62% of Britons think Britain should continue to have a monarchy in the future, with 22% saying the country should move to having an elected head of state instead.
84% of Conservative voters say the monarchy should continue & 9% say we should have an elected head of state.
Labour voters are 48% in favour of a monarchy and 37% in favour of a head of state.
33% of 18 to 24-year-olds favour a monarchy & 31% a head of state.
While the majority of Britons have consistently been in favour of continuing the monarchy, there has been a decline over the last decade, from a high of 75% in favour of a monarchy in July 2012, to 62% in May 2022.
Young people have lost favour in a monarchical system over the last decade.
In 2011, when YouGov first started tracking the issue, 59% of 18 to 24-year-olds thought the monarchy should continue in Britain, compared to just 33% in May 2022.
Is the institution of the monarchy good or bad for Britain?
56% of Britons feel that the institution of the monarchy is good for Britain, although this percentage has also fallen since December 2012, when 73% of the public saw the monarchy as a good thing for the country.
Eight in 10 Conservative voters (80%) see the monarchy as being good for Britain, compared to 44% of Labour voters.
Three-quarters of Britons aged 65 and older (74%) say the same, compared to just 24% of 18 to 24-year-olds.
Will Britain still have a monarchy in 100 years’ time?
Over the past decade, there has been a shift in opinion about what the monarchy will look like in the future.
Britons are now split on whether the country will still have a monarchy in 100 years’ time.
In 2011, two-thirds of Britons said they thought there would still be a monarch in 100 years’ time, while just 24% said there would not be one.
In May 2022, 39% say the institution will still be around in a century, & 41% say it will not.
The British public’s perception of the importance of the monarchy may be affected by proximity to a Jubilee: in 2011, 71% saw the monarchy as being less important to Britain than they were in 1952; in May 2022, 56% of Britons thought the royal family has become less important.
Even those who feel that the monarchy should continue in Britain are agreed that the royal family play less of an important role today than they did 70 years ago (50%), while just 16% see them as more important and 27% think there has been no change.
Are Britons still proud of the monarchy?
Britons have become more embarrassed of the monarchy over the last decade: 18% now say they are embarrassed of the Crown, compared to just 8% in 2012.
47% say they are proud of the monarchy today - a drop from 57% in 2012.
70% of Conservative voters say they are proud of the monarchy.
34% of Labour voters say they are proud of the monarchy, 28% embarrassed, & 35% neither.
61% of Britons aged 65+ are proud.
23% of Britons aged 18-24 are proud, 28% embarrassed & 30% neither proud nor embarrassed.
Is the royal family good value for money?
The royal family is funded by the ‘Sovereign Grant’ (formerly ‘Civil List’), with the Queen normally receiving 15% of the Crown Estate profits & the rest going to the government. In 2020/21, the Crown Estate generated £269m in profit.
A majority of the public (55%) think that the royal family are good value for money, with 30% saying they are bad value for money.
This figure has declined since the Diamond Jubilee, however, when close to two-thirds (64%) saw the royal family as being good value for money.
75% of Conservative voters see the royal family as good value for money.
41% of Labour voters say they are good value, & 44% see them as bad value.
69% of Britons aged 65+ say they're good value.
34% of 18 to 24-year-olds say they're good value & 36% say they are not.
80% of those who think the monarchy should continue in Britain think the royal family are good value for money, 10% say they are bad value.
13% of those who think the country should have a head of state think the royal family are good value for money, 79% say they're bad value.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) was a response to the atrocities of WWII and the Holocaust, designed to prevent such horrors reoccurring.
Withdrawing risks weakening human rights, international isolation, destabilised peace agreements, and authoritarian drift.
Adopted in 1950 by the Council of Europe, the ECHR was a collective response to the Holocaust, during which about 11 million people, including 6 million Jews, were systematically exterminated, exposing the urgent need for a legal framework to prevent such horrors from recurring.
The Council of Europe, established in 1949 to promote democracy, rule of law, and human rights, made the ECHR a cornerstone of its mission.
Influenced by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), the ECHR ensured states uphold fundamental rights.
Comparing political rhetoric across eras is a sensitive task, as context, intent, and historical outcomes differ vastly.
In 1990, Ivana Trump said her husband Donald owned a copy of “My New Order” – a printed collection of Hitler's speeches – which he kept by the bedside...
Some of Trump’s statements have been noted by historians, critics, and media for echoing themes or phrasing used by Adolf Hitler, particularly in their dehumanizing language, scapegoating of groups, and authoritarian undertones.
Below, with @grok's help, I’ll provide examples of Trump’s quotes that have been cited as resembling Hitler’s rhetoric, alongside Hitler’s statements for comparison, drawing from credible sources, focusing on specific language & themes, ensuring accuracy, & avoiding exaggeration.
Most people know very little about Trump's new best friend, El Salvador’s strongman leader, Nayib Bukele, who's been sat in the White House being adored by Trump and his team of fawning, dangerously unhinged sociopathic bootlickers...
Read this excellent article by Professor of International Politics at Lancaster University, Amalendu Misra, the author of seven critically acclaimed monographs on conflict and peace, whose primary research concerns violence in the political process.
Trump has unleashed a string of controversial policies since returning to the White House that have put his administration at odds with most of the world. He's also forged an alliance with one country that is willing to do his bidding abroad: El Salvador.
The techno-dystopia many have warned about looks a lot closer today, after @WIRED revealed that Peter Thiel's #Palantir (which has a £500 million contract with #NHS England to manage our patient data across NHS trusts) is involved in Elon Musk’s DOGE.
If you're unaware of who unhinged billionaire tech-bro Peter Thiel is, and why he should have nothing to do with the UK or our #NHS, or how he groomed and installed his protégé JD Vance in the White House, or how he's not keen on democracy, read this:
The BMA are concerned about patient data privacy & Palantir’s ties to US intelligence.
DOGE, Palantir, & IRS representatives have been collaborating to build a single API layer above all IRS databases at an event previously characterized as a “hackathon.” publictechnology.net/2023/11/22/hea…
🧵 A scholar who specialises in how Universities respond to authoritarian pressure across different political systems, cultural contexts & historical moments warns that compliance with the Trump administration will not protect their funding & independence. theconversation.com/universities-i…
Many American universities, widely seen globally as beacons of academic integrity and free speech, are giving in to demands from the Trump administration, which has been targeting academia since it took office.
Even before seizing power in 1933, the Nazi Party was closely monitoring German universities through nationalist student groups & sympathetic faculty, flagging professors deemed politically unreliable – particularly Jews, Marxists, liberals & pacifists.
The claim that 11,300 millionaires fled the UK due to Labour has been widely reported & discussed—even by ministers.
Just one problem: it’s extremely unlikely to be true.
A 🧵 about wealth, truth, propaganda, our broken news media, & how citizenship became a commodity.
This 🧵is about how the ultrarich use news media to oppose constraints on their wealth & power, & to break free from well-established legal, democratic & ethical norms, manifested in debate around what some have called the 'commodification of citizenship'. eprints.lse.ac.uk/123961/2/Commo…
The sheer volume of unreliable or false information spreading around the world has caused some scholars to refer to this phenomenon as a ‘disinfodemic’, which involves the spread of harmful, misleading and dangerously polarizing misinformation and disinformation.