Jamaica to become a Republic.
Discussion
cymtriks said:
The best argument for keeping the monarchy are the people who would replace it
Exactly. PoleDriver said:
"2008 saw Liverpool become European Capital of Culture"
Liverpool??
Liverpool!????
Liverpool??!!
The 15-25 £m defecit was the bribe required to get the title!
Do you still think it's 1981?Liverpool??
Liverpool!????
Liverpool??!!
The 15-25 £m defecit was the bribe required to get the title!
Halb said:
How about this? Remember when Tony Blair was at his zenith? His power was supreme because he had an overwhelming power in Parliament. Now his government could do pretty much what he liked, the Torys were weak in numbers, leadership and drive. Opposition did not exist in Parliament, which is meant to be there to keep a check on government. Blair's only viable opposition at one time was the BBC. The current HoS couldn't intervene because of the fact they are hereditary and it would cause uproar. Our HoS is there for show only. How about if the office was made to be a check against an over-powerful PM (which we have seen very recently). A HoS with the remit to challenge the PM/government?
No. Because birth right is not a good enough reason to have authority over the people. This is the job of the electorate and the majority that you speak of was a result of weak action by the people. The people who were happy to take the handouts and ignore the growing country and personal debt mountain.
The royals are a legacy but one which still has uses such as as trade and charity ambassadors but never to have any actual say beyond the relevant voicing of concerns or raising of issues.
DonkeyApple said:
No. Because birth right is not a good enough reason to have authority over the people.
This is the job of the electorate and the majority that you speak of was a result of weak action by the people. The people who were happy to take the handouts and ignore the growing country and personal debt mountain.
The royals are a legacy but one which still has uses such as as trade and charity ambassadors but never to have any actual say beyond the relevant voicing of concerns or raising of issues.
I agree that's why I would want an elected HoS.This is the job of the electorate and the majority that you speak of was a result of weak action by the people. The people who were happy to take the handouts and ignore the growing country and personal debt mountain.
The royals are a legacy but one which still has uses such as as trade and charity ambassadors but never to have any actual say beyond the relevant voicing of concerns or raising of issues.
Another way to look at it was that the majority was a sign of strong action by the people, because they went out in droves for Blair. Then the people also went out in droves against the war, but it didn't matter.
Royals could still be trade ambassadors, a job with a wage. Going republic doesn't mean they all get shot
Halb said:
How about this? Remember when Tony Blair was at his zenith? His power was supreme because he had an overwhelming power in Parliament. Now his government could do pretty much what he liked, the Torys were weak in numbers, leadership and drive. Opposition did not exist in Parliament, which is meant to be there to keep a check on government. Blair's only viable opposition at one time was the BBC. The current HoS couldn't intervene because of the fact they are hereditary and it would cause uproar. Our HoS is there for show only. How about if the office was made to be a check against an over-powerful PM (which we have seen very recently). A HoS with the remit to challenge the PM/government?
The Queen does have that remit, but we have done this to death elsewhere. It would have to be pretty serious situation for her to exercise it.I feel having a president wouldn't help. If the PM was the head of government, while the president was the head of state, pretty much the situation would pertain as having a constitutional monarchy. A president who moved against a PM like Blair wouldn't survive long. Either he would go or the office would be completely emasculated.
If we had a presidential system like the US where the president does have executive power, well, that where Blair would have been.
DonkeyApple said:
No. Because birth right is not a good enough reason to have authority over the people.
This is the job of the electorate and the majority that you speak of was a result of weak action by the people. The people who were happy to take the handouts and ignore the growing country and personal debt mountain.
The royals are a legacy but one which still has uses such as as trade and charity ambassadors but never to have any actual say beyond the relevant voicing of concerns or raising of issues.
It's all explained Here!This is the job of the electorate and the majority that you speak of was a result of weak action by the people. The people who were happy to take the handouts and ignore the growing country and personal debt mountain.
The royals are a legacy but one which still has uses such as as trade and charity ambassadors but never to have any actual say beyond the relevant voicing of concerns or raising of issues.
Eric Mc said:
Which is the role they play today.
And I fully support it. I'm glad they stripped out the minors as they have no need of any money as they are free to earn like everyone else and chose their destiny.
The direct Royals are today, born to spend their entire lives, not just careers, supporting the UK in a suitable manner.
As far as I am concerned they do just this and do it excellently. If this were to change then I would see little arguement in continuing to pay them.
I don't think any normal person would ever want the job of being a major Royal. All the money in the world and all the luxuries wouldn't compensate the loss of freedom over you destiny.
There is another aspect to be strongly considered and that is that if we cut the Royals off they would be free to profit from private business. While they have the global power that they do the last thing we want as a country is a Royal family off doing oil deals etc.
It is far better that we pay them a modest retainer to bring any deals to us and not keep them for themselves and all the embarrassment that would bring. Imagine if it had been the Royals in Libia sucking a murderers cock to get an oil deal for BP etc.
BruceV8 said:
The Queen does have that remit, but we have done this to death elsewhere. It would have to be pretty serious situation for her to exercise it.
I feel having a president wouldn't help. If the PM was the head of government, while the president was the head of state, pretty much the situation would pertain as having a constitutional monarchy. A president who moved against a PM like Blair wouldn't survive long. Either he would go or the office would be completely emasculated.
If we had a presidential system like the US where the president does have executive power, well, that where Blair would have been.
She has it so long as she doesn't use it, that's why the current format is useless for that purpose. A hereditary HoS could never exercise that power, it would rip apart the establishment. That's why the current HoG can get away with so much if he is strong enough.I feel having a president wouldn't help. If the PM was the head of government, while the president was the head of state, pretty much the situation would pertain as having a constitutional monarchy. A president who moved against a PM like Blair wouldn't survive long. Either he would go or the office would be completely emasculated.
If we had a presidential system like the US where the president does have executive power, well, that where Blair would have been.
The US system is different, the HoS there is the HoG. Congress is meant to act as the check. The POTUS/cabinet are not part of congress.
A president (or whatever title you would like to call it) could not be removed by the PM if it was set up as different, how could it? That would negate the office. It all depends how you set it up.
DonkeyApple said:
It is far better that we pay them a modest retainer to bring any deals to us and not keep them for themselves and all the embarrassment that would bring. Imagine if it had been the Royals in Libia sucking a murderers cock to get an oil deal for BP etc.
The Swedish royals don't do that, I wonder if it's because of our nation that our royals usually get attached to seedy stories?http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/swedens-cycli...
The Georges...born to rule.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPtYmq5qFVA
Edited by Halb on Sunday 8th January 13:21
It seems to me that the Royals work bloody hard with all their charity work and other responsibilities. I don't think I'd give up my life where I can go out one weekend and get smashed with friends, or say whatever I like to whoever I like.
I resent people calling them freeloaders.
I say keep them, and I'm a 23 year old fairly liberal person. I just think it's nice to have something to differentiate us from the rest and for the most part we're a democracy anyway. The queen has no real power at all other than to oust the most tyrannical government, a power which she would be stripped of immediately after using.
Thats kind of a nice backup to have, don't you think?
I resent people calling them freeloaders.
I say keep them, and I'm a 23 year old fairly liberal person. I just think it's nice to have something to differentiate us from the rest and for the most part we're a democracy anyway. The queen has no real power at all other than to oust the most tyrannical government, a power which she would be stripped of immediately after using.
Thats kind of a nice backup to have, don't you think?
Frankeh said:
It seems to me that the Royals work bloody hard with all their charity work and other responsibilities. I don't think I'd give up my life where I can go out one weekend and get smashed with friends, or say whatever I like to whoever I like.
The royals still have this, look at Harry and Philip.;)Frankeh said:
The queen has no real power at all other than to oust the most tyrannical government, a power which she would be stripped of immediately after using.
Thats kind of a nice backup to have, don't you think?
It doesn't exist. Any attempt to use centuries old archaic powers would rip the constitution/establishment apart. Things have moved on. I doubt Elizabeth would be allowed to even get the ball rolling once word got around. She is kept in her place by history and circumstance.Thats kind of a nice backup to have, don't you think?
Look at what happens when Charles says anything remotely connected with politics.
Halb said:
Frankeh said:
It seems to me that the Royals work bloody hard with all their charity work and other responsibilities. I don't think I'd give up my life where I can go out one weekend and get smashed with friends, or say whatever I like to whoever I like.
The royals still have this, look at Harry and Philip.;)Frankeh said:
The queen has no real power at all other than to oust the most tyrannical government, a power which she would be stripped of immediately after using.
Thats kind of a nice backup to have, don't you think?
It doesn't exist. Any attempt to use centuries old archaic powers would rip the constitution/establishment apart. Things have moved on. I doubt Elizabeth would be allowed to even get the ball rolling once word got around. She is kept in her place by history and circumstance.Thats kind of a nice backup to have, don't you think?
Look at what happens when Charles says anything remotely connected with politics.
Halb said:
I agree that's why I would want an elected HoS.
Another way to look at it was that the majority was a sign of strong action by the people, because they went out in droves for Blair. Then the people also went out in droves against the war, but it didn't matter.
Royals could still be trade ambassadors, a job with a wage. Going republic doesn't mean they all get shot
But there is a fundamental problem with the people electing essentially an oversight committee as well as a parliament and that is that the economic climate RBS and flows and this does the requirements of the electorate. It could only work if the two houses were elected at opposing ends of the economic cycle which would be impossible to orchestrate. Another way to look at it was that the majority was a sign of strong action by the people, because they went out in droves for Blair. Then the people also went out in droves against the war, but it didn't matter.
Royals could still be trade ambassadors, a job with a wage. Going republic doesn't mean they all get shot
The real solution is genuine accountability for those put in a position of trust by the electorate.
You could even look at concepts such as keeping a Party to its manifesto only and any deviation needing to go before parliament as a whole with deviation triggering an election etc.
Accountability really is the only way to sort things out. People need to face ruin for erroneous actions. Only then will we start to see a move away from the kind of self interest that dominates modern governance.
Frankeh said:
They can use it, but as I said it's use would be the last use ever as she'd be stripped of the power right after it was used. Last line of defense. For example, if the BNP got in.
They can't, it would be stopped before it ever left Buck Palace. The thought of anything even remotely political coming from that building is anathema to the British establishment. The HoS is told what to do (with regards to appointments and whatnot) and does it.DonkeyApple said:
But there is a fundamental problem with the people electing essentially an oversight committee as well as a parliament and that is that the economic climate RBS and flows and this does the requirements of the electorate. It could only work if the two houses were elected at opposing ends of the economic cycle which would be impossible to orchestrate.
The real solution is genuine accountability for those put in a position of trust by the electorate.
You could even look at concepts such as keeping a Party to its manifesto only and any deviation needing to go before parliament as a whole with deviation triggering an election etc.
Accountability really is the only way to sort things out. People need to face ruin for erroneous actions. Only then will we start to see a move away from the kind of self interest that dominates modern governance.
I always liked this way of doing things.The real solution is genuine accountability for those put in a position of trust by the electorate.
You could even look at concepts such as keeping a Party to its manifesto only and any deviation needing to go before parliament as a whole with deviation triggering an election etc.
Accountability really is the only way to sort things out. People need to face ruin for erroneous actions. Only then will we start to see a move away from the kind of self interest that dominates modern governance.
Power to the people indeed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_to_the_People_%...
but of course the professional gangs (parties) would never allow it to happen, and since revolution doesn't come naturally to Brits, the same old system will crumble onwards.
So I went to read on Wiki after this thread and it led to this;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed-term_Parliament...
which apparently "removed the monarch's authority to dissolve Parliament.".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed-term_Parliament...
which apparently "removed the monarch's authority to dissolve Parliament.".
Oakey said:
So I went to read on Wiki after this thread and it led to this;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed-term_Parliament...
which apparently "removed the monarch's authority to dissolve Parliament.".
I hadn't heard of this. Well in that case they Royal Family is pretty useless from a protecting us point of view, but I still like all the charity work they do and all the tourist money they bring in. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed-term_Parliament...
which apparently "removed the monarch's authority to dissolve Parliament.".
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff