Queen to abdicate?
Discussion
Breadvan72 said:
The idea that any PM has to be wary of the Monarch is nonsense. The Monarch has no power, which is as it should be in a democracy. Blair had as much power as any other PM in the modern era, so why personalise the debate around him? Cameron is just as untrammeled by the Queen as Blair was.
So you want rid of the royal family as a pure cost saving exercise then?No. The cost saving would be fairly small in the overall scheme of things. The increase in tourist revenue that could come from opening former Royal Palaces to paying visitors might be a bonus, but that's not a reason in itself for binning monarchy. I see two arguments for doing that. The first is that hereditary monarchy is simply absurd. Appointing someone to a job on the basis of who his or her mum or dad was cannot be defended on any rational basis. The perceived problems about Charles show how ridiculous the idea of appointing someone to a figurehead/flag waver post on the basis of heredity is.
The second argument is that, in the modern constitution, the monarchy is functionally redundant. It survived the extinction of its executive role for historical reasons, but is no longer needed in a developed democracy that has free media and the rule of law. The Prime Minister's power is checked by Parliament, media, and the courts. As for the dignity of the State, you don't need a monarchy for that. The US and France can still put on a big show with lots of flags, dressed up soldiers, fighter jets and what not. No republican system is flawless in operation, and you get duff presidents as well as good ones, but at least the system has rational bases.
The second argument is that, in the modern constitution, the monarchy is functionally redundant. It survived the extinction of its executive role for historical reasons, but is no longer needed in a developed democracy that has free media and the rule of law. The Prime Minister's power is checked by Parliament, media, and the courts. As for the dignity of the State, you don't need a monarchy for that. The US and France can still put on a big show with lots of flags, dressed up soldiers, fighter jets and what not. No republican system is flawless in operation, and you get duff presidents as well as good ones, but at least the system has rational bases.
So we are saying that the royal family, which costs not much and which attracts a lot of revenue to the UK year on year, that should be scrapped. Meanwhile nobody's going to specify quite what by.
How about taking a guess that, for example, Tony Blair ends up as President, how is that going to help anything? Why would the good feels of the country or the profit of the tourist of anything be improved by that? If you prefer remove Tony and do it with anyone else you care to think of?
How do we make more many of feel happier whoever else it is?
How about taking a guess that, for example, Tony Blair ends up as President, how is that going to help anything? Why would the good feels of the country or the profit of the tourist of anything be improved by that? If you prefer remove Tony and do it with anyone else you care to think of?
How do we make more many of feel happier whoever else it is?
McWigglebum4th said:
I have even less of a clue why you want an elected head of state
As you agree ultimate power rests with parliament
I want an elected legislature and an elected executive government. Don't you? I would like to see the upper chamber elected. I don't see any need to separate the roles of Head of State and Head of Government. One person can be elected do both jobs, for a limited time.As you agree ultimate power rests with parliament
As for the money, if the Revenue from opening a small part of Buck House to tourists is X, why wouldn't the revenue from opening the whole of it, plus other former Royal enclaves, be much more than X? France does pretty well in extracting tourist income from its monarchical and imperial past.
Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 20th December 09:01
HenryJM said:
So we are saying that the royal family, which costs not much and which attracts a lot of revenue to the UK year on year, that should be scrapped. Meanwhile nobody's going to specify quite what by.
How about taking a guess that, for example, Tony Blair ends up as President, how is that going to help anything? Why would the good feels of the country or the profit of the tourist of anything be improved by that? If you prefer remove Tony and do it with anyone else you care to think of?
How do we make more many of feel happier whoever else it is?
Also support for the royal family waivers around 75 to 80%How about taking a guess that, for example, Tony Blair ends up as President, how is that going to help anything? Why would the good feels of the country or the profit of the tourist of anything be improved by that? If you prefer remove Tony and do it with anyone else you care to think of?
How do we make more many of feel happier whoever else it is?
Meanwhile most of our political leaders are round about 30% think they are decent
So i am afraid breadvan is in a minority
But he is in the majority of republicans who never name the man they want in the top job
Meanwhile there is the tiny percentage who think we should have a ceremonial goat
As the idea of Cameron having to ask permission of a goat to form a government tickles me pink
Breadvan72 said:
I want an elected legislature and an elected executive government. Don't you? I would like to see the upper chamber elected. I don't see any need to separate the roles of Head of State and Head of Givernment. One person can be elected do both jobs, for a limited time.
As for the money, if the Revenue from opening a small part of Buck House to tourists is X, why wouldn't the revenue from ppening the whole of it, plus other former Royal enclaves, be much more than X? France does pretty well in extracting tourist income from its monarchical and imperial past.
I am yet to be convinced that democracy is that good an idea all the timeAs for the money, if the Revenue from opening a small part of Buck House to tourists is X, why wouldn't the revenue from ppening the whole of it, plus other former Royal enclaves, be much more than X? France does pretty well in extracting tourist income from its monarchical and imperial past.
I don't want an elected upper chamber
As it turns political
I would rather it was stuffed to the gills with experts from the real world instead of the houses of parliament where we have a Chancellor whose only experience of the private sector was a few weeks spent folding towels
I can't see why we can't open up the palaces just now
Just leave a few bits private for the royal family
It can appear that monarchists struggle to see the arguments of principle and go beyond the transient personal. They almost always mention that the current Queen is good at her job (such as it is), and almost always say that Blair would be president; but (1) what happens when the current Queen goes?, and (2) why have anyone at all as president? Even if you do have a ceremonial president, why assume that it would be an ex PM? In Ireland, they have lots of corrupt and terrible politicians, but at present they have a poet and scholar as president. I reiterate, however, that I can't see why a modern constitution needs a separate head of state.
McWigglebum4th said:
...
But he is in the majority of republicans who never name the man they want in the top job
...
Why don't you actually read the thread? If you did you might not misrepresent my position. My suggestion is that whomever is elected to head the government from time to time should hold the top job on a temporary basis. But he is in the majority of republicans who never name the man they want in the top job
...
Breadvan72 said:
McWigglebum4th said:
...
But he is in the majority of republicans who never name the man they want in the top job
...
Why don't you actually read the thread? If you did you might not misrepresent my position. My suggestion is that whomever is elected to head the government from time to time should hold the top job on a temporary basis. But he is in the majority of republicans who never name the man they want in the top job
...
or are you going to deny that?
McWigglebum4th said:
As quite frankly i don't trust the british public to elect anyone who we could be proud of saying that is our head of state
If that's who the majority have chosen who are you to say whether he/she is acceptable or not?Not many PHers seem to be great fans of Charles Btw.
McWigglebum4th said:
Breadvan72 said:
McWigglebum4th said:
...
But he is in the majority of republicans who never name the man they want in the top job
...
Why don't you actually read the thread? If you did you might not misrepresent my position. My suggestion is that whomever is elected to head the government from time to time should hold the top job on a temporary basis. But he is in the majority of republicans who never name the man they want in the top job
...
or are you going to deny that?
McWigglebum4th said:
Have an non political president
Okay
...
Are you reading a different thread to the rest of us? Where did I say "have a non political president"? If you want to have a discussion, would it be too much trouble for you to address the points made, and not simply make up unmade points that you want to disagree with? Okay
...
So you are mentioning US and France, two countries with crazy systems where there are Presidents with political agenda but can go for years with a complete impasse. Take the USA right now, the President is from a different set of principles from the Parliament, the two don't agree, how can that possibly be a good situation to be in?
I was careful to say that we would not just copycat either the US or the French systems but you chose to ignore that. We could avoid deadlock by maintaining the position that the government is formed by the party that has a majority or can form a coalition in Parliament.
True it is that Cameron (whom I happen to think is a d
head, but that is irrelevant) has only partial democratic legitimacy, as he didn't quite win the election, but he won it more than anyone else did, and he has a billion times more democratic legitimacy than anyone in the House of Windsor.
True it is that Cameron (whom I happen to think is a d
head, but that is irrelevant) has only partial democratic legitimacy, as he didn't quite win the election, but he won it more than anyone else did, and he has a billion times more democratic legitimacy than anyone in the House of Windsor. OK so say in 2015 the Conservatives won an outright majority, they would then nominate someone - maybe William Hague - to be President.
But surely some problems immediately occur, one of the few things the Queen currently does is appoint etc. the head of the largest elected party, which presumably wouldn't be possible. Maybe that's minor. But meanwhile, would people pay to come and see William Hague as President? Would the concept of having any position elsewhere in the Commonwealth etc have any meaning?
What would be achieved other than the loss of tourist etc money that comes from people know coming from all over the world to have a look. And what would be gained? Would William Hague have something he could do that wold make any difference to anyone?
I just don't see the point other than cutting tourism revenue and gaining, well, what?
But surely some problems immediately occur, one of the few things the Queen currently does is appoint etc. the head of the largest elected party, which presumably wouldn't be possible. Maybe that's minor. But meanwhile, would people pay to come and see William Hague as President? Would the concept of having any position elsewhere in the Commonwealth etc have any meaning?
What would be achieved other than the loss of tourist etc money that comes from people know coming from all over the world to have a look. And what would be gained? Would William Hague have something he could do that wold make any difference to anyone?
I just don't see the point other than cutting tourism revenue and gaining, well, what?
No separate President. PM = President. How many more times can I say this? OK, just once more . Chief exec and head of state - same dude. Title - irrelevant. PM, President, Grand Cheese, Senior Panjandrum, whatever. No one kisses hands. No fictitious rituals or ceremonies (if you think that the Queen actually chooses who governs, you might as well believe in Santa). The party with the majority strides into power for the next five years, or whatever term we have chosen. If there has to be a coalition, then the pols have a limited time to do a deal and if they fail there is another election. If need be, all of this can be regulated by orders that will issue automatically (ie no judicial discretion) from the Supreme Court if anyone breaks the constitutional rules.
Of course, any government that has a majority or a secure coalition pact can be very powerful, but that is true of any elected government. Call it an elective dictatorship if you like, but we get to choose the dictator every few years, and the dictator can occasionally be told "no you can't do that, it's against the constitution". In other words, just what we have now, but minus an absurd and ludicrous historical hangover, and with a bonus boost in tourist revenues.
A boost, because lots more former Royal sites open to be visited (check out the visitor numbers at Versailles). History sells, and you don't need an actual living monarch to sell tickets for the heritage hoo hah tour. Pomp and circumstance? Have you ever seen Paris on Bastille Day or DC on 4th July? Even on an ordinary day in DC, tourists line up to watch US Marines performing rituals with Old Glory, and others line up see the USS Constitution in Boston harbour, and all that.
Of course, any government that has a majority or a secure coalition pact can be very powerful, but that is true of any elected government. Call it an elective dictatorship if you like, but we get to choose the dictator every few years, and the dictator can occasionally be told "no you can't do that, it's against the constitution". In other words, just what we have now, but minus an absurd and ludicrous historical hangover, and with a bonus boost in tourist revenues.
A boost, because lots more former Royal sites open to be visited (check out the visitor numbers at Versailles). History sells, and you don't need an actual living monarch to sell tickets for the heritage hoo hah tour. Pomp and circumstance? Have you ever seen Paris on Bastille Day or DC on 4th July? Even on an ordinary day in DC, tourists line up to watch US Marines performing rituals with Old Glory, and others line up see the USS Constitution in Boston harbour, and all that.
Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 20th December 10:33
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff