6 ms·
Heh, I'm massively pro Royal. But I really don't give a toss about tittle tattle stories like babies, etc. Even I would click "republican".
by alan_cx 13y ago
Heh, I'm massively pro Royal. But I really don't give a toss about tittle tattle stories like babies, etc. Even I would click "republican".
- coldtea 13y ago>Heh, I'm massively pro Royal It's 2013. Why would you be that? You like paying money for some blood-line family to sit and have the good life?
- dorfsmay 13y agoNot OP, but the typical justification is to have a human being overseeing the highest form of power (the monarch can dissolve the parliament) and that they cannot be as corrupted as an elected or appointed person.
- coldtea 13y ago>the typical justification is to have a human being overseeing the highest form of power Em, you can have an elected President (like France IIRC). No reason to have some arbitrary blood-line human. >and that they cannot be as corrupted as an elected or appointed person If history is anything to go by, they can be even more corrupt and corrupted. Nero was a monarch.
- shawabawa3 13y ago> Em, you can have an elected President (like France IIRC). No reason to have some arbitrary blood-line human. Recently I've come to think that elected is not better than something completely arbitrary (blood), and may even be worse. At least which an arbitrary decision you might get a nice person, with elections you never seem to
- coldtea 13y agoThe use a lottery -- as the ancient Greeks did for some officials. And pay modestly. Not need to feed and clothe and have huge palaces for a whole range of parasites.
- chalst 13y ago"Monarchy is indeed a government which requires a high degree of civilization for its full development ... An educated nation recoils from the imperfect vicariate of what is called a representative government." -- Benjamin Disraeli The British system of government is far less costly than that of the US.
- mike-cardwell 13y agoYou pick how you are goverened according to your ethics, not according to how much it costs. I am pro-democracy and I am not a hypocrit. This fact prevents me from supporting a political system based on inherited political privilege, like Monarchy. I am English. I think most British who support the Monarchy do so because they don't want to admit to themselves that there is something wrong at the core about the way their country is governed. If we'd gotten rid of the Monarchy in the past, we'd probably have yearly celebrations about it. But no, we still have them, so we celebrate the opposite instead.
- chalst 13y agoI think you missed the point of my reply - I did not raise the matter of costs, and I agree that they are not the overriding factor. The Disraeli quote is to the point: the "representational" part of representational government is thorny, and pretty much ensures that a ruling clique is put in place whose interests do not mirror that of the electorate very well. The constitution of representational democracies always put in place a watchdog over the powers of parliament: in the US, it is the legal system. In Turkey, it is the army. In the UK, it is the monarchy. Many people seem to think that law courts are an obviously superior guarantor of democracy than monarchies, few are able to argue the point well.
- agilebyte 13y agoThe people I have met with here were saying it draws tourists...
- michaelt 13y agoTo me personally the royals don't seem super-great or anything, but the alternative of having a career politician as president doesn't sound any better.
- harrytuttle 13y agoDo we need a figurehead at all? No. A council is the way to go.
- untog 13y agoAnd an elected council would be better than an elected figurehead in what way? Just sounds like yet another platform for groups of people to disagree with each other. Fantastic.
- alan_cx 13y agoMy local council are damned awful. Dont want a larger version of that.
- harrytuttle 13y agoThere is a difference between your local council and your local councilors. The latter are probably quite good.
- alan_cx 13y agoSorry, no. Besides, the councilors set the policy that council are supposed to follow. If the council is rubbish, its the fault of the councilors. That is supposed to be the point of electing them, or booting them.
- harrytuttle 13y agoIt doesn't quite work like that. Councillors and the council are separate entities. The council is usually a private list of subcontrators these days who work on behalf of the councilors and the directors, nothing more. It's not that they're crap, but they're powerless due to the contracted out power they have had to accept due to the budgetary constraints that the government have forced on them. They can deal with individual issues fine but there are problems bringing in full scale accountability when you have to shift 99% of work onto other people. You've probably experienced the subcontrators, not the councilors who due to the low budget are crap. Next time you get an issue, call your local councilor - you might be surprised!
- corford 13y agoI think the royal family actually works out as a net positive economically when you factor in the tourism income they generate. It's also quite nice having someone connected with government that has been around longer than one or two political terms and thus has a wealth of experience to draw from and can an act in a way that's above short term popularism. If you ask even the most die hard anti-monarchists in the UK, I believe most of them would agree that the Queen has done a very good job. They're more concerned with her offspring and what happens when she dies. Edit: forgot to mention too that the Queen, Charles, Harry, William, Kate and other immediate family members spend an enormous amount of their time directly involved in charity work.
- harrytuttle 13y agoYes look at these great charities they support! http://www.arc-trust.org/about/ http://www.arc-trust.org/about/ http://www.rspcareptilerescue.co.uk/ http://www.rspcareptilerescue.co.uk/ http://www.herpconstrust.org.uk/ http://www.herpconstrust.org.uk/ (sorry thinly veiled joke about the Royals and Alex Jones) (no I don't believe any of it but it's funny)
- alan_cx 13y agoI respect that such small charities are bigged up by royals. Who else would? They are important in a small way. Big celebs and politicians go for the big charities, knowing they will get great PR, and they do great.... Both the charities and the celebs. That's cool, but here are our royals looking out for the little guys. Well, frogs... This is exactly one of the reasons I approve of them. Again, no bias, no selfish PR reason, they can just help out.
- gadders 13y agoRather that than some utter disgrace like Peter Mandelson standing for UK President.
- untog 13y agoThey do have a good life, but I don't think they just "sit"- they do a huge amount of charity work, as well as a lot of the kind of soft diplomacy work that few others heads of state can- if Obama visits a country it has immediate political implications. If the Queen visits, it's just a feel-good "enhancing ties" trip. I've been living in the US for the last five years and have come to appreciate the Royal Family more than when I was in the UK- their apolitical nature means that they are more internationally appreciated than most other world figures.
- coldtea 13y ago>If Obama visits a country it has immediate political implications. If the Queen visits, it's just a feel-good "enhancing ties" trip. That's why it's just "sit". Same for the charity work -- that's just what idle rich people do to pass their time, drink champagne and see each other over expensive food.
- untog 13y agoThat's why it's just "sit". I don't see why. Making those trips is likely not very relaxing- just because it doesn't involve hard manual labour doesn't mean that constantly moving from city to city and politely gladhanding hundreds of people in a day isn't work. But you're right, nothing good comes out of charity work, it's all just a bunch of rich people eating caviar. Glad your exhaustive investigation into the topic was successful.
- coldtea 13y ago>But you're right, nothing good comes out of charity work, it's all just a bunch of rich people eating caviar. Glad your exhaustive investigation into the topic was successful. Oh, I did investigated it exhaustively, and yes, nothing comes out of charity work. It's just a way for people to feel good and situations to perpetuate. The only work that matters and improves things is doing structural improvents and proving infrastructure. Charity just make people dependent. Not to mention that, in say Africa, it is estimated (by charity workers themselves) that the vast majority of charity money go to official's pockets.
- Dewie 13y agoBecause they more than pay for themselves? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw&list=SPqs5ohhass_QZtSkX06DmWOaEaadwmw_D&index=33 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw&list=SPqs5ohhass...
- alan_cx 13y agoI value the non political aspect of our monarchy. It is cheap, has only one power for extreme use only and that is to dissolve parliament, and is not part of the nasty political punch up. I value the stability and depth, leading to a decent adviser to an elected PM. Next, if the monarch asked something of the country as a whole, most people would take their word for it, because there would be no political motive or bias. If a PM did so, it becomes partisan and a debate. We had Blair take us to war twice on his say so. As such, most of the country opposed it and saw it was willy waving or macho-ness, or sucking up to the Americans, and so on. Had the Queen believed in it and come out and said something like, "Look, Im sorry, but with 60 odd years of experience, we have no choice", I think the country would have backed her, if only reluctantly. But the Brits would have thought, "bloody hell, she speaks, and well, OK". And that would be because of the huge constitutional risk doing so would have caused. Finally, we could in the UK vote in something like a Nazi party. We could then take to the streets and have a violent revolution and kill the nazi's. After all that, the Monarch would still be there as a shield of stability for both us internally, an as an external sort of front. Having won our revolution, Queenie would still be there, and ask the winner, "Ok, now what?" I prefer all this to every other presidential system, most notable the insane US presidential race. I don't want out head of state to be in that cesspit. I like that it just sits there, all nice and stable. I care not for all the pomp and ceremony. I hate all the silly gossip. I dont think they need so many homes and hangers on. All that can be up for grabs, no problem. But at it core, I personally, prefer our monarch to any other alternative. Sorry, but I do not believe that a vote is a universally good thing. Mostly, yes. But not an absolute. Here in the UK I firmly relive we have the two almost perfectly balanced. Democracy can do anything it likes, under a safe shield of our monarchy. If it ever got real nasty and extreme, the monarch can shut it down. We would have a crisis in that case, but we would not go Nazi, or something. I believe that externally other countries and cultures can see we are a thriving powerful democracy, but we also have depth and stability supplied by our monarch head of state. UK! UK! UK! :)
- harrytuttle 13y ago* If it ever got real nasty and extreme, the monarch can shut it down.* Actually no. That is total rubbish since about 1915.