Should the UK have a Royal Family?

green gear

New member
Aug 14, 2011
12
0
0
the UK foreign aid budget is about 8.7 billion euro for the year of 2011
and the money we spend on foreign aid is a piss in the ocean compared to other Departments

be honest if we get rid of the royal family we'er not saving a lot of money
 

SacremPyrobolum

New member
Dec 11, 2010
1,213
0
0
Lusty said:
SacremPyrobolum said:
Lusty said:
dex-dex said:
Daystar Clarion said:
dex-dex said:
you will not be able to get rid of her easily.
I have learned something new today.

And now I will regurgitate those facts as if they were my own!

[HEADING=2]Huzzah![/HEADING]
Glad to know I have contributed to someone's gains in knowledge.
Except you haven't. Every time I see that bloody video I really wish someone would post the response to it. So here it is:


And the financials aren't the point anyway! I would much rather sacrifice the money they [don't actually] make and live in a proper democracy with an elected house of Lords, separation of church and state, no more Lords Templar etc etc etc.
One person says one thing, the other person says another. Which is right, we will never know...

The tourism thing is nonsense as well. If we turfed the Royals out of Buckingham Palace and Windsor, and opened up the stunning royal collections of art that for some reason no one is allowed to see, we'd make a fortune.

Happily I think it won't take too many years of King Charles to convince everyone to get rid of them.
One person says one thing the other says the opposite. You will believe who you want to believe.
The guy in the second video was being unsporting and making an ass of himself so I'll go with the first video.
Yeah. He was being an ass so screw all the facts!
But you see, how can I trust what an ass says is in fact facts? I would sooner trust someone who did not rip on the works of others and just made his own independence video than someone who wants to feel a false sense of superiority and rip on the well made video of another.
 

Plinglebob

Team Stupid-Face
Nov 11, 2008
1,815
0
0
I say keep them. Financially they bring in more then is spent on them (and to be honest the 67p they cost me would just be lost down the back of the sofa).

Internationally, they are our diplomatic core and the fact they're apolitical means they can go places and talk with people an MP couldn't without causing problems.

Internally, not only does it stop organisations such as the military and the police being used badly by the government, but it also provides a political figure/advisor who's more interested in the good of the country then what will get them re-elected in 4 years allowing them to have a much greater long term view (same reason I support the current House of Lords, but thats an argument for another time).
 

Rylingo

New member
Aug 13, 2008
397
0
0
Yosharian said:
The MP money scandal has resulted in a lot of changes to the system that has made it a lot more difficult for them to abuse it in this kind of way. I don't think their fraudulent behaviour is legalised now, if it ever was. Feel free to provide current, up-to-date examples to prove me wrong.
IPSA buckled under MP pressure and increased the amount allowed to be claimed with the MPs not willing to give money out of their own pockets. Yes the amount spent on expenses will increase. It has increased because items not covered before, now are. MPs claim total expense expenditure will drop thanks to tighter restrictions. Its not enough for me however. If MPs wish to claim accommodation make it a communial accommodation for for MPs. Make it an innexpensive place to stay. I also want to see MPs pay income tax like everyone else!

Yosharian said:
What have they done with third level education to make it into a disaster? Just by putting up the prices? What else can they do? It's too expensive. It's not a disaster.
As someone who has went through it, twice, its in bad shape and getting worse. The main problem is that the heads of the unniversities drain the university of all the funding given to them by the governments whilst slashing taching jobs.

The public sector is paying private sector fat cats millions. The average university head makes more than the prime minister....

Threaten to drain funding from any university unless its chairman lowers his salary to the same level as the prime ministers. If they disobey. Remove funding. Be tough. You can build a new university should one fall and pick up the staff redundancies.

Be tough.

As a side note, all portraits done of university heads should be drawn by the art students. I find it shocking that expensive professionals are brought in when you have a ready supply of enthusiastic art students waiting to have their talents shown.

Yosharian said:
Now if you really want to talk about corruption you ought to think about the people that you voted in and how they run their parties. But the vast majority of MPs work very hard for their country.
My vote this time went on the alliance party. I find their policies easily the best in my local area. Even if they only won a single seat in westminster.

Yosharian said:
Lies about reductions in hospitals & police: provide evidence.
I know its a newspaper link, and I apologise, but its worth looking at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6956427/Police-numbers-to-slump-amid-budget-pressures.html
Hospital
One example: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-12299728


Yosharian said:
Why do you want a referendum on Europe?
Because it should have been offered from the start. It was disgusting that the citzens weren't allowed a vote on an issue which completely changes every facete of the UK legal system.
The only country to have a referendum was ireland. And they rejected the EU. Of course until the irish government decided not to take no for an answer.

Yosharian said:
The whole banks & government thing is a whole lot complicated than just MPs who are a bit corrupt. It goes a lot deeper than that. The vast majority of MPs have nothing to do with it. It's the ones at the top who are responsible. And by the way, we are all responsible for doing nothing about it. Oh and it's also much more of a media problem, since they refuse, for the most part, to publicise it.
One change I would like to see is the removal of anonymous donations to parties. It removes the whole point of all votes being equal when a rich persons vote is worth soooo much more!

Yosharian said:
BTW since you think MPs lack balls, the next time you're an MP you make sure to show us all how you will do it better. And I'll be expecting to see plenty of balls. Go to it, tiger.
Its not really something I want to do as a career. I kinda like the web design work im doing.
 

Monkey lord

New member
Jun 25, 2011
45
0
0
orangeban said:
Monkey lord said:
no the royal family is an outdated symbol of higharchy. the first step to minimise the class difference in the UK should be to remove the royal family and elect a president.
also the money the royal family has and spends could go along way helping those in need in the UK.
You realise that if we disolved the monarchy we don't get their money, and actually lose the two hundred million pounds they give to us. We actually profit from the royal family, we give them some tax money, they give us all the rent they get from people on their land, it's a very good deal.

and you do realise that the money the royal family brings in is from tourism and without a royal family the tourists would still come so there would not be a diffrence in that matter.
But that does not change the fact that the royal family reprisents a old and outdated system of higharchy and shuld therefore be removed
 

Monkey lord

New member
Jun 25, 2011
45
0
0
Baradiel said:
Monkey lord said:
also the money the royal family has and spends could go along way helping those in need in the UK.
No. Just... no.

The Queen's family gets a pension of £20 million a year. Thats it. They bring in several hundred million every year from tourism.

They actually own very little property. Most of the royal estates are owned by the national trust, so the country already HAS access to these.

Even if we stopped paying the Royal family and put the money back in the system, it'd be a single drop in a ocean.
the money the family brings in is from tourism and removing the family would not change anything as the tourists would still come with or without a royal family

money aside the royal family is an outdated system of higharchy a system in which a persone is born into a family that is suppose to be supirior only becouse they are royal and this only strenghtens the opinion that not evryone is born equal and on those grounds alone the royal family shuld be removed.