Monarchy or Republic?

[Brighton Breezy]

Which is it for you?

Personally, I think we could learn a lot from republics like America. having politics that flows from the bottom up instead of top down means people are more openly accountable and encourages more people to get involved in politics. The American system also has greater checks on President then we do on PM. Poll Tax, for instance, would never have been allowed to be introduced in the states.

Also, politicians are less party lead and are more likely to go against the President, where as in this country once an MP is an MP he or she is little more then an automatic vote for the PM.

The way that most important positions in America are voted on means higher levels of accountability and means that high profile issues can actually be dictated by the people. For instance, if the US System was in operation in this country, we would have had Falmer ages ago because it is what the people of the local area want and would not be left up to one mans decision.

My main problem with our system is that it is predominantly class based. How can we ever become a less class based society if the head of state is there because of a born right?

Also, the baloney about tourism is just that..baloney. Most visited tourist attraction in France? Palace of Versailles. There is not one royal house or building in the top 20 most visited sites in this country...FACT. People may also visit Buckingham Palace more if you could look round more then half a dozen rooms.

Discuss.

Discuss.

 

[Beach Hut]

 

[Robot Chicken]

Two words:

President Blair

 

[smudge]

I think we should play 4-4-2 but I'm not keen on Mayo as a midfielder.

Play it to feet, easy ball, play the percentages down the channels!

 

[Brighton Breezy]

Two words:

President Blair

Blair is presidential but there is a major difference. New Labour need to localise government far more for him to ever be considered a President. He may have adopted many presidential characteristics but a few soundbites here and there does mnot make him a president.

 

[Pavilionaire]

Two words:

President Blair

Or President Thatcher. Either way, it's a fookin' nightmare.

 

[Brighton Breezy]

If Thatcher had actually been a president, most of her extreme policies would have never been implimented.

 

[Gazwag]

We would end up with Geoff Capes or Wayne Rooney as president - certainly Wayne's already got enough skeletons in his cupboard to qualify

 

[somerset]

Which is it for you?

Personally, I think we could learn a lot from republics like America. having politics that flows from the bottom up instead of top down means people are more openly accountable and encourages more people to get involved in politics. The American system also has greater checks on President then we do on PM. Poll Tax, for instance, would never have been allowed to be introduced in the states.

Also, politicians are less party lead and are more likely to go against the President, where as in this country once an MP is an MP he or she is little more then an automatic vote for the PM.

The way that most important positions in America are voted on means higher levels of accountability and means that high profile issues can actually be dictated by the people. For instance, if the US System was in operation in this country, we would have had Falmer ages ago because it is what the people of the local area want and would not be left up to one mans decision.

My main problem with our system is that it is predominantly class based. How can we ever become a less class based society if the head of state is there because of a born right?

Also, the baloney about tourism is just that..baloney. Most visited tourist attraction in France? Palace of Versailles. There is not one royal house or building in the top 20 most visited sites in this country...FACT. People may also visit Buckingham Palace more if you could look round more then half a dozen rooms.

Discuss.

Discuss.

RM.... where is this list ( top 20) published, your assertion has surprised me..... I would have said Tower of london and Windsor would have featured heavily myself, shows what i know.

 

[Brighton Breezy]

Blackpool pleasure beach was top. Windsor featured but it was Legoland not the castle.

 

[Beach Hut]

 

[somerset]

Blackpool pleasure beach was top. Windsor featured but it was Legoland not the castle.

Aaaaaaaah right, I am assuming though that Blackpool pleasure beach wouldn't appear in any list if you only counted overseas visitors, and i would probably count Alton towers and legoland in there too. I cant see too many Yanks and Japanese passing the time of day amongst hoards of northerners eating fish and chips from newspaper and having a fight and a f*ck to round the night off.

A little muddying of the waters there methinks, RM. A list of overseas tourists' favourite british sites would probably be more usefull in this debate, BUT I am not making a statement on the topic save for the fact that I did vote.

 

[Brighton Breezy]

Ok, you would think that, but the London Tourist Board show the following statistics on their website;

In 1999, the British Museum was the top attraction with 5.5 million visitors. Madame Tussaud’s was the most visited paid for attraction. All the statistics for 2000 are not available yet, but the Dome will be the most visited paid for attraction with 6.5 million visitors. The British Airways London Eye (3.2 million in 2000) and Tate Modern ( over 3 million).


No mention of any palaces etc on that list.

 

[Beach Hut]

Ok, you would think that, but the London Tourist Board show the following statistics on their website;

In 1999, the British Museum was the top attraction with 5.5 million visitors. Madame Tussaud’s was the most visited paid for attraction. All the statistics for 2000 are not available yet, but the Dome will be the most visited paid for attraction with 6.5 million visitors. The British Airways London Eye (3.2 million in 2000) and Tate Modern ( over 3 million).


No mention of any palaces etc on that list.

Errm - you might think that the LONDON tourist board will only mention LONDON attractions.

There is a clue there somewhere which you missed

 

[Juan Albion]

Hmmm, President Belotti...

 

[Strike]

Best as a monarchy, the yanks are jealous of us having a royal family as are other republics around the world. Lets keep them.

 

[somerset]

I am not doubting the published figures, was just surprised, but there you are.

 

[Brighton Breezy]

Errm - you might think that the LONDON tourist board will only mention LONDON attractions.

There is a clue there somewhere which you missed

Yes but it does show a degree of context because those are the top attractions in London, which, if Im not much mistaken, is where Buckingham Palace and The Tower of London are. Therefore, if those rate above them in London, it stands to reason they will also rate above them when looking at the country as a whole.

Stonehenge, the Lake District and Bath also score very highly.

 

[Yorkie]

Ok, you would think that, but the London Tourist Board show the following statistics on their website;

In 1999, the British Museum was the top attraction with 5.5 million visitors. Madame Tussaud’s was the most visited paid for attraction. All the statistics for 2000 are not available yet, but the Dome will be the most visited paid for attraction with 6.5 million visitors. The British Airways London Eye (3.2 million in 2000) and Tate Modern ( over 3 million).


No mention of any palaces etc on that list.

That's because the palaces are not open to visitors. Have you ever counted the amount of people OUTSIDE the palaces watching the Changing of the Guard?

I was invited to a Buckingham Palace garden party as part of my daughter's achievement in getting her Gold Duke of Edinburgh award and whilst queuing up to get in Buck House (the Hyde Park gate) we were photographed by Japanese tourists because we were all wearing hats etc

 

[Brighton Breezy]

There are many royal attractions that you can visit. I think this is taking the argument a little of course to be honest.