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
Controversial 'anti-woke' Evolutionary Biologist, Colin Wright, is the Founding Editor of 'Reality’s Last Stand', which claims to 'hold the line on free speech, science, & reality', & a Fellow at the free-market Manhattan Institute, founded in 1978 by Antony Fisher. 🕷️
This isn't a thread about sex & gender. It's about free speech & the toxic influence of individuals who identify as 'heroic victims of wokeism' while receiving support from right-wing media, 'influencers' like Zuby, & a global network of opaquely funded free-market think tanks.
We live in dangerously polarising times, where trust in mainstream (news) media, in democratic institutions, & in academic & other experts has been (imho deliberately) severely eroded, where manufactured outrage is a profitiable, & the culture war pits 'woke' against 'anti-woke'.
The well documented connections between Nigel Farage, the US & UK Christian right (including his billionaire employer at GB "News", Paul Marshall) & #TuftonSt lobbyists are deeply concerning.
Despite his '@BBC boycott', Farage is on #bbcqt next week, FOR THE 37TH TIME.
The event “The Bully State: How Nanny is taking over Britain” featured Reform UK MP James McMurdock, who knows all about bullying: before he was elected, he failed to publicly disclose he was jailed for repeatedly kicking his girlfriend.
🚨 Prof Brooke Harrington has researched the ultrarich for 25 years & offers some terrifying observations about the aims of the new breed of super-wealthy tech barons, #Broligarchs like Thiel, Musk, Mercer etc - the real 'Sovereign Individuals'.
Very few people are fully aware of the goals & beliefs of Broligarchs like Elon Musk & Peter Thiel.
The truth is that these ultrarich Broligarchs want to reorder society, giving rise to threats to women, to minorities, society & democracy, all while bypassing accountability.
They will push women out of public life; deny kids a rounded education; remove sensible regulations & laws designed to help keep people safe; & they will further normalise crypto, which will have seismic, destabilising & potentially catastrophic consequences for the entire world.
A 2016 petition calling on the Govt to have a threshold on the EU referendum got more than FOUR MILLION signatures. A 2019 petition calling on the Govt to revoke Article 50 & remain in the EU got more than SIX MILLION signatories.
Both were ignored.
The Express says the petition, pushed by some of the UK's worst people, “is now being branded Britain’s fastest-ever growing petition!”
WHO BY?
Started on 20/11, by 11am 4 DAYS later, it had 509,095. The 2019 Revoke Article 50 petition got FOUR MILLION signatures in 48 hours!
The relatively new, highly suspicious, divisive anonymous right-wing #disinformation @X account, @InevitableWest, amplified by Musk & which falsely claims Tommy Robinson was jailed "for journalism", is pushing the petition, & making false claims about it.
There was outrage when in 2020, the Tory Govt conceded a new bill to amend the UK's Brexit deal would "break international law" in a "specific & limited way".
But what is international law? What is the ICC?
And what were Margaret Thatcher's views on international law?
First, what is 'international law'?
Broadly (it's complicated!) it refers to the body of legal rules, norms, and standards that apply between sovereign states and other entities that are legally recognized as international actors.
The term was coined by the English philosopher Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832). According to Bentham’s classic definition, international law is a collection of rules governing relations between states. This original definition omits individuals and international organizations.