The British Monarchy

I'm not sure we have a virtual dictatorship either. Both Thatcher and Blair were made to resign by their own party, they're not stupid, they know when the number is up.
 
'elective dictatorship' was a quote from someone but it is essentially true. Not necessarily individual leaders but the Government itself.
 
I'm afraid I cannot state which I find to be preferable, as I am simply not in command of all the necessary information, and doubt I would be able to make much more than a vaguely informed guess if I was. I'm sure this would, in itself, be the cause of much debate were the monarchy ever be dissolved, and far be it from me to pretend that a solution is self-evident. All I can say is that the Irish have made it work, and plenty of Australians seem convinced that they can too; why we are so less able?

We'd still have to not only overhaul the monarchy, though, but also much of the rest of the system. The Westminster system is quite different from a parliamentary republic. It would be expensive, consuming of the politicians' efforts, confusing for much of the populace, maybe destabilising, unpredictable, and, in my opinion, not worth the effort. The Irish had to create the apparatus of a new state anyhow; the Australian system mostly works independently of crown influence anyway, and they wouldn't have to do anything except tell the Lord Lieutenant to get lost and delete the queen's name from various bits of paper.

What I will suggest, though, is that there is a stark difference between a non-hereditary, accountable and popularly elected figurehead, and what we have in place at the moment.

Who'd want to be such a figurehead? Anyone who would is probably substantially foolish, and on those grounds alone, should not be allowed to take the role. To illustrate this, you're sensible enough; do you want to be king? No, I assume not: anyone who wanted to would be a bit crazy. Moreover, a popularly elected official can never be a figurehead, because they have a popular mandate. Also, they cannot be accountable if they have no constitutional power.

If the figurehead is a politician, why would they want to hold a position unless they wanted to exercise power from it? If a true figurehead is required, no-one who's a politician fills the role because politicians are partisan by definition.

If the value of such a role is to be merely symbolic, after all, then surely presenting a station which is open to any British citizen is preferable to one which is limited exclusively to aristocratic white Anglicans. The latter does not represent the Britain I want to live in, nor, if I am to be optimistic, does it represent the Britain that we have thus far achieved.

I don't approve of the restriction of succession to Anglicans. However, given that the post has to be hereditary to work, as I have explained, it invariably and inevitably follows that the monarch will be white and aristocratic, which is as good a comination of skin colour and class as any. This is not an example of discrimination, merely an example of what family it is that happens to have been on the throne for a millenium.

To confusion tradition and archaism is simplistic and potentially dangerous; it certainly does not provide a cultural or social precedent appropriate to the modern age. Britain does not depend on the monarchy for a sense of itself, nor have we ever.

Most traditions are archaistic, but still culturally valuable. I don't believe in God, but many hymns are exceptionally beautiful.

And they're free to, much as there are those who recognise Franz, Duke of Bavaria as King. That doesn't mean the rest of us have to take an interest.

Jacobites were a clear minority even when they first came about. Monarchists are extremely numerous, especially, I expect, in parliament, and even more so in the Tory party.
 
MPs have to swear an oath of allegiance to the Queen when they enter Parliament. This is one of the reasons Sinn Fein don't take their seats in parliament.

2 famous rebels:

The late Tony Banks was seen crossing his fingers while taking the oath at Westminster. Another veteran Republican, Dennis Skinner, is alleged to have added the words “and all who sail in her” to his oath.
 
True enough; I suppose my comment was largely rhetorical. However, I maintain that it reflects a certain moral truth- no nation which elevates an individual to such status can be considered truly democratic or egalitarian, which is what I suppose I mean when I say "modern". It represents, if nothing else, a certain lack of dedication to those principals among the populace; after all, would true democrat would suffer a system in which sovereignty was invested in the High Chieftain's oldest child?

Of course, the British aren't a democratic people, not really. We're so steeped in compromise, so weak in resolve, so sure that stability, at any cost, is preferable to justice... I'm not sure if there's really a word for what we are, but it is quite pathetic.

I don't see how constitutional monarchy prevents a nation being 'truly' democratic. By definition, the monarch has no power! Power lies in the people and government is carried out by their elected representatives. This is far more 'democratic' then the US system for example, where a huge amount of power lies in a written document and an unelected judiciary.

That is of course because a 'pure democracy' can only really mean purely direct democracy; no western nation aspires to that, and nor should they. It's tyranny of the majority stuff. If the ideal is undesirable anyway it is hardly an argument to assert a monarch would infringe on said ideal (and she wouldn't really, anyway). A 'true democrat' has political leanings which we would actually term quite extreme and simply objectionable.


'elective dictatorship' was a quote from someone but it is essentially true. Not necessarily individual leaders but the Government itself.

It's not essentially true; it's an exaggeration. But it does have a kernel of truth; Thatcher onwards the Prime Minister has had far more power and influence then traditionally and far more power and influence then is healthy. They are far beyond 'first amongst equals' and have an excessive ability to dominant their own government. They don't have the absolute power implied by 'dictatorship' but their power exceeds what it should. The UK would be well served by a stronger legislature and a more secure cabinet.
 
Dennis Skinner is amazing...doesn't he have the record for Commons censures over the years?

"In 2001, he said to new Black Rod Michael Willcocks "You're nowt but a midget!!" to much laughter in the chamber."

"In 2006, Skinner responded to Black Rod's invitation with "Is Helen Mirren on standby?""

""Tell the House of Lords to go to hell.""

and the best:

""I thought you were taking Marquand with you."

- Heckling Roy Jenkins in 1976 when, during his farewell speech to the Parliamentary Labour Party before leaving to become President of the European Commission, he said: "I leave this party without rancour". Jenkins, who famously pronounced his Rs like Ws, left the Commons at the same time as David Marquand, the MP for Ashfield and a close ally of Jenkins. "
 
It's not essentially true; it's an exaggeration. But it does have a kernel of truth; Thatcher onwards the Prime Minister has had far more power and influence then traditionally and far more power and influence then is healthy. They are far beyond 'first amongst equals' and have an excessive ability to dominant their own government. They don't have the absolute power implied by 'dictatorship' but their power exceeds what it should. The UK would be well served by a stronger legislature and a more secure cabinet.

The government has excessive ability to dominant their own government? I'm pretty sure that was a typo implying Parliament but just double checking.

It is essentially true, a Government can pretty much do what it likes upon reaching power, much like a dictatorship. Obviously it isn't an actual Dictatorship but it does have far more than a 'kernal'.
 
""I thought you were taking Marquand with you."

- Heckling Roy Jenkins in 1976 when, during his farewell speech to the Parliamentary Labour Party before leaving to become President of the European Commission, he said: "I leave this party without rancour". Jenkins, who famously pronounced his Rs like Ws, left the Commons at the same time as David Marquand, the MP for Ashfield and a close ally of Jenkins. "

That is freaking hilarious. :lol:
 
The government has excessive ability to dominant their own government? I'm pretty sure that was a typo implying Parliament but just double checking.

It is essentially true, a Government can pretty much do what it likes upon reaching power, much like a dictatorship. Obviously it isn't an actual Dictatorship but it does have far more than a 'kernal'.

You're right, I should have said 'good chunk'.

And no, it wasn't a typo. The Prime Minister has excessive power to dominant their own government; he chairs any committee he wishes, he can reshuffle cabinet, he controls when cabinet meets and for how long, he dominates MPs through the whip system and aspiring politicians rely on his patronage to break onto the frontbenches. What I mean to say is that the executive is no longer governed by Cabinet in committee, it is governed overwhelmingly by the Prime Minister. Cabinet Ministers hold power on sufferance rather than being the key decisions making body.
 
You're right, I should have said 'good chunk'.

And no, it wasn't a typo. The Prime Minister has excessive power to dominant their own government; he chairs any committee he wishes, he can reshuffle cabinet, he controls when cabinet meets and for how long, he dominates MPs through the whip system and aspiring politicians rely on his patronage to break onto the frontbenches. What I mean to say is that the executive is no longer governed by Cabinet in committee, it is governed overwhelmingly by the Prime Minister. Cabinet Ministers hold power on sufferance rather than being the key decisions making body.

Right but the Government is the one with all the power, the Leader can be removed by his own party/resign, the only way to remove a Government is a vote of no confidence or an election [which the Government has to call]. The Government is arguably more important in the actual running of the country.
 
Right but the Government is the one with all the power, the Leader can be removed by his own party/resign, the only way to remove a Government is a vote of no confidence or an election [which the Government has to call]. The Government is arguably more important in the actual running of the country.

Who do you refer to by 'Government' here? The entire ruling party?

If so i don't think it meaningful to compare government to an elected dictator. The point of the comparison is to show similarities with a dictators mode of governance and Britain's mode of governance. That is, a dictator can enact arbitrary legislation and make sweeping changes easily, without care for internal opposition. Theoretically a party with strong parliamentary majority has the same powers.

But this is to ignore a very important point; a dictator is singular whilst a party is plural. A dictator can make sweeping arbitrary changes because he need argue with nobody. He has already made up his mind. A party has made up its mind on only a certain few issues. That's the stuff in their manifestos which have themselves been extensively debated and are actually put to the country before an election. They are not the issues we would characterize as arbitrary; they have in fact been voted on. That

To enact legislation outside of this one must first go through the laborious task of convincing cabinet; 22 intelligent and ambitious politicians who are well aware that bad legislation could bring down the government, and them with it. If one convinces Cabinet of the validity of said legislation one must then go through the process of convincing backbench MPs that voting 'aye' on this particular piece of legislation is a must. If it is a genuinely bad law one can expect lot's of opposition in the Parliamentary (Labour/Conservative) Party. This is usually taken into account in Cabinet and bills likely to promote backbencher rebellion never tend to get executive support.

Assuming one does manage to twist enough arms and throw out enough threats to get enough support in ones own party, government must pass its bill through Lords. There's not much arm-twisting or threatening you can do here; you're facing a bunch of life peers. Any dictator-like bill is likely to be thrown back into the commons for amendment. That means you have to go through the whole process of convincing your backbenchers again, as arbitrary legislation becomes very much exposed as arbitrary.

Of course, the Commons can force legislation through the Lords without much difficulty, and the Lords rarely let it come to that. But my point is that the majority party is too divided and too conflicted to properly be called 'dictatorial'.
 
Who do you refer to by 'Government' here? The entire ruling party?

By Government i mean the Cabinet etc, the ruling party obviously plays a large part but i mean Cabinet. Yes laws go through Commons and Lords etc but there is a lot of subsidiary, secondary legislation which is continually passed without the process required by Parliament/Lords etc. On its own it is nothing major but taken as a whole it could be, which is largely the point; nobody has run the Government like a dictatorship so much just yet but the possibility is there.
 
We'd still have to not only overhaul the monarchy, though, but also much of the rest of the system. The Westminster system is quite different from a parliamentary republic. It would be expensive, consuming of the politicians' efforts, confusing for much of the populace, maybe destabilising, unpredictable, and, in my opinion, not worth the effort. The Irish had to create the apparatus of a new state anyhow; the Australian system mostly works independently of crown influence anyway, and they wouldn't have to do anything except tell the Lord Lieutenant to get lost and delete the queen's name from various bits of paper.
Frankly, that's an argument against monarchy, rather than for it; if our nation relies so heavily on the Crown to perpetuate itself, then I would suggest that it is a dangerous and malign habit which we are best rid of. Any monarchy which is so ceremonial as to be acceptable in the modern era must be as disposable as, say, the position of Poet Laureate.
Anyway, I think you exaggerate things. The Crown fulfils little more than the role of a rubber stamp, nothing necessary; indeed, the very fact that we choose to sustain this farce demands it. We have, at least, that much loyalty to democratic principal.
Now, I can see that it would be a fuss going around tip-exxing out "the Crown" and writing in "the People" on all the forms, but it's not exactly impossible, is it?

Who'd want to be such a figurehead? Anyone who would is probably substantially foolish, and on those grounds alone, should not be allowed to take the role. To illustrate this, you're sensible enough; do you want to be king? No, I assume not: anyone who wanted to would be a bit crazy. Moreover, a popularly elected official can never be a figurehead, because they have a popular mandate. Also, they cannot be accountable if they have no constitutional power.

If the figurehead is a politician, why would they want to hold a position unless they wanted to exercise power from it? If a true figurehead is required, no-one who's a politician fills the role because politicians are partisan by definition.
Did I mention Ireland? I'm pretty sure I mentioned Ireland. Smallish place, across the sea a bit? Have a thing about green? Remember?

I don't approve of the restriction of succession to Anglicans. However, given that the post has to be hereditary to work, as I have explained, it invariably and inevitably follows that the monarch will be white and aristocratic, which is as good a comination of skin colour and class as any. This is not an example of discrimination, merely an example of what family it is that happens to have been on the throne for a millenium.
Discrimination need not be written in to law to be existent. I mean, let's be honest here, will a royal with a shot of succession ever marry, ever be permitted to marry anyone other than a high-ranking Christian aristocrat? Technicalities certainly to not free the monarchical tradition from it's extremely discriminatory nature.
If the a senior civil servant was found to be denying employment to Afro-Britons, Catholics or Jews, there would be an uproar, and rightfully so. That this "employment" takes the form of marriage, and that the civil servant has a crown really shouldn't change this.

Most traditions are archaistic, but still culturally valuable. I don't believe in God, but many hymns are exceptionally beautiful.
Beauty does not demand legal enshrinement. Certainly, the British monarchy, perhaps the ugly and most hateful tradition that our nation is able to boast, does not!

Jacobites were a clear minority even when they first came about. Monarchists are extremely numerous, especially, I expect, in parliament, and even more so in the Tory party.
Their numbers are irrelevant. My point was that monarchy, much like religion, is something best kept to the private individual. They are free in their private beliefs, but to inflict them upon the nation at large is simply unacceptable.

I don't see how constitutional monarchy prevents a nation being 'truly' democratic. By definition, the monarch has no power! Power lies in the people and government is carried out by their elected representatives. This is far more 'democratic' then the US system for example, where a huge amount of power lies in a written document and an unelected judiciary.
Well, as I said, it was a largely rhetorical point; I will admit, I suppose, that I do not exactly feel "oppressed" by the monarchy, nor do I think that the Crown wields any real power that I should be concerned by the thing. However, that does not change the fact that democratic principal dictates that the institution is simply unacceptable, placing, as it does, legal sovereignty, and the string of senior civic positions which follow from it, in the hands of an unaccountable, unelectable aristocratic clan who's claim to such things, by it's nature, sits far above the law of the common man.
I suppose it simply comes down to how much we value our principals, and what is democracy but principals? It's certainly not the most efficient form of government, something we know full well, and yet we doggedly adhere to it; indeed, pride ourselves on this adherence. Why, then, do we comprise it at this last step?

That is of course because a 'pure democracy' can only really mean purely direct democracy; no western nation aspires to that, and nor should they. It's tyranny of the majority stuff. If the ideal is undesirable anyway it is hardly an argument to assert a monarch would infringe on said ideal (and she wouldn't really, anyway). A 'true democrat' has political leanings which we would actually term quite extreme and simply objectionable.
To but it very bluntly, define "we".
 
In principal I support removing the Monarchy from the last bits of technical power they hold, and having the Prime Minsiter become de facto head of state. I don't think we actually need a head of state enshrined in law, as the people of the country should all be regarded 'equal' in terms of that. Hence the 'de facto'.

In practice there is far more important electoral reform we need, such as a more proportional voting system and an elected hosue of lords, meaning we should keep the status quo in regards to the Monarchy for the time being.
 
MPs have to swear an oath of allegiance to the Queen when they enter Parliament. This is one of the reasons Sinn Fein don't take their seats in parliament.

Wow, even the Bloc Quebecois are willing to swear allegiance to the Queen in order to be able to take their seats.

In principal I support removing the Monarchy from the last bits of technical power they hold, and having the Prime Minsiter become de facto head of state. I don't think we actually need a head of state enshrined in law, as the people of the country should all be regarded 'equal' in terms of that. Hence the 'de facto'.

Would you consider having a Governor General like other Commonwealth countries do? Traditionally the G-G was supposed to be the Queen's representative in the Dominions, but the role has evolved into a Head of State role, more and more independent of Her Majesty.

If you have your Head of State sitting in Parliament, who will take responsiblity for keeping Parliament disciplined?
 
In principal I support removing the Monarchy from the last bits of technical power they hold, and having the Prime Minsiter become de facto head of state. I don't think we actually need a head of state enshrined in law, as the people of the country should all be regarded 'equal' in terms of that. Hence the 'de facto'.
This is something that has always puzzled me about the role of "Head of State" in a democracy; why do we need it? The position seems to be essentially derived from the monarch's role as sovereign, but when sovereignty is vested in the populace at large, assigning an individual to fulfil a now apparently obsolete role just seems odd.
That said, we'd probably need to keep one around for practical purposes; everyone else has one, and protocol generally seems to demand that we follow suit. It's probably debatable whether this position is best transferred to the Prime Minister or a new office, but I'd lean towards maintaining the distinction; it seems rather more in the spirit of parliamentary democracy.

In practice there is far more important electoral reform we need, such as a more proportional voting system and an elected hosue of lords, meaning we should keep the status quo in regards to the Monarchy for the time being.
I'll admit I agree with this. While I am strongly republican in principle, I'm not so petty that I'd rank it above more pressing concerns. Honestly, I think that the monarchy is ever actually dissolved, it will be part of a broader campaign of reform such as that which you mention.
 
I suppose it simply comes down to how much we value our principals, and what is democracy but principals? It's certainly not the most efficient form of government, something we know full well, and yet we doggedly adhere to it; indeed, pride ourselves on this adherence. Why, then, do we comprise it at this last step?

To but it very bluntly, define "we".

Liberal democracies. The kind of democracies we all live in. This is in contrast to direct democracy which, whilst certainly endowing more 'power to the people', lay a country open to the dominance of temporary majority. I don't think we should live in such a 'true democracy' and I know of no nation that aspires to such.

Is this a compromise of our principles? No, it's just a different set of principles to that of the 'true democrat'. It is a set of principles that holds liberal democracy is the best for of government; the most efficient in the long-run. It is no a set of principles that demands the abolition of the monarchy - there is no compromise.
 
Would you consider having a Governor General like other Commonwealth countries do? Traditionally the G-G was supposed to be the Queen's representative in the Dominions, but the role has evolved into a Head of State role, more and more independent of Her Majesty.
I don't think we would need that.
If you have your Head of State sitting in Parliament, who will take responsiblity for keeping Parliament disciplined?
The people of the United Kingdom Great Britain and Northern Ireland.


This is something that has always puzzled me about the role of "Head of State" in a democracy; why do we need it? The position seems to be essentially derived from the monarch's role as sovereign, but when sovereignty is vested in the populace at large, assigning an individual to fulfil a now apparently obsolete role just seems odd.
That said, we'd probably need to keep one around for practical purposes; everyone else has one, and protocol generally seems to demand that we follow suit. It's probably debatable whether this position is best transferred to the Prime Minister or a new office, but I'd lean towards maintaining the distinction; it seems rather more in the spirit of parliamentary democracy.
:goodjob:
To be honest, I think 'offical state visits' where the Queen sits and drinks tea with whoever is a waste of taxpayers monmey, state visits should be about policy and co-operation, sorting out concerns etc! And that should be dealt with an elected politician who has the support of parliment (and thus the people, providing that parliment is electe din a proportional way) hence the Prime Minister is a good choice. In fact, foireign ministers should deal with foreign matters alot more as well, thats meant to be their job afterall.

I'll admit I agree with this. While I am strongly republican in principle, I'm not so petty that I'd rank it above more pressing concerns. Honestly, I think that the monarchy is ever actually dissolved, it will be part of a broader campaign of reform such as that which you mention.
:goodjob:
 
Liberal democracies. The kind of democracies we all live in. This is in contrast to direct democracy which, whilst certainly endowing more 'power to the people', lay a country open to the dominance of temporary majority. I don't think we should live in such a 'true democracy' and I know of no nation that aspires to such.

Is this a compromise of our principles? No, it's just a different set of principles to that of the 'true democrat'. It is a set of principles that holds liberal democracy is the best for of government; the most efficient in the long-run. It is no a set of principles that demands the abolition of the monarchy - there is no compromise.
Well, your excessively liberal use of the term "we" aside, there's no real point in getting side-tracked in an argument about direct democracy. My point was that democratic principal- and that includes Western "liberal democratic" principal- demands political and social equality, and democracy in all public matters. A hereditary head-of-state sits in direct opposition to this, quite certainly compromising the values on which these nations assert they are established. It flouts every principal of democratic and egalitarian ethics, sustained only by the most startling acts of doublethink and moral compromise that we are able to muster. There is a reason, after all, why America chose not to establish it's own monarchy once it removed ours.

Britain is a "democracy", or at least we like to believe that we are. That means it is ruled by the people, a gathering of equals. Yet we are expected to pay homage to the Grand Chieftain because she was simply born better than we are, that she is innately and inarguably superior to us, her subjects, who exist first and foremost to facilitate her continued rule. We cannot, should not and dare not aspire to her lofty position, we have not the blood for it, and to suggest that we may is held as anarchy, even treason. She will always be better than us, and only through her grace may are so-called "democracy" hold itself legitimate. Does that seem consistent to you?
 
Well, your excessively liberal use of the term "we" aside, there's no real point in getting side-tracked in an argument about direct democracy. My point was that democratic principal- and that includes Western "liberal democratic" principal- demands political and social equality, and democracy in all public matters. A hereditary head-of-state sits in direct opposition to this, quite certainly compromising the values on which these nations assert they are established. It flouts every principal of democratic and egalitarian ethics, sustained only by the most startling acts of doublethink and moral compromise that we are able to muster. There is a reason, after all, why America chose not to establish it's own monarchy once it removed ours.

Britain is a "democracy", or at least we like to believe that we are. That means it is ruled by the people, a gathering of equals. Yet we are expected to pay homage to the Grand Chieftain because she was simply born better than we are, that she is innately and inarguably superior to us, her subjects, who exist first and foremost to facilitate her continued rule. We cannot, should not and dare not aspire to her lofty position, we have not the blood for it, and to suggest that we may is held as anarchy, even treason. She will always be better than us, and only through her grace may are so-called "democracy" hold itself legitimate. Does that seem consistent to you?

Except we aren't expected to pay homage to the Queen and we don't exist to facilitate her rule. She exists because she is useful to us. Quite simply her position could not be filled by an elected official. Such a person could not carry out her duties. In a constitutional monarchy, hereditary inheritance is of moral parity with sortition. It is simply the best way in which one can choose someone to fulfill a particualr function

Sortition has no element of 'deserving' in it and we could form the same arguments about a personage chosen in such way: that they're elevated by arbitrary criteria. This time chance, rather then blood. Yet is sortition contrary to our 'democratic principles'? In certain circumstances probably; it would be questionable to determine the composition of the legislature via sortition. But in other circumstances, juries being the most obvious, sortition is perfectly compatible with democracy. Similarly hereditary inheritance is perfectly compatible with democracy, where it is useful.

Sure, monarchy is unegalitarian. But the entire concept of meritocracy is unegalitarian, Liberalism is unegalitarian. Yet these are things don't stand in direct opposition to 'the democratic principle'. That because our democracy requires equality only of a very particular kind; the ability to broadly determine who wields political power. By definition a constitutional monarch does not wield political power. They do not stand contrary to this egalitarian principle because they operate in a different space.

On the subject of which, I find it interesting you bring up America and its lack of monarchy. America, I assume, you would rate as democratic. Yet its entire political system runs contrary to 'political and social equality, and democracy in all public matters'. The upper house of it's legislature grants massively disproportionate power to a resident of Wyoming compared to one of California; A senator for the former requires but 200,000 votes whilst one for the latter ten million. The country is run according a document hundreds of years old the amendment process of which requires enormous political support. This is hardly strict 'power to the people'. In turn a bunch of unelected judges have the power to enforce sweeping societal change with little reference to public opinion (E.g Roe V. Wade) and they themselves are appointed by a head of state who has been elected through a firmly disproportional system (the electoral college). There is vast and official inequality in how much political power an American citizens have; yet America is still a democracy. How can this be?

I would contend that democracy and 'democratic principles' are far looser terms then you would have them be. They do not bear strict definition and do not fall into a firmly bounded framework. Democracies bear family resemblance to eachother and the assertion that monarchy is in direct opposition to democracy is not credible.
 
Top Bottom