The constitution

comment by Eagle Fang (U9028)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Serious Thorgen Kloppinson - No laughing matter (U1282)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by RED666👺 The Influencer (U6562)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Eagle Fang (U9028)
posted 1 hour, 54 minutes ago
comment by RED666👺 The Influencer (U6562)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Eagle Fang (U9028)
posted 2 hours, 36 minutes ago
In meetings now so I'll leave you to continue the conversation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
When you pop back in don’t forget to let us know how those roles would be filled!

Also would if they did save that money would they create more of those roles?

Finally there’s been cuts in some of the services you mentioned! Now Royal family or no Royal family would those cuts still of been made?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Despite Brexit making things more difficult, there are plenty of nurses and teachers that can be recruited from outside of the UK.

Can you provide rationale for the Sovereign Grant increasing by 55% over a period where other workers have seen their incomes drop in real terms? Do you think this is fair?

I guess it helps that the sovereign grant is only ever reviewed by the PM and chancellor, so doesn't get the same level of scrutiny as other budgets.

Did you know there is a clause prevents the grant from going down, even if the profits of the Crown Estate drop to zero? Does that sound sensible?

I assume you read the report on charities and the negative impact of having a royal patron as you've gone quiet on that front.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
When you see this in a report!

“we suspect that the effect of Royal patrons on charities’ revenue is small or zero:”

“but we could get no clear answer on the effect of Royal patronages on charities’ revenue.”

That really does make the report pretty pointless as are your points!

Yeah “we suspect”, “we get no clear answer” ffs get a grip, if I was handed a report and I read that on the first page I’d hit the roof!

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Isolating parts of it so that you see what you want. I urge you to read it again with context applied
----------------------------------------------------------------------

He won't, he's just a troll.

He has provided no evidence to back up his initial claim that the royals do a lot for charity.

When presented with an in-depth report researched and written for charities, is evidence based, and concludes that 'charities should not seek or retain Royal patrons thinking that they will bring the charity money.' he dismisses it because it counters his 'opnion'.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
“Troll” You do come out with some nonsense!

If they don’t add anything to charities then why do they still get hundreds of requests each year!

comment by Boy From The South (U3979)
posted 6 hours, 34 minutes ago
comment by Eagle Fang (U9028)
posted 32 minutes ago
" Having an unelected HOS and an elected government that actually runs the country is the ideal balance."

Fascinating, if Jimmy Saville (or someone like him) was next in line as an unelected Head of State, I wonder if there would be any cognitive dissonance experienced by the pro-monarchy group in supporting him.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That is an incredible straw man argument


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Not my intention, please elaborate if I misunderstood.

You freely admit you support the HOS being an unelected hereditary position?

It logically follows that, after Charles, William will take the throne, then George, and so on.

There is no guarantee that whoever inherits the position is qualified, competent, or even sane, but in line with 'tradition' neither you nor anyone else shall have a say in succession.

There is no process to vote in an alternative.

comment by Eagle Fang (U9028)
posted 1 hour, 15 minutes ago
comment by Boy From The South (U3979)
posted 6 hours, 34 minutes ago
comment by Eagle Fang (U9028)
posted 32 minutes ago
" Having an unelected HOS and an elected government that actually runs the country is the ideal balance."

Fascinating, if Jimmy Saville (or someone like him) was next in line as an unelected Head of State, I wonder if there would be any cognitive dissonance experienced by the pro-monarchy group in supporting him.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That is an incredible straw man argument


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Not my intention, please elaborate if I misunderstood.

You freely admit you support the HOS being an unelected hereditary position?

It logically follows that, after Charles, William will take the throne, then George, and so on.

There is no guarantee that whoever inherits the position is qualified, competent, or even sane, but in line with 'tradition' neither you nor anyone else shall have a say in succession.

There is no process to vote in an alternative.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There's nothing democratic about that. It's part of the reason we have to go to great lengths to protect the name of the monarchy.

A lot of comments have been made about the monarchy being a source of pride and good standing in the world but that means it can also be a source of great shame and embarassment at other times.

If you look at the history of monarchy, murder and all sorts of heinous acts have been committed to preserve it's name, not just our monarchy but the world over. No matter how much they fack up they must somehow be saved and it's so important as to justify some extreme measures. We have agreed to allow a particular family to be the symbol or icon that represents us all, our virtues and values, and when they fack up we face great shame so that almost anything is justified to remedy. That's a stupid situation to volunteer for.

If a president or Prime Minister facks up too much they just get facked off, blamed for everything and someone else takes over. The name of the monarchy must be protected in the past, today and in the future and that's easier said than done.

According to the Independent this morning the monarchy costs around £500 million per year.

It produces around £ 2.5 billion per year.

comment by Serious Thorgen Kloppinson - No laughing matter (U1282)
posted 1 day, 13 hours ago
comment by Eagle Fang (U9028)
posted 24 seconds ago

Not convinced that the happiness/wealth is linked to just one factor (monarchy)
======
I'm just indulging that argument tbh. The link between having a monarchy and wealth/ happiness is a bit of a stretch. There are many more prominent and respectable historical and contemporary factors that contribute to their happiness and wealth.

It's weird that we should emulate just the monarchy. What about their actual systems and modes of governance? The Nordic countries are not as capitalistic as the rest of the west.

For example they have the best welfare structures in the world, something which Tories want to reduce or do away with altogether. And that's just one example. They have fairer tax systems which attempt to put the people ahead of bug business. They have less super rich people than other countries of similar standing. They have less poor people and a larger middle/working class.

They are actually very smart to realise that a man with a full tummy overall will contribute more to revenues and nation building than a starving man. Extreme Scholl's of thought say that they practice some sort of hybrid of capitalism and socialism/communism. Everything that works for them the Tories are actually going against here in the UK. There's a lot more we could emulate.

I'd wager most countries that have a monarchy are not happy or successful at all, at least not more than the UK because even Swaziland has a monarchy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
i'm with you on this lad

Accounts for the Sovereign Grant, which funds the Queen and her household's official expenses, released in June of 2022 show the monarchy cost the taxpayer £102.4m during 2021-22 – an increase of 17% from the previous financial year.

How much it makes is as long as a piece of string. Makes for who, exactly? Private uk and overseas busineeses related to tourism? The public purse such as tax raised on related sales? Trade deals through royal patronage? Impossible to calculate.

But if having the Queen made over 102 million last year which I suspect it did, it has obviously broken even at the vey least.

comment by peks - 1974 (U6618)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Serious Thorgen Kloppinson - No laughing matter (U1282)
posted 1 day, 13 hours ago
comment by Eagle Fang (U9028)
posted 24 seconds ago

Not convinced that the happiness/wealth is linked to just one factor (monarchy)
======
I'm just indulging that argument tbh. The link between having a monarchy and wealth/ happiness is a bit of a stretch. There are many more prominent and respectable historical and contemporary factors that contribute to their happiness and wealth.

It's weird that we should emulate just the monarchy. What about their actual systems and modes of governance? The Nordic countries are not as capitalistic as the rest of the west.

For example they have the best welfare structures in the world, something which Tories want to reduce or do away with altogether. And that's just one example. They have fairer tax systems which attempt to put the people ahead of bug business. They have less super rich people than other countries of similar standing. They have less poor people and a larger middle/working class.

They are actually very smart to realise that a man with a full tummy overall will contribute more to revenues and nation building than a starving man. Extreme Scholl's of thought say that they practice some sort of hybrid of capitalism and socialism/communism. Everything that works for them the Tories are actually going against here in the UK. There's a lot more we could emulate.

I'd wager most countries that have a monarchy are not happy or successful at all, at least not more than the UK because even Swaziland has a monarchy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
i'm with you on this lad
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As I said in the OP the monarchy is not what produces happiness. Both monarchies and republics have examples both ways, as per the lists.
So getting rid of the monarchy is unlikely to make us happier or richer, just more boring

comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by peks - 1974 (U6618)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Serious Thorgen Kloppinson - No laughing matter (U1282)
posted 1 day, 13 hours ago
comment by Eagle Fang (U9028)
posted 24 seconds ago

Not convinced that the happiness/wealth is linked to just one factor (monarchy)
======
I'm just indulging that argument tbh. The link between having a monarchy and wealth/ happiness is a bit of a stretch. There are many more prominent and respectable historical and contemporary factors that contribute to their happiness and wealth.

It's weird that we should emulate just the monarchy. What about their actual systems and modes of governance? The Nordic countries are not as capitalistic as the rest of the west.

For example they have the best welfare structures in the world, something which Tories want to reduce or do away with altogether. And that's just one example. They have fairer tax systems which attempt to put the people ahead of bug business. They have less super rich people than other countries of similar standing. They have less poor people and a larger middle/working class.

They are actually very smart to realise that a man with a full tummy overall will contribute more to revenues and nation building than a starving man. Extreme Scholl's of thought say that they practice some sort of hybrid of capitalism and socialism/communism. Everything that works for them the Tories are actually going against here in the UK. There's a lot more we could emulate.

I'd wager most countries that have a monarchy are not happy or successful at all, at least not more than the UK because even Swaziland has a monarchy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
i'm with you on this lad
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As I said in the OP the monarchy is not what produces happiness. Both monarchies and republics have examples both ways, as per the lists.
So getting rid of the monarchy is unlikely to make us happier or richer, just more boring
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey but our monarchy make millions of people from all over the world happy.

Changing from one news program to another here, you're seeing more about the Queen than most other news reports!..

And documentaries, sinse her death they're on every day!..

I'm at the stage where I'm thinking they're going a little OTT on it!..

Her Funeral I think will be one of the biggest showings of the year, but there are a lot here that follow the Royal family and what it gets up to, and I think a lot will be over for the her funeral!..

Pure gym, a 24/7 gym that doesn't need employees to be there for customers to use it, is even closing for four hours on the 19th for the funeral? Why?