The labour Leader thread...

Stretch said:
I really don't understand the national anthem furore.

I'm a moderate royalist, but there's no way in hell you'll find me singing God Save the Queen. A) I don't enjoy singing, B) other people don't enjoy me signing, C) it's a terrible song.
Click to expand...

I really don't understand the anti-royalty sentiment when they bring in far far more in revenue than we spend on them. Plus they dedicate their lives to helping others and highlight good causes.

That said the anthem is dreadful and I cringe/mute the tv every time I hear it.
 
Naff8000 said:
I really don't understand the anti Royalty sentiment when they bring in far far more in revenue than we spend on them. Plus they dedicate their lives to helping others and highlight good causes.

That said the anthem is dreadful and I cringe/mute the tv every time I hear it.
Click to expand...

They can bring in the money all the same, without having to sign in governments or "approve" things.

We need to federalise, not even discussing it.
 
Terminal_Boy said:
Jezza's got bigger things to worry after helping himself to sandwiches intended for veterans yesterday and a BBC cameraman being pushed over outside his house by an aide.

And that's before CallMeDave rips him a new one at PMQs this afternoon.
Click to expand...
You seriously think those are "bigger problems"? I strongly suspect Corbyn doesn't see it so.

It's really (really, really) unimportant, but if it's genuinely bothering you, then you should probably have it pointed out that those sandwiches were handed over by the Costa employees as Corbyn and Watson were approaching;
Q0HictK.jpg


Probably would have been rude to refuse
 
StriderX said:
They can bring in the money all the same, without having to sign in governments or "approve" things.

We need to federalise, not even discussing it.
Click to expand...

I think the reason we're not discussing it is most people like the royalty and don't care they have sign-off things. It's all part of the pompous ceremony that helps bring in the money.
 
McGray said:
It certainly is interesting. You only have to read the last few pages of this thread to how easily people are led by the media.

It's quite a good little trick the tories have got going. Rather than pretending they don't just cater to the elite, they just make anyone who is a bit thick and can leverage a house and mediocre car think they're part of the elite as well.
Click to expand...

cheesyboy said:
You seriously think those are "bigger problems"? I strongly suspect Corbyn doesn't see it so.

It's really (really, really) unimportant, but if it's genuinely bothering you, then you should probably have it pointed out that those sandwiches were handed over by the Costa employees as Corbyn and Watson were approaching;
Q0HictK.jpg


Probably would have been rude to refuse
Click to expand...

Actually it may be a major problem for him if the sandwiches were meat since he's a vegetarian. :p
 
Naff8000 said:
I really don't understand the anti-royalty sentiment when they bring in far far more in revenue than we spend on them. Plus they dedicate their lives to helping others and highlight good causes.

That said the anthem is dreadful and I cringe/mute the tv every time I hear it.
Click to expand...

The Queen doesn't need to be head of state for her to remain a philanthropist and tourist attraction.

The financial argument also tends to overlook the fact that we'd still get much of the tourist income even if the monarchy was abolished. It's not like people would stop visiting Buckingham Palace etc. just because the monarchy no longer exists.

I'm largely agnostic on the topic, but I can't really see many reasons beyond tradition for keeping the status quo.
 
satchef1 said:
Wasn't the top level of income tax 90% at the time? That's how you create the NHS and the Welfare state whilst holding a massive amount of debt.

Not that I'm advocating a return to 90% tax, but we can't have it both ways. Low taxes and good services don't mix.
Click to expand...

In those days people couldn't escape the high tax quite so easily either, today they would be off like a shot.
 
satchef1 said:
The Queen doesn't need to be head of state for her to remain a philanthropist and tourist attraction.

The financial argument also tends to overlook the fact that we'd still get much of the tourist income even if the monarchy was abolished. It's not like people would stop visiting Buckingham Palace etc. just because the monarchy no longer exists.

I'm largely agnostic on the topic, but I can't really see many reasons beyond tradition for keeping the status quo.
Click to expand...

Why would we get anything like the amount of tourists to Buckingham Palace if we abolished the monarchy? The swarms of tourism there is insane. All taking photos of guards making the slightest of movements. If we abolish the monarchy the income would drastically die down. Not at first so much but over time.
 
satchef1 said:
The Queen doesn't need to be head of state for her to remain a philanthropist and tourist attraction.

The financial argument also tends to overlook the fact that we'd still get much of the tourist income even if the monarchy was abolished. It's not like people would stop visiting Buckingham Palace etc. just because the monarchy no longer exists.

I'm largely agnostic on the topic, but I can't really see many reasons beyond tradition for keeping the status quo.
Click to expand...

I stopped visiting Rome after the fall of the Empire.
 
satchef1 said:
The Queen doesn't need to be head of state for her to remain a philanthropist and tourist attraction.

The financial argument also tends to overlook the fact that we'd still get much of the tourist income even if the monarchy was abolished. It's not like people would stop visiting Buckingham Palace etc. just because the monarchy no longer exists.

I'm largely agnostic on the topic, but I can't really see many reasons beyond tradition for keeping the status quo.
Click to expand...

So if in the future the Queen is removed all the buildings associated with the monarchy will just stay the same as now !

As soon as she's been ousted Buckingham Palace will be turned into a council building so it's interest to tourists will be nil.
 
The value of the Monarchy should never be reduced to 'tourism'. Something like 8 out of the 10 highest ranked nations on the HDI are Constitutional Monarchies. That alone should tell you a great deal about the value of monarchy as an institution.

I think Corbyn's failure to sign the national anthem and sloppy dress code is telling. Yes, its better to be sincere in silence than a hypocrite, but far better to actually support British institutions in the first place.
 
Last edited:
John40 said:
So if in the future the Queen is removed all the buildings associated with the monarchy will just stay the same as now !

As soon as she's been ousted Buckingham Palace will be turned into a council building so it's interest to tourists will be nil.
Click to expand...

Because no-one visits the Palace of Versailles any more? Most people go to Buckingham Palace and take pictures outside for free, a very small proportion actually go in and spend money.
 
One More Solo said:
Because no-one visits the Palace of Versailles any more? Most people go to Buckingham Palace and take pictures outside for free, a very small proportion actually go in and spend money.
Click to expand...

Over time with no monarchy the buildings associated with it will just become the same as anywhere else, nothing to see here, move on. Why would anyone take pictures of Buckingham Palace without it being associated with the Queen, it's not exactly a fine building in fact it's very boring and nothing special. It doesn't look like a Palace and is only famous because of the monarchy.
 
Last edited:
cheesyboy said:
You seriously think those are "bigger problems"? I strongly suspect Corbyn doesn't see it so.

It's really (really, really) unimportant, but if it's genuinely bothering you, then you should probably have it pointed out that those sandwiches were handed over by the Costa employees as Corbyn and Watson were approaching;
Q0HictK.jpg


Probably would have been rude to refuse
Click to expand...

Isn't Costa Coffee one of those tax avoiders that his ilk are always condemning?
 
Naff8000 said:
Why would we get anything like the amount of tourists to Buckingham Palace if we abolished the monarchy? The swarms of tourism there is insane. All taking photos of guards making the slightest of movements. If we abolish the monarchy the income would drastically die down. Not at first so much but over time.
Click to expand...

Offset the fall in tourism against the savings made by not having to fund the monarchy any more and I doubt there would be a significant financial change either way. We'd see fewer tourists, but it's not like the history wouldn't remain a significant attraction. Other former monarchies manage.

John40 said:
So if in the future the Queen is removed all the buildings associated with the monarchy will just stay the same as now !

As soon as she's been ousted Buckingham Palace will be turned into a council building so it's interest to tourists will be nil.
Click to expand...

Would it? You can still tour many of the best palaces in Europe. Difference is, they're open pretty much all year round, instead of just for a short period over the summer.

___

As said, I haven't got a strong opinion either way with the Monarchy. I wouldn't object to a different head of state, but I'm not fussed whether we then abolish the Monarchy or not. I can see good arguments for and against.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom