Queen to abdicate?

[Ayahuasca]

HenryJM said:

Ayahuasca said:

HenryJM said:

Breadvan72 said:

Why assume that a Republican U (non) K would follow the US? We would not have to design a system in which the legislature and the executive might represent different political factions. We could stick with pretty much the system we have now, simply deleting the redundant element (the Monarch) and modernising the second chamber.

Well just before that we had

Ayahuasca said:

The USA manages fairly well.

So my comment related to the USA method.

Our 'head of state' now is so completely useless that when there was a threat to break up her state she did and said absolutely nothing. Our 'head of state' is simply a figurehead that serves no useful purpose.

Exactly, exactly what she should be (not) doing. Wouldn't want the 'head of state' to actually be doing anything, that's the whole point!

Utterly ridiculous to say 'that's the whole point'.

Why maintain something that serves no purpose? If you can think of a purpose, please let us know.

[davepoth]

Ayahuasca said:

Utterly ridiculous to say 'that's the whole point'.

Why maintain something that serves no purpose? If you can think of a purpose, please let us know.

The idea is that the head of state acts as a moral compass for the whole country. To that end they should ideally be above party politics, not beholden to special interests, and beyond reproach in personal matters.

They aren't supposed to get involved in the day to day matters of running the country, with more or less the only real powers they have being the ability to dissolve parliament and veto legislation.

[HenryJM]

Ayahuasca said:

HenryJM said:

Ayahuasca said:

HenryJM said:

Breadvan72 said:

Why assume that a Republican U (non) K would follow the US? We would not have to design a system in which the legislature and the executive might represent different political factions. We could stick with pretty much the system we have now, simply deleting the redundant element (the Monarch) and modernising the second chamber.

Well just before that we had

Ayahuasca said:

The USA manages fairly well.

So my comment related to the USA method.

Our 'head of state' now is so completely useless that when there was a threat to break up her state she did and said absolutely nothing. Our 'head of state' is simply a figurehead that serves no useful purpose.

Exactly, exactly what she should be (not) doing. Wouldn't want the 'head of state' to actually be doing anything, that's the whole point!

Utterly ridiculous to say 'that's the whole point'.

Why maintain something that serves no purpose? If you can think of a purpose, please let us know.

You really don't get it do you? There are broadly three ways of running:

1 don't have a head of state, or amalgamate it with the the prime minister. Except then what happens when that government leaves? Who appoints the new one? How? Sure, no doubt it can be done somehow but do you really have confident how?
2 appoint a head of state that is someone else but how to keep them in the role as known? Post in name but no real power of influence, can you do that with a person people agree with?
3 leave it as it is, it works very well.

So the whole purpose is exactly what it is now and it works very well.

[V8 Fettler]

Breadvan72 said:

You mentioned decisions, but you cannot identify a single decision of importance that the Queen makes. You believe that in her little chats with PMs the Queen gives them guidance. That is by its nature implausible. Why on Earth should the PM take advice from a woman who has even less experience of reality than he has? If she does give advice and PMs do take it, that is a constitutional outrage and we should be lining the barricades, as this woman has no mandate to interfere in government. We need not start mixing Molotovs, however, because she doesn't interfere. You say that the Queen is a diplomat, but we have professional diplomats. Name one treaty that the Queen has negotiated, or identify one diplomatic development that depended on her. You can't, because there are none. You are falling for a cosy fiction. Her role is symbolic.

Liz lived through and served during World War 2, please describe your experience of reality. In reality, the legal system has a more pressing requirement for wholesale modernisation than the monarchy.

[zygalski]

V8 Fettler said:

Liz lived through and served during World War 2...

Pure happenstance & decent WWII PR, with absolutely no risk to herself whatsoever, but apart from that a very good point!

[V8 Fettler]

zygalski said:

Pure happenstance & decent WWII PR, with absolutely no risk to herself whatsoever, but apart from that a very good point!

What is coincidental about Liz volunteering to join the armed forces in a time of conflict?

No risk? Everyone was at risk in London or the Home Counties, even as late as March 1945.

[anonymous-user]

I was supposed to be off for Xmas but pop back to commend Brenda for happening to be alive during WW2, a feat achieved only by countless millions of people, and her good work fixing army trucks for a bit. No doubt this qualified her to be the unseen hand on the tiller of State, advising such ingénues as Churchill, Wilson, Thatcher, Blair and many others.

