in millions 2010 2009
The Queen's Civil List (figures are for calendar years 2009 and 2008) 14.2 13.9
Parliamentary Annuities 0.4 0.4
Grants-in-aid 19.7 22.6
Expenditure met directly by Government Departments and the Crown Estate 3.9 4.6

looks to me like there getting pots of cash for not a lot if you ask me apparently 38.2 million

official figures from the Monarchy website

[HoreTore]

Rubbish there getting millions of pounds when they have thousands and thousands of acres of land and properties they could use to make there own money.

figures in millions
The Queen's Civil List (figures are for calendar years 2009 and 2008) 14.2 13.9
Parliamentary Annuities 0.4 0.4
Grants-in-aid 19.7 22.6
Expenditure met directly by Government Departments and the Crown Estate 3.9 4.6

looks to me like there getting pots of cash for not a lot if you ask me.

Furunculus talks about how "low income people" are unable to understand the lives of "spoiled students", yet he refers to the luxury the royal family lives in as "peanuts"....

[Beskar]

show me how it will be a definitive improvement if you wish to persuade me to replace a system that works VERY well already.

having faith that; change for the purpose of being 'progressive' is by definition a good thing, is not a belief system that i adhere to.

Because others can do a better job. It should be the best person for the job, not because of who your parents are. I rather have some one who is good at the job than some one who only got it because their mother is the Queen.

[gaelic cowboy]

Because others can do a better job. It should be the best person for the job, not because of who your parents are. I rather have some one who is good at the job than some one who only got it because their mother is the Queen.

There is an argument for paying the Monarch big big money but why do the rest of them get anything????

[HoreTore]

Because others can do a better job. It should be the best person for the job, not because of who your parents are. I rather have some one who is good at the job than some one who only got it because their mother is the Queen.

Indeed.

If it is as the monarchists say, that the current regent is in fact the best qualified, then things will remain the same, as they'd win the election. The only way Elizabeth(or Victoria or whatever you call your queen these days) would be booted as head of state should there be an election, is if the public finds another candidate better suited to the job.

This way you can have your cake and eat it too: you'll both get your Queen as head of state and it will be because the public deems her the best qualified person for the job!

But as most monarchists reject this notion, it must be because they know that the current inbreds in power are rubbish.

There is an argument for paying the Monarch big big money but why do the rest of them get anything????

Because they are welfare leeches too lazy to get a job, thus relying on other peoples labour to feed them.

[Beskar]

There is an argument for paying the Monarch big big money but why do the rest of them get anything????

That is another point as well, on-top.

If it is as the monarchists say, that the current regent is in fact the best qualified, then things will remain the same, as they'd win the election. The only way Elizabeth(or Victoria or whatever you call your queen these days) would be booted as head of state should there be an election, is if the public finds another candidate better suited to the job..

Exactly, the current monarch isn't that bad. This is why I advocate reforming the system so when she dies naturally or retires, the new system then comes into effect. No point having a whole upheaval, as there is no pressing concerns to bring it in ASAP.

If Charles is really the best, he could run for the position as the first President of Great Britain. I have no issues with them lifting the ban on royals running for government (since they would no longer be royals).

[Furunculus]

Rubbish there getting millions of pounds when they have thousands and thousands of acres of land and properties they could use to make there own money.

figures in millions 2010 2009
The Queen's Civil List (figures are for calendar years 2009 and 2008) 14.2 13.9
Parliamentary Annuities 0.4 0.4
Grants-in-aid 19.7 22.6
Expenditure met directly by Government Departments and the Crown Estate 3.9 4.6

looks to me like there getting pots of cash for not a lot if you ask me apparently 38.2 million

official figures from the Monarchy website

that is peanuts, comparatively, so i am lead to believe.

then of course their is the disputed argument over the crown estates, and the £210m in revenue it brought in for the exchequer, which if you believe republic.org is really nothing more than the states money anyway, but others take the view that the revenue from the crown estates was surrendered to in return for the civil list.

http://www.moneyobserver.com/issue/f...state-unveiled
http://www.republic.org.uk/blog/?p=221
http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/tce_faqs.htm

frankly, i don't have a problem with it.

[HoreTore]

Exactly, the current monarch isn't that bad. This is why I advocate reforming the system so when she dies naturally or retires, the new system then comes into effect. No point having a whole upheaval, as there is no pressing concerns to bring it in ASAP.

If Charles is really the best, he could run for the position as the first President of Great Britain. I have no issues with them lifting the ban on royals running for government (since they would no longer be royals).

Another point is of course that you don't really need a president at all.

Appointing governments and such is a job your highest court of law is perfectly capable of performing.

[Beskar]

Another point is of course that you don't really need a president at all.

Appointing governments and such is a job your highest court of law is perfectly capable of performing.

Exactly, I have advocated previously just total removal. All you need to do is draw up a new constitution and have the High Court act like a Supreme Court (which it basically is) to rule on constitutional matters.

[Furunculus]

Furunculus talks about how "low income people" are unable to understand the lives of "spoiled students", yet he refers to the luxury the royal family lives in as "peanuts"....

compared to the cost of other heads of state?

Because others can do a better job. It should be the best person for the job, not because of who your parents are. I rather have some one who is good at the job than some one who only got it because their mother is the Queen.

define how, and provide a methodology that demonstrates how nations with presidents get better value for money and/or greater effect than britain's constitutional monarchy.............

Indeed.

If it is as the monarchists say, that the current regent is in fact the best qualified, then things will remain the same, as they'd win the election. The only way Elizabeth(or Victoria or whatever you call your queen these days) would be booted as head of state should there be an election, is if the public finds another candidate better suited to the job.

This way you can have your cake and eat it too: you'll both get your Queen as head of state and it will be because the public deems her the best qualified person for the job!

But as most monarchists reject this notion, it must be because they know that the current inbreds in power are rubbish.

as said earlier; having faith that change for the purpose of being 'progressive' is by definition a good thing, is not a belief system that i adhere to.

demonstrate unambiguously that the alternative would be better.

Exactly, the current monarch isn't that bad. This is why I advocate reforming the system so when she dies naturally or retires, the new system then comes into effect. No point having a whole upheaval, as there is no pressing concerns to bring it in ASAP.

If Charles is really the best, he could run for the position as the first President of Great Britain. I have no issues with them lifting the ban on royals running for government (since they would no longer be royals).

you advocate that, fair enough, show me a referendum where the majority vote in favour of the change and i will happily consent............

Exactly, I have advocated previously just total removal. All you need to do is draw up a new constitution and have the High Court act like a Supreme Court (which it basically is) to rule on constitutional matters.

fine, if that's how we want to run things....................... *waits patiently to the sound of chirping crickets*

[gaelic cowboy]

define how, and provide a methodology that demonstrates how nations with presidents get better value for money and/or greater effect than britain's constitutional monarchy.............

The Head of State can be removed if they were involved in a scandal but you cant remove a royal with out causing a constitutional crisis.
There you go that has to be better in this day and age.

[Furunculus]

The Head of State can be removed if they were involved in a scandal but you cant remove a royal with out causing a constitutional crisis.
There you go that has to be better in this day and age.

that would be fine provided the royal family held more than a ceremonial and diplomatic role.

what we have works VERY well, i see no need to change it.

[HoreTore]

compared to the cost of other heads of state?

Yes, compare it to the head of state of Germany, for example.

as said earlier; having faith that change for the purpose of being 'progressive' is by definition a good thing, is not a belief system that i adhere to.

If what you say is true, there would be no change at all with a democratic election.

But you want to retain your dictator because you know they're unqualified.

[Furunculus]

Yes, compare it to the head of state of Germany, for example.

If what you say is true, there would be no change at all with a democratic election.

But you want to retain your dictator because you know they're unqualified.

please do; provide a cost benefit analysis between the costs and revenues of the two systems.......?

not true at all, i am quite happy for change to happen if its demonstrated that it will be a better system..........?

again, not true, the queen is fantastically qualified to be a head of state.

[HoreTore]

again, not true, the queen is fantastically qualified to be a head of state.

Then she will win the election and you should want that, as it will be irrefutable proof that she is deemed qualified.