July 7, 201015 yr In terms of net tourist income, they bring in more to the UK than they spend - even if it IS concentrated in London.
July 7, 201015 yr The Queen deserves every penny she gets in my opinion as she never asked to be Queen. Wasn't her fault she was born Royal.
July 7, 201015 yr I'd much rather they paid their own way, but I find it difficult to object to them at the moment seeing as they bring in far much more through tourism than we spend on them... So does the Blackpool Tower. Should we have that as Head of State? Besides, if we got rid of the royals their palaces would still be there and could be open to visitors which would probably bring in far more money.
July 7, 201015 yr yes we should have a monarchy, its part of our history, our culture, and is a far better way to spend money then many other projects like trident.
July 7, 201015 yr yes we should have a monarchy, its part of our history, our culture, and is a far better way to spend money then many other projects like trident. Plenty of things have been part of our history before they were deservedly consigned to the dustbin. How is it right that it was determined from the moment I was born that I could not be head of state? How is it even remotely sane that at the age of nearly 50 I have only ever lived under one head of state and that it is almost certain that the head of state when I die will be one of three people (including the current incumbent)?
July 8, 201015 yr Latest YouGov opinion poll shows the Lib Dems are freefalling. The Tories are doing pretty well, although according to Electoral Calculus, they STILL wouldn't get an overall majority on these figures (although if you add the Lib Dems then they would just nudge past the magic 326 mark). Tories 41% (316 seats, +9 on election result) Labour 36% (288 seats, +30) Lib Dems 15% (19 seats, -38) Not good news for the Coalition when they're still in their honeymoon and the Opposition is leaderless and currently has zero public presence. Also, the Labour Party membership has rocketed in recent weeks, with a third of new members saying they were formerly Lib Dem voters. EDIT: Another interesting point in this poll is that the Lib Dems are recorded as having only 15% of the 18-24 vote (compared to 43% for Labour and 30% for Tories), whereas I'm assuming they would've had a strong lead in that category on Election Day. Edited July 8, 201015 yr by Danny
July 8, 201015 yr Plenty of things have been part of our history before they were deservedly consigned to the dustbin. How is it right that it was determined from the moment I was born that I could not be head of state? How is it even remotely sane that at the age of nearly 50 I have only ever lived under one head of state and that it is almost certain that the head of state when I die will be one of three people (including the current incumbent)? it doesnt bother me 1 bit that we have a hereditory royal family. they can keep the job, id rather be me. i dont think its 'not sane', lizzy was born a windsor the same way you were born into your family...
July 8, 201015 yr Latest YouGov opinion poll shows the Lib Dems are freefalling. The Tories are doing pretty well, although according to Electoral Calculus, they STILL wouldn't get an overall majority on these figures (although if you add the Lib Dems then they would just nudge past the magic 326 mark). Tories 41% (316 seats, +9 on election result) Labour 36% (288 seats, +30) Lib Dems 15% (19 seats, -38) Not good news for the Coalition when they're still in their honeymoon and the Opposition is leaderless and currently has zero public presence. Also, the Labour Party membership has rocketed in recent weeks, with a third of new members saying they were formerly Lib Dem voters. EDIT: Another interesting point in this poll is that the Lib Dems are recorded as having only 15% of the 18-24 vote (compared to 43% for Labour and 30% for Tories), whereas I'm assuming they would've had a strong lead in that category on Election Day. If this is still a "honeymoon" period that's fantastic for Labour, with the right leader and a good boost during conference season they won't look back.
July 8, 201015 yr I've voted Labour all my life (in General Elections). If however the Labour Party were not in existence and there were only two parties to choose from - Tory or Lib Dem - I'd vote Tory. Nick Clegg has managed to do what I never thought possible before May 6th - he's actually made David Cameron seem quite nice. With a bit of luck - after this - we should see the end of the Liberals / Democrats (whatever they wish to call themselves). They should be consigned to history - they just 'get in the way'. Norma
July 8, 201015 yr The Queen deserves every penny she gets in my opinion as she never asked to be Queen. Wasn't her fault she was born Royal. Why does that mean she deserves it? :mellow: The Queen doesn't have to do all that much - all that she does do is out of choice.
July 8, 201015 yr So does the Blackpool Tower. Should we have that as Head of State? Besides, if we got rid of the royals their palaces would still be there and could be open to visitors which would probably bring in far more money. Oh, don't get me wrong - I don't think we should have the monarchy as Head of State, but to me it makes no sense to abolish it entirely - we could just cut off the public funding, remove their hereditary power and keep them as a ceremonial family.
July 8, 201015 yr I think we need to see what a rejuvenated Labour's policies will be under their new leader. The previous two leaders have pushed through leglislation and a foreign policy you'd normally associate with the Tories and the hordes flocking back to them in hope of a change of heart would do well to scrutinise the history and previous allegiances of the new leader. The Lib Dems were the only party sitting towards the left during Labour's tenure and many would do well to remember this. I'm not happy with their complicity in recent changes but I can see the positive influences their being there.
July 8, 201015 yr Why does that mean she deserves it? :mellow: The Queen doesn't have to do all that much - all that she does do is out of choice. Pardon? She doesn't do it out of choice. She HAS to do it out of duty. Anyway hasn't the Civil List been frozen for years? I'm sure George Osborne said it would remain frozen. Edited July 8, 201015 yr by Common Sense
July 8, 201015 yr yes we should have a monarchy, its part of our history, our culture, and is a far better way to spend money then many other projects like trident. Bollocks mate, France manage fine without one, and the Palace of Versailles is the most visited palace in the whole of Europe... And can you honestly say that France has sold out its history and culture...? Like hell it has, in fact, it's more keen to preserve its culture, history and language than we are (I mean, come on, we're basically the 51st State of America these days).... So, to have or not to have a Monarchy is a moot point in preserving history and culture, a Monarchy is a totally artificial construct that has served its purpose, but that's not to say it should be forgotten, the Palaces should be preserved for posterity as museums or art galleries....
July 8, 201015 yr Plenty of things have been part of our history before they were deservedly consigned to the dustbin. How is it right that it was determined from the moment I was born that I could not be head of state? How is it even remotely sane that at the age of nearly 50 I have only ever lived under one head of state and that it is almost certain that the head of state when I die will be one of three people (including the current incumbent)? 100% spot on mate... And I would say the following words written by John Lydon are as relevant now as when they were written in 1977.... God Save The Queen lyrics God save the queen The fascist regime They made you a moron Potential H-bomb God save the queen She aint no human being There is no future In England's dreaming Don't be told what you want Don't be told what you need There's no future no future No future for you God save the queen We mean it man We love our queen God saves God save the queen 'Cos tourists are money Our figures head Is not what she seems Oh god save history God save your mad parade Oh lord god have mercy All crimes are paid When there's no future How can there be sin We're the flowers in the dustbin We're the poison in your human machine We're the future you're future God save the queen We mean it man We love our queen God saves God save the queen We mean it man And there is no future In England's dreaming No future no future No future for you No future no future No future for me No future no future No future for you No future no future No future for you No future no future for you Rob - The facts are, the Monarchy is an outdated, anachronistic and SECTARIAN (because it's still in place that the Royal Princes or Princesses are not allowed to marry a Catholic, FACT. A throwback to the fukkin' MIDDLE AGES....) institution which should've been abolished back in the 70s.......
July 8, 201015 yr I'd much rather they paid their own way, but I find it difficult to object to them at the moment seeing as they bring in far much more through tourism than we spend on them... We'd still have the Palaces mate... France does extremely well on the tourism front, visitors flock to Versailles every year, with the added bonus of having NO sitting monarchy....
July 8, 201015 yr We'd still have the Palaces mate... France does extremely well on the tourism front, visitors flock to Versailles every year, with the added bonus of having NO sitting monarchy.... Exactly, think about the money we could make if we abolish our royal family and open the palaces to the public!
July 8, 201015 yr Bollocks mate, France manage fine without one, and the Palace of Versailles is the most visited palace in the whole of Europe... And can you honestly say that France has sold out its history and culture...? Like hell it has, in fact, it's more keen to preserve its culture, history and language than we are (I mean, come on, we're basically the 51st State of America these days).... So, to have or not to have a Monarchy is a moot point in preserving history and culture, a Monarchy is a totally artificial construct that has served its purpose, but that's not to say it should be forgotten, the Palaces should be preserved for posterity as museums or art galleries.... how ironic, the place thats the #1 tourist attraction in france is where their royals used to live! :lol: france is oozing with culture, we arnt, our royals (and im not a fan.... ) are just about our ONLY asset, they are certainly our best known. so disposing of them just to be like france or because 'they are outdated' just daft.
July 8, 201015 yr how ironic, the place thats the #1 tourist attraction in france is where their royals used to live! :lol: france is oozing with culture, we arnt, our royals (and im not a fan.... ) are just about our ONLY asset, they are certainly our best known. so disposing of them just to be like france or because 'they are outdated' just daft. Not ironic, it's proof that you dont need Royals to attract tourism and that you can still have the asset of history and culture and the palaces themselves without having to put up with the reality of a totally unfair class privelege system which is based purely on blood and (in)breeding and not on merit... There are so many reasons to get rid of the Royals, you clearly dont get it.... You dont even address the point of the fact that the institution is by its very nature Sectarian and anti-Catholic and doesn't take into account the fact that the bloody Reformation was several hundred years ago..... We've sort of moved on as a society mate, we dont have the Spanish Armada anymore, we're not at war with France or Spain, so what is with preventing young royals in this day and age from marrying Catholics or people from Catholic backgrounds? Very, very obvious discrimination which has never been addressed, however we may feel about the Pope and the Catholic Church as an institution is irrelevant, it is inherently unfair on individual Catholics or people from Catholic backgrounds to be looked down upon by the Monarchy and the establishment in this manner, it is an IMPLIED second-class citizen status. Therefore, the Monarchy is a Sectarian relic from the past and should be dealt with, how can we talk of peace in Northern Ireland, of Catholic and Protestant coming together, when the Head of State very clearly discriminates against millions of Catholics...? Why do you think Johnny Rotten wrote the words in 1977...? He saw the inherent sectarianism in the Royal Family and it clearly p!ssed him off....
July 8, 201015 yr Not ironic, it's proof that you dont need Royals to attract tourism and that you can still have the asset of history and culture and the palaces themselves without having to put up with the reality of a totally unfair class privelege system which is based purely on blood and (in)breeding and not on merit... There are so many reasons to get rid of the Royals, you clearly dont get it.... You dont even address the point of the fact that the institution is by its very nature Sectarian and anti-Catholic and doesn't take into account the fact that the bloody Reformation was several hundred years ago..... We've sort of moved on as a society mate, we dont have the Spanish Armada anymore, we're not at war with France or Spain, so what is with preventing young royals in this day and age from marrying Catholics or people from Catholic backgrounds? Very, very obvious discrimination which has never been addressed, however we may feel about the Pope and the Catholic Church as an institution is irrelevant, it is inherently unfair on individual Catholics or people from Catholic backgrounds to be looked down upon by the Monarchy and the establishment in this manner, it is an IMPLIED second-class citizen status. Therefore, the Monarchy is a Sectarian relic from the past and should be dealt with, how can we talk of peace in Northern Ireland, of Catholic and Protestant coming together, when the Head of State very clearly discriminates against millions of Catholics...? Why do you think Johnny Rotten wrote the words in 1977...? He saw the inherent sectarianism in the Royal Family and it clearly p!ssed him off.... scott, i get it alright, i just dont care...theres far more thngs to worry about then them.
Create an account or sign in to comment