Elected Mayors such as the American system, gives too much power to one particular person. We should stay with style of Mayor elected by members of the Council, or by using the formula that council use.
We have nothing against the Royals. However, they always seem to be paid like other none producer, such as all these sportspersons, who after making a living at their hobby, they walk into some job created for them. While producer are driven down by employers. Then when they are not needed, they are kicked on the scrap heap. What good for the Goose is also good for the Gander?
the royal with religion were alright in their day. there a thing of the past. who could look up to disfunctional family as they have. kids today have electronic games the r tow rs are relics of the past who give no inspiration in any way
OK..... the Queen HAS done a good job, but I find it hard to celebrate NOT having had an ELECTED Head of State for the last 6o years....It serves to perpetute the class system !! Also the prospect of Charles as KING? PLEASE!!!!
www.republic.org.uk.
I guess I'm kind of neutral in this debate,I can understand the pros and cons on both sides.However,I am suprised at the ongoing poll with nearly a third of people opposing the monarchy.This is not what the media would have us believe!A quick straw poll at work (30 people of all ages) the split was about 50-50.From this I conclude that the Monarchy is not as popular as it once was and is decline.
We had a Republic under Oliver Cromwell who was a worse tyrant than the King whose head he had loped off. Anyone for President Blair, who caused a war in the Middle East and when he got the Order of the Boot as Prime Minister walks straight into a job as Middle East Peace envoy.
Imagine having an elected head of state like the American beacons of democracy. What fun the current Primaries must be; all that theatre, publicity, diverted effort and expense. At least Aunty Betty has run our Country for more than a dog watch and is probably quite experienced now. I expect the PoW has put a lot of effort into learning the family business to carry on the good work in due course. Comparing the Monarch to a here today gone tomorrow politician or "personality" does seem rather pointless.
Regrettably, this sort of question brings out the class warriors and sour grape farmers. There is always somene keen to mend things that aren't actually broken.
I see Britain is still largely populated by serfs. It is strange how people admire the public face of royalty with the smiles, gloss and sweetness, but choose to forget their love of brutal activities, like blasting birds out of the air and chasing terrified animals to death.
the monarchy is a vital part of this country i think ,as normal as fish and chips and big cool frothy pint of beer or lager, plus they do a great job promoting exports and representing the english abroad , long may they rule .
Gobsmacking how the queen makes out she is serving the people and has dedicated herself to the people.
Somebody needs to wake her up from her dream and tell her getting paid millions, living the life of luxury for your entire life and having to open a few buildings is not dedication. I seem to remember Kim il sung , mugabe etc all having opened a few factories and farms over the years and getting same type of compensation as the queen.
If she really wants to serve the people and dedicate her left im sure the people would be happier if she did so supporting herself and her chav family on a normal wage just like we all do.
For the Royal Family to be relevant, they would need to act when something needed action. I am thinking specifically when some MP,s were abusing their expenses. Every year, at the State Opening of Parliament, the Queen makes a speech, where she repeatedly says "My Government". But when her Government does wrong, she takes no action whatsoever - so how is it hers? After that inaction, I really don't see the point of the Monarchy any longer.
Comments
Login or Register to comment
I think Kate marrying William has boosted the royals popularity
Elected Mayors such as the American system, gives too much power to one particular person. We should stay with style of Mayor elected by members of the Council, or by using the formula that council use.
We have nothing against the Royals. However, they always seem to be paid like other none producer, such as all these sportspersons, who after making a living at their hobby, they walk into some job created for them. While producer are driven down by employers. Then when they are not needed, they are kicked on the scrap heap. What good for the Goose is also good for the Gander?
the royal with religion were alright in their day. there a thing of the past. who could look up to disfunctional family as they have. kids today have electronic games the r tow rs are relics of the past who give no inspiration in any way
OK..... the Queen HAS done a good job, but I find it hard to celebrate NOT having had an ELECTED Head of State for the last 6o years....It serves to perpetute the class system !! Also the prospect of Charles as KING? PLEASE!!!!
www.republic.org.uk.
I guess I'm kind of neutral in this debate,I can understand the pros and cons on both sides.However,I am suprised at the ongoing poll with nearly a third of people opposing the monarchy.This is not what the media would have us believe!A quick straw poll at work (30 people of all ages) the split was about 50-50.From this I conclude that the Monarchy is not as popular as it once was and is decline.
We had a Republic under Oliver Cromwell who was a worse tyrant than the King whose head he had loped off. Anyone for President Blair, who caused a war in the Middle East and when he got the Order of the Boot as Prime Minister walks straight into a job as Middle East Peace envoy.
Imagine having an elected head of state like the American beacons of democracy. What fun the current Primaries must be; all that theatre, publicity, diverted effort and expense. At least Aunty Betty has run our Country for more than a dog watch and is probably quite experienced now. I expect the PoW has put a lot of effort into learning the family business to carry on the good work in due course. Comparing the Monarch to a here today gone tomorrow politician or "personality" does seem rather pointless.
Regrettably, this sort of question brings out the class warriors and sour grape farmers. There is always somene keen to mend things that aren't actually broken.
I would seriously question the intelligence of anyone that thinks a monarchy that brings billions in tourism revenue is a bad thing.
Only stupid people want change without thinking through the consequences
I see Britain is still largely populated by serfs. It is strange how people admire the public face of royalty with the smiles, gloss and sweetness, but choose to forget their love of brutal activities, like blasting birds out of the air and chasing terrified animals to death.
Casablanca, ex-Bury Road Convent, Rochdale , thank you. I seem to qualified for Royalty then.
As the royal family or rather the Queen own approximately
one sixth of all the land in the world, yes, they are still relevant.
the monarchy is a vital part of this country i think ,as normal as fish and chips and big cool frothy pint of beer or lager, plus they do a great job promoting exports and representing the english abroad , long may they rule .
Privileged by birth rather than by anything they've accomplished.
The exemplars of everything that's wrong with the UK - deference, snobbery, the class system.
The sooner they're gone, the better.
Gobsmacking how the queen makes out she is serving the people and has dedicated herself to the people.
Somebody needs to wake her up from her dream and tell her getting paid millions, living the life of luxury for your entire life and having to open a few buildings is not dedication. I seem to remember Kim il sung , mugabe etc all having opened a few factories and farms over the years and getting same type of compensation as the queen.
If she really wants to serve the people and dedicate her left im sure the people would be happier if she did so supporting herself and her chav family on a normal wage just like we all do.
For the Royal Family to be relevant, they would need to act when something needed action. I am thinking specifically when some MP,s were abusing their expenses. Every year, at the State Opening of Parliament, the Queen makes a speech, where she repeatedly says "My Government". But when her Government does wrong, she takes no action whatsoever - so how is it hers? After that inaction, I really don't see the point of the Monarchy any longer.
I voted and it didn't change