Royal Family - Abolition?

As far as I know the royal family costs the taxpayer £36 million a year, but the total revenue that the royal family actually generates and pays the government is around £140 million. Given that we appear to actually be making a profit from them, or at least not losing the millions of pounds a year that abolitionists claim, what real grounds for their removal is there?

Really, the sums of money the royal family costs pale in comparison to the amount of money spent on defence, or even fixing dirty smokers up.
 
VIRII said:
They are cherry picked by Blair specifically for their views and loyalties. What more evidence is required? Havea little look at how many Peers Blair has created in his term of office and compare it to any other PM.
Click to expand...

VIRII said:
Not even slightly true. Regardless of how someone gets the job they way in which they perform it is unaffected. Either they do it well or they don't whether they "deserve" it or not. I could give someone a job because they were a mate of mine. They could be awesome at the job or be dreadful. How they got the job bears no relation on their abilities to do it.
Click to expand...

You just contradicted yourself. If how someone gets the job makes no effect, how can the Life Peers be his lapdogs?

Furthermore, your analogy is flawed. You'd need to make over half your company run by your randomly-selected mates. Then tell them that they would have no checks over how well do they do their job and that they don't even need to bother to turn up for work. Would that be as effective as a company that selects its employees with some regard for ability and enthusiasm for the job?

As for evidence required, even some anecdotal evidence about how the Lords never challenge Blair would be useful. How about the recent Hunting Bill? The Lords had no problem with refusing to pass it three times; a very rare occurance. I'm not saying whether that was right or wrong, but lapdogs? Please.

VIRII said:
Because you have such an issue with hereditary position you wish to dismantle and replace a working system. Your problem with the system is not what it is doing or how well but how it came to be.
Click to expand...

Not by a long shot. I have concerns both with the hereditary position and how that adversely affects the House's performance. While it might suit your argument to insist that my only issue is with their being hereditary, it doesn't make it true. If the hereditary peers really did do a brilliant job that would not be able to be matched by Life peers, then it would be a difficult choice to remove them.

VIRII said:
They have been doing an excellent job for an extremely long time. Are you honestly telling me that they've been a hopeless disaster since their inception?
Click to expand...

If not a hopeless disaster, unbalanced by either being too powerful or not powerful enough. I'm honestly telling you that they could be a lot better.

VIRII said:
I have done so already in that they aren't lap dogs to Blair.
Click to expand...

You have made this assertion, but without justifying it, it remains nothing more than that. Life Peers aren't beholden to Blair either. An elected House wouldn't be either. How is having hereditary peers a disadvantage?

VIRII said:
Do you think for one second that you could even begin to match HRH in terms of duty or committment? Does her job well? Understatement of the year. She sets an example that very few people could hold a candle to.
Do you think Blair and his cronies are representing the country well? If not then why are they still there?
Click to expand...

Probably not. I've never claimed to be able to.

As for Blair, he's not a directly-elected head of State so your point is moot. The party chose him, not the people.

VIRII said:
I don't think it is, feel free to give examples. It is not uncommon for someone to feel rising aggression to someone that challenges their established views though even when they are not facing any aggression themselves.
Click to expand...

"your "it's not fair" attitude"
"only exists in your mind"
"your insecurities"
"chuck out something"
"Even Cromwell wouldn't go as far as you."

I don't want to make a big deal of it, but a good debater doesn't need to be aggressive or deride his opponent.

VIRII said:
This post is a far cry from some of your earlier comments but you still have not been able to offer advantages to your proposed system and you still can't help criticising the hereditary aspect of the current one as being the problem. The problem if there is one is how they perform. If they are not performing then perhaps it is because they are hereditary and not best suited. However you appear to put the cart before the horse and claim that the hereditary aspect is the problem.
How would we have done? Who knows but what we do know is that under the system we currently have we have done incredibly well for such a small population and isolated landmass. If it ain't broke don't fix it.
Click to expand...

They have little role to perform as it is now, the only time that they do appear nowadays is through some form of scandal. This is embarrassing to the nation, as it would appear that they can't even do their only job left. It's logical that it's because they are there because of Divine Right rather than ability.

VIRII said:
Yes I do disagree. I see no respect to them from you. Quite the opposite.
Click to expand...

The obligations of society, however, dictate that people should do so. Even in the way that they have a different title when they have not earnt it.

If you were to send a letter to the Queen, you would not write "Mrs. Windsor" on the envelope. You would write "The Queen's Most Excellent Majesty" (although even then it would be a long shot if you send it by Royal Mail).
 
Skull said:
Really, the sums of money the royal family costs pale in comparison to the amount of money spent on defence, or even fixing dirty smokers up.
Click to expand...

Yes, that Princess Margaret loved a smoke. Looks like we'll have to sort Harry out as well, although isn't he a pot head.

Gotta love 'em haven't you....
 
I say we abolish:

The royal family.
The government and current way of doing things (HoC, HoL, etc etc).
Abolish every 'national' service.
Sign ourselves over to America and become the 51st state.

Think about it, what would you rather be: a puppet of Europe, a state of America, or a possession of the Eastern Muslim world? Let's face it, this country is heading that way.
 
The one thing the Royal Family does symbolise is stability. The Germans are on their fifth Reich, the French their Fifth Republic and they are the realtively stable EU countries, Portugal, Spain, Greece, Italy!
What you want to know is that a country is not ruled on whims, the fact we have kept the monarchy since the late 1600's is a demonstration of our evolution not revolution as a country. Unless you can prove the benefits of replacing them to be more than acting out class spite and a few million quid I'll keep my symbol of stability. Let the French chop and change we're the British we do things differently......apparently.
 
I like the royals, and the whole monarchy idea. Its part of who we are as a country. As pointed out, they cost us next to nothing, although some choose not to believe this, they do a lot of charity work, they provide us with entertainment, they keep the toursits flocking in.....and if they did go, what the hell would happen to our national athem!?!?

PS, can someone tell me what IIRC means please :)
 
Lets say that we elect a hitler, we messed up. The only thing we would have left would be the royals. Now the question is when it comes to the crunch of who calls the shoots is, who's army is it? Think of the army as a dog, you can feed a dog every day of its life but if your not the one that walks the dog you will not get 100% of its loyality.

I would choose the Royals anyday over westmister. Yes they have their problems but who hasn't.
 
useless expensive fat, drain on the country... ridiculous notion having people born into authority.

I say get rid of royals.

In actual it is the ONLY thing the french have evr done which deserves respect, and that's use the guillotine on their royal family... vive la france.
 
Crispy Pigeon said:
You just contradicted yourself. If how someone gets the job makes no effect, how can the Life Peers be his lapdogs?
Click to expand...

Rather out of context. A life peer owes no loyalty to any Govt and whether he is hereditary or not doesn't affect his ability to do his job. However if he is a handpicked Blairite chosen specifically for his loyalty to the Blair vision then whilst he retains the latent ability to do his job the fact is he'll simply be an extension of the labour back bench - the very opposite of the point of the house of lords function.
Crispy Pigeon said:
Furthermore, your analogy is flawed. You'd need to make over half your company run by your randomly-selected mates. Then tell them that they would have no checks over how well do they do their job and that they don't even need to bother to turn up for work. Would that be as effective as a company that selects its employees with some regard for ability and enthusiasm for the job?
Click to expand...

Are you talking about the Labour party again? They don't turn up for votes but then when their boss doesn't it is far from suprising.
Crispy Pigeon said:
As for evidence required, even some anecdotal evidence about how the Lords never challenge Blair would be useful. How about the recent Hunting Bill? The Lords had no problem with refusing to pass it three times; a very rare occurance. I'm not saying whether that was right or wrong, but lapdogs? Please.
Click to expand...

Clearly Blair has not had sufficient time to install enough lapdogs yet. However I could have sworn that you said these people never turned up to do their job? You seem to have contradicted yourself.
Crispy Pigeon said:
Not by a long shot. I have concerns both with the hereditary position and how that adversely affects the House's performance. While it might suit your argument to insist that my only issue is with their being hereditary, it doesn't make it true. If the hereditary peers really did do a brilliant job that would not be able to be matched by Life peers, then it would be a difficult choice to remove them.
Click to expand...

You have mentioned on multiple occassions that you have significant issues with the concept of hereditary peers. After being challenged you are moving towards discussing if they actually do a job but initially it was all about the unfairness of it all. However on the one hand you say they fall asleep or don't turn up on the other that they stand up to Blair.

Crispy Pigeon said:
If not a hopeless disaster, unbalanced by either being too powerful or not powerful enough. I'm honestly telling you that they could be a lot better.
Click to expand...

Their power is out of their hands. They are far from a hopeless disaster and you've not given examples of how they have failed to serve us. Their power or lack of it has absolutely nothing to do with how they become peers.
Crispy Pigeon said:
You have made this assertion, but without justifying it, it remains nothing more than that. Life Peers aren't beholden to Blair either. An elected House wouldn't be either. How is having hereditary peers a disadvantage?
Click to expand...

I have no idea how having hereditary peers is a disadvantage. I thought that was your line. We have an elected house of commons. Simply taking people from that with their lifetimes of party policies ingrained in them to stick in the house of Lords defeats the point of independence.
Crispy Pigeon said:
As for Blair, he's not a directly-elected head of State so your point is moot. The party chose him, not the people.
Click to expand...

It is hardly moot. If he was unacceptable to the people then they wouldn't have voted to the party. It is his speeches and rhetoric that the people voted for.
Crispy Pigeon said:
"your "it's not fair" attitude"
"only exists in your mind"
"your insecurities"
"chuck out something"
"Even Cromwell wouldn't go as far as you."

I don't want to make a big deal of it, but a good debater doesn't need to be aggressive or deride his opponent.
Click to expand...

"You just contradicted yourself"
"your analogy is flawed"
"You have made this assertion"
"your point is moot"

Pot,kettle,black.
I'll tackle a couple of these dreadful things that I have said:

Cromwell would not go as far as you. History shows that he did not remove the Monarchy (just the head lol). You would go further. You have stated a desire to get rid of them completely. I am correct.

Chuck out something - yes you wish to chuck out all the herreditary peers because of how you percieve an unfairness in the system. That is without regard for how well the system actually works.

Only exists in your mind - it does. Show me the law where you must bow to the queen? If people feel that they should they do. When they don't feel that they should they don't.

Your "not fair attitude" - how many times can you state that hereditary peers are unjust and claim that you don't think that "it's not fair" ?
Crispy Pigeon said:
They have little role to perform as it is now, the only time that they do appear nowadays is through some form of scandal. This is embarrassing to the nation, as it would appear that they can't even do their only job left. It's logical that it's because they are there because of Divine Right rather than ability.
Click to expand...

I find your rhetoric and description of the Royals cringeworthy and embarrasing, I don't find them so. The only time muslims appear in the press is when they are beheading people. Does that mean that is all that they do? Are you seriously basing your opinion of the Royals on redtop newspapers?
Crispy Pigeon said:
The obligations of society, however, dictate that people should do so. Even in the way that they have a different title when they have not earnt it.
Click to expand...
You might feel obliged but many don't. That makes it your issue not anyone elses. What will happen to you if you fail to bow? Nothing? Can you show me where it is written down that I must bow?
Crispy Pigeon said:
If you were to send a letter to the Queen, you would not write "Mrs. Windsor" on the envelope. You would write "The Queen's Most Excellent Majesty" (although even then it would be a long shot if you send it by Royal Mail).
Click to expand...

I would probably write HRH ER II on it personally.
 
Nana said:
useless expensive fat, drain on the country... ridiculous notion having people born into authority.

I say get rid of royals.

In actual it is the ONLY thing the french have evr done which deserves respect, and that's use the guillotine on their royal family... vive la france.
Click to expand...

Yeah they are fat get rid of them :rolleyes:
While we are there let's insult the French (last time it was the Germans you were rude about) and advocate beheading people.
Genius.
 
Nana said:
useless expensive fat, drain on the country... ridiculous notion having people born into authority.

I say get rid of royals.

In actual it is the ONLY thing the french have evr done which deserves respect, and that's use the guillotine on their royal family... vive la france.
Click to expand...
But Nana, who would launch our new ships?
 
anticonscience said:
Are the royals not descendents of Germans?
Click to expand...
oooh careful virii will jump down your throat and call you a nasty racist. Because in his world the word german is a racist term.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom