World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
No? You're saying you wouldn't even consider spending the exorbitant amount of money it cost to maintain those purely decorational vases on something else? Like saving for your retirement or your kid's retirement, setting up community gardens, beefing up your home security, funding medical research, etc?
Well, I like vases. People like vases. Some vases being shitty doesn't make ALL vases shitty.
And let's not pretend like the "royal whatnot" upkeep is a major amount of money on a country's scale. Sure, looking at it itself it seems like a lot, but removing, for example, the UK royal family in its entirety wouldn't even be noticeable in the overall budget. They cost UK taxpayers around £510 million, whereas the 2025 budget spending was £1,244.9 billion. You'd lower it to £1,244.4 billion. That's peanuts.
The issue - on that scale - isn't the funding itself, it's that the overall spending of taxpayer money is extremely inefficient.
Thank you for partaking in this conversation in good faith. This is a good conversation.
That being said, I absolutely hate that attitude. When you look at it as a percentage of annual spending you are right. When you look at it per capita you're right, for the UK it's only £7 per person if my math is right.
That perspective is an extremely privileged one. How many lives could be saved every year with that money? How much good could be done?
We agree that the overall spending and allocation of taxpayer money is inefficient. The difference that I see in this conversation is that you're throwing up your hands and saying "the problem is too big, welp better not do anything about it", while I'm saying "This is a great step in the right direction that can help people now".
Can you give me some reasons to keep the royal family, rather than reasons not to get rid of it?
OK, let's assume we do it your way - eliminate the entirety of the Royal Family funding, because they're "useless".
Let's say the NHS is able to save 34 more lives per year (NHS 2025 budget is £204.7 billion, UK's population is 69 million, the extra £510 million equates to just about enough money for 34 extra people - maths super simplified, ofc, but I think it's good enough to show the scales we're talking about).
Now - there's a bunch of jobs some of the Royals do (representative, mostly) that now need to be done by others on a regular employment contract, but let's ignore all that.
We get 34 extra lives saved after eliminating what is essentially a large piece of history and culture, large part of which is available to the public.
So... why stop there? Why not eliminate all museums? Bah, kill the entire DCMS - their budget was a whopping £2.29 billion for the 2025/26 financial year! That's around 140 extra saved lives if that budget was pushed to NHS!
You see what I'm getting at?
Royal families in democratic monarchies often serve similar purposes as the president in countries like Germany or Poland. It's the Chancellor/Prime Minister who has any actual power, but there's still a mostly representative President. The president, other than being an extension of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, also often has the power of veto (in the case of Poland: they can send a proposed to be analysed by the Constitutional Tribunal to verify legality), as part of the three-way checks and balances, and has the right of legislative initiative.
To my knowledge, all of this is also true about the UK King. Sure, they're not electable, but clearly the people of UK don't have a problem with that (approval rates in the 60s with only around 30% being strongly against).
The idea to "save lives" by eliminating a large chunk of culture and history, as well introducing the need to heavily reform how governance in the UK works (which usually means immense costs to implement) would be easier (and cheaper) to achieve by just reforming the NHS.
It's the same case as in the US - it's not the lack of money that's the problem here. People always complain that US prefers financing their war industry than healthcare, but that's just completely not true - their military gets around 4% of the federal budget while their healthcare gets 16%. Throwing more money at that bonfire won't help save people - you need to start by putting the fire out and then cleaning up!
Cheers!