CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 17 January, 2012 Share Posted 17 January, 2012 So Republicans have a chip on their shoulder?! Nothing to do with actual criticism of the system itself? As I see it many (but not all) republican views are rooted more on a sense of envy and opposition to what they perceive as privilege, rather than any true interest in the dry subject of constitutional reform. Indeed the utter lack of interest in the recent referendum into PR is suggestive of how concerned we really are re the constitution. So yes, many do come across as rather 'chippy' to be honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 17 January, 2012 Share Posted 17 January, 2012 If Gove can't find a sponsor for his bibles then the DFE (ie the taxpayer) will fund this folly. Gove simply does not live in the real world. #bonkers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 17 January, 2012 Share Posted 17 January, 2012 Speaking of Gove and his rather questionable view about what should be publicly funded, news in today concerning the Michael Gove King James Bible Vanity Project. He has been told to seek private funding for this thunderer of a notion too. Thousands of copies apparently sitting in a warehouse abroad, according to claims in this Guardian article. Sitting there until a private benefactor can be found to finance the project. Reading between the lines, Gove has already spent the money, and after the fiasco with the Queenboat, the Government can't be seen to doing stupid Gove things with public money, hence the requirement for a private financer. That was a ridiculous idea in itself. If there is one book that is plenty in schools, it is the Bible. Absolutely outrageous idea and I sincerely hope the article is not true. At my secondary school, we were using textbooks in some of my lessons, from before I was born(from the 80's)... how about buying some of those instead of ****ing around with a book that is in plenty and really holds little academic value to what is important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 17 January, 2012 Share Posted 17 January, 2012 As I see it many (but not all) republican views are rooted more on a sense of envy and opposition to what they perceive as privilege, rather than any true interest in the dry subject of constitutional reform. Indeed the utter lack of interest in the recent referendum into PR is suggestive of how concerned we really are re the constitution. So yes, many do come across as rather 'chippy' to be honest. It wasn't PR, it was AV which is not PR. If it was a PR referendum, PR would have won in my opinion which is why the conservatives were very clever in making it a vote on AV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 17 January, 2012 Share Posted 17 January, 2012 As I see it many (but not all) republican views are rooted more on a sense of envy and opposition to what they perceive as privilege, rather than any true interest in the dry subject of constitutional reform. Indeed the utter lack of interest in the recent referendum into PR is suggestive of how concerned we really are re the constitution. So yes, many do come across as rather 'chippy' to be honest. You give the strong impression of not having a clue what you're talking about. Let's start at the beginning. List the 'republican views' that you feel are 'rooted in envy' - then let's have a proper discussion about those ideas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 17 January, 2012 Share Posted 17 January, 2012 Both are mean spirited surely. The difference is that cutting our huge welfare benefit bill is a unavoidable necessity because of the state of the economy, while the only reason we no longer have a Royal Yacht is not because we can't afford it as a nation - small change in the grand scheme of things - but because politicians are afraid of upsetting anti-royalists with a chip on (both) shoulders like you. So that would be a cowardly and mean spirited decision then. £60million is not "small change" - it would make a big difference to a lot of vulnerable people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 17 January, 2012 Share Posted 17 January, 2012 Tbh, I don't think depriving an already rich and privileged lady of a Yacht is mean spirited! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revolution saint Posted 17 January, 2012 Share Posted 17 January, 2012 Can't really be arsed to trawl through this thread - it crops up every few months anyway. Basically though a monarchy is an affront to democracy - it runs counter to everything a democracy stands for. I don't care if they cost a billion or a pound - I want to abolish them because I want to be a citizen and not a subject. They are not accountable, can't be removed and receive priviledge by way of "divine right". It's a system so laughable, ridiculous that it's pathetic. The only defence I ever hear about them is that: 1. They never use their constitutional powers - Great, no reason for them to have them then. 2. They bring in money due to tourism - plenty of republics do fine and I'd bet a fully open Buck House would probably bring in a few more. 3. The alternative would be another self serving politician as head of state - Yes, but we could choose and also remove them. Personally I don't see the need for an elected head of state anyway so I'd replace the head of state with nothing - it would be a