a royal baby

[SpeedEFC]

Really, the economic argument against having the royal family has no basis in reality since they turn a profit and provide a positive economic influence to the UK in the form of tourism plus if we did get rid of the queen we're still going to have to pay for the head of state, albeit to a lesser extent. The political argument is a much better one in favour of getting rid of the royals because the monarch is the head of state and is the reason why a newly elected government has to go to the Queen before actually forming a government, even though she is quite happy to let things run as they do she can still veto governments if she wanted to. With a republic that wouldn't happen and our head of state would be directly elected. For the record I'm in favour of the monarchy because there's no real downside to having them; they provide a good sense of tradition and national identity not to mention the economic benefits of having them, getting rid of them would only cause un-needed unrest in the country which will more than likely result in our economy taking a major hit and decreasing the efficiency of government as new power structures are formed and a new constitution is written.

 

[sbbefc]

Which is precisely the point...

Getting rid of the Queen won't suddenly save money.

It'll save 60m, although thats an inadequate figure. Thats beside the point, its undemocratic to have an unelected head of state anyway.

 

[nigelcoyb]

Really, the economic argument against having the royal family has no basis in reality since they turn a profit and provide a positive economic influence to the UK in the form of tourism plus if we did get rid of the queen we're still going to have to pay for the head of state, albeit to a lesser extent. The political argument is a much better one in favour of getting rid of the royals because the monarch is the head of state and is the reason why a newly elected government has to go to the Queen before actually forming a government, even though she is quite happy to let things run as they do she can still veto governments if she wanted to. With a republic that wouldn't happen and our head of state would be directly elected. For the record I'm in favour of the monarchy because there's no real downside to having them; they provide a good sense of tradition and national identity not to mention the economic benefits of having them, getting rid of them would only cause un-needed unrest in the country which will more than likely result in our economy taking a major hit and decreasing the efficiency of government as new power structures are formed and a new constitution is written.

If that's the case why force people to pay for them?

Why not go the whole hog and have an "important person" tax?

Wealthy business people should approach the locals asking for money to run the Bentley on the basis of employing a few people on mimimum wage.

Why political parties don't have this in their manifesto is a complete mystery.

 

[gheesom]

Being able to access Buckingham Palace all year round would generate massive amounts of income, same with Windsor Castle, Balmoral etc. Many people come here for the history - that would never go away.

That being said, I imagine that when Will and Kate got married the tourism will have shot through the roof, but lets be honest it's not UK tourism is London and pretty much London only. With the new rules regarding council funding the majority of that money will never leave London.

 

[Rugby Toffee]

More importantly , has she been sick again...I cannot sleep for worry