Rioting students attack Royal car

[Beskar]

We should have a republic anyway, and stop living in the past.

Also, the vast majority of students are not rioting, but peacefully protesting. So the police beating some one over the head tot he degree of them requiring brain surgery when they were not one of the rioters is a cause for concern.

[Furunculus]

We should have a republic anyway, and stop living in the past.

Also, the vast majority of students are not rioting, but peacefully protesting. So the police beating some one over the head tot he degree of them requiring brain surgery when they were not one of the rioters is a cause for concern.

you night think so, but i'm not looking forward to the alternative which is a much more expensive president blair. yes, yes, i know in your perfect world the president would cost 50p/year and be the embodiment of a saint and as wise as solomen, i'm not convinced however.

wot IA said, they're are supposed to have brains so why aren't they using them, the anarchists are a PR disaster for their cause. how sympathetic are the working minimum wage supposed to feel when they watch prize twits tarzan around the cenotaph and set fire to things.

[Husar]

they're are supposed to have brains

This topic really gets to you, doesn't it?

Of course you can make the students pay more, that usually leads to less students, more unemployed people because jobs other than those that require studies are already satisfied with workers and sooner or later your industry will whine that there are not enough people to fill out all the high profile jobs and hire people from abroad like India or China while you wonder how that can be with so many unemployed people and why the government doesn't do anything to get local people into these jobs.
I think finishing university with a loan isn't all that bad if you actually get a job that pays, of course if you don't, then everyone loses (the next big crisis after the education bubble burst? ).

[Beskar]

you night think so, but i'm not looking forward to the alternative which is a much more expensive president blair. yes, yes, i know in your perfect world the president would cost 50p/year and be the embodiment of a saint and as wise as solomen, i'm not convinced however.

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.

[rory_20_uk]

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

[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.

[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....

[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.