What is the Queen for?
Discussion
This is a really interesting topic that has been exercising my mind recently on a number of levels:
- GB has seen its sharpest decline as an economic, political and military power under the tenure of QE2 and her string of governments, if she was electable this alone would count very strongly for an urgent replacement
- QE2 is in fact a very competent monarch, widely regarded and respected, and in many ways the Royals act as a bulwark against more rapid decline and help keep UK Plc still in the top row of nations
- UK Plc has been in some degree of decline since mid-Victorian times when the energy and vigour of the C17th and C18th gave way to a more decadent imperialism that helped us lose longer-term momentum against the like of the US, Japan and Germany, we also missed out on the catharsis of the mid C19th European revolutions and political upheavals keeping the same creaky system we inherited from the reinstatement of the monarchy under Charles 2 (for a case study in the vigour of the UK as a republic check out the achievements of the New Commonwealth under Cromwell). WW1 was a stomach wound to us economically and WW2 finished us off as a global player and we’ve been slowly drowning ever since.
- So we are in a situation where the Monarchy is as much a symptom and cause of our decline as it is a brake against further rapid decline
- We have a decaying democracy across Europe, and the UK is no exception to this, as a European political class and generation has decided to stretch its democratic mandate to breaking point with supra-national political integration, unfettered immigration and unpopular wars. The outcome of this are things like the rise of UKIP and the SNP here in the UK, and I’m sure there is more to come.
- The decline in our level of real democracy and accountability has been accompanied by the raise of a mediocre and deeply unpopular and uninspiring political class post Regan, Thatcher, Mitterrand and Kohl that just seems to get worse every time (although Blair will take some beating on that score), so in other words, even if we got rid of the monarchy at this late stage, we’d replace it with what? Some career politician like David Steel or Ming Campbell as ‘President’ - the alternative to Monarchy just doesn’t bear thinking about as there is a real vacuum in terms of a real alternative to our current system so we are at an impasse
- One possible solution is to just accept that ‘liberal democracy’ has had its day (at least for now) and that we maybe need a qualified pilot for our plane and not just a bunch of unqualified passengers taking the controls every four years getting us further and further off course and in to the sh*t even more, with QE2 being some mute Captain unable to actually fly the plane herself but needed to sit in the front seat. I think we need what France had after WW2 a much stronger technocratic executive a weaker political elite, in terms of the power exercised by elected governments so we can have sound long-term economic and other strategies and policies that really work, and using talent rather than ‘popular’ choice to lead our country back on track
Discuss….
- GB has seen its sharpest decline as an economic, political and military power under the tenure of QE2 and her string of governments, if she was electable this alone would count very strongly for an urgent replacement
- QE2 is in fact a very competent monarch, widely regarded and respected, and in many ways the Royals act as a bulwark against more rapid decline and help keep UK Plc still in the top row of nations
- UK Plc has been in some degree of decline since mid-Victorian times when the energy and vigour of the C17th and C18th gave way to a more decadent imperialism that helped us lose longer-term momentum against the like of the US, Japan and Germany, we also missed out on the catharsis of the mid C19th European revolutions and political upheavals keeping the same creaky system we inherited from the reinstatement of the monarchy under Charles 2 (for a case study in the vigour of the UK as a republic check out the achievements of the New Commonwealth under Cromwell). WW1 was a stomach wound to us economically and WW2 finished us off as a global player and we’ve been slowly drowning ever since.
- So we are in a situation where the Monarchy is as much a symptom and cause of our decline as it is a brake against further rapid decline
- We have a decaying democracy across Europe, and the UK is no exception to this, as a European political class and generation has decided to stretch its democratic mandate to breaking point with supra-national political integration, unfettered immigration and unpopular wars. The outcome of this are things like the rise of UKIP and the SNP here in the UK, and I’m sure there is more to come.
- The decline in our level of real democracy and accountability has been accompanied by the raise of a mediocre and deeply unpopular and uninspiring political class post Regan, Thatcher, Mitterrand and Kohl that just seems to get worse every time (although Blair will take some beating on that score), so in other words, even if we got rid of the monarchy at this late stage, we’d replace it with what? Some career politician like David Steel or Ming Campbell as ‘President’ - the alternative to Monarchy just doesn’t bear thinking about as there is a real vacuum in terms of a real alternative to our current system so we are at an impasse
- One possible solution is to just accept that ‘liberal democracy’ has had its day (at least for now) and that we maybe need a qualified pilot for our plane and not just a bunch of unqualified passengers taking the controls every four years getting us further and further off course and in to the sh*t even more, with QE2 being some mute Captain unable to actually fly the plane herself but needed to sit in the front seat. I think we need what France had after WW2 a much stronger technocratic executive a weaker political elite, in terms of the power exercised by elected governments so we can have sound long-term economic and other strategies and policies that really work, and using talent rather than ‘popular’ choice to lead our country back on track
Discuss….
si-h said:
If it wasn't for the Royal family, Blair would have probably ended up President, with him each day trying to influence politics.....
Politicians are way too slimy to be head of state here, the people would not stand for it and the press would kill them on a daily basis.
Also, can we consider the Florida Bush presidential count...... Supreme court as the highest moral authority ? When they were needed most, they turned out to be less than impartial...... who could the public rally to; to prevent a stitch-up?
Lets face it, a few millions thrown at few toffs is not much cheaper than a president. ( Remember Blair-Force one ...?)
The public can always rally to the Monarch to dissolve Parliament if they misbehave, or rally to the PM if Monarch gets out of line. That's the premise isn't it?
1997 was when everything all started to go wrong. Politicians are way too slimy to be head of state here, the people would not stand for it and the press would kill them on a daily basis.
Also, can we consider the Florida Bush presidential count...... Supreme court as the highest moral authority ? When they were needed most, they turned out to be less than impartial...... who could the public rally to; to prevent a stitch-up?
Lets face it, a few millions thrown at few toffs is not much cheaper than a president. ( Remember Blair-Force one ...?)
The public can always rally to the Monarch to dissolve Parliament if they misbehave, or rally to the PM if Monarch gets out of line. That's the premise isn't it?
Six years on it was very evident the Bliars detested the monarchy, and the feeling was mutual for them from the Queen.
For all it's shortcomings, monarchy over presidency
...any day!!
What the hell is all this President Blair rubbish? You genuinely think he'd have been elected after his diabolical record in Prime Ministerial office? There would be an election to President, you know, we'd have a choice in the matter. No-one is proposing a situation where failed and discredited politicians would be appointed to a Presidency. Good candidates could and would stand. It wouldn't have to be a Politician. Hell, Even Charlie "Chuckles" Saxe-Coburg-Gotha could stand, or Saint WilliamanKate, or baby-wabey Georgie. Lets see exactly how popular these people are in an election. If they win, no-one can complain. Think they're up to the job? Great, let's vote on it. Think they aren't? Great, let's vote on it. What is everyone so scared of?
I'm sometimes staggered at the lack of ability to grasp the facts and the lack of imagination on the part of Monarchists. It's either that or they're making scary monster arguments to protect their precious Queenie. Sad either way.
I'm sometimes staggered at the lack of ability to grasp the facts and the lack of imagination on the part of Monarchists. It's either that or they're making scary monster arguments to protect their precious Queenie. Sad either way.
Justin Cyder said:
No, what I really resent is the obsequious. sweaty palmed blind faith of otherwise rational people who would declaim that a freshly laid s
t on a paper plate from camp Edward the irrelevant is cause for bunting, cakes & a street party.
Oh ain't that just the bullseye. Well said.t on a paper plate from camp Edward the irrelevant is cause for bunting, cakes & a street party. Blue One said:
- even if we got rid of the monarchy at this late stage, we’d replace it with what? Some career politician like David Steel or Ming Campbell as ‘President’ - the alternative to Monarchy just doesn’t bear thinking about as there is a real vacuum in terms of a real alternative to our current system so we are at an impasse
Agree.
SilverSixer said:
What the hell is all this President Blair rubbish? You genuinely think he'd have been elected after his diabolical record in Prime Ministerial office? There would be an election to President, you know, we'd have a choice in the matter. No-one is proposing a situation where failed and discredited politicians would be appointed to a Presidency. Good candidates could and would stand. It wouldn't have to be a Politician. Hell, Even Charlie "Chuckles" Saxe-Coburg-Gotha could stand, or Saint WilliamanKate, or baby-wabey Georgie. Lets see exactly how popular these people are in an election. If they win, no-one can complain. Think they're up to the job? Great, let's vote on it. Think they aren't? Great, let's vote on it. What is everyone so scared of?
I'm sometimes staggered at the lack of ability to grasp the facts and the lack of imagination on the part of Monarchists. It's either that or they're making scary monster arguments to protect their precious Queenie. Sad either way.
I like the way the rules work in the US. Over 35 and born in the USA. Open to anyone to run. Yep, anyone can stand and they all stand the same chance.I'm sometimes staggered at the lack of ability to grasp the facts and the lack of imagination on the part of Monarchists. It's either that or they're making scary monster arguments to protect their precious Queenie. Sad either way.
SilverSixer said:
What the hell is all this President Blair rubbish? You genuinely think he'd have been elected after his diabolical record in Prime Ministerial office? There would be an election to President, you know, we'd have a choice in the matter. No-one is proposing a situation where failed and discredited politicians would be appointed to a Presidency. Good candidates could and would stand. It wouldn't have to be a Politician. Hell, Even Charlie "Chuckles" Saxe-Coburg-Gotha could stand, or Saint WilliamanKate, or baby-wabey Georgie. Lets see exactly how popular these people are in an election. If they win, no-one can complain. Think they're up to the job? Great, let's vote on it. Think they aren't? Great, let's vote on it. What is everyone so scared of?
I'm sometimes staggered at the lack of ability to grasp the facts and the lack of imagination on the part of Monarchists. It's either that or they're making scary monster arguments to protect their precious Queenie. Sad either way.
You only get to pick from the candidates presented to you by the political parties. Independents would not stand a chance.I'm sometimes staggered at the lack of ability to grasp the facts and the lack of imagination on the part of Monarchists. It's either that or they're making scary monster arguments to protect their precious Queenie. Sad either way.
Tony Blair v Iain Duncan Smith
Who you you vote for?
SilverSixer said:
What the hell is all this President Blair rubbish? You genuinely think he'd have been elected after his diabolical record in Prime Ministerial office? There would be an election to President, you know, we'd have a choice in the matter. No-one is proposing a situation where failed and discredited politicians would be appointed to a Presidency. Good candidates could and would stand. It wouldn't have to be a Politician. Hell, Even Charlie "Chuckles" Saxe-Coburg-Gotha could stand, or Saint WilliamanKate, or baby-wabey Georgie. Lets see exactly how popular these people are in an election. If they win, no-one can complain. Think they're up to the job? Great, let's vote on it. Think they aren't? Great, let's vote on it. What is everyone so scared of?
I'm sometimes staggered at the lack of ability to grasp the facts and the lack of imagination on the part of Monarchists. It's either that or they're making scary monster arguments to protect their precious Queenie. Sad either way.
Its the Alex Sammond tactic: Scaremongering.I'm sometimes staggered at the lack of ability to grasp the facts and the lack of imagination on the part of Monarchists. It's either that or they're making scary monster arguments to protect their precious Queenie. Sad either way.
25NAD90TUL said:
Blue One said:
- even if we got rid of the monarchy at this late stage, we’d replace it with what? Some career politician like David Steel or Ming Campbell as ‘President’ - the alternative to Monarchy just doesn’t bear thinking about as there is a real vacuum in terms of a real alternative to our current system so we are at an impasse
Agree.At risk of teaching your granny to suck eggs, who exactly do you think is running the country now? The alternative to Monarchy is career politician run government and has been since Walpole in 1727 effectively. And by the way, Walpole rampantly feathered his and his cronies nests at a rate of knots over decades. Lovely place, Houghton house.
Who's to say if the Monarchy were put up against the wall tomorrow, it couldn't all carry on as an adversarial parliamentary democracy with an elected Prime Minister as head of state for a period of five years just as it is now. We'd simply need Bercow to read out the speech.
SilverSixer said:
I'm sometimes staggered at the lack of ability to grasp the facts and the lack of imagination on the part of Monarchists. It's either that or they're making scary monster arguments to protect their precious Queenie. Sad either way.
Quite. Most particularly, the best thing about voting people "IN" is that you can vote them "OUT".There is no need for President anyone. Having a separate Head of State to undertake ceremonial duties is a historical accident. Merge the roles of Head of State and Head of Government, as in France and the US. Elect the person who holds these jobs. Limit the terms of office that one person can serve.
Justin Cyder said:
jmorgan said:
I like the way the rules work in the US. Over 35 and born in the USA. Open to anyone to run. Yep, anyone can stand and they all stand the same chance.
In theory, yes. In reality; billionaires or those patronised by billionaires only.I rue the day he will get a seat in the upper house.
PlankWithANailIn said:
SilverSixer said:
What the hell is all this President Blair rubbish? You genuinely think he'd have been elected after his diabolical record in Prime Ministerial office? There would be an election to President, you know, we'd have a choice in the matter. No-one is proposing a situation where failed and discredited politicians would be appointed to a Presidency. Good candidates could and would stand. It wouldn't have to be a Politician. Hell, Even Charlie "Chuckles" Saxe-Coburg-Gotha could stand, or Saint WilliamanKate, or baby-wabey Georgie. Lets see exactly how popular these people are in an election. If they win, no-one can complain. Think they're up to the job? Great, let's vote on it. Think they aren't? Great, let's vote on it. What is everyone so scared of?
I'm sometimes staggered at the lack of ability to grasp the facts and the lack of imagination on the part of Monarchists. It's either that or they're making scary monster arguments to protect their precious Queenie. Sad either way.
You only get to pick from the candidates presented to you by the political parties. Independents would not stand a chance.I'm sometimes staggered at the lack of ability to grasp the facts and the lack of imagination on the part of Monarchists. It's either that or they're making scary monster arguments to protect their precious Queenie. Sad either way.
Tony Blair v Iain Duncan Smith
Who you you vote for?
What about Stephen Hawking for President? Stephen Fry? Anyone else called Stephen, or even Steven - hey, Redgrave for instance. What about Helen Mirren? Tim Berners-Lee? Ranulph Fiennes? Put any of those up against Tony Blair and Iain Duncan-Smith and let's see what happens.
Maybe we could even create a ceremonial Presidency which disbars application from those who have held Political office previously? Why not? President doesn't have to be a Political position anyway like it is in the US or France, it could be ceremonial just as the Monarchy is supposed to be now (but actually isn't as is gradually becoming evident with the fiasco surrounding Prince Charles's letters to the government which we are not being allowed to see). The possibilities are endless, why we have to stick with the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha muppet show like a scared kiddie clinging to its mummy's apron is beyond ridiculous.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff