[Politics] Is it time for the UK to become a republic?

[Lyndhurst 14]

Remove the title 'Defender of the Faith' from the reigning monarch. We are a secular society and the position of head of state should reflect that.

And kick the 26 unelected bishops out of the house of lords

 

[drew]

And kick the 26 unelected bishops out of the house of lords

That and a few more changes no doubt.

 

[cunning fergus]

Redivert the £100m in taxes that goes to the royals , towards families struggling to feed their kids, i say . Each to their own.

Oh goody, we are now playing what taxpayers money we spend which can be redistributed to the poor.

How about the 1.5bn we spend on asylum seekers……

https://homeofficemedia.blog.gov.uk/2022/04/14/factsheet-cost-of-asylum-system/

Maybe the Government should let the people choose.

 

[stewart12]

if we were to become a republic I'd want an overhaul of everything

-get rid of the charitable status of private schools
-ditch the house of lords for an elected second chamber
-ban MP's from having a second income
-cut down on the amount of MP's, we have way way too many
-no expenses beyond staffing costs etc and certainly stop subsidising the food & drink at parliament

 

[Silverhatch]

Keep a (very) slimmed down royal family
Rework their funding and make them liable to personal taxation like the rest of the citizens
PLEASE have a new National Anthem that speaks to the country and its people - an hereditary monarch “long to reign over us!” Just underpins the aristocracy, class and (elite) public school system that so infects the establishment born-to rule mentality of this country.

Liked the Queen immensely but the royal family are now facing a Fergie x 4 moment. Is Charles, Moyes?

 

[Half Time Pies]

Not sure how else you would propose a party elect their leader!

It's a catch 22 situation. If you were forced to have a general election when you changed leaders then we'd probably still have Johnson in charge because it would be like turkeys voting for xmas!

In a general election I am meant to put my cross next to the name of the candidate I prefer in my electoral ward. The leader of the political party they belong to isn't anywhere on that ballot paper.

 

[wuntbedruv]

And kick the 26 unelected bishops out of the house of lords

Kick "The Rememberancer" out of both houses.

If you have never heard of him it is no surprise, he lobbies ( interferes) from inside both Chambers on behalf of The City of London.

 

[BBassic]

In a general election I am meant to put my cross next to the name of the candidate I prefer in my electoral ward. The leader of the political party they belong to isn't anywhere on that ballot paper.

I'd wager most voters don't even know the name of their parties local candidate, despite it being on the ballot.

Not all, of course. But most will see the Labour logo or the Conservative logo and whack their mark regardless of the local manifesto.

 

[drew]

In a general election I am meant to put my cross next to the name of the candidate I prefer in my electoral ward. The leader of the political party they belong to isn't anywhere on that ballot paper.

I never said it was. The reality with our system though is many vote for a party irrespective of how good their local MP is and by doing so are effectively voting for the leader of that party to be Prime Minister.

 

[drew]

if we were to become a republic I'd want an overhaul of everything

-get rid of the charitable status of private schools
-ditch the house of lords for an elected second chamber
-ban MP's from having a second income
-cut down on the amount of MP's, we have way way too many
-no expenses beyond staffing costs etc and certainly stop subsidising the food & drink at parliament

You could do all of those whilst retaining the monarchy as well.

 

[stewart12]

You could do all of those whilst retaining the monarchy as well.

the monarchy is first on my list, the rest is a bonus

I do know it's wishful thinking

 

[Half Time Pies]

I never said it was. The reality with our system though is many vote for a party irrespective of how good their local MP is and by doing so are effectively voting for the leader of that party to be Prime Minister.

Some vote for the MP they like
Some vote for the party they always vote for
Some vote for the leader they like the most
And only those voters in marginal constituencies really have an impact on the which party forms the government.
And only a small number of party members really dictates who becomes leader and therefore prime minister.
And after all that...who exactly has a mandate to govern?

 

[DJ NOBO]

Oh goody, we are now playing what taxpayers money we spend which can be redistributed to the poor.

How about the 1.5bn we spend on asylum seekers……

https://homeofficemedia.blog.gov.uk/2022/04/14/factsheet-cost-of-asylum-system/

Maybe the Government should let the people choose.

You’re digressing and I can understand why.
The concept of relatively poor people giving to very very wealthy people is hard to defend.
I’m surprised the Royal Family don’t forgo their annual £100m on PR grounds, if nothing else. It’s loose change in their world.

 

[Icy Gull]

It’s a no from me and I have no intention of trying to justify it or talk anyone else around

 

[cunning fergus]

You’re digressing and I can understand why.
The concept of relatively poor people giving to very very wealthy people is hard to defend.
I’m surprised the Royal Family don’t forgo their annual £100m on PR grounds, if nothing else. It’s loose change in their world.

You bought up redirecting taxes, I’m just highlighting other causes where taxpayers money is spent, albeit as we know the U.K. Govt spends more than it raises from tax.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/57362816

I’m sure those hard pressed poorer taxpayers on the breadline you are so concerned are comforted in their penury by the billions their elected Govt borrows in their name only to give it away to other poor people in foreign countries.

 

[DJ NOBO]

You bought up redirecting taxes, I’m just highlighting other causes where taxpayers money is spent, albeit as we know the U.K. Govt spends more than it raises from tax.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/57362816

I’m sure those hard pressed poorer taxpayers on the breadline you are so concerned are comforted in their penury by the billions their elected Govt borrows in their name only to give it away to other poor people in foreign countries.

I’m saying tax payers should not have to contribute to the royal family, because the royal family doesn’t need tax payers’ money.
For all your links and lengthy sentences, I’m not sure if you agree with me or not.

 

[Half Time Pies]

You bought up redirecting taxes, I’m just highlighting other causes where taxpayers money is spent, albeit as we know the U.K. Govt spends more than it raises from tax.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/57362816

I’m sure those hard pressed poorer taxpayers on the breadline you are so concerned are comforted in their penury by the billions their elected Govt borrows in their name only to give it away to other poor people in foreign countries.

Very good Whataboutery, well done!

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Redivert the £100m in taxes that goes to the royals , towards families struggling to feed their kids, i say . Each to their own.

The Royal family don't get anything from our taxes paid. Firstly they self fund anything to do with the actual family - such as upkeep of the properties they actually own from their own money - much of which comes from the Duchy of Cornwall. The money they do get from the government is 15% of the profit from the Crown Estates. That 15% is used for the upkeep of Buckingham Palace ( which the state owns not the Royal Family ), the staff at Buckingham Palace, all other state properties the Royal family use for reasons of the state, entertaining foreign dignitaries, travel to events where they go as the Head of State - all of this would need to be paid regardless of how the Head of State was decided.

Smaller royal family which I believe is King Charles' aim anyway. Probably just the monarch and their heirs are considered the Royal household. So the likes of Anne, Andrew and Edward lose their titles and any income from the state. (they will no doubt have been looked after in the Queen's will, although Andrew's will be net of the £12m advance she provided earlier!!).

Anne, Andrew and Edward don't get any income from the state except their military pensions. Charles funds them from the Duchy of Cornwall - although it will now be William.

 

[DJ NOBO]

The Royal family don't get anything from our taxes paid. Firstly they self fund anything to do with the actual family - such as upkeep of the properties they actually own from their own money - much of which comes from the Duchy of Cornwall. The money they do get from the government is 15% of the profit from the Crown Estates. That 15% is used for the upkeep of Buckingham Palace ( which the state owns not the Royal Family ), the staff at Buckingham Palace, all other state properties the Royal family use for reasons of the state, entertaining foreign dignitaries, travel to events where they go as the Head of State - all of this would need to be paid regardless of how the Head of State was decided.



Anne, Andrew and Edward don't get any income from the state except their military pensions. Charles funds them from the Duchy of Cornwall - although it will now be William.

The monarch gets the sovereign grant . The sovereign grant is effectively tax-payer funded.

 

[jonny.rainbow]

The Duchy of Cornwall should be reclaimed and the entire Royal Family and their affairs should be paid for out of the Sovereign Grant.