What happens in France? Or the US? Or Ireland? Or Italy? Or Spain? Or Turkey? Do they summon up a monarch to do that job?

Well they have a president, most presidents and prime ministers but yankland only has one dont they?

why dont we privatise the royals?

If she really cared for her people she would disband the monarchy and all it’s money and assets be sold and made to benefit the under privileged.

And if you think that would happen, then you’re really deluded! What would actually happen is that all those assets, which are actually owned by the British public, and are held in trust by HM, would be bought up by the global billionaire kleptocracy, from Russia and China, and the properties would become empty, deteriorating ghosts sitting abandoned, like many are already around London, and those working on them, maintaining them, working on the farms, etc, would be kicked off and forced to find work and accommodations elsewhere.
The Civil List was changed a few years back, it was the case, and had been since the time of Charles II IIRC, that all the income from the Royal Holdings was paid to the Treasury, and a smaller sum given back to HM as the Civil List, the difference being in the Oder of some millions of pounds. Certainly the Treasury got a very good deal out of it. I can’t remember the exact figures, but I’m pretty sure anyone could easily do the research via Google if they could be bothered, instead of ranting about it.
Certainly, if you were to look at the cost of electing and maintaining a Presidency it would be a lot higher than our Monarchy costs – HM is quite extraordinarily frugal when it comes to running the various households, my mum used to work with a woman who got the job as head housekeeper at Windsor Castle, and was shown round by her, getting to see parts of a Royal Household that most people never get to see, and the lengths that HM goes to to save money.

if you were to look at the cost of electing and maintaining a Presidency

Why bother with democracy at all. Just let the Great and Good sort it out on our behalf.

Why bother with democracy at all. Just let the Great and Good sort it out on our behalf.

You’ve been reading the Conservative manifesto again? 😁

HM is quite extraordinarily frugal when it comes to running the various households

Yep extraordinarily frugal!

According to the latest Sovereign Grant accounts that were published last week, taxpayers in the UK are forking over more money than ever for the Royal Family. The monarchy cost £67 million ($86 million) in 2018-19, a 41% increase on the previous financial year.

And a presidency would obviously cost more

Costs associated with the running of the Office of the President have started to significantly rise in recent years, with the seven-year Presidency of Michael D Higgins now looking set to be at least €30m, the Sunday Independent can reveal.

A head of state is required. Do you really want Boris as our head of state? We could have a ceremonial president, but they’d still need a grand place to entertain people in. Yes the monarchy is a bizarre institution, but electing a head of state would come with its own price, both financial and the risk that some total pillock who happens to be popular at the time would win, and it would almost inevitably become politicized. President Farrage anyone! I used to be fiercely anti-monarchist and am not a big fan of the current crop, but a slimmed down royal family would at least be more likely to remain apolitical.

A head of state is required. Do you really want Boris as our head of state?

But if the queen simply rubber stamps everything and says yes why do we need that? People just keep repeating that its because we do but I dont see why. The fact that in the last 70 years constitutionally shes done nothing says it all, why do we need royals or a president. The government is in charge and the royals are nothing but a side show.

President Farrage – unlikely.

President Attenborough – shoe in.

why dont we privatise the royals?

They’d start turning up late for events or not turn up at all and somehow still charge more each year. Clothing and bling jewellery would fall in to disrepair and not be replaced.

why dont we privatise the royals?

It already is.

The Civil List was changed a few years back, it was the case, and had been since the time of Charles II IIRC, that all the income from the Royal Holdings was paid to the Treasury, and a smaller sum given back to HM as the Civil List, the difference being in the Oder of some millions of pounds. Certainly the Treasury got a very good deal out of i

Incorrect. The civil list first got created for George III. Up until that point he was responsible for the financial costs of running the country. The civil list handed over the revenue in return for not having that responsibility. Rather obviously this was not a good deal for everyone else in the country. Since even then it didnt come close.
The latest change was by Osborne who decided to hand over even more money. needless to say still not a good deal for the taxpayer.

Incidentally one of the most amusing things about Harry and Megan is after years and years of security costs being excluded from the bill the taxpayer gets with the daily hate skipping over it with comments about cant say because it would compromise security we are suddenly getting pages and pages of outrage about how high the bill is for those two.

I would agree she is rather frugal especially when paying staff.

As for this stuff about “Johnson being head of state”. For all intents and purposes he is. He is the one who attends all the important meetings not the queen.
Perhaps with an elected head of state we would solve all the messy questions around being PM as well and how much power sits in that office with no firm definition of how it is applied thanks to the royal prerogative.

Yep extraordinarily frugal!

According to the latest Sovereign Grant accounts that were published last week, taxpayers in the UK are forking over more money than ever for the Royal Family. The monarchy cost £67 million ($86 million) in 2018-19, a 41% increase on the previous financial year.

Then a single Premiership footballer can be paid how much a year….

Then a single Premiership footballer can be paid how much a year….

A worker in a free market and competing in a pure meritocracy.

Then a single Premiership footballer can be paid how much a year…

What’s that got to do with anything other than football?

Then a single Premiership footballer can be paid how much a year….

Classic whataboutery, how is that relevant?

Well they have a president, most presidents and prime ministers but yankland only has one dont they?

They have leaders of the houses.

But if the queen simply rubber stamps everything and says yes why do we need that? People just keep repeating that its because we do but I dont see why. The fact that in the last 70 years constitutionally shes done nothing says it all, why do we need royals or a president. The government is in charge and the royals are nothing but a side show.

Tied into the point above, what you end up with is two branches of government in deadlock. US Presidents get 2 years to achieve anything, then the mid term elections take place and almost inevitably castrate their ability to get anything done. So you only get effective government half the time, hence why they’re always struggling to pass budgets.

If you elected a head of state to replace the queen they’d be elected, which means they’d have mandate, which would mean they’d probably opt not to sign anything the opposition in the Commons put in front of them.

Then you end up with the US system where the President can basically act unilaterally via decree’s, which then stand until challenged in the courts, usual against hundred year old clauses in the constitution because that’s how slow their government works. and it generally works fine as most presidents are like our Monarchy and don’t go around writing a new decree every week and pardoning/commuting prisoners and instead work through Congress and Senate.

They you get someone like Trump elected and convention goes out the window.

If you elected a head of state to replace the queen they’d be elected, which means they’d have mandate, which would mean they’d probably opt not to sign anything the opposition in the Commons put in front of them.

Republic of Ireland seems to manage just fine

Republic of Ireland seems to manage just fine

But some of the other examples in the list up there include:

US – Trump
Italy – Berlusconi
Turkey – Erdogan

Is Liz really that bad?

We’ve got a system that delivers functioning middle of the spectrum governments, why mess with it?

Classic whataboutery, how is that relevant?

The Queen isn’t that bad value?

I think the Head of State should be a constitutional role – entertaining foreign dignitaries etc. shouldn’t fall to a partisan position.

I’m in favour of moving to a constitutional president, with much the same “powers” as the Monarch. Doubt it will happen in my lifetime though…

That Trump is an oaf is not a valid reason for a monarchy

Classic whataboutery, how is that relevant?

The Queen isn’t that bad value?

I cannot see how a footballers pay affects me, my taxes arent paying them I dont watch them, they dont affect me and I’m not one of their subjects and they dont rubber stamp any laws so how are comparisons valid?

If you elected a head of state to replace the queen they’d be elected, which means they’d have mandate

I still cannot grasp why we need to, she has no role constitutionally as she has literally done nothing with her power in 70 years. I accept Royals do other stuff but as far as parliament is concerned she’s an irrelevance. The Speaker has more power and look how Bercow was treated when he used it. I am not being just argumentative but I dont see why if we got rid of a role thats done nothing for 70 years (when was the last time a monarch said no to parliament anyway?) Why we’d suffer.

We’ve got a system that delivers functioning middle of the spectrum governments, why mess with it?

Because having one family held above all others due to an accident of birth is wrong and sends out all the wrong messages about how society should be IMO of course.

I cannot see how a footballers pay affects me, my taxes arent paying them I dont watch them

Your Sky subscription (or Amazon, or BT) is paying for them.

The Monarchy costs us a quid each per year – maybe £3 or 4 if you just pick economically active people.

Because having one family held above all others due to an accident of birth is wrong and sends out all the wrong messages about how society should be IMO of course.

I agree with this sentiment.

Your Sky subscription (or Amazon, or BT) is paying for them.

Dont subscribe to any of those and if I did that would be my choice.

The Monarchy costs us a quid each per year – maybe £3 or 4 if you just pick economically active people.

£4 each which could be spent on something useful like nhs, schools or green energy or Army, Navy whatever.

The Monarchy costs us a quid each per year – maybe £3 or 4 if you just pick economically active people.

Not even that. 69p per tax payer last year.

Sounds cheap. But what about all their wealth and land? If that was ‘ours’ what would its value to us all be? Why and how is it theirs not ours? What is our attitude towards the heads of state of other nations that hoard wealth for themselves, and still take money from tax payers?

