On 2 Apr 2013 at 9:20pm Expat Two wrote:
So the Queen is getting another 16% pay-rise from our taxes this year, an extra 5 million. After all, it must be difficult to make ends meet on just 31m a year, poor love.
I wonder if IDS could manage on that sort of income?
On 2 Apr 2013 at 9:44pm Local wrote:
Southover Queen? Wow...
On 2 Apr 2013 at 9:46pm Clifford wrote:
Stand back and wait for: 'Would you rather have President Blair/Thatcher etc', and 'She is good for tourism' (because, as we know, tourists don't go to France, Germany, Italy or any of the other European republics, she works damned hard for her money...
On 2 Apr 2013 at 10:22pm Expat Two wrote:
This less about the value of monarchy as it is about the rich not having to suffer a recession, their state handouts are just getting bigger and bigger.
Socialism is alive and well in the upper tier.
On 2 Apr 2013 at 10:37pm my land wrote:
Well Expat Two
good luck to her. She put a lot back in to the country More then the immigrants
On 2 Apr 2013 at 10:44pm grafter wrote:
Maybe we could follow the conservative creed to its conclusion and put the monarchy out to a tender. Plenty of bids by wealthy americans to be monarch for a few years at a time.
On 2 Apr 2013 at 10:44pm Expat Two wrote:
No she doesn't, she does nothing of the sort. Of all the inane and moronic ripostes Clifford & myself expect to see, you can only manage the palpably stupid.
Her life is an endless round of tea and cucumber sandwiches and luxury.
Have you ever seen her scrubbing pots in a curry house at 2 am?
Ever seen her sweeping the road after a muck lorry leaves an inner city building site? I've seen immigrants doing both plenty of times, never once seen a royal at it. Its socialism for the lucky few.
On 3 Apr 2013 at 5:03am padster wrote:
Clifford have you gone mad.
The queen is an unelected expensive not a good enough reason for tourism which I am sure people come here to visit the country.
Expat two quite right could not agree more.
And leave immigration out of this where was that waste of space called prince Phillip born
Republic now
On 3 Apr 2013 at 8:53am Pete wrote:
What's a cucumber ?
On 3 Apr 2013 at 9:22am GhostBike wrote:
Those talking about immigration appear to have forgotten that before the First World War the Windsors were the Saxe-Coburg-Gothas.
On 3 Apr 2013 at 10:43am Clifford wrote:
padster wrote: Clifford have you gone mad.
Padster - read what I wrote again. Expat Two understood. I agree with you.
On 3 Apr 2013 at 1:31pm padster wrote:
I had just finished a night shift in my defence.
My humble apologies.
For clifford.
On 3 Apr 2013 at 1:57pm jrsussex wrote:
In my extensive travels around the globe, mainly working not holidays, I know how highly thought of the British monarchy is. Represents good value for money against many other practices within the UK, certainly some of the political proposals/projects that waste billions.
On 3 Apr 2013 at 2:35pm Cuddle The Machine wrote:
Next General election write"none of the above" across your ballot paper.
Watch as the system collapses within a few days.
Have you got the balls to do it?
On 3 Apr 2013 at 3:10pm Nevil Rook wrote:
Yes hes names Ed
On 3 Apr 2013 at 4:07pm Teacher wrote:
So you think the Queen is not worth what she gets and yet I bet you go skipping off to a football match in your silly little hats and scarves and pay good money to watch overpaid spoiled kids who from what I read in the papers are not a very good example to our children. I am talking about the top clubs and not our local ones.
On 3 Apr 2013 at 5:12pm Nixon scraypes wrote:
What,only 5 million extra it'll all go on her bedroom tax.I presume she'll have to pay it as she's on the social after all.
On 3 Apr 2013 at 5:27pm Clifford wrote:
jrsussex wrote: 'In my extensive travels around the globe, mainly working not holidays, I know how highly thought of the British monarchy is.'
Yes, as entertainment, not as a sensible constitutional arrangement for a modern state. That's why most of these countries choose to remain republics. No sign, too, of France, Italy, Germany, Austria... choosing to bring back their long departed monarchs.
On 3 Apr 2013 at 5:29pm Clifford wrote:
Teacher wrote: 'So you think the Queen is not worth what she gets and yet I bet you go skipping off to a football match...'
I hope you're not really a teacher. I wouldn't want you teaching my kids. The thing is, Teacher, football players are where they are because they have a rare talent. The Queen is where she is because her father had intercourse with her mother. No other reason.
On 3 Apr 2013 at 5:33pm Sussex Jim wrote:
Expat two, will you be working as hard as the Queen when you are 86? And have to live a squeaky clean life to keep up appearances and not be controversial? I thought not. Go away, you antipodean agitator.
On 3 Apr 2013 at 5:42pm Compass wrote:
Clifford, the Wolfie Smith of Lewes. What is your alternative to the current system?
On 3 Apr 2013 at 6:46pm Clifford wrote:
Th alternative to an hereditary monarchy, Compass? Now that's a really tough one. If you've not heard of the alternative I'm not sure why you're engaging in the discussion.
On 3 Apr 2013 at 6:49pm Compass wrote:
I want your alternative
On 3 Apr 2013 at 11:07pm Expat Two wrote:
Do I really read that correctly Sussex Jim, you honestly think sitting in the back of a limousine and attending gala performances and garden parties is hard work? Jesus Christ, what do you do, are you a mattress tester or something? I know you donâ??t like to work very hard, but thinking thatâ??s hard work, for 36 million a year, is really taking the biscuit.
Iâ??ve lived â??squeaky cleanâ?? all my life so far, been caught doing nothing any more controversial than Brenda, and managed it without marrying a racist buffoon to boot - millions of people have, but that doesnâ??t get them a 16% tax funded payrise when the economy is in free-fall. As for her age, what has that got to do with anything? Iâ??d be clinging on for as long as possible on those wages. Actually I wouldnâ??t, Iâ??d retire after just a couple of months, I could live quite comfortably for the rest of my life with 6 million in the bank.
Think about that pay for a moment, 3 million a month....
On 3 Apr 2013 at 11:29pm Expat Two wrote:
The Queen is only a symbolic head of state Compass, you must have noticed she wields no power, she just signs the acts put in front of her. Any influence she has over ministers is nothing more than peer pressure (no pun intended). Her opinion is regarded only insofar as it reflects the opinion of the established elite, something theyâ??re all pretty much agreed on. She only validates what they already think, at best she only expresses her disapproval of the acts sheâ??s signing. Perhaps you can cite the acts sheâ??s disagreed with and refused to sign off?
An alternative would beâ?¦ to not have someone like her. Most countries manage.
Again though, this isnâ??t about monarchy, itâ??s about their pay rises. What KPIâ??s has she passed to warrant that sort of pay rise? All the monarchists chime in about how good she is for the economy â?? has she improved UKs economy by 16%? Yes or no?
On 3 Apr 2013 at 11:36pm Compass wrote:
Expat Two , I'm aware of her role. What's the alternative? Set it out for me.
On 3 Apr 2013 at 11:47pm expat two wrote:
Don`t have her.
On 3 Apr 2013 at 11:59pm Compass wrote:
That's your considered opinion is it ?
On 4 Apr 2013 at 12:46am Expat Two wrote:
You're asking me about my opinion a 3rd time?
I'm beginning to understand why you support champagne socialism.
On 4 Apr 2013 at 7:53am Teacher wrote:
Clifford wrote, If you really are a teacher I would not want you teaching my kids. Well if your kids are as bigoted as what you appear to be then I would not want to teach them. Perhaps a football player with a rare talent would be better, after all the morals and behaviour of some of them off the pitch leave a lot to be desired. Apart from that " God save the Queen ".
On 4 Apr 2013 at 8:03am Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
We should have a different monarch every year, and the right to be the sovereign should be a lottery prize (as opposed to the genetic lottery prize it is at the moment).
The winner's extended family could take the role of the hangers-on. My MiL would be a great Queen Mum, and one of the sisters-in-law would be just as good a clothes horse as the Duchess of Cambridge.
On 4 Apr 2013 at 8:25am Teacher wrote:
What a joke we must appear to the rest of the world. We bitch about the monarchy, we moan about our politicians we complain about the weather not forgetting how some of us feel about the influx of immigrants. Surely there must be something good about this country and if you don't think so then go live abroad.
On 4 Apr 2013 at 10:55am Compass wrote:
Expat Two, I don't think I've revealed my views on this subject. I'm simply asking you what is your alternative to a constitutional monarchy?
On 4 Apr 2013 at 11:42am jrsussex wrote:
Clifford - My travels around the world were mostly related to my work at that time and I witnessed various trade fairs in foreign countries, the difference the attendance of a member of the monarchy made when they attended made to the levels of business gained was astonishing.
Expat Two - You appear to totally misunderstand the workings of the Civil List. The amount represents the amount of money it costs to have a monarchy, it is not her personal salary. As I have said before check the cost of the civil list against that of the estimated amount the British monarchy bring into the UK Treasury. Compass had asked you several times for your suggestion of an alternative form of head of state. I would imagine yourself, and possibly Clifford, would love to have the likes of Kinnock, Blair, Brown, Derek Hatton all of whom played a role in their day of bringing this country to its knees.
We in the UK have the distinction of living in what is arguably the most multi-cultural country in the world by allowing immigration for over a thousand years. Other countries that some may think match our diverse population may, for example, quote the USA. Not so they populated their country from all over the world because they had to populate, Great Britain didn't need to populate in that way.
On 4 Apr 2013 at 12:28pm Nixon Scraypes wrote:
Charles II ran up so much debt he had to give the crown to the City of London as collateral. As far as we know the debt has never been payed off.The Queen may be an employee of the City of London Corporation.When she visits the City she wears civilian dress and has to ask the unifomed Lord Mayor for his permission. The City is an independant state not bound by the laws of the United Kingdom. The Crown Colonies were the posessions of the City or the East India Co. not the Monarch.You can't tell what's really going on and I suspect that's how they like it
On 4 Apr 2013 at 3:18pm Rupert Bear wrote:
Expat Two, not meaning to be rude (well, perhaps a little bit!) but you don't even live here, I doubt you pay tax here, and as such what does it really have to do with you? It doesn't affect your day to day life, and if it does, perhaps you should be lobbying YOUR government (wherever that is) to become a republic.
On 4 Apr 2013 at 3:46pm minnie mouse wrote:
And Padster, as a self-confessed Irishman I am not sure that you are qualified to comment.