Saintandy666 Posted 7 February, 2012 Share Posted 7 February, 2012 See!, this is where we differ, I vote for a party, based on policy, the local MP just happens to be a by product of this, in fact, you can end up with the party of your choice, but not nessessarily your MP of choice. It really depends on how you view the voting system in this country. Even so, I did say we end up with our PM by default, but still through an electorial system. Our elections are getting more and more presidential anyways. For what it is worth, I like the Queen, but am not a fan of Charles. I'm not overly enthusiastic of the Royal Family at the moment, but I'm quite happy to have it, as long as we reform elsewhere, i.e go to AMS/STV in the HoC, reform HoL and get a rigid constitution with a proper powerful Supreme court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 7 February, 2012 Share Posted 7 February, 2012 Good point. Quoting facts usually is.... ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Jim Posted 7 February, 2012 Share Posted 7 February, 2012 Royalist personally. It would be fiercely counter productive to simply get rid of the monarchy. The economic benefits it brings through tourism and international relations more then outweigh any capital costs they require. I'm sure I read that a tax payer pays no more then a pound each per year to keep them going.... If anyone knows he exact figure I'ld be interested to hear it. The idea of a 'queen' is an anachronism but it is also a part o 'Britishness' to me. It's not something I can explain totally logically but I feel it would be a massive cultural own goal to get rid of them. Do they. red to be so austentatious though? I would say that the expectations of their consumer base (the royalist patriots, the tourists and the foreign dignitaries) should dictate that. this ^ I am a royalist but living down under I think I'm in the minority and would be torn as to wether to vote to remove the Queen as head of state for Australia (partly because, although a royalist as far as teh UK is concerned, I ask the question what benefit does she serve for Australia). One thing I will add, IMO a head of state that is born into the role is more likely to serve the country in what they perceive are the country's best interests where as a head of state that has to be voted in may well have personal intrests to becoem head of state and may well serve the country in their own interests. Lets face it, most politicians that have ideas of becoming PM have massive ego's and would hate to have a head of state like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Petersfield Saint Posted 8 February, 2012 Share Posted 8 February, 2012 Royalist. Reason? George Bush. No further questions your honour. This. Didn't even bother reading the rest of the thread! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 8 February, 2012 Share Posted 8 February, 2012 This. Didn't even bother reading the rest of the thread! I like you :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 8 February, 2012 Share Posted 8 February, 2012 So why wouldn't George Bush have ended up PM if the USA had the same system as us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 8 February, 2012 Share Posted 8 February, 2012 So why wouldn't George Bush have ended up PM if the USA had the same system as us? I thought we were discussing heads of state rather than PMs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 8 February, 2012 Share Posted 8 February, 2012 So why wouldn't George Bush have ended up PM if the USA had the same system as us? Very good point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 8 February, 2012 Share Posted 8 February, 2012 Very good point. Only if one agrees with a certain point of view Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 8 February, 2012 Share Posted 8 February, 2012 I thought we were discussing heads of state rather than PMs? Yes, but everyone keeps going that if we had a US style system, we'd have people like George Bush as our leader. I'm saying, if the US did had a UK style system, why would that have prevented him from becoming leader as a PM? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 8 February, 2012 Share Posted 8 February, 2012 I thought we were discussing heads of state rather than PMs? You brought up Bush Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 8 February, 2012 Share Posted 8 February, 2012 The fact that the USofA elected Dubya and Raygun is more a condemnation of Americans than of their electoral system, flawed though it might be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheVicar Posted 9 February, 2012 Share Posted 9 February, 2012 I wish the Royals would let themselves be seen spending their own money for once, want a boat, buy one, want a plane, buy one. And cut the hangers on. That is all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Luke Posted 12 February, 2012 Share Posted 12 February, 2012 royalist, but happy to see the younger ones moving with the times. Think that with William the royals will become a lot more accessible and more socially accountable. If we didn't have the royal family would we have a president, don't see that working in the UK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revolution saint Posted 12 February, 2012 Share Posted 12 February, 2012 royalist, but happy to see the younger ones moving with the times. Think that with William the royals will become a lot more accessible and more socially accountable. If we didn't have the royal family would we have a president, don't see that working in the UK. Accountable? Really? The whole point of a monarchy and it's strength is that it is not accountable except to God (albeit not of the Catholic persuasion). How on earth will a system that enshrines divine right ever become accountable? It's whole existence is based upon the fact that the royal family are best placed to lead us due to some heriditary "superpowers" I presume. It's a ridiculous, anachronistic and absurd institution that finds it's only defence in tradition and fear of an alternative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mickn Posted 12 February, 2012 Share Posted 12 February, 2012 Accountable? Really? The whole point of a monarchy and it's strength is that it is not accountable except to God (albeit not of the Catholic persuasion). How on earth will a system that enshrines divine right ever become accountable? It's whole existence is based upon the fact that the royal family are best placed to lead us due to some heriditary "superpowers" I presume. It's a ridiculous, anachronistic and absurd institution that finds it's only defence in tradition and fear of an alternative. This Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 12 February, 2012 Share Posted 12 February, 2012 I wish the Royals would let themselves be seen spending their own money for once, want a boat, buy one, want a plane, buy one. And cut the hangers on. That is all. Perhaps they might also manage with fewer than their 250 (!) civil-list-paid servants too - including the one who's about to be hired to run the bath. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northant Saint Posted 13 February, 2012 Share Posted 13 February, 2012 I'm extremely proud of our monarchy, they are a symbol of what makes Britain, and her illustrious past. In all fairness they have the right to rule. She is descended from the those who were strong enough to rule over the warring factions many centuries ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 13 February, 2012 Share Posted 13 February, 2012 She is descended from the those who were strong enough to rule over the warring factions many centuries ago. In Germany ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egbb saint Posted 13 February, 2012 Share Posted 13 February, 2012 Was a republican, now a royalist. Why the change? The US system. By the end of Bush 90% of Americans hated him, but if he walked into the room everyone would stand up and applaud; the press hardly said a word against him because criticising him was seen as being unpatriotic. By the end of Gordon Brown 100% of British hated him, would boo him and he was slated in the press. I like the freedom to tell the top politician he is rubbish, but in the “land of the free” you can’t do that. I’m polite about the queen because I’m proud to be British. In my opinion an unelected monarchy gives more power to the people than an elected president, unlikely as it sounds! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebel Posted 13 February, 2012 Share Posted 13 February, 2012 Republican all the way. Just as I am English and not British. And just as I'd rather be a citizen and not a subject. The royal family and the British Empire are in the past - we should leave them there and look to the future. The royal family are also the cornerstone of our class system which still holds so many people back. The very fact they exist gives truth to the lie that people are born better then others - and its who you are or where you are from that matters - not what you do. A president is not the only alternative to a King, Queen or Prince either. Just as the House of Lord could and should be elected in some way. The Speaker of the House of Commons (OK Bercow is not the best example of this) and/or the Leader of the House of Lords could and should be our heads of State. We could even have an elected Lord Protector and go back to the title used by Oliver Cromwell. People also seem to forget that William and Anne were 'invited' to be the King and Queen of England/Scotland/Wales as James II was deposed with the Glorious Revolution - so everything they own is ours anyway! Besides they are more Greek, Dutch, German and Scottish than English! Just like we did with the Magna Carter, the English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution the English people need to be more radical. 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