Bollocks. The current voting system is theoretically for your local MP and constituency party but most folk don't vote in that absolute manner - there wouldn't be a televised leaders debate otherwise. The current voting system can stay - get rid of regional votes for mayors. Will this president and his "hangers-on" retain £895million pounds worth of land?
As opposed to SEVERAL members of the Royal Family and all their hangers on etc. Try thinking these things through properly before committing yourself to posting ****e
Incidentally, this land does not include any Royal residences as they are technically held in trust or the Duchies of Cornwall, Lancaster etc etc. ^^from Wiki.
Why elect a government at all then? The hangers on that a President would have would be nothing compared to what Lizzie and the rest have.
So, you don't trust an estimate from a Republican group but you trust the estimate of the Palace - there's no vested interest there, eh? Take a boo, numpty Incidentally, did anyone else watch Andrew Marr's plead for a knighthood series?
I didn't suggest any estimate, I asked for one that wasn't presented by a group that was listed as biased in your description.
You didn't suggest any estimate was correct, to be fair, but the numbers circulated by the Palace have been proven to be underestimated. You did suggest that a president wouldn't be cheaper than a Royal Family, though. What on Earth did you base that on?
Current politicians and the expense that they generate. If the Spanish Royal household is the cheapest option, then that appears to be the most sensible one to emulate, financially speaking.
Aye. But with knives an guns an grenades and ****. Last one alive wins. Then we kill the winner. I would think Simon Cowell could make it happen.
Opt in to pay for your favourite royal Let them keep their land...they'd have to sell it eventually anyway Let the prime minister be head of state
Quite. My point that we do not need a President if we ditch the parasites. Same goes for all religions and the hypocritical stance they have with their enormous amassed materialistic wealth at the expense of the poor downtrodden ones that they allegedly have so much empathy for. **** em all.
The cheapest option mentioned there was a presidency (admittedly of a much smaller country than the UK) and the German Presidency costs considerably less than the even the most conservative of estimates for our Royal Family and it's a bigger country and we haven't even started to count the savings made by the duplication of head of state and head of parliament. I don't have figures to hand, but I suspect that the Dutch and Swedish Royal Families are just as, if not cheaper than the Spanish Royal Family. Incidentally, the Spanish Royal Family are partly substantially cheaper as their entire family is not considered "Royal" and they have very little in the way of property. Very few countries still live in the middle ages but, the ones that do, have constitutionally far less influence from their monarchies than we do.
I just looked at the figures for the Spanish Royal Family and they fail to take into account a number of factors, which coincide pretty well with those that Republic attribute to the official British figures. Transport and security are too big examples. Not sure about the German method of selecting their President, though. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Convention_(Germany) Can you imagine British "celebrities" being a part of this process?
Although I hate the notion of monarchy, I quite like the current Queen. Imagine Katie Price getting nominated for UK President, right enough