I was asked about my experience of reality. Much like that of many other working stiffs, I reckon. Study, do crap student type jobs, get a long term job, work, pay bills and taxes, moan about stuff, get bike nicked, have fun, do family blah. I infer that V8 assumes that being a lawyer involves no reality. Yep, nothing at all real world about people owing money, being owed money, being dicked about by public bodies, being ill, being mad, being dead, being locked up, and so on. All ivory tower flim flam.

A PS for DJRC: When I need a lecture from you on Marlborough's wars or any aspect of history, I will be sure to call, thanks, but if I were you I wouldn't wait in for the call.

Now I really am off to stuff some birds. Ho ho hos to yer all.

[Axionknight]

zygalski said:

Pure happenstance & decent WWII PR, with absolutely no risk to herself whatsoever, but apart from that a very good point!

Pretty sure the Royal Family were present in Buckingham Palace when it was struck by a bomb on more than one occasion during WW2.

[V8 Fettler]

Breadvan72 said:

I was supposed to be off for Xmas but pop back to commend Brenda for happening to be alive during WW2, a feat achieved only by countless millions of people, and her good work fixing army trucks for a bit. No doubt this qualified her to be the unseen hand on the tiller of State, advising such ingénues as Churchill, Wilson, Thatcher, Blair and many others.

I was asked about my experience of reality. Much like that of many other working stiffs, I reckon. Study, do crap student type jobs, get a long term job, work, pay bills and taxes, moan about stuff, get bike nicked, have fun, do family blah. I infer that V8 assumes that being a lawyer involves no reality. Yep, nothing at all real world about people owing money, being owed money, being dicked about by public bodies, being ill, being mad, being dead, being locked up, and so on. All ivory tower flim flam.

A PS for DJRC: When I need a lecture from you on Marlborough's wars or any aspect of history, I will be sure to call, thanks, but if I were you I wouldn't wait in for the call.

Now I really am off to stuff some birds. Ho ho hos to yer all.

I think we've got that straight then: Liz volunteered to serve in WW2 and would have experienced the reality of German bombs/V1s/V2s. You - on the other hand - have experienced the reality of being "dicked by public bodies" ... Merry mid-winter break.

[Johnnytheboy]

Breadvan72 said:

A PS for DJRC: When I need a lecture from you on Marlborough's wars or any aspect of history, I will be sure to call, thanks, but if I were you I wouldn't wait in for the call.

Oh, I think everyone on here is acutely aware that you already believe you know everything.

[Axionknight]

Johnnytheboy said:

Oh, I think everyone on here is acutely aware that you already believe you know everything.

[RobinOakapple]

V8 Fettler said:

Breadvan72 said:

You mentioned decisions, but you cannot identify a single decision of importance that the Queen makes. You believe that in her little chats with PMs the Queen gives them guidance. That is by its nature implausible. Why on Earth should the PM take advice from a woman who has even less experience of reality than he has? If she does give advice and PMs do take it, that is a constitutional outrage and we should be lining the barricades, as this woman has no mandate to interfere in government. We need not start mixing Molotovs, however, because she doesn't interfere. You say that the Queen is a diplomat, but we have professional diplomats. Name one treaty that the Queen has negotiated, or identify one diplomatic development that depended on her. You can't, because there are none. You are falling for a cosy fiction. Her role is symbolic.

Liz lived through and served during World War 2, please describe your experience of reality. In reality, the legal system has a more pressing requirement for wholesale modernisation than the monarchy.

That's very very true. GPWM.

[SilverSixer]

RobinOakapple said:

SilverSixer said:

RobinOakapple said:

SilverSixer said:

RobinOakapple said:

I'm going to guess that what Oakey is getting at is that there is no alternative. If there's any question at all of voting then there is going to be an awful lot of people who won't get the candidate of their choice. Better to have no choice than to feel that some people got who they wanted, but that you didn't.

No alternative? How on Earth would we know that unless we ask people to stand?

Sorry, what I meant was no practical alternative, no alternative that would meet the various conflicting requirements. Of course if we could come up with someone who would suit everybody, that would be great. But that wouldn't happen.

Fine. But that doesn't change the fact that I believe it would be better to have someone chosen by over 50% of the electorate than have someone imposed upon us all with no say. Whoever that turns out to be. The principle for me is the important thing.

But it wouldn't be over 50% of the electorate (which in any case is making the obviously false assumption that all the electorate would vote).

What would happen is that voters would be given the opportunity to choose from one of a few people who had managed one way or another to get themselves onto the ballot.

I can't be bothered to look up the actual figures, but I can assure you that 'more than 50% of the electorate' didn't vote to put Cameron in no 10.

What? Of course less that 50% voted for Cameron, only people in Whitney can vote for Cameron. We have a FPTP system for the House of Commons, without a compulsory-to-vote system. Naturally this means the Government/PM is usually elected by less than 50%. But nobody has proposed the same system for electing a potential President/HoS. So trying to beat the latter by using the former as a stick is a bit redundant. It is possible to conceive of a system similar to the French one with rounds of voting, leading to a final 2, and a need for 51% to be the winning margin.

The only way someone could 'manage' to get themselves on the ballot would be by standing for election. What else are you implying?

The lack of faith in our country and its people shown by the monarchists is staggering - they don't trust us to have a transparent, reliable system of election nor to elect a worthy HoS at the end of it. One has to ask, if that's the case, then surely it's the case now and we should be rebelling forcefully against our current governmental system?

[SamHH]

V8 Fettler said:

I think we've got that straight then: Liz volunteered to serve in WW2 and would have experienced the reality of German bombs/V1s/V2s. You - on the other hand - have experienced the reality of being "dicked by public bodies" ... Merry mid-winter break.

Would any of the millions of people who shared that experience be qualified to advise the Prime Minister?

[SilverSixer]

davepoth said:

Ayahuasca said:

Utterly ridiculous to say 'that's the whole point'.

Why maintain something that serves no purpose? If you can think of a purpose, please let us know.

The idea is that the head of state acts as a moral compass for the whole country. To that end they should ideally be above party politics, not beholden to special interests, and beyond reproach in personal matters.

They aren't supposed to get involved in the day to day matters of running the country, with more or less the only real powers they have being the ability to dissolve parliament and veto legislation.

And Prince Charles has explicitly stated that he wishes to ignore these principles and continue his secret lobbying and influencing of the elected Government once on the throne. I actually think it's imperative we rid the country of the monarchy before he ascends the throne and his personal, unelected will is imposed upon us.

[RobinOakapple]

SilverSixer said:

What? Of course less that 50% voted for Cameron, only people in Whitney can vote for Cameron. We have a FPTP system for the House of Commons, without a compulsory-to-vote system. Naturally this means the Government/PM is usually elected by less than 50%. But nobody has proposed the same system for electing a potential President/HoS. So trying to beat the latter by using the former as a stick is a bit redundant. It is possible to conceive of a system similar to the French one with rounds of voting, leading to a final 2, and a need for 51% to be the winning margin.

The only way someone could 'manage' to get themselves on the ballot would be by standing for election. What else are you implying?

The lack of faith in our country and its people shown by the monarchists is staggering - they don't trust us to have a transparent, reliable system of election nor to elect a worthy HoS at the end of it. One has to ask, if that's the case, then surely it's the case now and we should be rebelling forcefully against our current governmental system?

I'm aware of how are voting system works.

The point I was making is that even if it's one man one vote, you can only vote for who manages to get onto the ballot paper. So there is going to be some kind of pre-selection system.

But even if we get past all that, let's suppose you vote for Mr A, and I vote for Mr B. If Mr A gets in, then you will be happy and I won't be. Whereas if nobody gets to choose, then we can all be as happy or unhappy with whoever is the head of state as we please, but at least we will know that nobody else got to choose either.

[SilverSixer]

RobinOakapple said:

at least we will know that nobody else got to choose either.

Oh that's all right then.

[anonymous-user]

davepoth said:

The idea is that the head of state acts as a moral compass for the whole country. To that end they should ideally be above party politics, not beholden to special interests, and beyond reproach in personal matters.

Why have a moral compass for the country? Do you think you need someone to look at for guidance on how to behave?

If incredibly, you actually do need this, do you think it it would be best to appoint this shinning light of morality and good behaviour based on the family they happen to be born into?

What a bizarre concept.

[anonymous-user]

Breadvan72 said:

I was asked about my experience of reality. Much like that of many other working stiffs, I reckon. Study, do crap student type jobs, get a long term job, work, pay bills and taxes, moan about stuff, get bike nicked, have fun, do family blah. I infer that V8 assumes that being a lawyer involves no reality. Yep, nothing at all real world about people owing money, being owed money, being dicked about by public bodies, being ill, being mad, being dead, being locked up, and so on. All ivory tower flim flam.

He appears from time to time, and trolls people about what they do for a living (or his opinion of what they do for a living and how they could/should do it better), whilst making sure he makes no mention of his own profession/trade/benefit status.

He's long been on my ignore list.

[V8 Fettler]

OpulentBob said:

He appears from time to time, and trolls people about what they do for a living (or his opinion of what they do for a living and how they could/should do it better), whilst making sure he makes no mention of his own profession/trade/benefit status.

He's long been on my ignore list.

You're really quite upset aren't you!