We're a country that has no problem throwing millions of pounds at one family, but can't afford support/housing for millions of families.
-
-
At least there is some control over them. Having a president as alternative would probably cost more & there would b no control on spending
-
Or, completely opposite of what you just said.
-
Not a monarchist but certainly a pragmatist. They cost less a year per person than your morning machiatto, get over it
-
No they don't. They cost well over £300m a year. And they cost the opportunity for an better constitution and head of state
-
I think successfully advocating a move to a presidential system at *this* moment in history may be a task beyond your powers.
-
At the point when we need an effective head of state more than ever? No one is advocating US system, just better parliamentary system.
-
You're talking about elected HoS. Don't care what u call it but effectively presidential. Monarch as an idea has advantages in times of ...
-
...strife by removing a politicised layer (I say that as no monarchist). And given our recent record at organising stuff, how on earth in...
- 8 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
And they in turn bring money.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Only ONE brings money into the Country ..Chances are lots of the others Send it OUT
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable
-
-
>forgets about foreign aid costs
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.