Australia gives Knighthood to Prince Philip - er, ... A Prince Philip appreciation thread

[Dauphin]

The monarchy pays for itself. As for the House of Lords, having a second chamber is going to cost money regardless. We also save on not having to have elections for it.

Ha!

Not having a second chamber just means that the first chamber can pass stupid populist legislation with no oversight. That sound like a great idea to you?

You mean like gay marriage bills?

[kentonio]

Ha!

You mean like gay marriage bills?

That'd be gay marriage which passed the Lords and has entered law, right?

[Dauphin]

You never saw the Daily Mail take on it I see.

[kentonio]

You never saw the Daily Mail take on it I see.

I wasn't aware the Daily Mail was now our second chamber.

[Dauphin]

They had a big piece about how the Lords would stop such populist legislation.

[Dauphin]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2331413/House-Lords-ditch-bid-block-gay-marriage-bill.html

[kentonio]

They had a big piece about how the Lords would stop such populist legislation.

Following which the Lords didn't stop such populist legislation.

Seriously though, it's really important to have that oversight of the legislative process, or else you're in real risk of letting some really garbage laws slip into the statute books. The reason I like the Lords being unelected is simply because it provides that necessary delaying process. The Lords don't give a **** if the common man is angry and wants action right now on the issue of the moment, and if its something that the Commons still cares about months later they can override the Lords anyway.

An elected second chamber just means another set of people keeping a careful eye on public opinion and their next election. I'd be quite happy with the Lords being replaced by senior professional figures however, maybe even elected as long as it was only to a long single term.

[C0ckney]

Not having a second chamber just means that the first chamber can pass stupid populist legislation with no oversight. That sound like a great idea to you?

yes, just look at the terrible damage not having a second chamber has done to denmark, sweden, new zealand, etc.

[kentonio]

Do we have any Swedes, Danes or Kiwis around who can comment on the pros and cons of a unicameral system?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

The monarchy pays for itself.

If that were true (and it isn't), why are we paying them the Sovereign Grant?

And the income from the Duchy of Lancaster? And exempting this from income tax, capital gains tax and inheritance tax

And the income from the Duchy of Cornwall?

And why is the state providing free housing in grace-in-favour apartments to hundreds of staff, distant relatives and hangers-on, in order to keep Madge's wage bills nice and low?

And why are we exempting HM the Q from inheritance tax arising from wealth from her business ventures that are not Royal Assets, such as Royal Stud and her extensive private property portfolio?

And why is the state ultimately financing no fewer than 5 palaces in London/Windsor alone?

If you think the Royal Family is paying for itself, I'd like your figures- taking into account all the points I raised above, and also the security bill covering the extended family of anonymous Princes and Princesses.

[

[Dauphin]

Let's have the second chamber made up of lottery selected individuals, thus providing a random representative sample of people. Terms can be for a parliament season.

[C0ckney]

Let's have the second chamber made up of lottery selected individuals, thus providing a random representative sample of people. Terms can be for a parliament season.

i would support this idea.

[C0ckney]

Do we have any Swedes, Danes or Kiwis around who can comment on the pros and cons of a unicameral system?

we used to, but perhaps not any more. we do have a norwegian though, and an occasional finn.

in any case though it doesn't seem to have done those countries any harm, and it makes your arguments about its dangers look rather weak.

[kentonio]

If you think the Royal Family is paying for itself, I'd like your figures- taking into account all the points I raised above, and also the security bill covering the extended family of anonymous Princes and Princesses.

[

A financial agency ran an analysis of the financial benefit of the monarchy not long ago. I haven't bothered posting it however, as the response will be tediously predictable. Basically a lot of the analysis has to be based on a number of assumptions (how could it not be?) and so it's all too easy to write off.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

If you had any confidence in the figures, you would post them.