£4 each which could be spent on something useful like nhs, schools or green energy or Army, Navy whatever.

You’ve already said the ceremonial role is required, how much do you think it will cost to disband the current lot and build a new “Office of the President” ?

Not to mention the wasted opportunity costs of spending all that parliamentary time when they could be doing something else useful.

You’ve already said the ceremonial role is required,

Not sure I have tbh, but the Irish presidents soaring costs I posted about about 1/7th of what the royals cost werent they?

Not to mention the wasted opportunity costs of spending all that parliamentary time when they could be doing something else useful.

Depends what you think is useful and this is just another whataboutery argument.

I think you’re stretching the whataboutery definition.

You want to get rid. This is constitutional change.

Constitutional change will require parliamentary discussion and probably another referendum. Have we really got time considering the replacement function will need to do largely the same role?

Have we really got time considering the replacement function will need to do largely the same role?

What? Nothing?

Clearly nows not a good time, but I dont think it being a bit tricky is an argument against doing it. If we can “get bexit done” we could easily get rid of the Monarchy.

Have we really got time considering the replacement function will need to do largely the same role

Maybe a society where the head of state can be a catholic, Muslim , Jew, Hindu or atheist, not a direct descendant of the previous holder is worth a bit of time. Obviously those are the legal bars, don’t expect a BAME monarch any time soon.

Hang on.

If the replacement function has powers, which it does, then why does it lie in the hands of someone born into a single family. If, as monarchist argue, the role is ceremonial then there are no powers to transfer to the replacement function

Quite, I dont understand on a fundamental level why we would need to replace them.

Maybe a society where the head of state can be a catholic, Muslim , Jew, Hindu or atheist, not a direct descendant of the previous holder is worth a bit of time. Obviously those are the legal bars, don’t expect a BAME monarch any time soon.

Yup – I’d vote for that*.

* unless “that” involves the murder of everybody ahead of baby Archie in the queue, I think that’s probably a step too far.

If we can “get bexit done” we could easily get rid of the Monarchy.

🙂

Quite, I dont understand on a fundamental level why we would need to replace them.

Do you accept the need for the position “Head Of State”?

Because the Monarchy still has lots of powers, The current one chooses not to use them. For example, the Prime Minister is appointed by the Queen. Parliament can only be dissolved by the Queen. The military reports to the Queen. There is nothing is law stopping the Queen from dissolving parliament and/or refusing to allow the winner of the general election to take office and taking us back to pre parliament days. There is nothing in law stopping the Queen from using the military to do anything she wants. The only reason she doesnt is convention and the inevitable crisis that would be bad for the royal gravy train.

Quite, I dont understand on a fundamental level why we would need to replace them.

Because they do have all sorts of powers.

Which was my point several pages back, we’ve settled on a genius system that puts all the power in the hands of someone who wont use it.

That it basicly costs nothing and can largely be completely ignored by everyone who doesnt know or want to know what all the grandkids are called is a bonus.

You could re-write all the procedures so the PM didn’t have to ask for permisons to do X, Y or Z. But then who gets to formally officiate over that? The PM? What if he loses a vote in the Commons and decides to do something anyway? The monarch is just a convenient mechanism to approve things.

You could vote in a president with the same powers, but that just seems like more of a risk.

What’s that got to do with anything other than football?

Classic whataboutery, how is that relevant?

Okay then, let’s look at it another way then. It costs the police around £48m a year to police football matches, with only around £5.5m recoverable from football clubs.

So your tax £s going directly on footie whether you like it or not.

Because the Monarchy still has lots of powers, The current one chooses not to use them

So whats the point? You all keep saying the same thing.

The only reason she doesnt is convention and the inevitable crisis that would be bad for the royal gravy train.

Do you accept the need for the position “Head Of State”?

Not really no, we currently are getting by with one that has done nothing for 70 years other than say yes, when was the last time one said no?

Okay then, let’s look at it another way then. It costs the police around £48m a year to police football matches, with only around £5.5m recoverable from football clubs.

So your tax £s going directly on footie whether you like it or not.

No thats indirectly on footie, the police do it to maintain law and order, thats their role, I see nothing wrong with football as such other than its dull so I cannot see how footballers being paid lots is similar to the concept of royalty. Ones wrong, the other I find boring.

No thats indirectly on footie, the police do it to maintain law and order, thats their role, I see nothing wrong with football as such other than its dull so I cannot see how footballers being paid lots is similar to the concept of royalty. Ones wrong, the other I find boring.

So you don’t mind paying taxes to police football because it’s only boring? I think I understand you.