Do we need a head of state at all?
Discussion
There would still be a head. It would be the PM.
The PM is still answerable to the King. He can still say no to anything going through parliment or dissolve it if need be.
He is not entirely cerimonial. He just very infrequently has to use his powers of which theres still many.
A PM still has to resign to the King or ask the King to hold a GE to name 2 that are actually seen to be used.
The monarchy still brings in valuable tourisg money.
It costs us less to run them (£1 each from taxes roughly) than they make in tourist income for the country.
What would we do with all the houses, art, furniture thats in the royal estate?
Bearing in mind most are a museum or tourist attraction anyway.
The PM is still answerable to the King. He can still say no to anything going through parliment or dissolve it if need be.
He is not entirely cerimonial. He just very infrequently has to use his powers of which theres still many.
A PM still has to resign to the King or ask the King to hold a GE to name 2 that are actually seen to be used.
The monarchy still brings in valuable tourisg money.
It costs us less to run them (£1 each from taxes roughly) than they make in tourist income for the country.
What would we do with all the houses, art, furniture thats in the royal estate?
Bearing in mind most are a museum or tourist attraction anyway.
Good question. I don't understand it either. If the role is ceremonial then that's not much of a reason. If the monarch has power then that shouldn't be in the hands of someone because they inherited a title. Can someone tell me what important things the Queen did in her reign to influence UK government?
But I'd get rid of all inherited titles, not just the monarchy.
But I'd get rid of all inherited titles, not just the monarchy.
sherman said:
There would still be a head. It would be the PM.
The PM is still answerable to the King. He can still say no to anything going through parliment or dissolve it if need be.
He is not entirely cerimonial. He just very infrequently has to use his powers of which theres still many.
A PM still has to resign to the King or ask the King to hold a GE to name 2 that are actually seen to be used.
The monarchy still brings in valuable tourisg money.
It costs us less to run them (£1 each from taxes roughly) than they make in tourist income for the country.
What would we do with all the houses, art, furniture thats in the royal estate?
Bearing in mind most are a museum or tourist attraction anyway.
That's not the question. The PM is still answerable to the King. He can still say no to anything going through parliment or dissolve it if need be.
He is not entirely cerimonial. He just very infrequently has to use his powers of which theres still many.
A PM still has to resign to the King or ask the King to hold a GE to name 2 that are actually seen to be used.
The monarchy still brings in valuable tourisg money.
It costs us less to run them (£1 each from taxes roughly) than they make in tourist income for the country.
What would we do with all the houses, art, furniture thats in the royal estate?
Bearing in mind most are a museum or tourist attraction anyway.
One of the arguments against getting rid of the monarch is what would replace them. Imagine President Blair or Johnson! But why would we need a president at all?
Just have the PM as we currently do, with a cabinet and two houses (preferably both elected...)
I know the king performs some ceremonial duties, but he doesn t have any powers. He wouldn't dare say no to the PM.
The royals can still be a tourist attraction if they want.
Al Gorithum said:
Not a fan of the Monarchy but imagine being like the US. Or France etc. No thanks.
Personally I think that a massively slimmed-down monarchy is best for us.
That's what I'm saying. We don't need a president, and certainly not one that's effectively an elected monarch.Personally I think that a massively slimmed-down monarchy is best for us.
sherman said:
He can still say no to anything going through parliment or dissolve it if need be.
Key power this one, given the constitution is unwritten. Let's imagine the party in power passed the Abolition of Democracy Bill. The king would refuse to sign it, triggering a general election. Bill said:
sherman said:
There would still be a head. It would be the PM.
The PM is still answerable to the King. He can still say no to anything going through parliment or dissolve it if need be.
He is not entirely cerimonial. He just very infrequently has to use his powers of which theres still many.
A PM still has to resign to the King or ask the King to hold a GE to name 2 that are actually seen to be used.
The monarchy still brings in valuable tourisg money.
It costs us less to run them (£1 each from taxes roughly) than they make in tourist income for the country.
What would we do with all the houses, art, furniture thats in the royal estate?
Bearing in mind most are a museum or tourist attraction anyway.
That's not the question. The PM is still answerable to the King. He can still say no to anything going through parliment or dissolve it if need be.
He is not entirely cerimonial. He just very infrequently has to use his powers of which theres still many.
A PM still has to resign to the King or ask the King to hold a GE to name 2 that are actually seen to be used.
The monarchy still brings in valuable tourisg money.
It costs us less to run them (£1 each from taxes roughly) than they make in tourist income for the country.
What would we do with all the houses, art, furniture thats in the royal estate?
Bearing in mind most are a museum or tourist attraction anyway.
One of the arguments against getting rid of the monarch is what would replace them. Imagine President Blair or Johnson! But why would we need a president at all?
Just have the PM as we currently do, with a cabinet and two houses (preferably both elected...)
I know the king performs some ceremonial duties, but he doesn t have any powers. He wouldn't dare say no to the PM.
The royals can still be a tourist attraction if they want.
The PM has a private meeting with the King once a week. Its contents are confidential. Im sure they get told No a lot in those meetings.
otherman said:
Key power this one, given the constitution is unwritten. Let's imagine the party in power passed the Abolition of Democracy Bill. The king would refuse to sign it, triggering a general election.
A GE, or a constitutional crisis resulting in the removal of the monarchy? If it had got as far as parliament and lords voting to get rid of democracy I don't think any monarch would stand a chance.sherman said:
We would still have a cerimonial head for state functions be it the PM etc. Someone would still be rolled out for these functions.
Would we? Why? I get that plenty of other heads of state like the pomp and meeting a royal but if they're no longer in place why replace them?sherman said:
The PM has a private meeting with the King once a week. Its contents are confidential. Im sure they get told No a lot in those meetings.
That's not very democratic...ETA plus Liz seems to have done bugger all to prevent any number of f
k ups, so I'm not convinced.Edited by Bill on Wednesday 26th April 18:03
Bill said:
otherman said:
Key power this one, given the constitution is unwritten. Let's imagine the party in power passed the Abolition of Democracy Bill. The king would refuse to sign it, triggering a general election.
A GE, or a constitutional crisis resulting in the removal of the monarchy? If it had got as far as parliament and lords voting to get rid of democracy I don't think any monarch would stand a chance.Bill said:
A GE, or a constitutional crisis resulting in the removal of the monarchy? If it had got as far as parliament and lords voting to get rid of democracy I don't think any monarch would stand a chance.
Dont be so sure. Remind me who the police and the armed forces swear an oath of allegiance to.....In case that sounds too fanciful in a modern constitutional democracy, look how the 1981 coup attempt in Spain was stopped.
Bill said:
sherman said:
We would still have a cerimonial head for state functions be it the PM etc. Someone would still be rolled out for these functions.
Would we? Why? I get that plenty of other heads of state like the pomp and meeting a royal but if they're no longer in place why replace them?sherman said:
The PM has a private meeting with the King once a week. Its contents are confidential. Im sure they get told No a lot in those meetings.
That's not very democratic...ETA plus Liz seems to have done bugger all to prevent any number of f
k ups, so I'm not convinced.Edited by Bill on Wednesday 26th April 18:03
Liz did alot for international dipolmicy. She was head of the Commonwealth for her entire reign.
ClaphamGT3 said:
Dont be so sure. Remind me who the police and the armed forces swear an oath of allegiance to.....
In case that sounds too fanciful in a modern constitutional democracy, look how the 1981 coup attempt in Spain was stopped.
Coming out against a struggling coup is very different to trying to countermand a democratic vote.In case that sounds too fanciful in a modern constitutional democracy, look how the 1981 coup attempt in Spain was stopped.
Bill said:
The king's role is entirely ceremonial, so if we do get rid and become a republic do we need a replacement, elected head if state? Why not run the country as it's currently run, but without the figurehead?
I'm in favour of the abolition of the monarchy. I don't see the need for a ceremonial head of state who's role is to hand over the FA Cup, Olympic medals or whatever. What's the point of a ceremonial head of state? I just don't get it. The figurehead of the country is the leader of the elected government.Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff