You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
The rf, like the church are very good at telling people what to do whilst doing nothing themselves. Like the rf, the church has been remarkably quiet on how it gould use domebof it £1bn a year revenue to help the vulnerable. I’m sure individual congregations are spending thier own money doing things but not the church.
One and the same...
EDIT: Which does raise other questions...
I watched it last night 'cos SWMBO wanted to watch it. Wasn't expecting much but I thought it was spot on.
I'd much rather the head of state was an apolitical hereditary monarch than, Boris or any other politician.
To be fair, she didn’t actually say anything like that, she said
“That the attributes of self-discipline, of quiet good-humoured resolve and of fellow-feeling still characterise this country.”
Sorry, but that sounds like stiff upper lip bullshit to me.
Wasn’t expecting much but I thought it was spot on.
So very very very rich women has good speech writer, great.
I find it a bit weird that the Queen manages to be both Supreme Governor of the Church of England and Commander in Chief of The British (along with several other) Armed forces
‘Thou shalt not kill’ (unless there’s oil)
If you look back there is a tradition of warrior monks running through British Christianity from it's earliest days, it only faded out in the late middle ages
I’d much rather the head of state was an apolitical hereditary monarch than, Boris or any other politician.
In today's celebrity culture how would we choose one? The continuity of the current lot leads to a different way of operating as compared to someone who is elected.
My view is that it's a least worst solution. Selling off etc is like trying to rewind to 1065, it's not going to happen
I didn't watch it, don't intend to, it has little relevance to my day to day life
In today’s celebrity culture how would we choose one?
I’d chose at random from the whole population, anyone from 30 to 60 years old. For a five year term.
Why do we need one? The Queen does **** all anyway
She lives in harness and she'll die in harness - I wouldn't choose it.
But as an oldie herself a very clear message to other oldies, with their secure pensions and the concept of furlough and the future raised taxes to pay for all this something that is happening to other people
Except not all oldies have financially secure pensions, remember in the winter some have to choose to heat their homes or eat. Oldies do pay tax, they pay tax on savings and goods they purchase.
People saying turn Buckingham Palace into a hospital are likely the same group who object to the palace being maintained and why some parts of it are reportedly in disrepair!
I'm neither pro or anti the Royal Family, but my belief is the Royal Family benefit not only our country but others with their charitable work.
Isn’t she essentially appointed by God?
There is no such thing as God.
the Royal Family benefit not only our country but others with their charitable work.
So did Jimmy Saville.
So did Jimmy Saville.
I'll leave this one to JHJ...
I’ll leave this one to JHJ…
You mean BMS?
<blockquoteIf I was a millionaire with several properties I would be doing a dam sight more for the effort.
Just like Tim Martin, Richard Branson, Phillip Green, Mike Ashley, and all those Bankers and Hedge Fund Managers are doing.
You mean BMS?
Call me Tom if you prefer, despite my ranting on here, I'm mostly pretty affable in the real world.
Call me Tom if you prefer,
So are JHJ or not? Makes you think.
Give Betty a brake she is putting in a double shift this year with Christmas and April tv appearances.
She lives in harness and she’ll die in harness – I wouldn’t choose it.
She's actually being controlled by the corgis.
I don't particularly care for the royals, but it's beyond me why anyone would question their role or relevance at a time like we are in right now . Who cares about their relevance to an individual that doesn't like them when their words mean so much to those that do.
Get a grip and get on with dealing your own lives and stop hating on others.
Get a grip and get on with dealing your own lives and stop hating on others.
I dont hate the queen or charlie or any of the others but I do hate the concept of royalty, if you dont think having a conversation about it is appropriate maybe dont get involved and ""stop hating" on those who are capable of having a conversation.
it’s beyond me why anyone would question their role or relevance at a time like we are in right now
Because she just poked her head out of the palace to tell us what to do.
If I got the royal gig, I certainly wouldn't say no!
Imagine never going on Ryanair or into a McDonalds again
I don’t particularly care for the royals, but it’s beyond me why anyone would question their role or relevance at a time like we are in right now . Who cares about their relevance to an individual that doesn’t like them when their words mean so much to those that do.
That's a pretty good point. Yesterday's pep talk was the most visibly useful thing she's done in years (AFAIC).
Anyone really desperate for Boris to take over the job is picking a pretty weird time to bring it up.
Because she just poked her head out of the palace to tell us what to do.
Well no, she poked her head out to speak to the people that wanted to listen to her and might just heed her words.
Why do we need one? The Queen does **** all anyway
If I got the royal gig, I certainly wouldn’t say no!
Imagine never going on Ryanair or into a McDonalds again
I think this perfectly encapsulates why the current system works.
As Douglas Addams put it:
It is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it... anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.
The whole British constitution (do we have one yet or not?) is based on someone sitting in Buckingham Palace with almost dictatorial levels of power, but doing nothing with it.
I'm not a fan of royalty and hereditary privilege. I'd set inheritance tax at 100%, but as a system of government it's a work of genius.
Because she just poked her head out of the palace to tell us what to do.
She told those that wanted to listen. Listening to royals is not compulsory (anymore)
Listening to royals is not compulsory (anymore)
Not so, the wife made me watch it.
...glad I did, it had the desired effect and pepped me up a fair bit.
as a system of government it’s a work of genius.
She quite literally does nothing if she ever did we'd have a full blown constitutional crisis.
Listening to royals is not compulsory (anymore)
But being subjugated and giving her our money is though.
Except not all oldies have financially secure pensions, remember in the winter some have to choose to heat their homes or eat
My point was that whilst there are oldies with a range of personal wealth this whole mess is not having a huge financial impact on them. Their state pension remains triple locked and whilst a retail index linked final salary pension is a distant dream for much of the current workforce it is the deal many of them retired on. The nation is locked to our homes this Monday which is not a huge difference for much of 70+ brigade but is to the average person of working age who probably didn’t want to go to work but had to for boring income purposes.
The boomers might be frightened right now but they are going to owe the millennials one if we all get through this (I am neither a boomer or a millennial). And the world’s most famous oldie probably should use her stage to make that point.
The whole British constitution is based on someone sitting in Buckingham Palace with almost dictatorial levels of power, but doing nothing with it.
This
I know we've had the longevity of someone being there for 70 years, staying out of politics, and it may all change when the next generation take over. But at the moment, it works. Jeez, if you look at the way American works where people spend billions to get a job that pays $400k a year.
I'm not saying it's perfect, but it's not doing badly in my eyes. And I do personally think there are more important things to worry about at the moment
I know we’ve had the longevity of someone being there for 70 years, staying out of politics, and it may all change when the next generation take over. But at the moment, it works.
At the moment it works, but what happens when one of the half-witted inbred descendants takes power and starts using it in a less benign way? The only reason that people like the RF these days is that they don’t do anything. Even Victoria had people trying to assassinate her.
But at the moment, it works
By her doing nothing at all so why do we need royalty and all it stands for?
But at the moment, it works
By her doing nothing at all so why do we need royalty and all it stands for?
By ‘it works’ I mean ‘that’s why people love ‘em’. I’m very much not a royalist, but the fact that they don’t do anything controversial - like leading invasions of third world countries, or chopping people’s heads off - means that a lot of people love ‘em. Who doesn’t love an occasion? And what about another royal baby to love? Can’t stand it all, myself.
but the fact that they don’t do anything controversial
Like being accused of being peados, whilst being good friends with convicted peados?
Fair point, a_a, but you’re just being argumentative for the sake of it.
Paedo btw.
The thing is A-A, as I said, I don't have much time for them on the whole and on another day, in another life I would agree with you wholeheartedly about the Royals' place in modern UK. But right now I think they have a place and will (hopefully) have reached a few people with that speech last night.
I'd happily buy her a pint after all this is over. Good on you ma'am.
In today’s celebrity culture how would we choose one?
TV show presented by Ant & Dec where desperate members of the public have to perform royal duties and get yelled at by Allan Sugar or Gordon Ramsey. Winner gets to be monarch for a year and then fade in to obscurity or get a job on QVC.
If I got the royal gig, I certainly wouldn’t say no!
Imagine never going on Ryanair or into a McDonalds again
Pretend visits to Pizza Express in Woking are mandatory though
Paedo btw.
Indeed
I'm not being argumentative for the sake of iy, I genuinely dont get why people think having a head of state who does nothing in this role is needed. Someone always trots out yeah but the yanks have trump like thats an argument, yes trump is a much bigger asshat but if we were a republic why would we need to replace royalty?
She quite literally does nothing if she ever did we’d have a full blown constitutional crisis.
By her doing nothing at all so why do we need royalty and all it stands for?
Which is exactly my point.
Even in a democracy you need some nominal person to call elections and officiate them, otherwise you just end up with whoever's in power proclaiming "I fancy another 5 years". E.g. Russia, or Zimbabwe where the incumbent just re-writes the constitution whenever they need to.
Whereas we've settled on a system where someone with absolute power over the democratic part, choses not to use it by convention.
You could invest all that power in Black Rod or someone, but I'd argue that's riskier than hereditary monarchy. Or you could create a president, but then you've just created another part of government with the same powers as the monarchy, when the house of Commons / Cabinet / Prime Minister generally does a reasonable job of it currently.
At the moment it works, but what happens when one of the half-witted inbred descendants takes power and starts using it in a less benign way? The only reason that people like the RF these days is that they don’t do anything. Even Victoria had people trying to assassinate her.
I think the precedent is that we chop off their head.
Even in a democracy you need some nominal person to call elections and officiate them
Why? Does the queen officiate our elections, we have one when the government and or parliament want one Queen just says OK, so I'll ask again, why do we need that?
Even in a democracy you need some nominal person to call elections and officiate them
What happens in France? Or the US? Or Ireland? Or Italy? Or Spain? Or Turkey? Do they summon up a monarch to do that job?
What happens in France? Or the US? Or Ireland? Or Italy? Or Spain? Or Turkey? Do they summon up a monarch to do that job?
Well they have a president, most presidents and prime ministers but yankland only has one dont they?
why dont we privatise the royals?
If she really cared for her people she would disband the monarchy and all it’s money and assets be sold and made to benefit the under privileged.
And if you think that would happen, then you’re really deluded! What would actually happen is that all those assets, which are actually owned by the British public, and are held in trust by HM, would be bought up by the global billionaire kleptocracy, from Russia and China, and the properties would become empty, deteriorating ghosts sitting abandoned, like many are already around London, and those working on them, maintaining them, working on the farms, etc, would be kicked off and forced to find work and accommodations elsewhere.
The Civil List was changed a few years back, it was the case, and had been since the time of Charles II IIRC, that all the income from the Royal Holdings was paid to the Treasury, and a smaller sum given back to HM as the Civil List, the difference being in the Oder of some millions of pounds. Certainly the Treasury got a very good deal out of it. I can’t remember the exact figures, but I’m pretty sure anyone could easily do the research via Google if they could be bothered, instead of ranting about it.
Certainly, if you were to look at the cost of electing and maintaining a Presidency it would be a lot higher than our Monarchy costs - HM is quite extraordinarily frugal when it comes to running the various households, my mum used to work with a woman who got the job as head housekeeper at Windsor Castle, and was shown round by her, getting to see parts of a Royal Household that most people never get to see, and the lengths that HM goes to to save money.
if you were to look at the cost of electing and maintaining a Presidency
Why bother with democracy at all. Just let the Great and Good sort it out on our behalf.
Why bother with democracy at all. Just let the Great and Good sort it out on our behalf.
You’ve been reading the Conservative manifesto again? 😁
HM is quite extraordinarily frugal when it comes to running the various households
Yep extraordinarily frugal!
