The monarchy

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Fenir_LacDanan
Oh and just for the record, I hate the royals and their Illustrious ancestors. Being Fenian, I would just be as happy to see them all overthrown, but thats just me.

I was just answering the question.

You are not alone, it seems. I asked in another post about whether you pay taxes for the royals... I'm very curious to know.

Ah... look... another post without bashing America... congradulations.

(Ok... I'll stop now. )

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by sun-star
That puts it very well. Basically, if you don't get it, you don't get it. This is one of those cultural differences which you just have to accept that a foreigner isn't going to understand simply by reference to budget statements.

True, I suppose. I'm just trying to understand your point of view, sun-star. That's all.

One: Draken.

Seems more than Draken, hun.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Hemel Hehey! You've already found out some figures, so I thought it was you maybe really interested in all this kind of stuff and'd be finding out? No? But for the record anyway then and just for starters Crown Estate profit for 2002 given to the Government was £163.3m and costs of the monarchy returned for official stuff (remember she's Head of State) £35.3m. If you search on www.royal.gov.uk and on www.crownestate.co.uk you'll find some breakdowns and this year's accounts from Crown Estate already are documented (in PDF)).

Hey, I spent over 2 hours finding what I did. But then I've been busy lately, too. Thank you for the information. I'll look at those sites in detail tomorrow... I have to wash the stink off me from the gym, and get my butt to bed/sleep. I have to work tomorrow.

Compensation - NHS - yes, it's fair and right that if people sustain harm and costs because of NHS mistakes then they should get compensation. The NHS is the second biggest area of government spending I believe and has a budget of around £70bn this year to cover everything. Compensation has been called by the national audit office a 'significant and increasing drain on the resources available for patient care'. Which clearly isn't good news. Costs the last couple of years have been some £450m (a quarter going in legal costs and in a significant number of lower award cases the legal costs are more than the awards) and there's some nearly £6bn in claims in the way and anticipated and maybe some £3bn on top of that, for the next few years. The system is under review - the current one is open to gravy-training and also is not conducive towards admitting and correcting errors. Fraud is also a significant factor in NHS costs, though that has been much reduced this last year.

Damn! That's shocking!

But then .... the costs of keeping Brits in Iraq is currently some five times the amount of NHS compensation. And some 70 times the cost of royals for official duties (which costs are less than a quarter of that gained by estate revenue). Kind of puts things in perspective, I think.

pththt! I hear ya! The new budget for Iraq and Afganistan just hit the news... I nearly choked.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
1 - Because Tony Blair would get to pick the replacement (see what he's done with reform of the House of Lords), probably himself. Otherwise, I'd be up for it. Sadly, most Brits wouldn't, especially the police and armed forces (who act in the name of the Crown), so that's that really.

Bah... I mean totally get them off the dole... they can still be your kings and queens, etc... I'm just saying make them self sustaining in their personal lives and not bill the people for their excesses.

2 - I suppose that a person who is Head of State ought to have the costs of fulfilling that role paid for by the State. The issue would be separating those costs from all their other jollies.

agreed... that's what I was getting at.

3 - Retraining scheme for unemployed/-able ex-royals.

BWHAHAAHAHHAAAA!!! ROLFMAO!!!
I just can't imagine it without laughing.. I just can't.

[The Gaffer]

Originally posted by Ruinel
Bah... I mean totally get them off the dole... they can still be your kings and queens, etc... I'm just saying make them self sustaining in their personal lives and not bill the people for their excesses.

Well, I agree. Like the Dutch or Norwegian monarchy.

The main issue is that most Brits do NOT want such a "watered down" monarchy. The Crown represents what many people (not me!) regard as the essence of the nation. Even many citizens of Commonwealth countries agree (i.e. countries that used to be part of the Empire), which is why, I guess, the Aussies didn't ditch them the last time round.

But there's also a very practical question of what you replace it with. With something as important as Head of State, you don't want a tosser like Bliar, who has too much power as it is, dictating the way it goes. To my mind that is the one thing that is good about the monarchy: it's apolitical.

You only need to see what happened in the last Australian referendum on becoming a republic to get an example. Basically, their PM manipulated it so that it was a choice between keeping the monarchy and having soem dodgy political puppet. Not surprisingly, they opted to keep the monarchy.

Speaking of which, any Aussies know when the next republican referendum is going to be?

[Hemel]

Bah... I mean totally get them off the dole... they can still be your kings and queens, etc... I'm just saying make them self sustaining in their personal lives and not bill the people for their excesses

As far as I'm aware they aren't on it. And they don't. And they pay taxes too.

And God forbid we should ever end up with an elected head of state like that awful Tony (oh, I never knew anything about the abuses in Iraq, honest, guv!) Blair.

[sun-star]

Originally posted by Ruinel
Seems more than Draken, hun.

What, who replied between your first and second posts? I don't think so, hun I was answering Hemel's question.

I never called anyone 'hun' before - makes me feel all American...

EDIT: Look what I found: stats

Pity it isn't a bit more recent - but 74% in favour! I thought it was nearer 50% at the most...

And for some international comparison, I read this story in today's newspaper and I'm in the mood for posting links: another monarchy

[sun-star]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
The main issue is that most Brits do NOT want such a "watered down" monarchy. The Crown represents what many people (not me!) regard as the essence of the nation. Even many citizens of Commonwealth countries agree (i.e. countries that used to be part of the Empire), which is why, I guess, the Aussies didn't ditch them the last time round.

Wasn't the referendum really close to rejecting the monarchy? Like 55% to 45%?

Also, does anyone know if rejecting the monarchy would mean Australia leaving the Commonwealth?

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by sun-star
What, who replied between your first and second posts? I don't think so, hun I was answering Hemel's question.

Ah... sorry. I meant in all the posts... not just the recent one. My apologies.

I never called anyone 'hun' before - makes me feel all American...

I can make you an honorary Texan if you want.

EDIT: Look what I found: stats

Pity it isn't a bit more recent - but 74% in favour! I thought it was nearer 50% at the most...

And for some international comparison, I read this story in today's newspaper and I'm in the mood for posting links: another monarchy [/B]

*Linkety-link*Thanks for the links, sun-star.... errrr... hun. I'm shocked at the number that support the monarchy system in that poll. I wonder if the question was "Would you like to see the financial support of the monarchy reduced to only official expenditures?", if that number would be high or low... I didn't that question on that site. I was never in doubt that many of the Brits support having a monarchy, such as Radagast (who vehemently supports it) and yourself. It's charming, I'm sure, when they are on their best behavior (but rather an embarrassment when they aren't). My confusion is mostly over why the Brits eagerly pay taxes to support the monarchy's personal expenses... etc. (things not directly official).

[Fenir_LacDanan]

Originally posted by Ruinel
shouldn't that be "wrath"?
*pulls out a whip and gives Fenir a little flick* MWAHAHAHA!!!

Actually, my dear uneducated Ruinel, "wroth" applies perfectly well.

Do you know when this might have been done in the past?

It happened in Australia in the seventies, but was only done because the then government couldn't balance the budget. It was controversial, but entirely legal and above board.

It doesn't seem that all of them happily pour money into the royals' pockets. Not according to a few of the posts here. Do you give money to the royals in taxes? (I ask because I know you do not live in the UK, currently, and I'm not sure about your taxes.)

Another person who takes everything literally... By "all" read the greater majority of British subjects. Oh, and I am an Irish National, and Ireland is assuredly NOT part of the UK.*thumps his chest as a tear runs down his cheek as he looks with mounting pride at the rising Irish Flag, flutter in the morning breeze*

Errrr... I didn't know JFK Jr... so I wasn't affected by his death. None of the Kenedy's cried when my mother died... why should I cry over him.

Exactly my point. Why cry over JFK jr? Or the Queen Mother? Or Diana? If you prick them, do they not bleed? They are no better than you or me.

hmmm... not bad. So, you can post without bashing my country... nice.

Well I do try to restrain myself after a spanking and a holiday.

[Janny]

Um... I was watching The West Wing the other day... all the people in it, besides President Sheen, all the poeple who wield power are unelected. Toby, for example, many key decisions, yes, knows secrets, yup, well paid, yup, elected, well no...

[The Gaffer]

THere is a valid point in there, Janny, in that our systems of democracy seem to produce governments which place the interests of certain groups above those their own people.

Another reason why it's good to have a politically independent head of state (though there's no reason why s/he couldn't be elected, like in Ireland).

I'm not surprised at those stats. I also reckon that roughly the same number of Brits are quite happy to believe that the Royals are good value for money.

Sun-star, is that a Japanese candle in the wind there? The British royals certainly regarded Diana as little more than breeding stock.

[Janny]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
THere is a valid point in there, Janny, in that our systems of democracy seem to produce governments which place the interests of certain groups above those their own people.

Bah? Who is involved in 'our'? UK ans US? I was kinda getting at the notion that it is odd to accuse the royals of being undemocratic when Toby, charming though he is, exists in government.
I meant that, while British politics has been muddied by Alistair Campbell, ultimately the entirity of people who hold power have been elected.

[The Gaffer]

You've lost me. Not a West Wing fan, so don't know who Toby is. And we don't elect our prosecutors, sheriffs or Upper House like they do in the US.

But the issue in democraticness is not just about electing people, it's about consultation and accountability.

[sun-star]

Originally posted by Ruinel
I can make you an honorary Texan if you want.

Ooh, ooh, do I get to say 'howdy'? Or is that another state...

[Janny]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
You've lost me. Not a West Wing fan, so don't know who Toby is. And we don't elect our prosecutors, sheriffs or Upper House like they do in the US.

But the issue in democraticness is not just about electing people, it's about consultation and accountability.

Fair enough. The thing that really gets me is the notion of there being no direct opposition to the president, like Mr Howard is to Mr. Blair (supposedly ). That is a pretty big arguement pro monarchy: Queen or President Blair?

[Fenir_LacDanan]

Originally posted by Janny
Um... I was watching The West Wing the other day... all the people in it, besides President Sheen, all the poeple who wield power are unelected. Toby, for example, many key decisions, yes, knows secrets, yup, well paid, yup, elected, well no...

Thats because America, like most of the world, is actually a republic, not a democracy. A republic is the system of government in which we elect leaders to speak for us, and they appoint their own aids and so forth. A democracy, or at least the theory of one, is direct representation of the people in government, and the people have a direct role in every decision, which would be impossible in most countries given their size.

The people cant elect EVERYBODY, government would grind to a halt. You elect the main ones, and let them sort the rest out. The point is, and this is a big point, only the elected officials have the actual power.

Toby on the west wing has influence, but cannot make final decisions without the elected president.

[The Gaffer]

Originally posted by Janny
President Blair?

brrrrr. Don't say things like that, this is a family board.

That did occur to me the other day, while watching some Parliamentary debate, just having got back from the States: I'd LOVE to see Bush dealing with PM's Questions in the House of Commons. He wouldn't last 5 minutes.

[Janny]

Is that praise of Mr. Blair?

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by sun-star
Ooh, ooh, do I get to say 'howdy'? Or is that another state...

Absolutely, you get to say 'howdy'.