The Political Thread

[Ghost MacRoth]

Heh, amusing and worrying at the same time.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/01/david-cameron-moriarty-downing-street-radical-thatcher

[Professor Bear]

The briefest of Googling immediately finds:

• Is the Britigh Royal Family Worth the Money (The Atlantic)
• Mention of money passed to the Treasury from the Crown Estate, in The Telegraph
• Some interesting figures on Full Fact

The amounts in those articles are speculative or based on the monarchy's own numbers, which are dubious when you consider the speculative accounts of somewhere like Republic.org don't take long to get nine-figure numbers from only the briefest tally of expenditures - who are we to say whose speculation is valid?
What we do know is that Stonehenge makes more than Windsor Castle and costs less to upkeep.  To me that says the druids and their native religious rituals should be our monarchy and pagentry, not some shower of inbred Krauts in Disney costumes.

[Jim_Campbell]

• Mention of money passed to the Treasury from the Crown Estate, in The Telegraph

As an aside, the coalition essentially privatised the Crown Estate a couple of years ago, changing its charter to make the sole obligation of all property disposals the realisation of a profit. Previously, Crown Estate disposals were sensitive to community concerns and the change has not been for the better, in my experience.

In the small town where I live, in the last three years a pub that no one wanted to close, including the landlord, has been sold and demolished to build houses; a grazing paddock, the last undeveloped piece of open land in the town, is under pressure from other property developers who want —surprise— to build houses on it; and a fantastically ill-judged 1500 house development has been green-lit on farmland adjacent to the town boundary (for context: if fully occupied, it will represent about a 25% increase in the town's population). All of these in the face of overwhelming opposition from the local community.

Cheers

Jim

[JPMaybe]

Putting aside the issue of deciding our constitutional arrangements on the basis of how much money we can fleece from tourists, evidence for this please.

The briefest of Googling immediately finds:

• Is the Britigh Royal Family Worth the Money (The Atlantic)
• Mention of money passed to the Treasury from the Crown Estate, in The Telegraph
• Some interesting figures on Full Fact

Perhaps naturally, The Guardian counters with a pure 'strip it back to literal money pulled from visitors to Buckingham Palace, which is a bit mental.

The most obvious problem is it's hard to say for certain what the impact would be until a change is made. But, as I've said, I just don't see a great benefit in replacing the monarchy with a republic, given the nature of the British, and especially unless we have a massive overhaul of the electoral systems. Even if we did get those, it remains to be seen how tourism to the UK would change with the Royals being punted into the long grass and replaced by President Boris or President Jordan. Delving into the horrors of personal anecdotal 'evidence', it's clear a lot of Americans visit the UK in part because of its living monarchy. Maybe they still would anyway, because 'castles'. Maybe not.

Getting involved in this implies that I think there's any value at all to this argument; frankly I'd find the existence of a hereditary monarchy an obscenity regardless of how much wealth they brought in.  That said:

• Including the income from the crown estates is dodgy at best and risibly tendentious at worst, given that it's possible that land would become the property of parliament in some hypothetical republic from which the state would get all the income (and putting aside the ethical question of the estates' existence as a revenue stream for royalty in the first place)
• Torygraph uses the ludicrously low official  £1.33 per taxpayer per annum figure that doesn't include security costs, and has no concrete figures other than aforementioned Crown estates bollocks
• That Atalantic article cites a release from the national tourist agency which apparently uses "visited a castle" as a criterion for attributing tourist money to being due to the existence of the royal family, the ridiculousness of which i don't think I need to comment on, unless everybody who visits Versailles doesn't realise France is a republic

Haven't pored through that fullfact link but it looks like a load of mushbrained dogshit.

Frankly given the tiny number of royal properties open to the public, and the billions of pounds worth of artwork the feckless parasites have sequestered for private viewing, I don't see why the argument that getting rid of them could increase tourist revenue holds any less water than the opposite.

I should make clear that I obviously think there are bigger fish to fry than the relatively neutered modern monarchy- we've not been in a position where armed revolution would have been justified or worth it for at least 100 years.

[GordonR]

Putting aside the issue of deciding our constitutional arrangements on the basis of how much money we can fleece from tourists, evidence for this please.

The briefest of Googling immediately finds:

• Is the Britigh Royal Family Worth the Money (The Atlantic)
• Mention of money passed to the Treasury from the Crown Estate, in The Telegraph
• Some interesting figures on Full Fact

Perhaps naturally, The Guardian counters with a pure 'strip it back to literal money pulled from visitors to Buckingham Palace, which is a bit mental.

The most obvious problem is it's hard to say for certain what the impact would be until a change is made. But, as I've said, I just don't see a great benefit in replacing the monarchy with a republic, given the nature of the British, and especially unless we have a massive overhaul of the electoral systems. Even if we did get those, it remains to be seen how tourism to the UK would change with the Royals being punted into the long grass and replaced by President Boris or President Jordan. Delving into the horrors of personal anecdotal 'evidence', it's clear a lot of Americans visit the UK in part because of its living monarchy. Maybe they still would anyway, because 'castles'. Maybe not.

That's true.  After all, France is a republic, and hardly anyone goes there on holiday as a result.

Former royal palaces like the Louvre and Versailles lie empty and derelict, and their 14 million paying visitors a year wander round them, bemoaning the lack of a living monarchy.

[The Legendary Shark]

Simply changing from monarchy to republic is not the only thing we need to do, in my opinion. We also need to reform the voting system, switch to publicly created money, give local communities more say in their own affairs, reverse the cancer of corporatism, smash paedophile rings, establish a more enlightened penal system, stop bombing seven shades out of other countries, foster personal freedoms and responsibilities, wean ourselves off fossil fuels, improve the education system, upgrade the vast majority of our infrastructure and public services, give everyone who creates comics a guaranteed income for life and paint a huge union flag on the moon so everyone can see how fucking awesome we are.
.
Then I'll stop moaning. Possibly.

[IndigoPrime]

That's true.  After all, France is a republic, and hardly anyone goes there on holiday as a result.

Last I knew, France had been a republic for quite some time, not had a change within living memory. We don't know how a switch now would affect the UK. (And, as noted, I'm not thrilled at the prospect of voting in some shitbag every five years, who'll quite possibly be a much worse head of state, yet still cost us a ton of money in security and campaigning? Maybe—just maybe—the UK could mirror the likes of Ireland and Iceland, and have something quiet and simple, but I just get the feeling we'd want to be the USA, just a bit more rubbish.)

Simply changing from monarchy to republic is not the only thing we need to...

And those things all happen either via some kind of mass revolt that will lead to lots of people getting killed and imprisoned, or by voting in a progressive government that would initiate those changes. But too many of the people who want to see change don't vote.

[The Legendary Shark]

You're absolutely right, IP - we certainly could have something better than the US or France. Iceland worked out a new constitution on the internet, in full public view and with full public participation. The US constitution was worked out by a handful of rich white men and imposed on the country - sure, there are some good ideas in there but it's all gone to shit. There are lessons to be learned so our constitution would be better, stronger, fairer.
.
The powers of the new president and parliament would be worked out in advance, with everyone able to contribute. The problems you envisage would be dealt with before the first presidential candidate even runs for the position, and clauses put in place allowing for the immediate removal of a president if he or she breaches the rules WE have put in place.
.
I would most certainly get involved in and vote for that process, and all the other things I mentioned, but none of the parties are offering anything like that. I'm not going to vote for any of the wankers who constitute the present system because they're all singing different verses of the same hymn. And this idea of voting for somebody you don't believe in just to stop somebody else you don't believe in achieving power is just insane.
.
Give me something worthwhile to vote for and I'll vote for it. If not, just go away and leave me alone.

[IndigoPrime]

Iceland worked out a new constitution on the internet, in full public view and with full public participation.

Which basically amounted to shit, sadly.

but none of the parties are offering anything like that

The Greens constantly talk about a blank-slate for constitutional reform. But until the electoral system changes, they will 'be' Caroline Lucas (unless the boundaries change, in which case they'll maybe have zero MPs); even under STV, they'd only have a few. (Under list PR: 20.)

Still, perhaps you should read their manifesto. At the very least, it might give you food for thought, and an inkling that not all politicians are the same.

[The Legendary Shark]

Of course they're all the same - they all believe that this inhuman system we're saddled with can somehow magically lead to a humane society. All you're asking me to do is read the Koran instead of the Bible. There might be wisdom in there but it's all basically praying to an illusion in the sky. Until that illusion ("authority") is dispelled, anything suggested in its name is pointless.

[Jimmy Baker's Assistant]

paint a huge union flag on the moon so everyone can see how fucking awesome we are.

I disagree with most of what you post here, but I strongly support this policy!

[sheridan]

give everyone who creates comics a guaranteed income for life

I can think one or two who shouldn't get an income from comics (most of whom put out a lot of material in the 1990s)...

[The Legendary Shark]

The income the Queen receives from the public purse is to come under severe scrutiny by the Treasury after taxpayer funding of the monarchy rose by nearly a third to £40m.

[IndigoPrime]

Of course they're all the same - they all believe that this inhuman system we're saddled with can somehow magically lead to a humane society. All you're asking me to do is read the Koran instead of the Bible. There might be wisdom in there but it's all basically praying to an illusion in the sky. Until that illusion ("authority") is dispelled, anything suggested in its name is pointless.

In which case, I think I'm done with this discussion. Green policy might not be Shark's Perfect Utopia, but there's a hell of a lot of overlap with a whole load of things you talk about, but if you can't even be bothered to read a single manifesto (yet pepper this thread with a range of content), and hand-wave it away with "of course they're all the same", that's unhelpful. Also, any suggestion you would ever engage with the system is clearly laughable if you wave away the bloody Greens as being basically the same as the Tories, Labour, et al.

[The Legendary Shark]

We none of us see things as they really are, I suppose, and can only express our own perspectives. I don't think there's any such thing as a Perfect Utopia. My society will never be perfect, my life will never be perfect.
.
Just because the Greens happen to believe some of the things I do, or at least aspects thereof, I don't find that a compelling enough reason to throw myself at them. I also happen to agree with GordonR's last post, and I enjoy his writing, but I doubt very much those two facts will ever make us bosom buddies. I can respect him, just as I can respect the Greens, but that's not enough, is it?