Monarch or Elected President

Quoted from ginnywings

About time we tried something different then.

The monarchy is an outdated busted flush and needs abolishing, along with the NHS and the House of Lords.

21st century it is not.

Edited for you.

Quoted from OddShapedBalls

It may have changed - I doubt it, but it may - but yonks ago I had to do a case study on this issue and it turns out the royal family generate more £ in tourism and other things for the UK economy than it costs us to fund them.  I'd be in favour of cutting away all the dross though, so it's only the Monarch and next in line that's paid for and all the cousins, uncles etc can survive off their own personal fortunes.

I’ve heard the tourism argument so many times.  I don’t have any statistics to counter the claim so I’ll ask a question instead.  If the monarchy was abolished and all properties/(allegedly) public possessions opened to tourism, do you think fewer tourists would come?

Quoted from DB

Yep, dump the House of Lords. It's the place a PM sends their pals to,

The sad thing is that there are a lot of good people in the Lords (including some hereditary peers) who take the job seriously and really contribute at lot to the political process. They would be worthy of a place in an elected upper house. The problem is that they are massively outnumber by the political appointees who are given peerages to the wealthy for spunking money at political parties who then use their places to prop up their chosen party rather than helping to govern for the country. Usually with a bit of lobbying for their own interests as well. Then there are the parasites given peerages as a lucrative 'reward' (the likes of Dorries and do forth) for support. The whole system is a shambles and has to be changed.

Quoted from Maringer

The sad thing is that there are a lot of good people in the Lords (including some hereditary peers) who take the job seriously and really contribute at lot to the political process. They would be worthy of a place in an elected upper house. The problem is that they are massively outnumber by the political appointees who are given peerages to the wealthy for spunking money at political parties who then use their places to prop up their chosen party rather than helping to govern for the country. Usually with a bit of lobbying for their own interests as well. Then there are the parasites given peerages as a lucrative 'reward' (the likes of Dorries and do forth) for support. The whole system is a shambles and has to be changed.

I can’t find a single flaw in your opinion.  

Elected president, but the Irish version where they are non partisan and just there for the ceremonial shite

Quoted from FPVmariner

I’ve heard the tourism argument so many times.  I don’t have any statistics to counter the claim so I’ll ask a question instead.  If the monarchy was abolished and all properties/(allegedly) public possessions opened to tourism, do you think fewer tourists would come?

Nobody has bothered to visit France since 1792.

Quoted from FPVmariner

I’ve heard the tourism argument so many times.  I don’t have any statistics to counter the claim so I’ll ask a question instead.  If the monarchy was abolished and all properties/(allegedly) public possessions opened to tourism, do you think fewer tourists would come?

It's a good point mate, if you were to do the same study again now you might be correct - but, this was early 2000's I did it so my memory isn't going to be 100% on the subject but yes it would devalue the long term amount of money received.  If you dropped them all tomorrow and opened up all the residences as museums, you would get several years of massive profits until the novelty wore off, so a short term success.  After that, you make losses on the properties as museums because the novelty has gone for the local population and without the royals themselves there just isn't the same draw for foreign tourists.  The actual royals are a draw in their own right for people from other countries and that's based off studies in other countries at the time.

The second part of why I think we should keep them (although a lighter version of just the monarch and immediate family)is that they attend 1,000's of functions representing britain where we would otherwise have to send a high ranking politician.  I'd rather have the people who are supposed to be running the place (not talking about the current lot, just in general) freed up to do their elected job whilst the royals plant trees and shake hands for them.

As for the house of lords, I'd happily abolish the thing in favour of some form of representative house to check the commons - what form that would be I don't know but personally I'd support something along the lines of 3 scientists, 3 doctors, 3 agriculture, 3 fisheries people etc who are non-party aligned and can use actual relevant experience to stop the governments crazier ideas and approve ones that will work.  whether that's workable I'll let more intelligent people decide, but I do think one of the issues with current MP's is that the commons has all the power and nobody checks them.

Quoted from OddShapedBalls

It's a good point mate, if you were to do the same study again now you might be correct - but, this was early 2000's I did it so my memory isn't going to be 100% on the subject but yes it would devalue the long term amount of money received.  If you dropped them all tomorrow and opened up all the residences as museums, you would get several years of massive profits until the novelty wore off, so a short term success.  After that, you make losses on the properties as museums because the novelty has gone for the local population and without the royals themselves there just isn't the same draw for foreign tourists.  The actual royals are a draw in their own right for people from other countries and that's based off studies in other countries at the time.

The second part of why I think we should keep them (although a lighter version of just the monarch and immediate family)is that they attend 1,000's of functions representing britain where we would otherwise have to send a high ranking politician.  I'd rather have the people who are supposed to be running the place (not talking about the current lot, just in general) freed up to do their elected job whilst the royals plant trees and shake hands for them.

As for the house of lords, I'd happily abolish the thing in favour of some form of representative house to check the commons - what form that would be I don't know but personally I'd support something along the lines of 3 scientists, 3 doctors, 3 agriculture, 3 fisheries people etc who are non-party aligned and can use actual relevant experience to stop the governments crazier ideas and approve ones that will work.  whether that's workable I'll let more intelligent people decide, but I do think one of the issues with current MP's is that the commons has all the power and nobody checks them.

A light-hearted reported story to confirm this was about 2 American Ladies visiting Balmoral. They came upon an elderly English lady with a young man whom they assumed to be her relative.

They asked the elderly lady if she had seen the Queen, no came the reply but this young man has, who then smiled. Ignoring the elderly lady they then asked the young man about the Queen. Saying their goodbyes the Americans wondered if they would ever meet the Queen and left.

The Queen and her bodyguard went in a different direction.

The American tourists were there because of the Queen and not Balmoral castle, which underlines what you have said above.

Quoted from DB

A light-hearted reported story to confirm this was about 2 American Ladies visiting Balmoral. They came upon an elderly English lady with a young man whom they assumed to be her relative.

They asked the elderly lady if she had seen the Queen, no came the reply but this young man has, who then smiled. Ignoring the elderly lady they then asked the young man about the Queen. Saying their goodbyes the Americans wondered if they would ever meet the Queen and left.

The Queen and her bodyguard went in a different direction.

The American tourists were there because of the Queen and not Balmoral castle, which underlines what you have said above.

I doubt very much two people there to see the Queen would not recognise her, I went to Versailles but surprisingly never bumped into the Sun king, it was packed solid with other tourists free to roam the complete palace and grounds, they must have missed the message that it’s been a couple of hundred years since they had done away with this hereditary nonsense and  there was no monarch.  
People have gone to Buckingham Palace every day this summer and the Queen has been in Scotland, people would still go if there was no monarchy, yes the ceremonies like changing the guards attract crowds but-you do not need a monarch for this.

Quoted from codcheeky

I doubt very much two people there to see the Queen would not recognise her, I went to Versailles but surprisingly never bumped into the Sun king, it was packed solid with other tourists free to roam the complete palace and grounds, they must have missed the message that it’s been a couple of hundred years since they had done away with this hereditary nonsense and  there was no monarch.  
People have gone to Buckingham Palace every day this summer and the Queen has been in Scotland, people would still go if there was no monarchy, yes the ceremonies like changing the guards attract crowds but-you do not need a monarch for this.

Did you visit pre-or post Robespierre?  You've got to really plan historical jaunts carefully.  Interestingly I went to Rome a few years back and a man who must have been about 30 stone, wearing a child's plastic armour and sword, assured me he was a real gladiator and for 10 euros I could have a picture taken with him.  I asked how much for a video of us shouting 'are you not entertained?' together.   Also 10 euros but with his broken English it wasn't the best Russell Crowe impression I've seen.