comment by Boy From The South (U3979)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by RB&W - Whiteside has done it again (U21434)
posted 4 seconds ago
The only way the UK Monarchy can be abolished - apart from the unlikely event of a People's Revolution, would be through an Act Of Parliament that has been read and voted through both Houses Of Parliament in the appropriate manner.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I may be getting confused with Charles' views on Australia but hasn't the position always been that if we democratically decided to get rid of the monarchy that they would step aside?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes but we can only democratically decide to get rid of the monarchy through an Act Of Parliament.
comment by RB&W - Whiteside has done it again (U21434)
posted 2 minutes ago
The only way the UK Monarchy can be abolished - apart from the unlikely event of a People's Revolution, would be through an Act Of Parliament that has been read and voted through both Houses Of Parliament in the appropriate manner.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
52 seems to think it would be a simple act of ‘democracy’ to enact abolition. It’s far from that.
The first past the post system and the house of lords makes it very difficult to achieve, even if a majority of the actual population were to be in favour of it.
comment by Boy From The South (U3979)
posted 24 seconds ago
comment by Rosso out here drippin’ in finesse (U17054)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Boy From The South (U3979)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 33 seconds ago
But you just said you don’t know how much it costs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No I haven't, the sovereign grant is £102m a year.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We’ve established that the Sovereign Grant only accounts for a proportion of the cost of maintaining the royal family, and that’s before you consider the net-net cost resulting from the tax waivers they still enjoy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Go on then, put a number on it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Very hard to factor in anomalies like Andrew's court costs.
In fact how many times does it have to happen before it is promoted from anomaly?
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 56 seconds ago
comment by RB&W - Whiteside has done it again (U21434)
posted 2 minutes ago
The only way the UK Monarchy can be abolished - apart from the unlikely event of a People's Revolution, would be through an Act Of Parliament that has been read and voted through both Houses Of Parliament in the appropriate manner.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
52 seems to think it would be a simple act of ‘democracy’ to enact abolition. It’s far from that.
The first past the post system and the house of lords makes it very difficult to achieve, even if a majority of the actual population were to be in favour of it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Which they aren't, sort of making this moot.
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 8 seconds ago
No it doesn’t.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If there was a vote today, based on the polls, abolitionists would get circa 26% of the vote.
Do you believe in democracy or not?
The Queen Mother’s estate was worth an estimated £70m, the vast majority of which she left to the Queen when she died.
On this proportion of the estate, the total amount of inheritance tax paid to the exchequer was £0. A nice ballpark £25m tax dodge.
The Queen Mother also left some small bequeathments to her (pretty poorly paid) personal staff. Which, of course, were subject to tax
comment by Rosso out here drippin’ in finesse (U17054)
posted 40 seconds ago
The Queen Mother’s estate was worth an estimated £70m, the vast majority of which she left to the Queen when she died.
On this proportion of the estate, the total amount of inheritance tax paid to the exchequer was £0. A nice ballpark £25m tax dodge.
The Queen Mother also left some small bequeathments to her (pretty poorly paid) personal staff. Which, of course, were subject to tax
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I have to pay taxes and the queen doesn't
And if it were polling at 60% it wouldn’t mean that democratic means could simply abolish it for the reasons given. It was a pretty simple point, even you should be able to understand this.
a democratic referendum requires an Act of Parliament laying out the wording and consequences in minute details going through both Houses.
comment by Boy From The South (U3979)
posted 16 seconds ago
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 56 seconds ago
comment by RB&W - Whiteside has done it again (U21434)
posted 2 minutes ago
The only way the UK Monarchy can be abolished - apart from the unlikely event of a People's Revolution, would be through an Act Of Parliament that has been read and voted through both Houses Of Parliament in the appropriate manner.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
52 seems to think it would be a simple act of ‘democracy’ to enact abolition. It’s far from that.
The first past the post system and the house of lords makes it very difficult to achieve, even if a majority of the actual population were to be in favour of it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Which they aren't, sort of making this moot.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Surely the more interesting question is *why* are a majority of the populace seemingly delighted to have an unelected, wealthy & privileged upper class reigning over them (albeit in a fairly docile, non-interventionist way)?
Support for the very concept of a monarchy is one that has been promulgated, propagated & curated over a long, long period of time through subservient, fawning media & so on. It's very difficult to undo that level of damage inflicted upon a population (on any issue). It'll happen eventually; the 29% of the population who want abolition + the % of those who are polled as 'don't know' whether they're in favour or not will increase over time.
So I don't think there's any moot points to be had. I always think we have to examine why population X thinks/believes in issue/position Y.
comment by Boy From The South (U3979)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Rosso out here drippin’ in finesse (U17054)
posted 40 seconds ago
The Queen Mother’s estate was worth an estimated £70m, the vast majority of which she left to the Queen when she died.
On this proportion of the estate, the total amount of inheritance tax paid to the exchequer was £0. A nice ballpark £25m tax dodge.
The Queen Mother also left some small bequeathments to her (pretty poorly paid) personal staff. Which, of course, were subject to tax
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I have to pay taxes and the queen doesn't
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How old are you?
comment by Boy From The South (U3979)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Rosso out here drippin’ in finesse (U17054)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Boy From The South (U3979)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 33 seconds ago
But you just said you don’t know how much it costs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No I haven't, the sovereign grant is £102m a year.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We’ve established that the Sovereign Grant only accounts for a proportion of the cost of maintaining the royal family, and that’s before you consider the net-net cost resulting from the tax waivers they still enjoy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Go on then, put a number on it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As I’ve already said, it’s impossible to do so because - unlawfully - the government refuses to respond to FoI requests demanding that it publishes the full cost to the public purse of the upkeep of the family. I guess someone external to government could try to build an estimate, but I have no idea how they’d even begin to go about that.
As for the tax waivers, again, estimates could be built. I’ve mentioned the Queen Mother’s private estate above. Circa £25m the exchequer should have benefited from there.
The Queen’s private estate will see the same: anything she passes on of her personal wealth to Charles won’t be subject to inheritance tax. And the Queen was worth *a lot* more than her mum. Charles may of course choose to make a voluntary payment. Let’s wait and see, but I wouldn’t be holding my breath…
We still don’t know which Windsors are/were and aren’t/weren’t paying income or capital gains tax beyond the Queen and Charles, and we’ll never be privy to that information, I’d guess; so impossible to perform that particular calculation.
I think people have previously estimated the savings Liz made over four or so decades when she wasn’t paying either income tax or CGT. You can probably find some estimates via a bit of Google research.
Surely the more interesting question is *why* are a majority of the populace seemingly delighted to have an unelected, wealthy & privileged upper class reigning over them (albeit in a fairly docile, non-interventionist way)?
Because the British population in general are the biggest bootlickers in Europe.
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 2 hours, 27 minutes ago
comment by Ignacio Varga (U11781)
posted 22 seconds ago
If you don’t have any love for the monarchy then why did you shut down the link I posted to what Stacey Solomon said? What’s wrong with her opinion?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nothing, I have no idea who she is, I've never heard of her before now
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wait a minute - you're quite happy shaking the hand of someone you don't know but won't listen openly to the opinion of someone else you don't know?
Hmmm.
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 19 minutes ago
comment by Boy From The South (U3979)
posted 16 seconds ago
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 56 seconds ago
comment by RB&W - Whiteside has done it again (U21434)
posted 2 minutes ago
The only way the UK Monarchy can be abolished - apart from the unlikely event of a People's Revolution, would be through an Act Of Parliament that has been read and voted through both Houses Of Parliament in the appropriate manner.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
52 seems to think it would be a simple act of ‘democracy’ to enact abolition. It’s far from that.
The first past the post system and the house of lords makes it very difficult to achieve, even if a majority of the actual population were to be in favour of it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Which they aren't, sort of making this moot.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Surely the more interesting question is *why* are a majority of the populace seemingly delighted to have an unelected, wealthy & privileged upper class reigning over them (albeit in a fairly docile, non-interventionist way)?
Support for the very concept of a monarchy is one that has been promulgated, propagated & curated over a long, long period of time through subservient, fawning media & so on. It's very difficult to undo that level of damage inflicted upon a population (on any issue). It'll happen eventually; the 29% of the population who want abolition + the % of those who are polled as 'don't know' whether they're in favour or not will increase over time.
So I don't think there's any moot points to be had. I always think we have to examine why population X thinks/believes in issue/position Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Or maybe it's possible that many millions of people see a benefit that the monarchy bring which you don't happen to agree with?
I find it bizarre personally, especially considering the distate shown towards the ruling party in this country for so many years that people actually want an elected head of state.
Give me an apolitical, unifying figurehead rather than Nigel Farage any day of the week.
comment by Ignacio Varga (U11781)
posted 2 hours, 24 minutes ago
comment by Rosso out here drippin’ in finesse (U17054)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 41 seconds ago
comment by Rosso out here drippin’ in finesse (U17054)
posted 1 minute ago
No man or woman should be subservient to any other man or woman.
I would not bow to any member of that family, nor should anyone else be obligated to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're not, unless you choose to be.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The hereditary monarch holds ultimate executive authority over the government, has ultimate executive control of the armed forces, and is able to appoint her own Prime Minister.
She is also able to appoint and dismiss ministers, regulate the civil service, declare war, declare peace, direct the actions of the military, and negotiate and ratify treaties, alliances, and international agreements. All of this lies within the Royal Prerogative.
Whether these powers are exercised or otherwise, no person by virtue of their birth should hold them.
It’s an anachronistic, undemocratic system, which legitimises the concepts of subject-subservience, modern feudalism, and idolatry/celebrity.
It also allows one of the richest families in the world to see its bills paid by the taxpayer, and to avoid paying vast amounts of tax.
It’s unequivocally unfair, it’s unprogressive, it’s undemocratic, it’s a painful affront to millions of families all over the world in its continuing symbolism of British colonialism, and it’s time it was binned.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And she has 100% invoked royal prerogatives multiple times to suppress difficult and awkward situations not in her or her family's favour.
Trumpistic.
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 21 seconds ago
comment by Ignacio Varga (U11781)
posted 2 hours, 24 minutes ago
comment by Rosso out here drippin’ in finesse (U17054)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 41 seconds ago
comment by Rosso out here drippin’ in finesse (U17054)
posted 1 minute ago
No man or woman should be subservient to any other man or woman.
I would not bow to any member of that family, nor should anyone else be obligated to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're not, unless you choose to be.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The hereditary monarch holds ultimate executive authority over the government, has ultimate executive control of the armed forces, and is able to appoint her own Prime Minister.
She is also able to appoint and dismiss ministers, regulate the civil service, declare war, declare peace, direct the actions of the military, and negotiate and ratify treaties, alliances, and international agreements. All of this lies within the Royal Prerogative.
Whether these powers are exercised or otherwise, no person by virtue of their birth should hold them.
It’s an anachronistic, undemocratic system, which legitimises the concepts of subject-subservience, modern feudalism, and idolatry/celebrity.
It also allows one of the richest families in the world to see its bills paid by the taxpayer, and to avoid paying vast amounts of tax.
It’s unequivocally unfair, it’s unprogressive, it’s undemocratic, it’s a painful affront to millions of families all over the world in its continuing symbolism of British colonialism, and it’s time it was binned.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And she has 100% invoked royal prerogatives multiple times to suppress difficult and awkward situations not in her or her family's favour.
Trumpistic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"A painful affront to millions of families all over the world"
Jesus that's a stretch and a half. If the UK is so terrible why don't we all just commit suicide and be done with it.
comment by Ignacio Varga (U11781)
posted 11 minutes ago
Surely the more interesting question is *why* are a majority of the populace seemingly delighted to have an unelected, wealthy & privileged upper class reigning over them (albeit in a fairly docile, non-interventionist way)?
Because the British population in general are the biggest bootlickers in Europe.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think you'd find different results or outcomes anywhere else, and in fact we see perfectly similar outcomes all across the world in the political spheres, too.
With that said, I think there's little doubt that the British public are subjected to some of the absolute worst media, offering as they do a very narrow set of parameters in which serious discourse can take place, and most of that discourse (even the better stuff) is heavily distorted & filtered across pretty much every major and serious topic (not just around the monarchy) so much that it's very difficult for the population is properly understand issues. In fact, studies on the British public's views and understandings across multi issues have shown that the UK population is pretty much about everything.
comment by Shinjury list (U1700)
posted 1 hour, 36 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 57 minutes ago
comment by Ignacio Varga (U11781)
posted 35 seconds ago
comment by 🏴 (U9094)
posted 3 minutes ago
True story, I met Charles not long ago. I refused to shake his hand. I got a bit of a dressing down from my superiors for that. My response was that it wasn’t in my job description to shake a person’s hand because society says that I should.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
why should you shake the hand of some random rich bloke who wouldn’t pee on you if you were on fire? You should’ve told your superiors to fack off, there’s nothing in our contracts that tell us to lick the Royal family’s crack.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nobody asked him to lick his crack.
I shake hands with anyone I meet.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Covid positives?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Boris
comment by Boy From The South (U3979)
posted 29 seconds ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 21 seconds ago
comment by Ignacio Varga (U11781)
posted 2 hours, 24 minutes ago
comment by Rosso out here drippin’ in finesse (U17054)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 41 seconds ago
comment by Rosso out here drippin’ in finesse (U17054)
posted 1 minute ago
No man or woman should be subservient to any other man or woman.
I would not bow to any member of that family, nor should anyone else be obligated to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're not, unless you choose to be.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The hereditary monarch holds ultimate executive authority over the government, has ultimate executive control of the armed forces, and is able to appoint her own Prime Minister.
She is also able to appoint and dismiss ministers, regulate the civil service, declare war, declare peace, direct the actions of the military, and negotiate and ratify treaties, alliances, and international agreements. All of this lies within the Royal Prerogative.
Whether these powers are exercised or otherwise, no person by virtue of their birth should hold them.
