Panto_Villan

So you think she'd have been more interested in visiting London if we abolished the monarchy and opened the palace up to the public instead? That's interesting. Not the answer I was expecting but always good to hear opinions. If you time your visit right they do actually do tours of the palace, although the decor on the inside isn't actually as grand as you might think when you look closely at it. Personally I think the Tower of London is much better to visit but perhaps that's just me.

No, it's just lots of people are aware that the Tower of London is also in central London, so the fact they went to visit Buckingham Palace instead (which you can't even go inside most of the time) implies that the interest was in the monarchy rather than buildings in which monarchs used to reside. Although @MNVillan can probably clear it up best. Do you think your wife would be as interested in seeing the Palace if the monarchy had been abolished and plain old Lizzie Windsor didn't live there any more?

Firearms are something I've wondered about for a long time. My family live in South Africa, which is well known as a very violent place and there's quite a few guns in circulation. House robberies or car hijackings can often be unneccessarily violent (usually due to drugs), so there's definitely a logical case that can be made for getting a gun. My family have always been very clear that they're absolutely not interested in getting a gun. The chances of there being a tragic accident are vastly increased if you own one, your chances of being killed in a robbery or hijacking if you have a gun are also much higher. They're willing to take the risk of being defenceless in the face of a murderous psychopath and getting killed because statistically that's way less of a danger than actually owning the gun is. I gained a bit of respect for my dad when he explained his logic to me - I think it's quite brave to let yourself be defenceless, as it very much goes against my natural instincts.

But what do you do if someone cuts in front of you at the checkouts when you go to Lidl? How is it possible to resolve that situation without access to a firearm?

Did you get that quote from Nadine Dorries? She'd say that if he entered the room in a coffin.

He's toast. 100 voting against would have been bad for him. Nearly 150 is awful. It's quite impressive how quickly he's managed to implode.

It doesn't really have to be either or, does it? Our country would still have plenty to offer tourists if the monarchy was gone, but that doesn't mean that some appeal wouldn't be lost if the monarchy were gone. The point is usually brought up because republicans are usually working on the assumption that the (very visible) costs of the monarchy are a net drain on the country's finances. Whereas if the monarchy is paying for itself via tourism and filling other functions we'd otherwise have to pay for then it continuing to exist is more acceptable to most.

Yeah, I got that. But that is exactly what I meant by a punitive inheritance tax - encouragement for people to spend accumulated wealth before they die, because otherwise the state would end up taking most of it. I think it would solve quite a few societal problems, but people reflexively dislike the idea of a "death tax" even if it would probably benefit a large majority of the population. (But that's probably a bit too much of a digression from the topic at hand.)

Indeed. The thing being punished is the inheritance itself, which is kinda the point. Not that most of the electorate see it that way.

True. And just to make it clear - while I stick up for the Queen in this thread I'd happily jack inheritance tax up to punitive levels if I was PM. I respect her as an individual but that doesn't mean I'm a fan of the landed gentry she is part of.

Good knowledge!

Do you really think any family gets to ascend to the throne without already being extremely rich and influential? They might be richer now, but I somehow doubt William would be a binman if some other aristocrat had ended up with the crown a few generations back.

For me it's more about the restrictions you have to accept as part of the role. The Queen has been a good monarch because she doesn't have public opinions on anything at all political or controversial (not sure if you remember the absolute fury from the palace when the Brexiteers claimed she was pro-Brexit), she's always managed to maintain a dignified presence despite spending enormous amounts of time on public engagements and there being cameras literally everywhere she goes. Basically she has to meet vast numbers of people every year while also not doing anything that stops her being a blank slate that the rest of the country can project onto, which means she can't actually really use her money and power to do anything. Charles is unpopular because he apparently didn't realise this and tried to use his position to have opinions and influence things - which is a disaster waiting to happen really. Frankly the country will get rid of the monarchy if they try to do anything except smile and wave. They're here for our entertainment these days. I think you underestimate her workload too. The only figure I found with a quick google was that in 2015 she did 341 engagements, but that's a hell of a lot for an 89-year old. If I was worth $500m would I want to spend my entire life making bland small talk with people and getting wheeled out every time there's a visiting head of state, even when I'm in my 90s? No. I'd live like Jack Grealish on steroids. Or at least start interfering in politics.

I'm actually surprised it has come to this given the Tory party has stuck with him so long despite his obvious flaws. I guess it's finally dawned on them that the polls aren't going to improve unless they change leader. I'm not sure what outcome I want really. Probably for Boris to continue limping along, mortally wounded and bleeding support. This country has been in complete political paralysis since the day after the Brexit referendum though and another 3+ years of a government incapable of governing isn't going to be good either. It's already been six years. Hopefully they'll call a new election sooner rather than later.

Didn't David Davis stand in about 400 Tory leadership elections?

Also, to go on a bit of a tangent, there's probably at least a couple of billion people who would snap your hand off to get the life of literally any citizen of this country. We've all benefitted massively from being born into a wealthy country with a good education system that we individually did f-all to earn. It's easy to rail against "the rich" and "the priviledged" but there's an element of glass houses at work here too imo. Very few people ever seem to consider themselves part of those categories despite what the statistics might imply.

Of course, but that's not really an argument against the royal family per se. They're not rich because they're the royal family, they're rich because they're part of the aristocracy from which all of our royal families throughout history have emerged - the Queen would still be incredibly wealthy if she hadn't taken a single penny from the taxpayer in her life (e.g. the Spencer family is still worth £100m+ despite not being royal blood). You're making an argument against excessive inherited wealth and for what it's worth I agree with you. Nonetheless I still respect a lady worth £500m devoting literally her entire life to trying to unite the country as best she can.

No, but they’re a perfect example of what you did mention, right? The monarchy no longer existing and the royal assets all being transferred to the state. I think money can quite easily buy that lifestyle. Living in a nice house and getting your needs attended to by others. Anyone worth £5-10m could have that lifestyle without all the bullshit and lack of privacy that goes with being a royal. I reckon there’s very few millionaires in this country who would be the next king / queen. Any middling celebrity / influencer or PL footballer or (child of a) wealthy businessman probably has a much more luxurious and less restricted existence. Theres a reason why the independently wealthy (though hardly A-list) Meghan Markle ran a mile once she realised what being a royal actually entailed. I think “proud” might be the wrong word tbh. Appreciative might be better. Whatever word you’d use to describe David Attenborough still working to help the environment in his 90s. Its the same for the Queen. You only get one life on this planet and she’s spent the entire of it in public service as the nation’s figurehead when she could quite reasonably have retired from the role 30 years ago and spent her time doing things she enjoyed (and, indeed, was wealthy enough that she never actually had to do it in the first place). I think even a republican could probably admire her lifetime of dedication to the role even if they disagree with the institution she represents.

Targett isn’t gone. He was too mentally weak to secure a permanent transfer out of here.

This wouldn’t be a massive blow if true. Most of the tanks sent to Ukraine were older Polish stock and less advanced than the ones than Ukraine had at the start of the war.

I don’t think I ever said I thought people wanted them executed? I’m just saying it’s not only loons that read the Daily Mail who think the royals might bring in more than £85m of economic benefit each year. I think the interest in the royals would be reduced to almost zero if they were no longer the head of state. They currently have (effectively) a purely ceremonial role already, and primarily what people are interested in these days is all the pageantry that goes with the role. Nobody would pay to meet Charles if they abolished the monarchy when the Queen dies. Also, I very much doubt abolishing the monarchy would magically transport us to a society where your abilities are more important that your birthright. A lot of your opportunities in life are defined by your location of birth and the earnings / general attentiveness of your parents. I get the royals are an extreme example but the problem won’t go away. @TheAuthority @Davkaus so are you guys suggesting the French monarchy (probably the most famous ex-monarchy given how it ended) brings in more money and gives more soft power than ours? I’d definitely have to see some evidence before I believe that. Personally I’m pretty neutral on the royals. I don’t see many problems that abolishing the monarchy would meaningfully improve, and as I also I don’t think they’re much of a drain on the public purse I’m content to let them chug along as is for now. Thing is, most anti-monarchy sentiment I’ve encountered seems primarily to come from wanting to take away things enjoyed by groups you don’t like. I’ve got two issues with that. The first is that that’s a bad idea in general - the Welsh language is pointless, expensive and all the Welsh people I currently know are cocks, but that’s hardly a reason to abolish part of our (their) heritage. The second thing is that most people aren’t actually very into the monarchy. It’s an excuse to have a loosely crown-themed party / day out once in a while. If you asked them to do anything strenuous for the Queen they’d tell you to jog on. It’s just the same as the World Cup campaign or the Olympics. I don’t really see any value to taking that away on a point of principle. Sure, you wouldn’t want to create a royal family if you didn’t already have one but that’s not the discussion we’re having.

Is it impossible to believe the monarchy brings in more than £85m a year in tourism etc? And grants the UK a form of soft power that we would otherwise have to pay for - e.g BBC World Service and Foreign Office staffing are both things that cost money but are justified on that grounds, as is hosting stuff like the Olympics or bidding for the World Cup etc. The cost to the taxpayer is actually higher because the £85m a year doesn’t include security costs etc, btw. But I don’t think it’s impossible that the benefits outweigh it. I mean, a quick example - The Crown is the most expensive tv show ever made and I wouldn’t be surprised if it led to a few more holidays over here being booked.

Indeed, that’s why I found the reports the Chechens took casualties interesting too. Either they were caught out by the counterattacks when making TikTok videos, or the Russians are scraping the barrel enough that even the Chechens need to get stuck in (given they’re fairly well equipped). Or maybe the reports about them taking losses are just wrong. I didn’t think the DNR / LNR forces were in Kherson though? There was a tweet yesterday (which annoying I can’t find again) reporting the DNR troops were refusing to fight for Luhansk so I think there’s plenty around Severodonetsk. It would make sense to me for them to be relatively close to home too given they’re low-quality conscripts and probably not worth the petrol to drive halfway across the country. I was under the impression the Kherson troops were just low-quality reserves, but were still actual Russian soldiers?

Yeah, quite possibly. Just speculation on my part really. Haven’t seen the photos from DW because the sources I follow are pretty thorough about scrubbing anything involving dead bodies out, but it’s always good to hear the Russians are taking losses!

It seems like the Ukrainians have taken some quite serious losses in the past few days - the 100 KIA and 500 wounded per day quoted by Zelensky is going to deplete your forces pretty fast - but it does seem like evidence is coming in to support the rumours of the successful Ukrainian counteroffensive into the city you mentioned earlier. And if that is true then the Russians must be close to breaking point (locally, at least) and so their losses must be much higher than that. A few recent rumours on Twitter say that the Chechens in particular took heavy losses but I guess it'll take time for the situation to become clear. It's interesting that the daily estimates from the Ukrainian side about Russian casualties are only ~100 KIA a day right now, though. That to me either implies a lag in reporting or that the losses being taken are being borne almost entirely by the DNR / LNR forces, and maybe Wagner / Chechens if Ukraine classifies them differently and so they aren't included in the figures. That said, I'm also not sure it's the artillery doing the killing at the moment - I wouldn't be surprised if the Ukrainians are choosing to fight in the city specifically because there's plenty of cover to protect them from the massed Russian artillery, negating the main advantage the Russians have and letting the Ukrainians inflict casualties the old fashioned way.