5 ms·

> They are politically irrelevant, a few completely peripheral procedural and technical issues aside that make no real difference in the grand scheme of things.

> They are politically irrelevant, a few completely peripheral procedural and technical issues aside that make no real difference in the grand scheme of things. At the very least they own huge parts of the country, and the Queen has (and exercises as per recent Guardian stories) vetos and opt-outs of the laws the rest of us must follow. Regardless of that, even as a basic principle our country reeks of deference and class.

arlort 4y ago
> they own huge parts of the country And they would keep owning them if they were made to abdicate
- basisword 4y ago
  Only if we let them.
  - simonh 4y ago
    We could always confiscate your property while we're at it. Every little helps. After all there can be few on this forum that aren't in the upper decile of wealth globally. Property is theft! (er, kidding in case that wasn't obvious)
    - nicoburns 4y ago
      The more pressing issue with land ownership in the UK is that we don't even know who owns large chunks of it.
      - MockObject 4y ago
        American here. How is that a pressing issue?
        dane-pgp 4y ago
        It makes it harder to introduce a land value tax, I guess?
        eadmund 4y ago
        Does it? Seems like if the State doesn't know who owns a piece of land, it can just auction it off.
        dane-pgp 4y ago
        If the state were so keen to serve the interests of the public, it would have auctioned off this land already, regardless of whether a land value tax had popular support. I suppose I'm hoping that if people knew who really owned the country, and who would be the winners and losers of a LVT, there would be such strong support for one that it would be politically untenable to oppose it.
        MockObject 4y ago
        If the state really doesn't know who owns a piece of land, what's stopping someone from squatting? Wouldn't the owner have to prove ownership to the state, to activate law enforcement?
p10jkle 4y ago
They get 25% of crown estate profits, but I’m not sure they really ‘own’ that land per se. And in general, the elite own a huge amount of the UK (most notably Oxbridge colleges with incredible land ownership). We can make a case to take ‘back’ the Queen’s private or crown estate land, but why just them? IMO, casting judgement on what historic ownership is ‘rightful’ is really hard.
- kcartlidge 4y ago
  We'd struggle to fairly take it back; probably not even worth trying. And whilst I never said so specifically I presumed it apparent that I never meant just the Queen. I accept I could have been clearer (sorry). The first steps might be: - An end to the honours system (entirely - even though many 'commoners' get them now it perpetuates the class concepts) - Fair and universal application of inheritance tax to reduce the inequalities over the generations - The taxation of assets (beyond a certain point so that people don't need to sell their home) and not just income All those have arguments for/against, but it would be good for them to be honestly discussed and considered by those with the power to effect change.
  - barry-cotter 4y ago
    > The taxation of assets (beyond a certain point so that people don't need to sell their home) and not just income. That’s a great way to discourage investment and capital formation and encourage emigration. There’s a reason wealth taxes are not popular in OECD countries. https://taxfoundation.org/wealth-taxes-in-the-oecd/ https://taxfoundation.org/wealth-taxes-in-the-oecd/
    - kcartlidge 4y ago
      That rather assumes that untaxed wealth (as opposed to income) is productive wealth, which is not necessarily the case. And that even if it were, there's an assumption that the (perhaps valid) concerns are the priority and not the introduction of a fairer system.
    - dane-pgp 4y ago
simonh 4y ago
As I said, peripheral procedural and technical issues aside that make no real difference. The idea that these mean we have no democracy is absurd, and does no credit to the reasonable arguments for disestablishmentarianism.
- dane-pgp 4y ago
  I believe that disestablishmentarianism is usually understood to refer solely to the question of whether the Church of England should be the Established (i.e. state) church. There are probably some antidisestablishmentarianists who disagree with that definition, though.
spacedcowboy 4y ago
shrug and it riles some people up, which at least is entertaining. Most of us don't care. Tbh, if you look at the performance of the queen compared to the performance of recent prime ministers, well, let's just say it's not a shining example of democracy at it's best.
- dane-pgp 4y ago
  By that logic we should make Charles the Prime Minister and shut down parliament. Maybe the reason the Queen is so respected is that she doesn't (visibly) exercise much power, and the lesson there is actually that Prime Ministers should be more limited in what they can do of their own volition (without broad consent from the public, in the form of a truly representative parliament and an independent judiciary enforcing a codified constitution).
  - spacedcowboy 4y ago
    > By that logic we should make Charles the Prime Minister and shut down parliament Uh huh. I think reductio ad absurdum wants to have a word.
  - pbhjpbhj 4y ago
    The only reason for the Queen to prorogue parliament when Boris was clearly lying about it --he was avoiding democratic dissent against him-- is to avoid making a kerfuffle that risked setting Tories against Royalists (these groups being largely coterminous). Basically, I felt she might be a person of upright morals and firm beliefs right up until that point; then she proved she's just doing everything to keep the money flowing for her family and didn't really care about 'her subjects' and so does not deserve our respect, not in the least.
    - dTal 4y ago
      One wonders who the Queen's "advisors" are. They surely hold enormous power for how unknown they are.
      - 4y ago

arlort 4y ago

> they own huge parts of the country And they would keep owning them if they were made to abdicate

basisword 4y ago
Only if we let them.
- simonh 4y ago
  We could always confiscate your property while we're at it. Every little helps. After all there can be few on this forum that aren't in the upper decile of wealth globally. Property is theft! (er, kidding in case that wasn't obvious)
  - nicoburns 4y ago
    The more pressing issue with land ownership in the UK is that we don't even know who owns large chunks of it.
    - MockObject 4y ago
      American here. How is that a pressing issue?
      - dane-pgp 4y ago
        It makes it harder to introduce a land value tax, I guess?
        eadmund 4y ago
        Does it? Seems like if the State doesn't know who owns a piece of land, it can just auction it off.
        dane-pgp 4y ago
        If the state were so keen to serve the interests of the public, it would have auctioned off this land already, regardless of whether a land value tax had popular support. I suppose I'm hoping that if people knew who really owned the country, and who would be the winners and losers of a LVT, there would be such strong support for one that it would be politically untenable to oppose it.
        MockObject 4y ago
        If the state really doesn't know who owns a piece of land, what's stopping someone from squatting? Wouldn't the owner have to prove ownership to the state, to activate law enforcement?

p10jkle 4y ago

They get 25% of crown estate profits, but I’m not sure they really ‘own’ that land per se. And in general, the elite own a huge amount of the UK (most notably Oxbridge colleges with incredible land ownership). We can make a case to take ‘back’ the Queen’s private or crown estate land, but why just them? IMO, casting judgement on what historic ownership is ‘rightful’ is really hard.

kcartlidge 4y ago
We'd struggle to fairly take it back; probably not even worth trying. And whilst I never said so specifically I presumed it apparent that I never meant just the Queen. I accept I could have been clearer (sorry). The first steps might be: - An end to the honours system (entirely - even though many 'commoners' get them now it perpetuates the class concepts) - Fair and universal application of inheritance tax to reduce the inequalities over the generations - The taxation of assets (beyond a certain point so that people don't need to sell their home) and not just income All those have arguments for/against, but it would be good for them to be honestly discussed and considered by those with the power to effect change.
- barry-cotter 4y ago
  > The taxation of assets (beyond a certain point so that people don't need to sell their home) and not just income. That’s a great way to discourage investment and capital formation and encourage emigration. There’s a reason wealth taxes are not popular in OECD countries. https://taxfoundation.org/wealth-taxes-in-the-oecd/ https://taxfoundation.org/wealth-taxes-in-the-oecd/
  - kcartlidge 4y ago
    That rather assumes that untaxed wealth (as opposed to income) is productive wealth, which is not necessarily the case. And that even if it were, there's an assumption that the (perhaps valid) concerns are the priority and not the introduction of a fairer system.
  - dane-pgp 4y ago

simonh 4y ago

As I said, peripheral procedural and technical issues aside that make no real difference. The idea that these mean we have no democracy is absurd, and does no credit to the reasonable arguments for disestablishmentarianism.

dane-pgp 4y ago
I believe that disestablishmentarianism is usually understood to refer solely to the question of whether the Church of England should be the Established (i.e. state) church. There are probably some antidisestablishmentarianists who disagree with that definition, though.

spacedcowboy 4y ago

shrug and it riles some people up, which at least is entertaining. Most of us don't care. Tbh, if you look at the performance of the queen compared to the performance of recent prime ministers, well, let's just say it's not a shining example of democracy at it's best.

dane-pgp 4y ago
By that logic we should make Charles the Prime Minister and shut down parliament. Maybe the reason the Queen is so respected is that she doesn't (visibly) exercise much power, and the lesson there is actually that Prime Ministers should be more limited in what they can do of their own volition (without broad consent from the public, in the form of a truly representative parliament and an independent judiciary enforcing a codified constitution).
- spacedcowboy 4y ago
  > By that logic we should make Charles the Prime Minister and shut down parliament Uh huh. I think reductio ad absurdum wants to have a word.
- pbhjpbhj 4y ago
  The only reason for the Queen to prorogue parliament when Boris was clearly lying about it --he was avoiding democratic dissent against him-- is to avoid making a kerfuffle that risked setting Tories against Royalists (these groups being largely coterminous). Basically, I felt she might be a person of upright morals and firm beliefs right up until that point; then she proved she's just doing everything to keep the money flowing for her family and didn't really care about 'her subjects' and so does not deserve our respect, not in the least.
  - dTal 4y ago
    One wonders who the Queen's "advisors" are. They surely hold enormous power for how unknown they are.
    - 4y ago