It’s an anachronistic, undemocratic system, which legitimises the concepts of subject-subservience, modern feudalism, and idolatry/celebrity.
It also allows one of the richest families in the world to see its bills paid by the taxpayer, and to avoid paying vast amounts of tax.
It’s unequivocally unfair, it’s unprogressive, it’s undemocratic, it’s a painful affront to millions of families all over the world in its continuing symbolism of British colonialism, and it’s time it was binned.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And she has 100% invoked royal prerogatives multiple times to suppress difficult and awkward situations not in her or her family's favour.
Trumpistic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"A painful affront to millions of families all over the world"
Jesus that's a stretch and a half. If the UK is so terrible why don't we all just commit suicide and be done with it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nothing wrong with the UK, or its people.
The country facing and addressing the horrific crimes of Empire in earnest is yet to happen, however, and the appropriate apologies and reparations for those crimes are way overdue.
(A start would be acknowledging the ongoing colonialist actions still being carried out in the name of the UK, a prime example of which would be the illegal retention of the Chagos Islands, and refusal to allow Chagossians to return to their homeland.)
comment by Rosso out here drippin’ in finesse (U17054)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by GregUnited (U1192)
posted 59 seconds ago
Rosso that must have taken you a long time to Google, considering the amount of time it took for your reply.
You're moaning about such a miniscule amount of money that it's not even worth arguing about.
How much did trump's visit to the UK cost?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We’re talking about tens of millions of pounds over the course of Liz’s reign in funding and tax avoidance. I wouldn’t call that a minuscule amount of money, personally.
Personally speaking, the democratic and egalitarian arguments are more important than that about money, anyway.
I believe in democracy, I don’t believe that any person should be subservient to the next, and I also believe that every man and woman should be treated equally, under the same social contract, with the same rights and obligations.
Ultimately, those are my issues with the system.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair enough.
I'm of the opinion that we have bigger problems in this country, than the royal family.
I sometimes see them as a nice distraction to how poorly run this country is.
Many prime minister's have been in power over the years and made decisions that have been a disaster for this country. General living have gotten worse for the public and none of that is to do with the royal family, it's all the government.
I do think it's a bit of jealousy though, how some look at the royal family and think "the feck have they done to deserve their current position?"
"The feck have they done to warrant not paying any inheritance tax".
I tend not to think about it, and even when I do I don't care all that much.
I do find the history of England very interesting though and would be against getting rid of the monarchy.
I'm of the mind that, the country would look a lot different today, were it not for the king's and queens over the centuries.
Perhaps they shouldn't have so much power these days though, as in, pay all their taxes, require passports and driving licenses etc and all that stuff.
comment by Bobby Dazzler (U1449)
posted 22 minutes ago
comment by Boy From The South (U3979)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Rosso out here drippin’ in finesse (U17054)
posted 40 seconds ago
The Queen Mother’s estate was worth an estimated £70m, the vast majority of which she left to the Queen when she died.
On this proportion of the estate, the total amount of inheritance tax paid to the exchequer was £0. A nice ballpark £25m tax dodge.
The Queen Mother also left some small bequeathments to her (pretty poorly paid) personal staff. Which, of course, were subject to tax
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I have to pay taxes and the queen doesn't
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How old are you?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Taxes are for poor/lower income and working class/middle class people, not wealthy people or companies. They are more suited to tax breaks, concessions and zero ratings. The money and wealth will eventually trickle down to poorest.
Every Tory knows this.
Nothing wrong with the UK, or its people.
———
I beg to differ.
comment by 🏴 (U9094)
posted 1 hour, 9 minutes ago
comment by Shinjury list (U1700)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by 🏴 (U9094)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Shinjury list (U1700)
posted 48 seconds ago
How many shook his hand Babyen? And did anyone say, afterwards, that they wished they hadn't as well?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Only the business owners shook his hand. I was there with the children in my charge. The members of staff had the choice to line up and shake his hand if they wanted to. They, like me, chose not to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nice one for the update. I can see your point of view, for sure.
I'd have shook his hand, but asked a tough question at the same time, holding his hand until he answered.
I wouldn't, for fear of being shot, but let's not let facts get in the way of a good idea in theory.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The number of armed guards surrounding him was insane. The checks they did on the property was down to the last detail too. He was there for about 15 minutes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hidden costs that dwarf the dreamt up £1.6bn
Sign in if you want to comment
The constitution
Page 6 of 21
7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11
posted on 11/9/22
comment by Boy From The South (U3979)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by RB&W - Whiteside has done it again (U21434)
posted 4 seconds ago
The only way the UK Monarchy can be abolished - apart from the unlikely event of a People's Revolution, would be through an Act Of Parliament that has been read and voted through both Houses Of Parliament in the appropriate manner.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I may be getting confused with Charles' views on Australia but hasn't the position always been that if we democratically decided to get rid of the monarchy that they would step aside?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes but we can only democratically decide to get rid of the monarchy through an Act Of Parliament.
posted on 11/9/22
comment by RB&W - Whiteside has done it again (U21434)
posted 2 minutes ago
The only way the UK Monarchy can be abolished - apart from the unlikely event of a People's Revolution, would be through an Act Of Parliament that has been read and voted through both Houses Of Parliament in the appropriate manner.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
52 seems to think it would be a simple act of ‘democracy’ to enact abolition. It’s far from that.
The first past the post system and the house of lords makes it very difficult to achieve, even if a majority of the actual population were to be in favour of it.
posted on 11/9/22
comment by Boy From The South (U3979)
posted 24 seconds ago
comment by Rosso out here drippin’ in finesse (U17054)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Boy From The South (U3979)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 33 seconds ago
But you just said you don’t know how much it costs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No I haven't, the sovereign grant is £102m a year.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We’ve established that the Sovereign Grant only accounts for a proportion of the cost of maintaining the royal family, and that’s before you consider the net-net cost resulting from the tax waivers they still enjoy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Go on then, put a number on it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Very hard to factor in anomalies like Andrew's court costs.
In fact how many times does it have to happen before it is promoted from anomaly?
posted on 11/9/22
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 56 seconds ago
comment by RB&W - Whiteside has done it again (U21434)
posted 2 minutes ago
The only way the UK Monarchy can be abolished - apart from the unlikely event of a People's Revolution, would be through an Act Of Parliament that has been read and voted through both Houses Of Parliament in the appropriate manner.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
52 seems to think it would be a simple act of ‘democracy’ to enact abolition. It’s far from that.
The first past the post system and the house of lords makes it very difficult to achieve, even if a majority of the actual population were to be in favour of it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Which they aren't, sort of making this moot.
posted on 11/9/22
No it doesn’t.
posted on 11/9/22
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 8 seconds ago
No it doesn’t.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If there was a vote today, based on the polls, abolitionists would get circa 26% of the vote.
Do you believe in democracy or not?
posted on 11/9/22
The Queen Mother’s estate was worth an estimated £70m, the vast majority of which she left to the Queen when she died.
On this proportion of the estate, the total amount of inheritance tax paid to the exchequer was £0. A nice ballpark £25m tax dodge.
The Queen Mother also left some small bequeathments to her (pretty poorly paid) personal staff. Which, of course, were subject to tax
posted on 11/9/22
comment by Rosso out here drippin’ in finesse (U17054)
posted 40 seconds ago
The Queen Mother’s estate was worth an estimated £70m, the vast majority of which she left to the Queen when she died.
On this proportion of the estate, the total amount of inheritance tax paid to the exchequer was £0. A nice ballpark £25m tax dodge.
The Queen Mother also left some small bequeathments to her (pretty poorly paid) personal staff. Which, of course, were subject to tax
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I have to pay taxes and the queen doesn't
posted on 11/9/22
And if it were polling at 60% it wouldn’t mean that democratic means could simply abolish it for the reasons given. It was a pretty simple point, even you should be able to understand this.
posted on 11/9/22
a democratic referendum requires an Act of Parliament laying out the wording and consequences in minute details going through both Houses.
posted on 11/9/22
comment by Boy From The South (U3979)
posted 16 seconds ago
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 56 seconds ago
comment by RB&W - Whiteside has done it again (U21434)
posted 2 minutes ago
The only way the UK Monarchy can be abolished - apart from the unlikely event of a People's Revolution, would be through an Act Of Parliament that has been read and voted through both Houses Of Parliament in the appropriate manner.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
52 seems to think it would be a simple act of ‘democracy’ to enact abolition. It’s far from that.
The first past the post system and the house of lords makes it very difficult to achieve, even if a majority of the actual population were to be in favour of it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Which they aren't, sort of making this moot.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Surely the more interesting question is *why* are a majority of the populace seemingly delighted to have an unelected, wealthy & privileged upper class reigning over them (albeit in a fairly docile, non-interventionist way)?
Support for the very concept of a monarchy is one that has been promulgated, propagated & curated over a long, long period of time through subservient, fawning media & so on. It's very difficult to undo that level of damage inflicted upon a population (on any issue). It'll happen eventually; the 29% of the population who want abolition + the % of those who are polled as 'don't know' whether they're in favour or not will increase over time.
So I don't think there's any moot points to be had. I always think we have to examine why population X thinks/believes in issue/position Y.
posted on 11/9/22
comment by Boy From The South (U3979)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Rosso out here drippin’ in finesse (U17054)
posted 40 seconds ago
The Queen Mother’s estate was worth an estimated £70m, the vast majority of which she left to the Queen when she died.
On this proportion of the estate, the total amount of inheritance tax paid to the exchequer was £0. A nice ballpark £25m tax dodge.
The Queen Mother also left some small bequeathments to her (pretty poorly paid) personal staff. Which, of course, were subject to tax
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I have to pay taxes and the queen doesn't
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How old are you?
posted on 11/9/22
comment by Boy From The South (U3979)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Rosso out here drippin’ in finesse (U17054)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Boy From The South (U3979)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 33 seconds ago
But you just said you don’t know how much it costs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No I haven't, the sovereign grant is £102m a year.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We’ve established that the Sovereign Grant only accounts for a proportion of the cost of maintaining the royal family, and that’s before you consider the net-net cost resulting from the tax waivers they still enjoy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Go on then, put a number on it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As I’ve already said, it’s impossible to do so because - unlawfully - the government refuses to respond to FoI requests demanding that it publishes the full cost to the public purse of the upkeep of the family. I guess someone external to government could try to build an estimate, but I have no idea how they’d even begin to go about that.
As for the tax waivers, again, estimates could be built. I’ve mentioned the Queen Mother’s private estate above. Circa £25m the exchequer should have benefited from there.
The Queen’s private estate will see the same: anything she passes on of her personal wealth to Charles won’t be subject to inheritance tax. And the Queen was worth *a lot* more than her mum. Charles may of course choose to make a voluntary payment. Let’s wait and see, but I wouldn’t be holding my breath…
We still don’t know which Windsors are/were and aren’t/weren’t paying income or capital gains tax beyond the Queen and Charles, and we’ll never be privy to that information, I’d guess; so impossible to perform that particular calculation.
I think people have previously estimated the savings Liz made over four or so decades when she wasn’t paying either income tax or CGT. You can probably find some estimates via a bit of Google research.
posted on 11/9/22
Surely the more interesting question is *why* are a majority of the populace seemingly delighted to have an unelected, wealthy & privileged upper class reigning over them (albeit in a fairly docile, non-interventionist way)?
Because the British population in general are the biggest bootlickers in Europe.
posted on 11/9/22
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 2 hours, 27 minutes ago
comment by Ignacio Varga (U11781)
posted 22 seconds ago
If you don’t have any love for the monarchy then why did you shut down the link I posted to what Stacey Solomon said? What’s wrong with her opinion?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nothing, I have no idea who she is, I've never heard of her before now
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wait a minute - you're quite happy shaking the hand of someone you don't know but won't listen openly to the opinion of someone else you don't know?
Hmmm.
posted on 11/9/22
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 19 minutes ago
comment by Boy From The South (U3979)
posted 16 seconds ago
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 56 seconds ago
comment by RB&W - Whiteside has done it again (U21434)
posted 2 minutes ago
The only way the UK Monarchy can be abolished - apart from the unlikely event of a People's Revolution, would be through an Act Of Parliament that has been read and voted through both Houses Of Parliament in the appropriate manner.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
52 seems to think it would be a simple act of ‘democracy’ to enact abolition. It’s far from that.
The first past the post system and the house of lords makes it very difficult to achieve, even if a majority of the actual population were to be in favour of it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Which they aren't, sort of making this moot.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Surely the more interesting question is *why* are a majority of the populace seemingly delighted to have an unelected, wealthy & privileged upper class reigning over them (albeit in a fairly docile, non-interventionist way)?
Support for the very concept of a monarchy is one that has been promulgated, propagated & curated over a long, long period of time through subservient, fawning media & so on. It's very difficult to undo that level of damage inflicted upon a population (on any issue). It'll happen eventually; the 29% of the population who want abolition + the % of those who are polled as 'don't know' whether they're in favour or not will increase over time.
So I don't think there's any moot points to be had. I always think we have to examine why population X thinks/believes in issue/position Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Or maybe it's possible that many millions of people see a benefit that the monarchy bring which you don't happen to agree with?
I find it bizarre personally, especially considering the distate shown towards the ruling party in this country for so many years that people actually want an elected head of state.
Give me an apolitical, unifying figurehead rather than Nigel Farage any day of the week.
posted on 11/9/22
comment by Ignacio Varga (U11781)
posted 2 hours, 24 minutes ago
comment by Rosso out here drippin’ in finesse (U17054)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 41 seconds ago
comment by Rosso out here drippin’ in finesse (U17054)
posted 1 minute ago
No man or woman should be subservient to any other man or woman.
I would not bow to any member of that family, nor should anyone else be obligated to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're not, unless you choose to be.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The hereditary monarch holds ultimate executive authority over the government, has ultimate executive control of the armed forces, and is able to appoint her own Prime Minister.
