Maverick McKillshark wrote:It was you suggested that the Green's policy on the monarchy was absurd because 'There are more important things to do right now.'
The implication is that you believe political parties ought to focus solely on what you think is The Important Thing and pay no consideration whatsoever to that which you do not believe to be quite as important. Or else, why state that the policy shouldn't exist due to its perceived relative unimportance? I'm not attacking the straw man because that's the argument you gave.
I never said parties should only focus on 1 thing. But even in constitutional matters alone there are bigger fish to fry. See my post to Dante. Removing the monarchy would create more problems than it solves, and would take up manhours that could be devoted to other more noble causes.
Out of interest, what qualifies you to speak for the nation in your assertion that a debate on the monarchy is 'Not what the country needs or wants right now'?
What the country needs, I am a British subject and I am entitled to my views on what the country needs. I also work for an MP, and no constituent has ever called me up to say "the Monarchy is causing problems for me and other people in the country." Surely you can see all the other things that have a greater affect on people's daily lives that the politicians need to sort out before beginning a debate on the monarchy.
What the country wants, look at the opinion polls. Regularly around 75% support for the maintenance of the monarchy. The only poll I've seen indicating a majority support for republicanism was 2010, when people were most pissed off with everything. Then the support was only 54%, and 3% considered it a priority.