People should have the right to choose if they want to vote or not and every citizen should have the right to make that choice. It is a human right that should never be removed and I suspect if it were removed the European Court of Human Rights would have something to say.
this and i took great pleasure announcing this at the breakfast table one morning in a posh hotel while still pissed Lots of breakfast plates returning with untouched eggs
Well there are plenty of sites around Stereo you could check, however I don't believe you have given me one to prove they are more hassle than they are worth?
I don't have to. You're the one banging on about how much they cost and how much they make. But that link you gave was laughable.
I know very little about Scottish politics, but where I'm from, Wigan in the heart of Lancashire, few even vote because they know that you could put a Labour rosette on a pig and it would still win by a landslide, the same can be said of much of the NE and I've no doubt if you changed the rosette to a Tory one, the pig would still win by 5,000 in much of the home counties, where is the democracy here?
Buck palace is a big council house, Cameron's idea of taking council houses from tenants should start with the biggest benefit scroungers in the land.
You have the right to spoil your vote, in Australia it's compulsory to vote and although some are agaist it, MOST realsie it's good for democracy.
PB those lands dont 'belong' to them in the sense that they bought them. so theie value increases the £40m figure 100fold do you think the royal family paid for buckingham palace to be built from their own pockets? The queen is estimated to have £10billion worth of art alone, do you think she bought it? And lets take the figures suggested in your video link. If we got rid of the monarchy we wouldnt automatically lose the £160m. It would mean we keep the extra 40 too
so its democratic to force people to vote? I prefer the dictator approach they pay people to vote for them as well as forcing them In essence this two habded approach is more democratic
It's the only way to ensure that the correct candiate gets in, by correct I simply mean the one who has the majority of the electorate, you can still spoil your vote in any way you wish after all, this is true democracy in action. Instead we have our currewnt joke system where a party with nearly a quarter of all votes cast in 2010 gets around a twelfth of the seats, or for that matter, how a party in 2005 can get just 22% of the electorate to vote for them yet still have 55% of the seats in parliament, please can you explain how that is democratic?
Thats the point its not democratic More people voted for labour not to be in power than to be in power Also people vote for their local MP not the bloke who becomes prime minister the democracy in this country is a farce and forcing people to vote doesnt change anything I am no BNP fan (hate the ****s) but the way they got rid of them my way was by changing the ward boundaries
Bullshit. Millions of people come to the UK every year just to see Buckingham palace, trooping the colours and what not, without the royal family we wouldn't have that. The majority of the money they get actually goes to upkeep all those tourist attractions anyway.
Bullshit. Look at France, how many people come to see Versailles and other palaces of the ex-royals. If we got rid of them now they'd probably be a surge in tourism. Imagine how many people would want to look round Buckingham palace? What's not mentioned in that up-keep article is the amount of money we pay them in land-rental. They also have established businesses and a dodgy tax deal. We pay for all their security, which costs millions, and all their travel expenses. Off with their heads, stick them on show somewhere and watch the tourists come flooding in