She is also able to appoint and dismiss ministers, regulate the civil service, declare war, declare peace, direct the actions of the military, and negotiate and ratify treaties, alliances, and international agreements. All of this lies within the Royal Prerogative.
Whether these powers are exercised or otherwise, no person by virtue of their birth should hold them.
It’s an anachronistic, undemocratic system, which legitimises the concepts of subject-subservience, modern feudalism, and idolatry/celebrity.
It also allows one of the richest families in the world to see its bills paid by the taxpayer, and to avoid paying vast amounts of tax.
It’s unequivocally unfair, it’s unprogressive, it’s undemocratic, it’s a painful affront to millions of families all over the world in its continuing symbolism of British colonialism, and it’s time it was binned.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And she has 100% invoked royal prerogatives multiple times to suppress difficult and awkward situations not in her or her family's favour.
Trumpistic.
posted on 11/9/22
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 21 seconds ago
comment by Ignacio Varga (U11781)
posted 2 hours, 24 minutes ago
comment by Rosso out here drippin’ in finesse (U17054)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 41 seconds ago
comment by Rosso out here drippin’ in finesse (U17054)
posted 1 minute ago
No man or woman should be subservient to any other man or woman.
I would not bow to any member of that family, nor should anyone else be obligated to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're not, unless you choose to be.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The hereditary monarch holds ultimate executive authority over the government, has ultimate executive control of the armed forces, and is able to appoint her own Prime Minister.
She is also able to appoint and dismiss ministers, regulate the civil service, declare war, declare peace, direct the actions of the military, and negotiate and ratify treaties, alliances, and international agreements. All of this lies within the Royal Prerogative.
Whether these powers are exercised or otherwise, no person by virtue of their birth should hold them.
It’s an anachronistic, undemocratic system, which legitimises the concepts of subject-subservience, modern feudalism, and idolatry/celebrity.
It also allows one of the richest families in the world to see its bills paid by the taxpayer, and to avoid paying vast amounts of tax.
It’s unequivocally unfair, it’s unprogressive, it’s undemocratic, it’s a painful affront to millions of families all over the world in its continuing symbolism of British colonialism, and it’s time it was binned.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And she has 100% invoked royal prerogatives multiple times to suppress difficult and awkward situations not in her or her family's favour.
Trumpistic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"A painful affront to millions of families all over the world"
Jesus that's a stretch and a half. If the UK is so terrible why don't we all just commit suicide and be done with it.
posted on 11/9/22
comment by Ignacio Varga (U11781)
posted 11 minutes ago
Surely the more interesting question is *why* are a majority of the populace seemingly delighted to have an unelected, wealthy & privileged upper class reigning over them (albeit in a fairly docile, non-interventionist way)?
Because the British population in general are the biggest bootlickers in Europe.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think you'd find different results or outcomes anywhere else, and in fact we see perfectly similar outcomes all across the world in the political spheres, too.
With that said, I think there's little doubt that the British public are subjected to some of the absolute worst media, offering as they do a very narrow set of parameters in which serious discourse can take place, and most of that discourse (even the better stuff) is heavily distorted & filtered across pretty much every major and serious topic (not just around the monarchy) so much that it's very difficult for the population is properly understand issues. In fact, studies on the British public's views and understandings across multi issues have shown that the UK population is pretty much about everything.
posted on 11/9/22
comment by Shinjury list (U1700)
posted 1 hour, 36 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 57 minutes ago
comment by Ignacio Varga (U11781)
posted 35 seconds ago
comment by 🏴 (U9094)
posted 3 minutes ago
True story, I met Charles not long ago. I refused to shake his hand. I got a bit of a dressing down from my superiors for that. My response was that it wasn’t in my job description to shake a person’s hand because society says that I should.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
why should you shake the hand of some random rich bloke who wouldn’t pee on you if you were on fire? You should’ve told your superiors to fack off, there’s nothing in our contracts that tell us to lick the Royal family’s crack.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nobody asked him to lick his crack.
I shake hands with anyone I meet.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Covid positives?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Boris
posted on 11/9/22
comment by Boy From The South (U3979)
posted 29 seconds ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 21 seconds ago
comment by Ignacio Varga (U11781)
posted 2 hours, 24 minutes ago
comment by Rosso out here drippin’ in finesse (U17054)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 41 seconds ago
comment by Rosso out here drippin’ in finesse (U17054)
posted 1 minute ago
No man or woman should be subservient to any other man or woman.
I would not bow to any member of that family, nor should anyone else be obligated to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're not, unless you choose to be.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The hereditary monarch holds ultimate executive authority over the government, has ultimate executive control of the armed forces, and is able to appoint her own Prime Minister.
She is also able to appoint and dismiss ministers, regulate the civil service, declare war, declare peace, direct the actions of the military, and negotiate and ratify treaties, alliances, and international agreements. All of this lies within the Royal Prerogative.
Whether these powers are exercised or otherwise, no person by virtue of their birth should hold them.
It’s an anachronistic, undemocratic system, which legitimises the concepts of subject-subservience, modern feudalism, and idolatry/celebrity.
It also allows one of the richest families in the world to see its bills paid by the taxpayer, and to avoid paying vast amounts of tax.
It’s unequivocally unfair, it’s unprogressive, it’s undemocratic, it’s a painful affront to millions of families all over the world in its continuing symbolism of British colonialism, and it’s time it was binned.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And she has 100% invoked royal prerogatives multiple times to suppress difficult and awkward situations not in her or her family's favour.
Trumpistic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"A painful affront to millions of families all over the world"
Jesus that's a stretch and a half. If the UK is so terrible why don't we all just commit suicide and be done with it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nothing wrong with the UK, or its people.
The country facing and addressing the horrific crimes of Empire in earnest is yet to happen, however, and the appropriate apologies and reparations for those crimes are way overdue.
(A start would be acknowledging the ongoing colonialist actions still being carried out in the name of the UK, a prime example of which would be the illegal retention of the Chagos Islands, and refusal to allow Chagossians to return to their homeland.)
posted on 11/9/22
comment by Rosso out here drippin’ in finesse (U17054)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by GregUnited (U1192)
posted 59 seconds ago
Rosso that must have taken you a long time to Google, considering the amount of time it took for your reply.
You're moaning about such a miniscule amount of money that it's not even worth arguing about.
How much did trump's visit to the UK cost?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We’re talking about tens of millions of pounds over the course of Liz’s reign in funding and tax avoidance. I wouldn’t call that a minuscule amount of money, personally.
Personally speaking, the democratic and egalitarian arguments are more important than that about money, anyway.
I believe in democracy, I don’t believe that any person should be subservient to the next, and I also believe that every man and woman should be treated equally, under the same social contract, with the same rights and obligations.
Ultimately, those are my issues with the system.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair enough.
I'm of the opinion that we have bigger problems in this country, than the royal family.
I sometimes see them as a nice distraction to how poorly run this country is.
Many prime minister's have been in power over the years and made decisions that have been a disaster for this country. General living have gotten worse for the public and none of that is to do with the royal family, it's all the government.
I do think it's a bit of jealousy though, how some look at the royal family and think "the feck have they done to deserve their current position?"
"The feck have they done to warrant not paying any inheritance tax".
I tend not to think about it, and even when I do I don't care all that much.
I do find the history of England very interesting though and would be against getting rid of the monarchy.
I'm of the mind that, the country would look a lot different today, were it not for the king's and queens over the centuries.
Perhaps they shouldn't have so much power these days though, as in, pay all their taxes, require passports and driving licenses etc and all that stuff.
posted on 11/9/22
comment by Bobby Dazzler (U1449)
posted 22 minutes ago
comment by Boy From The South (U3979)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Rosso out here drippin’ in finesse (U17054)
posted 40 seconds ago
The Queen Mother’s estate was worth an estimated £70m, the vast majority of which she left to the Queen when she died.
On this proportion of the estate, the total amount of inheritance tax paid to the exchequer was £0. A nice ballpark £25m tax dodge.
The Queen Mother also left some small bequeathments to her (pretty poorly paid) personal staff. Which, of course, were subject to tax
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I have to pay taxes and the queen doesn't
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How old are you?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Taxes are for poor/lower income and working class/middle class people, not wealthy people or companies. They are more suited to tax breaks, concessions and zero ratings. The money and wealth will eventually trickle down to poorest.
Every Tory knows this.
posted on 11/9/22
Nothing wrong with the UK, or its people.
———
I beg to differ.
posted on 11/9/22
comment by 🏴 (U9094)
posted 1 hour, 9 minutes ago
comment by Shinjury list (U1700)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by 🏴 (U9094)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Shinjury list (U1700)
posted 48 seconds ago
How many shook his hand Babyen? And did anyone say, afterwards, that they wished they hadn't as well?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Only the business owners shook his hand. I was there with the children in my charge. The members of staff had the choice to line up and shake his hand if they wanted to. They, like me, chose not to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nice one for the update. I can see your point of view, for sure.
I'd have shook his hand, but asked a tough question at the same time, holding his hand until he answered.
I wouldn't, for fear of being shot, but let's not let facts get in the way of a good idea in theory.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The number of armed guards surrounding him was insane. The checks they did on the property was down to the last detail too. He was there for about 15 minutes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hidden costs that dwarf the dreamt up £1.6bn
Page 6 of 21
7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11