English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I personally think the counry would run better under total command of our Queen.

2006-06-10 23:04:35 · 27 answers · asked by kris 4 in Society & Culture Royalty

27 answers

In Canada...please take our Prime Minister!!!!

I to am a Loyal Royal...I think Royal Absolute rule would be cool!!!

+David

2006-06-11 20:54:23 · answer #1 · answered by Bishop David F. Milne DD 3 · 6 3

NO WAY WOULD IT RUN BETTER. That is a dictatorship, we should rule ourselves - not some instiutionally racist family who belongs in the past.

As for the primeminister he is a total failure. I remember he promised things like a "moral foreign policy" "To be a peoples government" "not to raise taxes". He's a dangerous pychopathic lier that would be booted out of office in an instant if this were a healthy democracy. But hey he is merely a product of a failed political culture that only allows for primeministers that want control, influence and power for their own end rather than what is right and what the people demand. This is why so many people say politics is boring and "nothing ever changes" its because any politician who wants a career in government has to suck up and look out for number one to get anywhere and over the years that usually means serving elite corporations / bankers / oil drillers and war mongers amongst others that has only centralised power into fewer and fewer hands.

The bottom line is if want to see the country run better then we have to make drastic changes to the political culture. I dont mean electing some new wonder party, I mean decentralising the power of the banks corporations and the rest back to each and every citzen instead of putting up with things being run their way for their benefit and the majority of us suffering enormously because of it.

That is it in a nutshell - rather difficult to explain in a such a short space (hence few examples) but I hope it was a help.

Paul C :-)

2006-06-11 10:11:46 · answer #2 · answered by wicked_paul 2 · 0 0

Well i think we should get rid of both of them at the moment, but the royals need to go, they have been around far to long, don't do anything for us, and are way out of touch with real life. The Queen has no idea of what goes on outside her little world, when was the last time she had to worry about putting a meal on the table.
The prime minister well he's not much good, just like all the others looking after number one, again out of touch with what's really going on outside number 10.

2006-06-11 07:04:04 · answer #3 · answered by ringo711 6 · 0 0

The Queen knows nothing about running a country. She & her family are merely figureheads nowadays.
They are good for bringing in tourists with plenty cash to spend but nothing more.
At least the Prime Minister has his finger a bit more on the pulse of the ordinary, real world.
Royalty are living in an unreal, pampered world where everything unpleasant has alreaady been removed or sanitised for them.
They do not even look after their kids themselves. They all ahve nannies & boarding schools for that.
Tony Blair, apparently, makes time to play with his young son Leo every day & is much more a man of the people than any other Prime Minister we have had.

2006-06-12 09:57:08 · answer #4 · answered by monkeyface 7 · 0 0

The Prime-minster and the the current Labour government, I'm going to vote Tory in the next election as this Labour government is controlled by Scots who are allowed to vote on matters concerning England but English MP's are not allowed to vote on Scottish matters!So much for the United Kingdom! If I vote for Gordon Brown as prime minister I'm effectively voting for a Scot as the First Minister for England with a constituency in Scotland, the Tories may be full of Eton Toffs but at least they have more to offer to the English and are not so interested in selling this country out to the EU! Keep the Queen what difference would this country becoming a republic have anyway?Aren't their advantages of having an politically unbiased head of state who can maintain relations with other countries because of this?

2006-06-11 00:40:07 · answer #5 · answered by Robyn in the Hoode 2 · 0 0

It may be the case the Queen would make a better job of it than the current PM. Two things, though

1) would she want to?
2) will the Monarch always be someone, the Nation could trust to govern effectively?

At least the PM can get voted out of office every 4 years or so.

2006-06-12 07:17:57 · answer #6 · answered by unclefrunk 7 · 0 0

The royals of course !

For me the main reason for abolishing all royalty is that it is incompatible with human dignity to have one person and one family treated as semi gods.

Kings are virtually immovable and England had a king who was a serial murderer (of his wives) and another one who was mad.

When you have a king you automatically have a royal family and a nobility structure below them. Democracy is not only one man one vote. It is also about the equality of all citizens.

Nearly all royalty are not only immensely rich, but also extremely expensive. The president of the US, the richest country in the world, costs far less than the royalty (royal family) of England, unless you only count their salary. Try doing that with your tax office and see what happens.

As for wealth, if correctly calculated, the queen of England is probably the richest person in the world, with 7 palaces ( maintained at tax payers expense of course), huge amounts of land, fantastic art collection, incredible jewellery, gift collection, exclusive trains, ships and planes when travelling etc.etc. Compare Bill Gate's house and life style with the queen's Buckingham palace and life style..

The queen pays negligible tax. No capital gains tax or wealth tax and until recently, no income tax either. Now her income tax is entirely voluntary, just what she wants to pay.

But support for royalty is like religion for most people, and you will never convince them. They are just born with the gene of deference in them. Well done Americans, at least you got rid of your king and you do not have to bow or kneel in front of any one.

2006-06-12 04:13:11 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

its all about money while the royal family earn valuable tourist income the moment they dont they will go, the system not the priminister needs to go. go for proportional representation, get rid of all the outdated knighthoods and medals, there is no longer an empire so what is the use of them replace with new recognition units for duty or help to your country not singing or having a cushy lifetime job a govt dept and have them terminate with the awardees death not passed on and on and on

2006-06-10 23:30:24 · answer #8 · answered by sharky 4 · 0 0

Not until we find a better system. It should be run by qualified business people who are accountable. The queen or any royals would not have a clue.

2006-06-11 02:32:52 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Jesus you Cannot be from the UK surely. Dont forget the queen will not always be queen. The next monarch will be a man who takes advice from a potted geranium, an oak tree and a couple of hedgerows.

2006-06-11 12:58:34 · answer #10 · answered by malcy 6 · 0 0

No, we stopped having the divine right of the monarch for a good reason and there's no good reason to return. At least PMs can be thrown out of office by the ballot box and not by beheading - that has to be a step forward.

2006-06-10 23:09:59 · answer #11 · answered by mickyrisk 4 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers