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

[Weststander]

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

“Reclaimed” suggests ‘we’ owned Duchy of Cornwall lands in the first place.

It was a gift from king to prince in 1337, with rare additions acquired since. Who owned the land before Edward III? Bishops, Norman gentry most likely.

 

[cunning fergus]

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.

Woah there cowboy, you started with this position:

“There’s no justification for people on the breadline contributing to the royal estate.”

Now your saying taxpayers………I suspect I won’t agree with you whatever point your trying to make which is probably you want a republic.

Better to say directly what you think and not weasel about.

 

[nicko31]

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

Whilst I don't like the idea of an unelected head of state the role is largely ceremonial, full power is unlikely to be exercised.

Your list is a reminder we need much reform in other areas and becoming a Republic isn't really a priority at this time.

A written constitution would also be a good start.

 

[amexer]

With so many people struggling I did feel a little uncomfortable with the costs in last week. Maybe should have come from Royal purse

 

[nicko31]

With so many people struggling I did feel a little uncomfortable with the costs in last week. Maybe should have come from Royal purse

Whether its right or wrong to have one, the really big cost is another extra public holiday

 

[DJ NOBO]

Woah there cowboy, you started with this position:

“There’s no justification for people on the breadline contributing to the royal estate.”

Now your saying taxpayers………I suspect I won’t agree with you whatever point your trying to make which is probably you want a republic.

Better to say directly what you think and not weasel about.

Either way I’ve put it will suffice. Relatively poor people funding super rich people (through taxes - if that was not obvious).

It’s a shame there wasn’t a middle option in the poll around keeping, but reforming, the Royal Family, in particular their finances.

There’s a more interesting debate to be had there, than at the extremes. Although perhaps not with you. Toodle pip.
.

 

[Half Time Pies]

Whilst I don't like the idea of an unelected head of state the role is largely ceremonial, full power is unlikely to be exercised.

Your list is a reminder we need much reform in other areas and becoming a Republic isn't really a priority at this time.

A written constitution would also be a good start.

The powers that the unelected head of state has are really held by the prime minister because the monarch only exercises those powers upon the advice of the prime minister, but the prime minister isn't directly elected by the population because the monarch is head of state. It's a ridiculous hybrid system that holds no purpose other than to water down democracy. I don't see why we can't keep the royal family in a ceremonial capacity but have a properly elected and accountable head of state.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

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

The entire royal family are not paid for. Only the sovereign and consort. Senior Royals are paid for from the Duchy of Lancaster except for the heir, who is the Duke of Cornwall.
The Sovereign Grant comes out of the Crown Estates which include privately owned land such as Sandringham and Balmoral.

 

[nicko31]

The powers that the unelected head of state has are really held by the prime minister because the monarch only exercises those powers upon the advice of the prime minister, but the prime minister isn't directly elected by the population because the monarch is head of state. It's a ridiculous hybrid system that holds no purpose other than to water down democracy. I don't see why we can't keep the royal family in a ceremonial capacity but have a properly elected and accountable head of state.

Surely the biggest flaw is our unelected upper chamber with whole load of life peers, whoever is PM gets to fill it with whatever cronies they like.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

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

Crown Estates income to the Treasury is £385 million. The Sovereign Grant varies between £85 million and £104 million.
Net profit to the Treasury £290ish million

Cost per head per year to us taxpayers £1.24 for security.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...11-guidance/sovereign-grant-act-2011-guidance

 

[drew]

The powers that the unelected head of state has are really held by the prime minister because the monarch only exercises those powers upon the advice of the prime minister, but the prime minister isn't directly elected by the population because the monarch is head of state. It's a ridiculous hybrid system that holds no purpose other than to water down democracy. I don't see why we can't keep the royal family in a ceremonial capacity but have a properly elected and accountable head of state.

Not sure that makes any sense. You could have a system where you vote for an MP in your constituency and also for the Prime Minister whilst retaining a monarchy.

As for your last sentence, what powers do the monarchy currently exercise that renders them not ceremonial?

 

[Half Time Pies]

Surely the biggest flaw is our unelected upper chamber with whole load of life peers, whoever is PM gets to fill it with whatever cronies they like.

I agree that it's ridiculous to have unelected life peers and to change things I really think we need to start challenging the very concept of unelected heads of states and life peers and the relevance of them having any part in our system of government. The whole system is flawed in my opinion and the overall purpose is to maintain the status quo.

 

[cunning fergus]

Either way I’ve put it will suffice. Relatively poor people funding super rich people (through taxes - if that was not obvious).

It’s a shame there wasn’t a middle option in the poll around keeping, but reforming, the Royal Family, in particular their finances.

There’s a more interesting debate to be had there, than at the extremes. Although perhaps not with you. Toodle pip.
.

It would suffice for a fool unable to grasp who actually contributes meaningfully to the tax coffers of the U.K.

https://www.icaew.com/technical/tax...easingly-reliant-on-super-rich-for-tax-income

Even relatively wealthy people these days are not likely to be contributing meaningfully as you broadly need to be in top 10% of earners.

I appreciate that truth could be difficult for the today’s Watt Tylers to digest in their eagerness to defend those on the breadline but there it is.

Chin chin.

 

[Weststander]

Surely the biggest flaw is our unelected upper chamber with whole load of life peers, whoever is PM gets to fill it with whatever cronies they like.

This.

Why should unelected mates of Tony, Gordon, Dave and Boris have a rest of their lives input on legislation, with lobbying and self interest?

 

[DJ NOBO]

It would suffice for a fool unable to grasp who actually contributes meaningfully to the tax coffers of the U.K.

https://www.icaew.com/technical/tax...easingly-reliant-on-super-rich-for-tax-income

Even relatively wealthy people these days are not likely to be contributing meaningfully as you broadly need to be in top 10% of earners.

I appreciate that truth could be difficult for the today’s Watt Tylers to digest in their eagerness to defend those on the breadline but there it is.

Chin chin.

You should drop the Cunning from your NSC name, Fergus. You do Baldrick a disservice.

 

[clapham_gull]

The entire royal family are not paid for. Only the sovereign and consort. Senior Royals are paid for from the Duchy of Lancaster except for the heir, who is the Duke of Cornwall.
The Sovereign Grant comes out of the Crown Estates which include privately owned land such as Sandringham and Balmoral.

It's all smoke and mirrors (and the shifting around of assets) to make sure they are able to live in to the manner to which they are accustomed. Whether the income is from the tax payer or business bestowed to them is a completely mute point.

Prince Edward and his wife were forced to jettison their business careers after the establishment deemed them an "embarrassment". If they try to earn their own income they soon get shut down.

It all amounts to the same thing. They are paid to be who they are and not what they do and that's really what the establishment wants.

I have less of a problem with an unelected head of state than I do with the extended family not having jobs.

Neither do I have a particularly problem a private individual paying them some stupid amounts of money because of their name and connections. That's down to business owners and shareholders.

All this needs to change and hopefully will to a degree under Charles.

 

[nicko31]

I agree that it's ridiculous to have unelected life peers and to change things I really think we need to start challenging the very concept of unelected heads of states and life peers and the relevance of them having any part in our system of government. The whole system is flawed in my opinion and the overall purpose is to maintain the status quo.

Agree with you, but I really can't see an appetite for a Republic right now. The Royal's number one objective is survival and I think todays events gave them a major boost.

Maybe in a few years we'll we taking about having "an Australian style Republic" as a workable model. But tor now we need to push for reform which can actually be delivered

 

[Bakero]

Someone on the other thread said the BBC were reporting that 5.1 billion people around the world tuned in to watch the funeral today. Did they really claim that? 500 million seems more likely.

 

[drew]

Someone on the other thread said the BBC were reporting that 5.1 billion people around the world tuned in to watch the funeral today. Did they really claim that? 500 million seems more likely.

Lots of sources saying well over 4 billion. Half the bloody planet.

 

[nicko31]

Someone on the other thread said the BBC were reporting that 5.1 billion people around the world tuned in to watch the funeral today. Did they really claim that? 500 million seems more likely.

Atlanta Olympics (not one of the best) got 3.6B for its opening ceremony. Today's event was peak time viewing across China and India, this can make a big impact