massive improvement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 17 January, 2012 Share Posted 17 January, 2012 Can't really be arsed to trawl through this thread - it crops up every few months anyway. Basically though a monarchy is an affront to democracy - it runs counter to everything a democracy stands for. I don't care if they cost a billion or a pound - I want to abolish them because I want to be a citizen and not a subject. They are not accountable, can't be removed and receive priviledge by way of "divine right". It's a system so laughable, ridiculous that it's pathetic. The only defence I ever hear about them is that: 1. They never use their constitutional powers - Great, no reason for them to have them then. 2. They bring in money due to tourism - plenty of republics do fine and I'd bet a fully open Buck House would probably bring in a few more. 3. The alternative would be another self serving politician as head of state - Yes, but we could choose and also remove them. Personally I don't see the need for an elected head of state anyway so I'd replace the head of state with nothing - it would be a massive improvement. I have to agree with all of this, perhaps with the exception of point 3 where I might favour something slightly different Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Gotsmanov Posted 18 January, 2012 Share Posted 18 January, 2012 Always amuses me to see people get worked up by something that really has no impact on their lives whatsoever. It is a complete non debate for the chippy and the stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 18 January, 2012 Share Posted 18 January, 2012 Always amuses me to see people get worked up by something that really has no impact on their lives whatsoever. It is a complete non debate for the chippy and the stupid. Off with your head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 18 January, 2012 Share Posted 18 January, 2012 I'm certainly not adverse to having a Royal Yacht and just fail to see how announcing to the country we are (I know we aren't) planning to gift the Queen it is supposed to raise moral in difficult times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solentstars Posted 18 January, 2012 Share Posted 18 January, 2012 Can't really be arsed to trawl through this thread - it crops up every few months anyway. Basically though a monarchy is an affront to democracy - it runs counter to everything a democracy stands for. I don't care if they cost a billion or a pound - I want to abolish them because I want to be a citizen and not a subject. They are not accountable, can't be removed and receive priviledge by way of "divine right". It's a system so laughable, ridiculous that it's pathetic. The only defence I ever hear about them is that: 1. They never use their constitutional powers - Great, no reason for them to have them then. 2. They bring in money due to tourism - plenty of republics do fine and I'd bet a fully open Buck House would probably bring in a few more. 3. The alternative would be another self serving politician as head of state - Yes, but we could choose and also remove them. Personally I don't see the need for an elected head of state anyway so I'd replace the head of state with nothing - it would be a massive improvement. Good post and I agree but if the great and good a ss lickers want to buy her a boat for access to knighthoods etc .I hope they also pay to maintain her latest toy also so it does not fall on the taxpayer. Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Gotsmanov Posted 18 January, 2012 Share Posted 18 January, 2012 Good post and I agree but if the great and good a ss lickers want to buy her a boat for access to knighthoods etc .I hope they also pay to maintain her latest toy also so it does not fall on the taxpayer. Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk If there was a publicly funded project to build a flagship boat that will sail around the world entertaining the good and the great winning orders for the UK then rationally it would be well supported. Who better to represent the us than the Queen. The rest of the World love her. Whether Charlie will be qualified to make the sums add up I am not so sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 18 January, 2012 Share Posted 18 January, 2012 (edited) £60million is not "small change" - it would make a big difference to a lot of vulnerable people. No, the record shows it would make the square root of bugger all difference to anything - even if all this sum were to come out of public expenditure, which it is very unlikley to. Uk welfare state spending 2009-10 £1920m - every singe year Royal Yacht proposal........................60m - once every 30 or 40 years (£1 per person) Now if you have any decent argument to make as to how getting rid of the queen is going to make the livies of ordinary people in this country one iota better then you better make it - because I haven't seen one yet. In the meantime it all looks likes more chippy, knee-jerk anti royalism to me. Edited 18 January, 2012 by CHAPEL END CHARLIE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guan 2.0 Posted 18 January, 2012 Share Posted 18 January, 2012 I think that the fact that an unelected individual has around 300 prerogative powers (Parliament is not allowed to know what they are, although we do know they include the right to go to war in 2003, which Blair considered