It's The Queens Birthday Day.

Ush1

Beefy78 wrote: »

No strawman, please

It's not a strawman, as FTA69 pointed out, Republics enjoy consititutions so that the populace has some form of protection and crucially, equality.

Saying a lot of Londoners like the Queen is not a very convicing argument.

RobertKK

I am looking forward to my father's birthday later in the year when he will be 90 years old, all going well please God.
Happy birthday to the Queen and all who celebrate significant birthdays. April is a really nice time of the year for a birthday, days are longer after the winter and the summer to look forward to.
It was my birthday last week, so I am slightly biased

Beefy78

FTA69 wrote: »

I do know that the majority of people support the Royal Family but that's not the point. A democratic system isn't simply equated with what the majority of people want in a given country; it's a system of government where power is explicitly supposed to lie in the hands of the populace and not in the hands of a sovereign, nominal or otherwise.

The majority of Russians were probably content under Stalin, likewise the majority of Libyans may well have supported Ghadaffi at one stage - it doesn't mean that ergo those systems were democratic.

As I said above, monarchy is an outdated and fundamentally wrong concept and it's abolishment is definitely something any democrat should support.

I think its fair to say that if you were starting a country today you wouldn't go down the route of a Monarchy as head of state. I'm sure we can all agree on that. But I think there are far more important democratic issues in the UK than whether the role of figurehead is one which has been voted on or not.

Democracy shouldn't mandate that every role needs to be elected. Elections are a tool of democracy. If you want to fix democracy in Britain (as I do...) then you start with the sham that is the UK Parliament. Focusing on a beloved family fulfilling a role that the public are happy with is a waste of effort.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Ush1

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

So you're comparing the cost of upkeep of a single family, to the cost of running the public healthcare service?

I'd love if they were privatised, I'd imagine very quickly they'd be spotted scurrying around bins. I think the fascination with them is the fact they are privileged because of who they are, privitise them and they'd be another Kardashian family....for a while.

FTA69

Beefy78 wrote: »

I think its fair to say that if you were starting a country today you wouldn't go down the route of a Monarchy as head of state. I'm sure we can all agree on that. But I think there are far more important democratic issues in the UK than whether the role of figurehead is one which has been voted on or not.

Democracy shouldn't mandate that every role needs to be elected. Elections are a tool of democracy. If you want to fix democracy in Britain (as I do...) then you start with the sham that is the UK Parliament. Focusing on a beloved family fulfilling a role that the public are happy with is a waste of effort.

In fairness I'm not saying that number one power disparity in the UK that should be tackled immediately is the Royal Family, because it isn't. However when it comes up it's perfectly fair to point out the fact that monarchy is outdated and anti-democratic and it's also a sham considering we have an establishment preaching hard work and austerity on one hand while simultaneously demanding we fawn over an idle royal family on the other.

As I said above, the Royals aren't the be all and end all of inequality and privilege in the UK, but they're definitely a thread in that wider fabric.

Arghus

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

My apologies. But even a penny a week is one too many in my opinion!

It seems like a very, very low amount. Any link to the article?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Ush1

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

This thread is about the Queen, not whataboutery.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Galwayguy35

Eugene Norman wrote: »

She's probably been working harder than most octogenarians.

Yeah right.

Most people still alive in their 80s did the kind of work the present generation of softies wouldn't last a day at and lived through times that were a lot tougher than we will ever know.

So to compare them to someone who was waited on hand and foot all her life is ridiculous.

Dirty Dingus McGee

Who exactly is "The Queen" there are numrous Queens around the world so can thread titles please be more specific in future.

Fratton Fred

Beefy78 wrote: »

I think its fair to say that if you were starting a country today you wouldn't go down the route of a Monarchy as head of state. I'm sure we can all agree on that. But I think there are far more important democratic issues in the UK than whether the role of figurehead is one which has been voted on or not.

Democracy shouldn't mandate that every role needs to be elected. Elections are a tool of democracy. If you want to fix democracy in Britain (as I do...) then you start with the sham that is the UK Parliament. Focusing on a beloved family fulfilling a role that the public are happy with is a waste of effort.

Indeed.

An English parliament, or banning non English MPs from matters that relate only to England is far more pressing.

Cortina_MK_IV

La_Gordy wrote: »

I work in London and there's a larger-than-life size (unless she is 6'2) cardboard Queen in the lunchroom today.

She just wasn't cut out for that job.

Edward Hopper

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It was 56p in 2014 if you take their figures at face value

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/28/royal-family-value-for-money-not-worth-tuppence

Quite like this quote from that article

In reality, of course, the calculation is fatuous, the true cost of running an extended royal family being multiples of £35.7m , and the number of forced contributors to wee George's rompers and the Duchess of Cambridge's heavily subsidised thongs being 29.9, not 64.1 million taxpayers. But given the widespread readiness to accept the palace maths and the role of a surging population in making such figures ever more impressive, it is remarkable, really, that many unpopular public expenses are not similarly disguised.

Fratton Fred

Edward Hopper wrote: »

It was 56p in 2014 if you take their figures at face value

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/28/royal-family-value-for-money-not-worth-tuppence

Quite like this quote from that article

What is the alternative? Replace the monarch with a president, as the Italians did? That costs them €282m per year.

Ush1

Fratton Fred wrote: »

What is the alternative? Replace the monarch with a president, as the Italians did? That costs them €282m per year.

Yeah, crucially however the president is not earmarked from birth to a position of privilege.

The Backwards Man

These threads are great for the identifying the posters that would be completely insufferable bores if you were unfortunate enough to meet them on a barstool somewhere.

Edward Hopper

Fratton Fred wrote: »

What is the alternative? Replace the monarch with a president, as the Italians did? That costs them €282m per year.

I'd presumed the president would be from the UK, but sure, we can share the Italian president and split the costs. Get a few other countries in, jobs a good'un.

Beefy78

Ush1 wrote: »

Yeah, crucially however the president is not earmarked from birth to a position of privilege.

Why is that crucial? On what possible metric would President Alan Sugar or Tony Blair be preferable to HRH Queen Elizabeth II in the role of powerless figurehead?

kneemos

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Who exactly is "The Queen" there are numrous Queens around the world so can thread titles please be more specific in future.

There is only one The Queen.

Edward Hopper

Beefy78 wrote: »

Why is that crucial? On what possible metric would President Alan Sugar be preferable to HRH Queen Elizabeth II in the role of powerless figurehead?

Democracy.

Dirty Dingus McGee

The Backwards Man wrote: »

These threads are great for the identifying the posters that would be completely insufferable bores if you were unfortunate enough to meet them on a barstool somewhere.

I think people have viewed your contributions to this forum in much the same way and hoped they didn't encounter you in real life.

Ush1

Beefy78 wrote: »

Why is that crucial? On what possible metric would President Alan Sugar or Tony Blair be preferable to HRH Queen Elizabeth II in the role of powerless figurehead?

The metric of equality??? That you actually have a say in who it is.

Why not earmark everyone from birth for their job based on their family.

Beefy78

Edward Hopper wrote: »

Democracy.

That's a bit wishy-washy. The vast majority of jobs in the UK are not elected, there's no decent reason why Head of State needs to be an elected position. Having lots of elections is not a sign of democracy and it's the elected institutions in the UK which are its biggest democratic problems.

The Backwards Man

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

I think people have viewed your contributions to this forum in much the same way and hoped they didn't encounter you in real life.

Ah, all water off a duck's back to me, the Queen has built more houses and fed more wains in Donegal than any Republican Yahoo ever has, she's not our Queen nor do we want her as our Queen, but a wee bit of cop on doesn't go amiss.

Edward Hopper

Beefy78 wrote: »

That's a bit wishy-washy. The vast majority of jobs in the UK are not elected, there's no decent reason why Head of State needs to be an elected position. Having lots of elections is not a sign of democracy and it's the elected institutions in the UK which are its biggest democratic problems.

The vast majority of jobs are usually awarded on merit, not a blood test? Usually when someone is employed, the contract doesn't state you also pay their children, children's children, and brothers and sisters.

Beefy78

Ush1 wrote: »

The metric of equality??? That you actually have a say in who it is.

Why not earmark everyone from birth for their job based on their family.

I don't have a say in who my bin man is. Or the person who processes my TV License. Or who is driving the number nine bus to work this morning. As I said, barely any jobs are decided by putting them to a vote and having jobs assigned by vote - particularly one as meaningless as Head of State - isn't a sign that your country or system is democratic.

Arghus

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I'd be slightly suspicious of statements claiming value for money, considering that they come from Buckingham Palace itself.

Ush1

Beefy78 wrote: »

I don't have a say in who my bin man is. Or the person who processes my TV License. Or who is driving the number nine bus to work this morning. As I said, barely any jobs are decided by putting them to a vote and having jobs assigned by vote - particularly one as meaningless as Head of State - isn't a sign that your country or system is democratic.

This is a whole different slant on the communist manifesto.

I genuinely don't have a clue what you're talking about. Are you confusing public, private, elected etc?

Alun

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

He left the military a few years ago. He's now a full-time helicopter pilot with the East Anglian Air Ambulance in Cambridge.

Edward Hopper

Alun wrote: »

He left the military a few years ago. He's now a full-time helicopter pilot with the East Anglian Air Ambulance in Cambridge.

20 hours a week, not bad, but not full time.

reggiegates

I like the queen- shes hot.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Beefy78

Ush1 wrote: »

This is a whole different slant on the communist manifesto.

I genuinely don't have a clue what you're talking about. Are you confusing public, private, elected etc?

No.... I'm saying that almost all jobs have zero requirement for election into the role. And that, IMO, Head of State - as an entirely powerless role - is one of them.

I get your point about people being born into jobs and already said that if you were starting from scratch you wouldn't choose a Monarchy. But that isn't reason to change by itself if what you've got works as it does for the bulk of British people.

The key point relating to democracy is that until such time as 51% of UK citizens want to see the UK become a Republic then the whole point is moot.

FWIW, I don't see any advantage in having the extra bureaucracy, extra career-opportunities for career politicians and what I suspect would be massively increased cost attached to running a Presidency and there's not a Presidency in the World - including Ireland's - that I look at as a British person and think "that's much better than what we do".

There's so many things that utterly depress me about democracy in my country but HRH isn't one of them.

Edward Hopper

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

So he's not a full time pilot as was stated. To which my reply that he worked 20 hours a week in that job was factually correct. No idea what the rest is, a strawman?

Ush1

Beefy78 wrote: »

No.... I'm saying that almost all jobs have zero requirement for election into the role. And that, IMO, Head of State - as an entirely powerless role - is one of them.

I get your point about people being born into jobs and already said that if you were starting from scratch you wouldn't choose a Monarchy. But that isn't reason to change by itself if what you've got works as it does for the bulk of British people.

That is the salient point unfortunately when this thread is to do with the Queen.

Beefy78 wrote: »

The key point relating to democracy is that until such time as 51% of UK citizens want to see the UK become a Republic then the whole point is moot.

FWIW, I don't see any advantage in having the extra bureaucracy, extra career-opportunities for career politicians and what I suspect would be massively increased cost attached to running a Presidency and there's not a Presidency in the World - including Ireland's - that I look at as a British person and think "that's much better than what we do".

There's so many things that utterly depress me about democracy in my country but HRH isn't one of them.

Why not go the French route and behead them? Probably cheaper.

Beefy78

Ush1 wrote: »

Why not go the French route and behead them? Probably cheaper.

That's hardly conduct befitting a birthday celebration

FTA69

The Backwards Man wrote: »

Ah, all water off a duck's back to me, the Queen has built more houses and fed more wains in Donegal than any Republican Yahoo ever has, she's not our Queen nor do we want her as our Queen, but a wee bit of cop on doesn't go amiss.

The Queen has built houses in Donegal? Does she do a bit of chippying on top of the royal engagements she does?

La_Gordy

xabi wrote: »

Thats crying out for a cock&balls to be drawn on it.

Tellin' me.

Fratton Fred

Ush1 wrote: »

Yeah, crucially however the president is not earmarked from birth to a position of privilege.

Which saves even more money on electing people to ceremonial positions.

Ush1

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Which saves even more money on electing people to ceremonial positions.

Ceremonial? *scoff* Reading some of the posts here they do a damn hard job of work!

Yamanoto

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Who exactly is "The Queen" there are numrous Queens around the world so can thread titles please be more specific in future.

This old chestnut's such a ridiculous argument.

Forget the Queen for a second - if someone mentions Prince Philip, 99% of people in Ireland will assume it's the doddery & mildly racist old Greek being discussed, not the baldy Monaco playboy. This is simply because, like it or not, the British royal family continue to inhabit our cultural consciousness to a far greater degree than Swedish, Dutch or Spanish monarchs.

The 'Which Queen' guff is just symptomatic of a particular type of republican mindset, that trawls around salivating at any opportunity to take offense.

karma_

Ever wonder how much it costs to keep the Royals safe?

Well... no one knows because it's never been published.

xabi

xabi wrote: »

Thats crying out for a cock&balls to be drawn on it.

La_Gordy wrote: »

Tellin' me.

Do it!

wokingvoter

Edward Hopper wrote: »

"Work" for Royals is going to grand dinners and having expensive holidays, getting waited on 24 hours a day. Not hard to see how they tend to live to a ripe old age.

An English Republic can't come soon enough (the realist in me knows it'll probably never come).

Can't come soon enough for who?

golfball37

The amount of tourist dollar the UK sees because of HRH and her royal family more than makes up for the upkeep cost.

Happy birthday your majesty.

Edward Hopper

wokingvoter wrote: »

Can't come soon enough for who?

Well me, the person who posted the post, crazy eh?

There's probably others too, but I'll let them decide if it can come soon enough for them.

Fratton Fred

Ush1 wrote: »

Ceremonial? *scoff* Reading some of the posts here they do a damn hard job of work!

They do, as I'm sure Ireland's ceremonial head of state does.

Ush1

Fratton Fred wrote: »

They do, as I'm sure Ireland's ceremonial head of state does.

So why earmark people from birth for all jobs?