According to the latest Sovereign Grant accounts that were published last week, taxpayers in the UK are forking over more money than ever for the Royal Family. The monarchy cost £67 million ($86 million) in 2018-19, a 41% increase on the previous financial year.
And a presidency would obviously cost more
Costs associated with the running of the Office of the President have started to significantly rise in recent years, with the seven-year Presidency of Michael D Higgins now looking set to be at least €30m, the Sunday Independent can reveal.
A head of state is required. Do you really want Boris as our head of state? We could have a ceremonial president, but they'd still need a grand place to entertain people in. Yes the monarchy is a bizarre institution, but electing a head of state would come with its own price, both financial and the risk that some total pillock who happens to be popular at the time would win, and it would almost inevitably become politicized. President Farrage anyone! I used to be fiercely anti-monarchist and am not a big fan of the current crop, but a slimmed down royal family would at least be more likely to remain apolitical.
A head of state is required. Do you really want Boris as our head of state?
But if the queen simply rubber stamps everything and says yes why do we need that? People just keep repeating that its because we do but I dont see why. The fact that in the last 70 years constitutionally shes done nothing says it all, why do we need royals or a president. The government is in charge and the royals are nothing but a side show.
President Farrage - unlikely.
President Attenborough - shoe in.
why dont we privatise the royals?
They’d start turning up late for events or not turn up at all and somehow still charge more each year. Clothing and bling jewellery would fall in to disrepair and not be replaced.
why dont we privatise the royals?
It already is.
The Civil List was changed a few years back, it was the case, and had been since the time of Charles II IIRC, that all the income from the Royal Holdings was paid to the Treasury, and a smaller sum given back to HM as the Civil List, the difference being in the Oder of some millions of pounds. Certainly the Treasury got a very good deal out of i
Incorrect. The civil list first got created for George III. Up until that point he was responsible for the financial costs of running the country. The civil list handed over the revenue in return for not having that responsibility. Rather obviously this was not a good deal for everyone else in the country. Since even then it didnt come close.
The latest change was by Osborne who decided to hand over even more money. needless to say still not a good deal for the taxpayer.
Incidentally one of the most amusing things about Harry and Megan is after years and years of security costs being excluded from the bill the taxpayer gets with the daily hate skipping over it with comments about cant say because it would compromise security we are suddenly getting pages and pages of outrage about how high the bill is for those two.
I would agree she is rather frugal especially when paying staff.
As for this stuff about "Johnson being head of state". For all intents and purposes he is. He is the one who attends all the important meetings not the queen.
Perhaps with an elected head of state we would solve all the messy questions around being PM as well and how much power sits in that office with no firm definition of how it is applied thanks to the royal prerogative.
Yep extraordinarily frugal!
According to the latest Sovereign Grant accounts that were published last week, taxpayers in the UK are forking over more money than ever for the Royal Family. The monarchy cost £67 million ($86 million) in 2018-19, a 41% increase on the previous financial year.
Then a single Premiership footballer can be paid how much a year....
Then a single Premiership footballer can be paid how much a year….
A worker in a free market and competing in a pure meritocracy.
Then a single Premiership footballer can be paid how much a year…
What’s that got to do with anything other than football?
Then a single Premiership footballer can be paid how much a year….
Classic whataboutery, how is that relevant?
Well they have a president, most presidents and prime ministers but yankland only has one dont they?
They have leaders of the houses.
But if the queen simply rubber stamps everything and says yes why do we need that? People just keep repeating that its because we do but I dont see why. The fact that in the last 70 years constitutionally shes done nothing says it all, why do we need royals or a president. The government is in charge and the royals are nothing but a side show.
Tied into the point above, what you end up with is two branches of government in deadlock. US Presidents get 2 years to achieve anything, then the mid term elections take place and almost inevitably castrate their ability to get anything done. So you only get effective government half the time, hence why they're always struggling to pass budgets.
If you elected a head of state to replace the queen they'd be elected, which means they'd have mandate, which would mean they'd probably opt not to sign anything the opposition in the Commons put in front of them.
Then you end up with the US system where the President can basically act unilaterally via decree's, which then stand until challenged in the courts, usual against hundred year old clauses in the constitution because that's how slow their government works. and it generally works fine as most presidents are like our Monarchy and don't go around writing a new decree every week and pardoning/commuting prisoners and instead work through Congress and Senate.
They you get someone like Trump elected and convention goes out the window.
If you elected a head of state to replace the queen they’d be elected, which means they’d have mandate, which would mean they’d probably opt not to sign anything the opposition in the Commons put in front of them.
Republic of Ireland seems to manage just fine
Republic of Ireland seems to manage just fine
But some of the other examples in the list up there include:
US - Trump
Italy - Berlusconi
Turkey - Erdogan
Is Liz really that bad?
We've got a system that delivers functioning middle of the spectrum governments, why mess with it?
Classic whataboutery, how is that relevant?
The Queen isn't that bad value?
I think the Head of State should be a constitutional role - entertaining foreign dignitaries etc. shouldn't fall to a partisan position.
I'm in favour of moving to a constitutional president, with much the same "powers" as the Monarch. Doubt it will happen in my lifetime though...
That Trump is an oaf is not a valid reason for a monarchy
Classic whataboutery, how is that relevant?
The Queen isn’t that bad value?
I cannot see how a footballers pay affects me, my taxes arent paying them I dont watch them, they dont affect me and I'm not one of their subjects and they dont rubber stamp any laws so how are comparisons valid?
If you elected a head of state to replace the queen they’d be elected, which means they’d have mandate
I still cannot grasp why we need to, she has no role constitutionally as she has literally done nothing with her power in 70 years. I accept Royals do other stuff but as far as parliament is concerned she's an irrelevance. The Speaker has more power and look how Bercow was treated when he used it. I am not being just argumentative but I dont see why if we got rid of a role thats done nothing for 70 years (when was the last time a monarch said no to parliament anyway?) Why we'd suffer.
We’ve got a system that delivers functioning middle of the spectrum governments, why mess with it?
Because having one family held above all others due to an accident of birth is wrong and sends out all the wrong messages about how society should be IMO of course.
I cannot see how a footballers pay affects me, my taxes arent paying them I dont watch them
Your Sky subscription (or Amazon, or BT) is paying for them.
The Monarchy costs us a quid each per year - maybe £3 or 4 if you just pick economically active people.
Because having one family held above all others due to an accident of birth is wrong and sends out all the wrong messages about how society should be IMO of course.
I agree with this sentiment.
Your Sky subscription (or Amazon, or BT) is paying for them.
Dont subscribe to any of those and if I did that would be my choice.
The Monarchy costs us a quid each per year – maybe £3 or 4 if you just pick economically active people.
£4 each which could be spent on something useful like nhs, schools or green energy or Army, Navy whatever.
The Monarchy costs us a quid each per year – maybe £3 or 4 if you just pick economically active people.
Not even that. 69p per tax payer last year.
Sounds cheap. But what about all their wealth and land? If that was ‘ours’ what would its value to us all be? Why and how is it theirs not ours? What is our attitude towards the heads of state of other nations that hoard wealth for themselves, and still take money from tax payers?
£4 each which could be spent on something useful like nhs, schools or green energy or Army, Navy whatever.
You've already said the ceremonial role is required, how much do you think it will cost to disband the current lot and build a new "Office of the President" ?
Not to mention the wasted opportunity costs of spending all that parliamentary time when they could be doing something else useful.
You’ve already said the ceremonial role is required,
Not sure I have tbh, but the Irish presidents soaring costs I posted about about 1/7th of what the royals cost werent they?
Not to mention the wasted opportunity costs of spending all that parliamentary time when they could be doing something else useful.
Depends what you think is useful and this is just another whataboutery argument.
I think you're stretching the whataboutery definition.
You want to get rid. This is constitutional change.
Constitutional change will require parliamentary discussion and probably another referendum. Have we really got time considering the replacement function will need to do largely the same role?
Have we really got time considering the replacement function will need to do largely the same role?
What? Nothing?
Clearly nows not a good time, but I dont think it being a bit tricky is an argument against doing it. If we can "get bexit done" we could easily get rid of the Monarchy.
Have we really got time considering the replacement function will need to do largely the same role
Maybe a society where the head of state can be a catholic, Muslim , Jew, Hindu or atheist, not a direct descendant of the previous holder is worth a bit of time. Obviously those are the legal bars, don’t expect a BAME monarch any time soon.
Hang on.
If the replacement function has powers, which it does, then why does it lie in the hands of someone born into a single family. If, as monarchist argue, the role is ceremonial then there are no powers to transfer to the replacement function
Quite, I dont understand on a fundamental level why we would need to replace them.
Maybe a society where the head of state can be a catholic, Muslim , Jew, Hindu or atheist, not a direct descendant of the previous holder is worth a bit of time. Obviously those are the legal bars, don’t expect a BAME monarch any time soon.
Yup - I'd vote for that*.
* unless "that" involves the murder of everybody ahead of baby Archie in the queue, I think that's probably a step too far.
If we can “get bexit done” we could easily get rid of the Monarchy.
🙂
Quite, I dont understand on a fundamental level why we would need to replace them.
Do you accept the need for the position "Head Of State"?
Because the Monarchy still has lots of powers, The current one chooses not to use them. For example, the Prime Minister is appointed by the Queen. Parliament can only be dissolved by the Queen. The military reports to the Queen. There is nothing is law stopping the Queen from dissolving parliament and/or refusing to allow the winner of the general election to take office and taking us back to pre parliament days. There is nothing in law stopping the Queen from using the military to do anything she wants. The only reason she doesnt is convention and the inevitable crisis that would be bad for the royal gravy train.
Quite, I dont understand on a fundamental level why we would need to replace them.
Because they do have all sorts of powers.
Which was my point several pages back, we've settled on a genius system that puts all the power in the hands of someone who wont use it.
That it basicly costs nothing and can largely be completely ignored by everyone who doesnt know or want to know what all the grandkids are called is a bonus.
You could re-write all the procedures so the PM didn't have to ask for permisons to do X, Y or Z. But then who gets to formally officiate over that? The PM? What if he loses a vote in the Commons and decides to do something anyway? The monarch is just a convenient mechanism to approve things.
You could vote in a president with the same powers, but that just seems like more of a risk.
What’s that got to do with anything other than football?
Classic whataboutery, how is that relevant?
Okay then, let's look at it another way then. It costs the police around £48m a year to police football matches, with only around £5.5m recoverable from football clubs.
So your tax £s going directly on footie whether you like it or not.
Because the Monarchy still has lots of powers, The current one chooses not to use them
So whats the point? You all keep saying the same thing.
The only reason she doesnt is convention and the inevitable crisis that would be bad for the royal gravy train.
Do you accept the need for the position “Head Of State”?
Not really no, we currently are getting by with one that has done nothing for 70 years other than say yes, when was the last time one said no?
Okay then, let’s look at it another way then. It costs the police around £48m a year to police football matches, with only around £5.5m recoverable from football clubs.
So your tax £s going directly on footie whether you like it or not.
No thats indirectly on footie, the police do it to maintain law and order, thats their role, I see nothing wrong with football as such other than its dull so I cannot see how footballers being paid lots is similar to the concept of royalty. Ones wrong, the other I find boring.
No thats indirectly on footie, the police do it to maintain law and order, thats their role, I see nothing wrong with football as such other than its dull so I cannot see how footballers being paid lots is similar to the concept of royalty. Ones wrong, the other I find boring.
So you don't mind paying taxes to police football because it's only boring? I think I understand you.