by using 'loaned' powers from the Queen), which will be passed down to her own unelected heir, is something that not only effects everybody in the U.K., but something we should aim to change. I have no problem with inherited wealth, but I believe that unchanging power in a not only undemocratic institution, but one that is not held to account, is not a healthy or proud position for a country to remain in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solentstars Posted 18 January, 2012 Share Posted 18 January, 2012 If there was a publicly funded project to build a flagship boat that will sail around the world entertaining the good and the great winning orders for the UK then rationally it would be well supported. Who better to represent the us than the Queen. The rest of the World love her. Whether Charlie will be qualified to make the sums add up I am not so sure. The love her because of her link to history but they would not one in their own country and when she goes I doubt Charles and his ilk will be seen has more has a branch of show business Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 18 January, 2012 Author Share Posted 18 January, 2012 No, the record shows it would make the square root of bugger all difference to anything - even if all this sum were to come out of public expenditure, which it is very unlikley to. Uk welfare state spending 2009-10 £1920m - every singe year Royal Yacht proposal........................60m - once every 30 or 40 years (£1 per person) Now if you have any decent argument to make as to how getting rid of the queen is going to make the livies of ordinary people in this country one iota better then you better make it - because I haven't seen one yet. In the meantime it all looks likes more chippy, knee-jerk anti royalism to me. What about the argument that no UK citizen can ever be the head of the state they live in? Or the notion that one family is not only 'better' than all other families in this country, but is entitled to large amounts of tax-payer money purely on the basis of bloodline? I find common ground with a lot of what you post on other subjects, Chapel End Charlie. On this, we're miles apart. I have immense trouble resolving meritocratic ideas with the ongoing maintenance of a family that some venerate above all others. There is nothing intrinsically special about the Royals, save the environment we put them in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 18 January, 2012 Share Posted 18 January, 2012 (edited) What about the argument that no UK citizen can ever be the head of the state they live in? Or the notion that one family is not only 'better' than all other families in this country, but is entitled to large amounts of tax-payer money purely on the basis of bloodline? I find common ground with a lot of what you post on other subjects, Chapel End Charlie. On this, we're miles apart. I have immense trouble resolving meritocratic ideas with the ongoing maintenance of a family that some venerate above all others. There is nothing intrinsically special about the Royals, save the environment we put them in. If the United Kingdom were to arise out of the North Sea today steaming and boiling like some great steam powered submarine then we would not have to invent a royal family to be its head of state. But this is a old country with a history that shows that the last time it tried republicanism it didn't much like it. If we don't have a head of state who is above party politics then we must have a US style president who is both PM and Head of State - but the US constitution has a whole series of 'checks and balances' that limit the ammount of power any one person should hold. Absolute power corrupts absolutley. ln our system lots of power is held by people who are not elected - Judges, Policemen, Hospital heads ..etc and I can't really see that that is very much of a problem in all honesty. So if we accept that having a Head of State is a good idea then the choice boils down to the Royal Family or some past it politican/actor/Wayne Rooney and to be frank with her lifetime of on the job training, and a Cast Iron sense of duty to the nation I say that HM the Queen is the best person for the job. Edited 18 January, 2012 by CHAPEL END CHARLIE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 18 January, 2012 Share Posted 18 January, 2012 If the United Kingdom were to arise out of the North Sea today steaming and boiling like some great steam powered submarine then we would not have to invent a royal family to be its head of state. But this is a old country with a history that shows that the last time it tried republicanism it didn't much like it. If we don't have a head of state who is above party politics then we must have a US style president who is both PM and Head of State - but the US constitution has a whole series of 'checks and balances' that limit the ammount of power any one person should hold. Absolute power corrupts absolutley. ln our system lots of power is held by people who are not elected - Judges, Policemen, Hospital heads ..etc and I can't really see that that is very much of a problem in all honesty. So if we accept that having a Head of State is a good idea then the choice boils down to the Royal Family or some past it politican/actor/Wayne Rooney and to be frank with her lifetime of on the job training, and a Cast Iron sense of duty to the nation I say that HM the Queen is the best person for the job. Pretty much the way I feel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 18 January, 2012 Author Share Posted 18 January, 2012 If the United Kingdom were to arise out of the North Sea today steaming and boiling like some great steam powered submarine then we would not have to invent a royal family to be its head of state. But this is a old country with a history that shows that the last time it tried republicanism it didn't much like it. If we don't have a head of state who is above party politics then we must have a US style president who is both PM and Head of State - but the US constitution has a whole series of 'checks and balances' that limit the ammount of power any one person should hold. Absolute power corrupts absolutley. ln our system lots of power is held by people who are not elected - Judges, Policemen, Hospital heads ..etc and I can't really see that that is very much of a problem in all honesty. So if we accept that having a Head of State is a good idea then the choice boils down to the Royal Family or some past it politican/actor/Wayne Rooney and to be frank with her lifetime of on the job training, and a Cast Iron sense of duty to the nation I say that HM the Queen is the best person for the job. While it is true that our system has many positions of power, you're wrong to use that to justify the Queen's special status along those lines as there is a massive difference in how people come to inhabit those roles. Normally, this involves years of developing the skills required to exercise that power appropriately. Further, the suitability of those candidates to perform said functions is constantly under scrutiny, with the powers to remove them if they are doing a bad enough job. Contrast that with the Royal Family. They are given massive constitutional power because they belong to a specific family. The monarch holds the position until death or abdication, and in normal circumstances, cannot be removed, irrespective of whether they are good at the job ( there is no real job description to measure against, handily ). I've heard all the arguments about the Head of State being above party politics. To be honest, I find them laughable. Are we to believe that our Royals go to the best schools and Universities this country has to offer, only to emerge with no political convictions whatsoever? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moonraker Posted 18 January, 2012 Share Posted 18 January, 2012 On the surface an hereditary Head of State (monarchy) seems totally archaic however when I look at other possible models none imo would be an improvement. Having a non political world respected and loved HoS is much preferable to a non-entity unknown non-executive president. In the absence of wikipedia today how many can name Germanys Head of State. The persistent myth that the monarchy is to costly is just that a myth, in fact it as at least comparable to or cheaper than a system where the HoS is elected. I know that the republican minded amongst us are looking forward to the day when Charles ascends the throne as they hope this will lead to the end of the Monarchy, I wouldn’t count your chickens just yet, The Barons, Cromwell, Monmouth and others have tried very hard to destroy the Monarchy but it is a very robust institution and I believe the majority of the British people if asked if it was time to abandon it would vote to keep it. Australia who one would think would have a far stronger republican support decided when push came to shuff to keep the Monarchy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 18 January, 2012 Share Posted 18 January, 2012 I've heard all the arguments about the Head of State being above party politics. To be honest, I find them laughable. Are we to believe that our Royals go to the best schools and Universities this country has to offer, only to emerge with no political convictions whatsoever? Think you are missing the point Pap. No-one is saying they dont have personal convictions. The point is they dont express them, dont get to indulge them and arent elected on a platform of wanting to do x, y and Z in the way an elected Head of State would be - which in itself is divisive. They also take a long term view - not one eye on re-election and doing partisan things simply to keep 'your' electors sweet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solentstars Posted 18 January, 2012 Share Posted 18 January, 2012 While it is true that our system has many positions of power, you're wrong to use that to justify the Queen's special status along those lines as there is a massive difference in how people come to inhabit those roles. Normally, this involves years of developing the skills required to exercise that power appropriately. Further, the suitability of those candidates to perform said functions is constantly under scrutiny, with the powers to remove them if they are doing a bad enough job. Contrast that with the Royal Family. They are given massive constitutional power because they belong to a specific family. The monarch holds the position until death or abdication, and in normal circumstances, cannot be removed, irrespective of whether they are good at the job ( there is no real job description to measure against, handily ). I've heard all the arguments about the Head of State being above party politics. To be honest, I find them laughable. Are we to believe that our Royals go to the best schools and Universities this country has to offer, only to emerge with no political convictions whatsoever? That's how I see it its a relic just like our unlected lords.the more democrat processes we have in this country the better and I think it would be great to have someone from the bottom of society dream he could be leader of this great country one day. Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 18 January, 2012 Author Share Posted 18 January, 2012 Think you are missing the point Pap. No-one is saying they dont have personal convictions. The point is they dont express them, dont get to indulge them and arent elected on a platform of wanting to do x, y and Z in the way an elected Head of State would be - which in itself is divisive. They also take a long term view - not one eye on re-election and doing partisan things simply to keep 'your' electors sweet. How do we know that the Royals do not exercise their convictions? Sure, they might not come out with them publicly (Charles excepted, ofc), but one would think that there is a reason the PM heads over to the palace once per week. If, as you say, the Royals exercise no power, then why even bother soliciting their opinions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 18 January, 2012 Share Posted 18 January, 2012 How do we know that the Royals do not exercise their convictions? Sure, they might not come out with them publicly (Charles excepted, ofc), but one would think that there is a reason the PM heads over to the palace once per week. If, as you say, the Royals exercise no power, then why even bother soliciting their opinions? Their opinions aren't solicited - they are briefed, big difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guan 2.0 Posted 18 January, 2012 Share Posted 18 January, 2012 How do we know that the Royals do not exercise their convictions? Sure, they might not come out with them publicly (Charles excepted, ofc), but one would think that there is a reason the PM heads over to the palace once per week. If, as you say, the Royals exercise no power, then why even bother soliciting their opinions? And as i said earlier, nearly all of Parliament is not allowed to know of the full scope of the prerogative powers... and they are 'lent out' by the Royals as is seen fit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 18 January, 2012 Share Posted 18 January, 2012 On the question of the succession ; would you want to put in a place of supposed honour and respect, the man who, whilst married to Diana, chose to **** Camilla ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 18 January, 2012 Share Posted 18 January, 2012 You either believe that everyone is born equal or you dont. It is a principle that should not depend on the cost, what power they use or whether they are "good" or "bad". We invade Countries and bomb Gaddafi to impose democracy on his Country, yet fawn over a family like we're some sort of 3rd world nation. A family whose forefathers were every bit as evil as Gaddafi or Hitler,but we excuse it because it happened hundreds of years ago . Surely in the 21st Century it's time to choose our own head of state, and that they can be any sex, religion, or colour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 18 January, 2012 Share Posted 18 January, 2012 On the question of the succession ; would you want to put in a place of supposed honour and respect, the man who, whilst married to Diana, chose to **** Camilla ? Better than ****ing the whole country to buy votes at election time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revolution saint Posted 18 January, 2012 Share Posted 18 January, 2012 Why do we need a head of state? Honest question - everyone seems to accept we do but I'm not convinced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 18 January, 2012 Share Posted 18 January, 2012 A family whose forefathers were every bit as evil as Gaddafi or Hitler,but we excuse it because it happened hundreds of years ago . And are more inbred than the Phew. Did anybody see the C4 documentary on the Queen's "secret" cousins ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 18 January, 2012 Share Posted 18 January, 2012 Why do we need a head of state? Honest question - everyone seems to accept we do but I'm not convinced. You need someone to do the meet and greet of visiting dignatories, handing out honours, opening new schools / hospitals etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revolution saint Posted 18 January, 2012 Share Posted 18 January, 2012 You need someone to do the meet and greet of visiting dignatories, handing out honours, opening new schools / hospitals etc. So there's no real need for a Head of State then? All those things can be done as part of the function of our current government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 18 January, 2012 Share Posted 18 January, 2012 So there's no real need for a Head of State then? All those things can be done as part of the function of our current government. Sure, anyone COULD do it. Not having a notional 'head' would make us look a bit weirdly hardline commie imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revolution saint Posted 18 January, 2012 Share Posted 18 January, 2012 Sure, anyone COULD do it. Not having a notional 'head' would make us look a bit weirdly hardline commie imo. How would it be communist? That doesn't make sense, and neither does having a head of state who doesn't actually do very much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 18 January, 2012 Share Posted 18 January, 2012 How would it be communist? That doesn't make sense, and neither does having a head of state who doesn't actually do very much. Because only communist nations ever got by with the leading roles divided up and and no nominated leader. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 18 January, 2012 Share Posted 18 January, 2012 If the United Kingdom were to arise out of the North Sea today steaming and boiling like some great steam powered submarine then we would not have to invent a royal family to be its head of state. But this is a old country with a history that shows that the last time it tried republicanism it didn't much like it. If we don't have a head of state who is above party politics then we must have a US style president who is both PM and Head of State - but the US constitution has a whole series of 'checks and balances' that limit the ammount of power any one person should hold. Absolute power corrupts absolutley. ln our system lots of power is held by people who are not elected - Judges, Policemen, Hospital heads ..etc and I can't really see that that is very much of a problem in all honesty. So if we accept that having a Head of State is a good idea then the choice boils down to the Royal Family or some past it politican/actor/Wayne Rooney and to be frank with her lifetime of on the job training, and a Cast Iron sense of duty to the nation I say that HM the Queen is the best person for the job. The President of the US is not like the PM at all! As you rightly point out, the President is balanced by Congress, and then the Supreme court. The leaders within the upper and lower house are also very powerful. Our PM is the leader of our legislature and executive. Parliament holds sovereignty in this country and so can pretty much pass any law it wants anytime and that's it. In the US, that would be almost impossible because the constitution is where sovereignty lies. I think I prefer the protections of the US system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revolution saint Posted 18 January, 2012 Share Posted 18 January, 2012 Because only communist nations ever got by with the leading roles divided up and and no nominated leader. I don't actually think that's true but regardless of that I'm not sure you've made a compelling argument for a Head of State be it as a monarchy or elected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 18 January, 2012 Share Posted 18 January, 2012 Coming soon to a palace near you: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 18 January, 2012 Share Posted 18 January, 2012 The President of the US is not like the PM at all! As you rightly point out, the President is balanced by Congress, and then the Supreme court. The leaders within the upper and lower house are also very powerful. Our PM is the leader of our legislature and executive. Parliament holds sovereignty in this country and so can pretty much pass any law it wants anytime and that's it. In the US, that would be almost impossible because the constitution is where sovereignty lies. I think I prefer the protections of the US system. The USA is a young country with a founding history that rather precludes any constitutional role for the British monarchy ! If you rate the supposed benefits of republicanism so highly then presumably you would consider the United States to be an inherently better governed country than this old constitutional monarchy - but given the state of near paralysis US government frequently finds itself in as the executive and legislature become enmeshed in endless bouts of bitterly partisan warfare I would have thought any such hypothesis would be built on unsound foundations. Those calling for more democracy would do well to hear what the British people actualy have to say, every opinion poll (that I've ever seen anyway) has consistently shown that we would vote to retain the monarchy by a significant margin. So if you really want a better democracy then it might be a good idea to listen to the people ! But I do actualy understand that idealistic minds in a 5th form debating society might find our ways unsatisfactory. Away from the classroom in the real world however the UK has proven over time to be one of the most politically stable nations on earth, thanks in no small part to a unwritten constitution that has withstood the test of time. This is not the USA, and it certainly not bloody France, the House of Windsor has adapted adroitly to a ever changing world and that is why they have survived and prospered when so many other Royal dynasties have passed into history. Some say it must be better to be a citizen than a mere subject. I say there are millions of 'citizens' in this world tonight who will sleep in dread of a visit from the Secret Police, plenty of them would happily swap with us. On the hand I wouldn't swap Elizabeth Windsor for any failed politician, ambitious bureaucrat, or dubious 'celebrity' we might otherwise have in the job, and I'm more than happy to concede that becoming Head of State only because you happen to be born into it is of course gloriously anachronistic in this day and age .... I'm British so I rather like anachronisms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 18 January, 2012 Author Share Posted 18 January, 2012 I think that the fact that an unelected individual has around 300 prerogative powers (Parliament is not allowed to know what they are, although we do know they include the right to go to war in 2003, which Blair considered by using 'loaned' powers from the Queen), which will be passed down to her own unelected heir, is something that not only effects everybody in the U.K., but something we should aim to change. I have no problem with inherited wealth, but I believe that unchanging power in a not only undemocratic institution, but one that is not held to account, is not a healthy or proud position for a country to remain in. Very interesting, Guan 2.0 - just did a spot of reading on this subject. Found out about the concept of Crown Immunity while reading up. The monarch can commit no legal wrong Perhaps even more alarming, it is a power they can theoretically lend to ministers, effectively servants of the Crown. That is actually rather worrying, and you're right - it has no place in a democracy. Do you think it has been used lately? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 18 January, 2012 Share Posted 18 January, 2012 The USA is a young country with a founding history that rather precludes any constitutional role for the British monarchy ! If you rate the supposed benefits of republicanism so highly then presumably you would consider the United States to be an inherently better governed country than this old constitutional monarchy - but given the state of near paralysis US government frequently finds itself in as the executive and legislature become enmeshed in endless bouts of bitterly partisan warfare I would have thought any such hypothesis would be built on unsound foundations. Those calling for more democracy would do well to hear what the British people actualy have to say, every opinion poll (that I've ever seen anyway) has consistently shown that we would vote to retain the monarchy by a significant margin. So if you really want a better democracy then it might be a good idea to listen to the people ! But I do actualy understand that idealistic minds in a 5th form debating society might find our ways unsatisfactory. Away from the classroom in the real world however the UK has proven over time to be one of the most politically stable nations on earth, thanks in no small part to a unwritten constitution that has withstood the test of time. This is not the USA, and it certainly not bloody France, the House of Windsor has adapted adroitly to a ever changing world and that is why they have survived and prospered when so many other Royal dynasties have passed into history. Some say it must be better to be a citizen than a mere subject. I say there are millions of 'citizens' in this world tonight who will sleep in dread of a visit from the Secret Police, plenty of them would happily swap with us. On the hand I wouldn't swap Elizabeth Windsor for any failed politician, ambitious bureaucrat, or dubious 'celebrity' we might otherwise have in the job, and I'm more than happy to concede that becoming Head of State only because you happen to be born into it is of course gloriously anachronistic in this day and age .... I'm British so I rather like anachronisms. I think you meant 6th form debating society... but that's not really important, as it's a poor point to bring out the age card. The US recent paralysis was more to do with the tea party than the actual system. What Obama was trying to do, raise the debt ceiling, is actually totally uncontroversial and has been done countless times over the year with no protest. Suffice to say, the TEA party seems to be a fad to me, and I predict it'll start to die a death. But that's off topic. We have very few actual protections for our rights in this country... if it wanted to, parliament could technically abolish free speech tomorrow and that would be that because parliament holds sovereignty. In the US, the Supreme Court would bang down any try at it, as the constitution forbids it, and it is incredibly hard to change the constitution. I don't really understand your point re: secret police, are you suggesting that because we have a monarchy, we don't have secret police? Because there are many countries with a monarchy that do, and many without that do as well so I don't think you can draw that correlation. To be honest, why do you assume there would be a celebrity elected? Our system is already turning presidential as it is, at the last election it was Cameron, Clegg and Brown, but technically none of us actually vote for him. It's an odd situation to be in. And it's probably about time, we updated our system to match the reality. Though in all honestly, in my own little list in my head of 'things to do to our political system', it isn't ridiculously high. Electoral reform to AMS or STV needs to come first as well as Lords reform and a strengthening of the power of the Supreme Court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revolution saint Posted 18 January, 2012 Share Posted 18 January, 2012 The USA is a young country with a founding history that rather precludes any constitutional role for the British monarchy ! If you rate the supposed benefits of republicanism so highly then presumably you would consider the United States to be an inherently better governed country than this old constitutional monarchy - but given the state of near paralysis US government frequently finds itself in as the executive and legislature become enmeshed in endless bouts of bitterly partisan warfare I would have thought any such hypothesis would be built on unsound foundations. Those calling for more democracy would do well to hear what the British people actualy have to say, every opinion poll (that I've ever seen anyway) has consistently shown that we would vote to retain the monarchy by a significant margin. So if you really want a better democracy then it might be a good idea to listen to the people ! But I do actualy understand that idealistic minds in a 5th form debating society might find our ways unsatisfactory. Away from the classroom in the real world however the UK has proven over time to be one of the most politically stable nations on earth, thanks in no small part to a unwritten constitution that has withstood the test of time. This is not the USA, and it certainly not bloody France, the House of Windsor has adapted adroitly to a ever changing world and that is why they have survived and prospered when so many other Royal dynasties have passed into history. Some say it must be better to be a citizen than a mere subject. I say there are millions of 'citizens' in this world tonight who will sleep in dread of a visit from the Secret Police, plenty of them would happily swap with us. On the hand I wouldn't swap Elizabeth Windsor for any failed politician, ambitious bureaucrat, or dubious 'celebrity' we might otherwise have in the job, and I'm more than happy to concede that becoming Head of State only because you happen to be born into it is of course gloriously anachronistic in this day and age .... I'm British so I rather like anachronisms. I don't believe we need a replacement for the monarchy (ie a head of state, a president call it what you will). We can happily get rid of them, become a modern true democracy (you know - that thing we wage war in it's name) and suffer no consequence. The only people who defend a monarchy are tied to a dewy eyed, rose tinted vision of tradition. If that's all they've got then it's a pretty poor argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 18 January, 2012 Share Posted 18 January, 2012 I don't mind wearing the hangman's hood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamilton Saint Posted 18 January, 2012 Share Posted 18 January, 2012 Good thread title, BTW! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Gotsmanov Posted 19 January, 2012 Share Posted 19 January, 2012 I don't believe we need a replacement for the monarchy (ie a head of state, a president call it what you will). We can happily get rid of them, become a modern true democracy (you know - that thing we wage war in it's name) and suffer no consequence. The only people who defend a monarchy are tied to a dewy eyed, rose tinted vision of tradition. If that's all they've got then it's a pretty poor argument. I am not sure that you quite appreciate why most people like the Monarchy. We like the fact the no one else has one. The fact that Queen has represented this nation better than any politician or anybody and that she commands global respect. The fact that tourists come from all over the world to see a living functioning monarchy filling the nation's coffers. We love the scandals, whether its Fergie and giving toe jobs or Mike Tindal chucking dwarfs - its real life soap opera. We enjoy the reasons it gives us for a party bringing communities together. Its all rather fun and gives our country identity. All this crap about being a modern democracy, it makes no difference to our lives having the monarchy. For you its about people hating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solentstars Posted 19 January, 2012 Share Posted 19 January, 2012 I am not sure that you quite appreciate why most people like the Monarchy. We like the fact the no one else has one. The fact that Queen has represented this nation better than any politician or anybody and that she commands global respect. The fact that tourists come from all over the world to see a living functioning monarchy filling the nation's coffers. We love the scandals, whether its Fergie and giving toe jobs or Mike Tindal chucking dwarfs - its real life soap opera. We enjoy the reasons it gives us for a party bringing communities together. Its all rather fun and gives our country identity. All this crap about being a modern democracy, it makes no difference to our lives having the monarchy. For you its about people hating. I do not hate the queen and when she dies I would like to vote for my leaders and its not about people hateing. Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Gotsmanov Posted 19 January, 2012 Share Posted 19 January, 2012 I do not hate the queen and when she dies I would like to vote for my leaders and its not about people hateing. Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk What exactly are we electing a replacement to do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 19 January, 2012 Share Posted 19 January, 2012 What exactly are we electing a replacement to do? To be a fully integrated part of a grown up, non-mother-fixated democratic society, rather than an overly inbred clan from Saxony corralling vast tracts of what was once public lands to themselves in the form of the Duchys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now