RE: The Queen costs us more than the Brits pay
Republicans can be a miserly, scrimy and niggardly lot, who have no comprehension of the difference between stinginess which is a vice, and frugality which is a virtue. What republicans don't seem to understand is that you can practice economy without being stingy, that you can be thrifty without being petty and ungenerous, that you can be frugal without being a skinny little grudging penny-pincher.
Personally, I am with Aristotle who said that on the quality of magnficence, a gentleman does not count the cost. We must nevertheless be mindful that taxpayers today rarely think as such, that people will always count the cost, even if it is the meagre per capita cost of supporting our Queen and vice-regal representatives.
The Queen of course exemplifies thriftiness, even though she is obviously rich and lives in palaces. That is because Her Majesty is an exemplar of prudence and good taste, in that she uses her wealth and that of taxpayers wisely and with care. She is not some money flaunting celebrity who likes to swill around town in a Lambrogini.
But that is not good enough for tightfisted, cheeseparing republicans who would do away with the monarchy for a lousy stick of gum. How scrimpy, selfish and uncharitable do you have to be to incessantly complain and whine about 69p if you're British and $1.53 if you're Canadian. Might we have another lump of coal for the Queen? Unfortunately we must resign ourselves to the meanspirited fact that these penny-pinching miserly old gits will not be happy until they get their President Scrooge.
Do you think, perhaps, some of these republican's might give the issue a rest if we showed our disdain for the little amount it cost's per capita, and offer to pay their share? We could mail the more prominent ones, once a year, a check for the total sum. Perhaps they would stop complaining.
ReplyDeleteI reject the "fabulous monarchy justifies the cost" line. Look what republicans have been costing us in Australia. David Flint on the ACM website points out the following inquiries have been held, and "stunt" legislation has been introduced, since 1999's referendum:
ReplyDeleteCorowa Conference, 2001
Republic (Consultation of the People) Bill, 2001
Senate Inquiry: Road to a Republic Report 2004
Plebiscite for an Australian Republic Bill, 2008
2020 Summit, 2009
Senate Finance and Public Administration Report, 2009
Senate committes happen all over the country, and chew up parliamentary time. Staff, flights, etc etc. Incredible.
Meanwhile, the last time the Queen was here in 2006, was seen by 100-200 000 people and was driven around in an old car that paid for itself decades ago (an old black Rolls). You pick the value for money.
Money is beside the point, this is simply another excuse. Funds not spent on the monarchy would be spent on a some jumped up appointed President, or to hire a few more staffers for the ever expanding PMOs. Magnficence is the point. A Republican isn't going to give you all that much for your $1.53, but the money will get spent.
ReplyDeleteHi there. I've been lurking here for a few months now, and I guess its time to wade in and help you chaps clean this lovely pond that gets choked by so much republican sewerage.
ReplyDeleteThose clever republicans, using royal costs to justify their own advancement. How dare the monarchy cost us anything!
What a load of cock.
In all honesty, when you factor in wages for the GG and Lieutenant Governors, it's a damn site cheaper than any presidential system (considering the costs of elections or selection committees, depending on the appointment model). I honestly wonder if they ever think to bring that up.
And for his little stab as a republic being something "the people" can rally behind, I say it much better on my own blog (apologies for the shameless plug) - http://lawwreview.blogspot.com/2009/07/into-breach.html.
Gentlemen,
ReplyDeleteAs some of the comments already suggest, there will probably never be a President Scrooge.
I'm all for a prime minister Scrooge and a government Scrooge, so long as we can clothe our Scroogeness in a lavish monarchical foil.
ReplyDeleteWhat they fail to realize is this: there's nothing very democratic in a republic, either. At least the monarchy doesn't try to pretend to be a democracy. The US republic pretends it's all about voting and the individual's rights, but behind closed doors it's every rich guy for himself. You can try to fool yourself on a regular basis when you go to vote, but the reality is that a republic is no better.
ReplyDeleteI hope my previous comment doesn't sound too harsh on the system of monarchy. It's just that I realize there are certain ways these republican people view things, and if that's the argument they are going with, then look, a republic is not necessarily more cost-effective or democratic.
ReplyDelete