quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

Sell the lot of it - every last drop of it from the crown jewels to the silver candlesticks to the queen's undercracks. The paintings, the stately homes, the plates, the silver candlesticks, you name it, sell the lot of it. Use the cash to do some good.

quote:

Apart from that, many of the art works have appreciated in value over the years and weren't relatively that expensive in the first place and many belong to the state anyway. The monarchy looks a lot richer than it actually is because much of the wealth on show doesn't actually belong to the monarchy.

quote:

Big business paying little tax is draining the economy as the cash is only sat in someone's bank account who has more money to spend than he/she could ever dream of.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ToGiveDivine

Ah, the People's Republic of England - maybe Ayn Rand wasn't so out of touch when she wrote Atlas Shrugged.  Where is John Galt when you need him?

Maybe you need to change your screen name to Comrade NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

quote:

Big business paying little tax is draining the economy as the cash is only sat in someone's bank account who has more money to spend than he/she could ever dream of.

I refuse to name the contributor who posted the above since he persistantly ignores my posts, but I will give you a clue and say that he is sometimes known as the Mr Magoo of the Northern Latitudes and poses as an economics expert.

A simple economic fact.....
Banks do not sit on money but lend it out as frequently and as soon as possible. In fact they even create and lend purchasing power themselves.

They may not be too keen to lend money to employ Social Diversity Inclusion Officers or Five a Day Coordinators, if you dont know what they dont bother asking, its just not worth knowing.

They probably would lend to Giovanni di B if they thought their were sufficient potential clientele to afford his prices !

quote:

ORIGINAL: darkinshadows

Well, culture and history is what make a people and a country, so just selling off our heritage is a terrible concept. 

 

We will always have our history. But it is exactly that - history. Selling the monarchy's possessions does not impact on our heritage. We will always have the mad kings and queens who lopped heads off like there was no tomorrow regardless of whether or not we have a monarchy today. The argument often cited is the monarchy don't hold much power these days - well, if they have no power what is their use apart from inhabiting a world where everything is free?

 

 

On one hand you are trying to create identity - yet your stripping it away.  Identity evolves over time - it should not be forced - thats not democratic - it isn't even communist - it is dictatorship.

 

No it's not, it's opposing hereditary wealth. There is nothing Communist or dictatorial about this concept. In fact, our current Government has made some strides by reducing the number of hereditary peers - a policy supported by the House of Commons and, by extenstion, the wider nation.

 

Whilst selling all these items off and spending it on something worthwhile seems a good idea - in the long run you are cutting off your nose to spite your face.

 

I completely and utterly disagree. They own posessions worth a lot of money and only a select few are getting any sort of benefit from them. Let's sell the stuff and put the money into our economy and help to fix the social problems we have in this country - some of the worst in the developed world.

 

It isnt just the middleclass from kensington visting these places or interested in these objects - its a vital and integral part of tourism - and without tourism and people spending their money to see these places and these objects, the economy would be shot.

 

The economy being shot is taking it to an extreme but I take your point that these stately homes are tourist attractions. However, a lot tourists' money goes back into the maintenance and upkeep of them (I know because I've been to loads of them with tarquin). So, it is simply a merry-go-round of upper-class possessions visited by the middle-class who pay money to maintain these possessions for their entertainment.

 

Sure sell them all off for a profit now, but the country could earn alot more in the long run if these buildings and object are kept.  These places ARE investments.

 

No point waiting for a rainy day. Sell it now, the lot of it.

 

The homeless cannot afford these places.  Do you know how big these places are?  Think of the heating bills... think of the electricity ... who is going to pay for it all?  Think of the upkeep of such ornate stone work?  Where is all the money coming from?  Your pocket?

 

It was a tongue in cheek comment rather than a finely tuned economic policy - more a metiphor. The concept is this - they inhabit a world which is free - I personally do not accept this. The small details can be sorted out later but for now the argument to win is to get rid of them.

 

Peace and Rapture

 

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterKalif

Northern Gent, I do believe removing the monarchy smacks of "revolutionary" and impure thoughts  lol

lol MasterKalif but what can I say apart from repeating what I've said - bending over and taking it up the arse from the monarchy is about as impure as it gets. It's not my idea of life. There are Brits on this board arguing for a meritocracy on other threads in the shape of personal drive but yet when it comes to the monarchy they lose all notion and perspective of/on meritocracy.

....and to top it off, to the shock of your fellow Brits, you want to sell none other than the crown jewls! This is very bad...those have to stay even if the UK became a 'people's democratic republic'...it represents the nation, its history, it belongs to the state as you pointed out earlier....if you wish to sell state assets, sell old inefficient state-owned companies or revamp the National Health system...I even give you the Soviet Union as an example....the communist leadership hated the Czars, monarchy and all they stood for....but even their hand trembled and decided to keep the Czar's jewels and such as they belonged to the state, and are even on display. Like I said, the British monarchy needs to not be given a salary, force them to sell those estates they do not use (maybe the one on Isle of Weight?) and keep the main ones for their use....maybe they can be allowed to keep a villa or three somewhere as under their personal fortune.

Personally, I'd like to see them in a two-up-two-down in a Salford council estate just for my amusement and I'd like to see them pay for their holidays - e.g. Butlins at Skegness instead of a free holiday in Cloisters.

None more, none less. Nope, as you well said the UK and the people do not wish socialism or communism, and as such, they wish to remain a monarchy....what would happen if tomorrow, say, there was a referendum on the Monarchy, and this vote won by a landslide...what would you do? Be careful of the seduction of republicanism as sometimes it cannot be as desirable as it is, and can be sidetracked by others...witness in history the Spanish republican period, and how it led to communists to hijack the republic, and later, a strong reaction to it by Franco, which led to a 39 yr old dictatorship....hmm....something to ponder.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent


1) A president has to work to achieve his position.
2) A president is elected by the people.
 
I agree that revolution has caused and led to political and social upheavel. For my money, taking France as an example, it has been worth it. They are a country with a strong tradition of political militancy. If they're not happy about their Government they get off their arses and do something about it. Here, as a nation, we just sit back and take it. It's too un-British to be seen to voice disapproval - in other words, being British means doing as we're told. The French have benefitted from the spirit of liberty and equality whereas we lack spirit.

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

NG said......
Here, as a nation, we just sit back and take it. It's too un-British to be seen to voice disapproval - in other words, being British means doing as we're told. The French have benefitted from the spirit of liberty and equality whereas we lack spirit.

With the odd exception of the poll tax riots, which didn't change much anyway, something at long last that NG has posted with which I have got to agree.
The problem is NG that if ever street militancy becomes the norm then you may be very surpised at the direction it takes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
The seduction (of Republic) for me is two-fold:
 
1) A president has to work to achieve his position.
2) A president is elected by the people.
 
Absolutely NG - and there is the flaw in it. On other threads the influence of the Murdoch media is bemoaned as being far too influential in forcing the "right" candidate (ie the one who has sucked up sufficiently to Murdoch and his views) upon us. At the same time, there is far too much influence over the system by those who bankroll it, on all sides, and other lobby groups.
 
So how would it be then, if we were to go for a president? My suspicion is, that we would have the same sort of people who climb the greasy pole in politics that we have now, "taking it in the arse" as you so eloquently put it, from the same influential lobby groups which determine who gets to power in the Commons.
 
From what I understood, the people dont make the choice in any case. The people have a say in choosing from usually two candidates, one of whom is pre-approved by the media, financed to the hilt and thus most often the winner.
 
We would end up with the likes of President Cameron / Blair, for instance; please explain to me how this would be better than the current arrangement? No need to tell me how it would be different - just tell me how it would be better?


I agree that revolution has caused and led to political and social upheavel. For my money, taking France as an example, it has been worth it. They are a country with a strong tradition of political militancy. If they're not happy about their Government they get off their arses and do something about it. Here, as a nation, we just sit back and take it. It's too un-British to be seen to voice disapproval - in other words, being British means doing as we're told. The French have benefitted from the spirit of liberty and equality whereas we lack spirit.
 
Yes - obviously we just do as we're told. That will explain the crime rates. Or, are you saying that those committing the crimes are not British, I wonder? It would also explain the march against the Iraq war and the many other protests that go on. The British are not the kind to sit back and take it NG, despite what you might think. We're a nation of pirates for goodness sake. That we have more restraint than the French, who seem to resort to the same sort of violence in favour of anarchy, that you accuse the monarchy of in favour of order, is true, but it seems that our form of protest is not only more sane but also gets more results due to not having destroyed the property of those who make the laws.
 
Or is it that you feel the French model of regular rioting and violence is a better way? Do you suggest this to get your way against the establishment?
 
How is it better for your way to achieve primacy through violence, than it was for the monarchy to achieve primacy through violence? Remember, not different - better. Bearing in mind that revolutions cause a lot of suffering, and merely replace one form of monarchy with another?
 
E