Its not like the monarchy in UK executes any of the political power they supposedly have so whats the point in spending a lot of money changing something that wont change anything?
And the royal family isnt paid for by the public there upkeep is generated by their estates etc unless you are suggesting nationalisation of their properties (a bit like theft if you suggested doing it to any other rich family)
We are called a democracy but we are not who voted for May to be priminister for instance the ongoing strecht out brexit another?
Well you wouldn't really need to "spend a lot of money" to change something like that, I mean getting rid of the monarch would change quite a bit. It would change how bills are decided on, how the parliament is governed, how bills are signed into practice. Economically it would mean more money towards things like the NHS and Welfare state that is there to help a majority of people rather than a select one family, roughly £43 Million would go back into the money pot, and with the Royal family no longer living in the massive palaces and such, tourists would be mostly free to walk around the whole palace rather than select parts of it, allowing us to charge more than we already do.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
So you are suggesting nationalisation of their properties
You said yourself they generate an income of 500 mil and here as argument to do it you mention 43 mil less than 10%!
How would it mean more money for NHS?
The abused welfare state is one of the problems there are many people out there perfectly capable of finding a job and working but dont so so because what for its more comfortable on the doe where you get paid to do nothing.
You say it wouldnt cost much to change consider what politicians get paid and think how many hours of debating over changing laws and such it would take them!
As it is we have a empty symbol who takes no part in rulling the country who's upkeep we dont pay for.
Sorry but your argument lets steal their possesions and give them to the poor doesnt appeal to my who would be next on the list?
An idea of for instance heavy taxation on bankers at least till they pay off the bailouts or capping politicians wages and expenditure would be far more constructive in my opinion
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Well ideally i wouldnt rely on politicians to do it, as an anarchist i'd prefer that the people take the middle man outta the situation and do it themselves, but that's even less likely to happen. At least with politicians doing it, the mundane liberal public will be more in favor of that than something that at its surface is seen as immoral for example going full french revolution and decapitating the royals
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit