2015 UK General Election

[robvalue]

In regard to royal family I did watch this video by CGPGREY titled "The True Cost of the Royal Family":
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw

Wow! Well, if the figures quoted here are accurate, I am gobsmacked. From a purely financial point of view, that does discredit any objections to the royal family. Thanks!

The problem remains where they do have actual power, even if they choose not to use it at the moment. Given the above, it almost seems like they are now paying for the right to keep that power, although perhaps that is too cynical.

Does anyone have an opinion on if this "power" is likely to be ever taken up in any serious way, and what the consequences would be? If in theory the queen really is in charge, can parliament just go invalidate the documents saying she is if it came to it?

It's a bit like the royals have a nuclear weapon but they're not going to use it while they've got things pretty good. But if someone a bit power hungry gets in charge, or if the royals start thinking they in fact aren't living "well enough" then maybe they'd fire it up.

Bit of a stupid analogy but it works for me.

Oh, excuse me...

*Talks to agent 47*

Never mind, there isn't a problem.

[Cyberman]

There's a difference between cost and worth. Someone could offer you an amazing deal on snacking you around the head with a lumphammer every day, but while you might be able to afford it, is it something you really want or need?

[Pyrrho]

Not that I am a monarchist, but as a practical matter, how does the Queen's judgement compare with, say, the typical Prime Minister?

If her judgement is better, then it might be best to leave well enough alone.  If worse, then France showed you the way long ago.

It could go one way or the other, but it's hardly the point. The fact is, people voted for politicians to make the decisions, not the Queen. It's not democratic at all if the ministers who were chosen by the people to make the decisions can get overruled by someone who wasn't voted for. At least in the American system, the person who has the power of veto (the President) is elected by the people, and even if the President does veto something, there are ways of overriding the veto itself.

On the contrary, I think it is the point.  Politics is a practical matter, or should be, and so it is a question of what works best in practice.  As a representative of a country, I do not see the Queen saying a bunch of stupid shit, unlike some American presidents.  And although I have been raised to despise monarchy, as all good Americans have , I cannot help but pause and reflect, particularly during the years of George W. Bush being president, saying all manner of imbecilic things.  The comparison with your Queen is stark.


As for a democracy, I rather like the fact that ours has limits on what imbecilic laws morons may democratically pass.  For example, the local laws must conform to the Constitution, or they can be overturned in court.  And to change the Constitution requires more than a mere popular vote, for which I am truly grateful.  The level of intelligence of the writers of the U.S. Constitution is clearly much higher than average, so it is good that morons have difficulty changing it.  I shudder to think what our current Congress would come up with if they were doing a total rewrite of the Constitution.

[I_am_not_mafia]

The monarchy have no powers of governance, the modern constitutional monarchy is a source of governance in tradition only and not in actual actual powers.

Are you sure?

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/...egislation

[robvalue]

My wife says I'm too paranoid to be even worrying about what power the royals may have in theory.

I'm not sure.

[I_am_not_mafia]

In regard to royal family I did watch this video by CGPGREY titled "The True Cost of the Royal Family":
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw

Wow! Well, if the figures quoted here are accurate, I am gobsmacked. From a purely financial point of view, that does discredit any objections to the royal family. Thanks!

I've seen that video before. What it doesn't address is why that financial arrangement should continue. It is a left over from the feudal system and land can and has been sized and redistributed by governments in the past, why not do the same with the royal family? Half of the land in Scotland is owned by 430 families for example. That's also a throw back of history and will also change when Scotland gets its independence (incidentally, the same 430 families helped fund the better together campaign against independence). If you let history take its course then sometimes land gets sold off. This arrangement stops that from happening. The royal family could have sold the land rather than agreed to a fixed annual salary for the rest of time for example.

And secondly, it's not like the families that obtained large swathes of land hundreds of years ago did it fairly through their own honest work. And why should their descendants be be born into it through no reason other than they are the lucky ones? At some point you have to re-evaluate the current way of doing things and ask whether we should continue. What is more important? Historical legacy or the will of the people?

My own ancestors lost a lot of land to the crown for example because someone threw a will in the fireplace on his deathbed to hide that he was an illegitimate child. This was land in central London. The royal family had no right to that land.

[Iroscato]

Everyone's talking about The Queen never abusing her power. Perhaps not, and I rather like her personally. But the Queen is old, and won't be queen much longer. Eventually, we may get a monarch who gets ideas above their station, and causes all manner of awkwardness.

[robvalue]

That is what worries me. *Wheels out guillotine*

And I agree Mafia, being born into such ridiculous wealth and all that land being horded does some like a sickeningly unfair system.

Did you guys watch this?

http://youtu.be/SXI9KNAQJAs

[downbeatplumb]

Everyone's talking about The Queen never abusing her power. Perhaps not, and I rather like her personally. But the Queen is old, and won't be queen much longer. Eventually, we may get a monarch who gets ideas above their station, and causes all manner of awkwardness.

Indeed and his name is Charles. Why do you think the queen has clung on so long.

[Ben Davis]

In regard to royal family I did watch this video by CGPGREY titled "The True Cost of the Royal Family":
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw

An attempt at a reasonable fiscal analysis but it looks at things from the wrong perspective. The land is not 'their' land, it is 'our' land, all of it. They have no right (other than 'divine right') to claim ownership. Consequently, comparing the Civil List expenditure to the profits raised, from the land that the State already owns, is irrelevant. Instead it should be compared to the revenue which the Crown raises on the land it owns which should be owned by the State. Here the Civil List spend pales in to insignificance. The Crown raises ~£13.4 billion (2012 figures) in revenue that would otherwise go to the State. That's larger than the value of 'tax loophole' deficits. So the state gains ~£4 billion in tourist revenue? So what?! It loses over £9 billion in propping up an undemocratic regime. They can keep the title for all I care (like in other European countries) but they have no democratic reason to hold any power.

With the financial argument gone, I also had a problem with its demonisation of republicans. They're not all money-grabbing, heartless old lady haters. Such a misrepresentation doesn't aid his case.