The British Monarchy
- Thread starter Tani Coyote
- Start date
Tani Coyote
Son of Huehuecoyotl
- Joined
- May 28, 2007
- Messages
- 15,191
Well, if I recall, the flow of power through Britain's history went something like this:
Monarch and Lords used to fight eachother tooth and nail like good feudal monarchists > Lords win eventually, force Monarch to sign some stuff giving power to the Lords > Common people eventually win over the Lords, giving the lower house the most power and effectively making Britain a democratic republic with monarchist/oligarchic trimmings for historical purposes.
Now THIS is a reform of the monarchy from a British perspective I can agree with!
Elected monarchy combines, more or less, part of my proposal with maintenance of the monarchy.
If it's elected, however, I would like to see a bit more authority on their part, as they are at least now accountable to the people in some manner. This is especially so if there's a way to easily recall/overthrow them if they get too crazy.
The current system, with rubber stamps and waving and such, better fits Wal-Mart doorgreeters than a political institution, I'd say.
Sortition FTW. I think this could work nicely. Though sortition justifies limits on the monarchy's power... but at least it gives everyone a fair chance at the office.
Silurian
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2010
- Messages
- 7,567
Taniciusfox@
The MPs are elected by the electorate.
The ruling party or coaltion decide on the MP. It is normally the leader of the rulling party.
The PM (and the leaders of the party) decide who will be the ministers.
The PM does not have the support of every one in the party so the leaders of other factions will try to get some of their people, ministiries.
If the PM can not maintain the support of the different factions of their party (or collation), the parties MPs will not support the government (1979) or they will change the PM (Thatcher replaced with Major).
So the PM is balanced by the MPs.
The MPs are elected by the electorate.
The ruling party or coaltion decide on the MP. It is normally the leader of the rulling party.
The PM (and the leaders of the party) decide who will be the ministers.
The PM does not have the support of every one in the party so the leaders of other factions will try to get some of their people, ministiries.
If the PM can not maintain the support of the different factions of their party (or collation), the parties MPs will not support the government (1979) or they will change the PM (Thatcher replaced with Major).
So the PM is balanced by the MPs.
Bast
Protector of Cats
The French Monarchy was/is better than the British Monarchy. I guess the fact that it's no longer around makes is more nostalgic and interesting. All these young royal brats in headlines these days just makes a mockery of the institution.
nonconformist
Miserable
So good we expelled them from france repeatedly, huh
ParadigmShifter
Random Nonsense Generator
And ended up with Napoleon instead...
EDIT: Reply to Truronian (who never plays scrabble anymore):
Free time is hard to come by as of late.
Training that many diplomats and tour guides also have. There's nothing stopping Charles running for King either... at least let the public chose the guy with the life training.
Tani Coyote
Son of Huehuecoyotl
- Joined
- May 28, 2007
- Messages
- 15,191
Perhaps I'm just very devoted to my own founding principles, but I'm in it to prevent a wave of populism from massively distorting the makeup of the government and therefore policy.
Hmm. India has always been a very devout society, have they not? Perhaps they are just as religiously loyal to the rule of law(or at least democracy) as they would be to their faith? Akin to China?
Seems like a fair comparison to our judicial system then, except the Lords are in the legislature; they are generally very well-experienced people, and thus well-versed in interpreting the laws and applying them.
I do it to try and put things into perspective, not to say they are exactly the same.
So the PM is, from what I could interpret, some bizarre combo between a limited President, and our Speaker of the House, then, combining legislative and executive functions.
Well, that makes sense then. What happens to the PM's cabinet when he gets removed? It gets removed when he does, does it not? That's probably the source of my problem; the fact Parliament can KO the entire Executive Branch with a simple motion of no confidence, rather than requiring a more rigorous procedure less susceptible to emotion and populism.
...
I approve. If you're going to have a pointless position, might as well make it entertaining.
ParadigmShifter
Random Nonsense Generator
It's normally political suicide to have a no confidence vote if you are an MP for the majority party, so it happens very rarely.
It happens mainly when you have a coalition government. Those tend not to last too long. If we end up with that on May 7th I see electoral reform coming in followed by a new election within a year or 2.
EDIT: I think we will see a referendum on the PR method to be used also.
EDIT2: That's assuming the LibDems will hold the balance of power.
It happens mainly when you have a coalition government. Those tend not to last too long. If we end up with that on May 7th I see electoral reform coming in followed by a new election within a year or 2.
EDIT: I think we will see a referendum on the PR method to be used also.
EDIT2: That's assuming the LibDems will hold the balance of power.
Shekwan
Kim Chi Quaffing Celt
Have you any evidence of this happening in Britain and threatening their democratic process or fundamental rights?
Or it could be y'know, their system of government...
All monarchies should be violently overthrown without cause.
Communisto
Condottiere
hang them for crimes against humanity
Mise
isle of lucy
It's appointed in a similar way to the way your Supreme Court is appointed, yes. That's where the similarity ends, though.
That's the problem, you're trying to fit the Westminster system into the labels and roles of a Presidential system. It just won't work, because they are very different systems.
Why "bizarre"? Why a "combo"? Again, it just doesn't make sense to compare the PM to the President, nor to the Speaker of the House. The Speaker of the House does not perform the same primary function as the PM. Whereas the PM is the leader of the party, the role of party whip (which Nancy Pelosi performs particularly well) is usually played by several people, including the Chief Whip, but also by many other "enforcers" (such as Mandelson, and the notorious Alastair Campbell). Nancy Pelosi may be bestowed the title "Leader of the Party", but that most certainly does not mean she performs the same role as the Leader of the Labour Party in the UK.
If the PM is removed by Parliamentary vote of no confidence, it is because he has lost the mandate to lead. This can either be because (a) his party doesn't control the majority of parliament, or (b) his own party has abandoned him and believes he must go. In neither case is democracy served best by a deeply unpopular and ultimately ineffectual PM remaining in "power" (such that it is without parliamentary support). In either case, democracy is best served by either going back to the polls, or from coalition building by a new PM.
If the PM is removed by his own party, it is usually at the behest of the PM's own cabinet and other senior ministers. In such a case, the party would select a new PM internally, as was the case when Thatcher was replaced by Major. Cabinet may or may not be reshuffled, but senior ministers will remain in senior positions regardless.
aronnax
Let your spirit be free
@ Tan Fox
Sorry if I am rehashing old points. I didn't have the time to read past page 2. But I hope some of my points you will find insightful.
1) Firstly, the monarchy should be maintained because it is selected via a hereditary position. The Monarch is above all politics and is not to favour anyone party. If you pick a politician to be President, you will be picking a person who has been indoctrinated by the values of a certain party. While this does not mean that a monarch will be impartial or that a politician cant be impartial, the fact that you pick a person who was raised to give loyalty to the nation rather than a set of ideologies.
2) Secondly, the Monarchy does serve the state and deserves the "welfare" you mention. Firstly, Every British citizen pays about a pound to support the queen. About 60 million pounds. Britain attracts some 24.8 million visiting in 2003. US$17.2 billion was spent in the UK by tourists. Many of which visit the UK due to the curiosity of the Monarchy. Think about it. How many people visit the UK to see a Royal Palace or Jewel. How many people visit Italy or Germany for Royal quirks? The Monarchy earns more for their own keep.
3) The Queen has a steady 70-80% approval rate throughout her reign, though it used to be higher. Only on a few occasions had it dropped. The Queen is a symbol of unity and adoration among many British people. She is a rallying point for the people and her popularity helps unite the nation. It is a life long loving relationship between the crown and the people.
A president, comes every few years. Repeatedly change and often do not hold the popularity as well as that enjoyed by the crown.
4) The Queen is an excellent diplomat. She has been to every member of the Commonwealth and 56 more non-commonwealth Countries. She might not conduct trade deals and make governmental agreements, but she is an awesome force when it comes to improving bilateral ties or upholding good relationships. Think about how the US exploded in pomp and frenzy on the last US visit by the Queen. The highest (technically) ranking official of this Nation is extending a warm and friendly visit to your nation, talking to your masses, accepting flowers and small gifts.
When she was in Singapore, she spent 1-2 hours in the apartment flat of a regular person, just talking. The crown is an effective way to thaw relationships.
Sorry if I am rehashing old points. I didn't have the time to read past page 2. But I hope some of my points you will find insightful.
1) Firstly, the monarchy should be maintained because it is selected via a hereditary position. The Monarch is above all politics and is not to favour anyone party. If you pick a politician to be President, you will be picking a person who has been indoctrinated by the values of a certain party. While this does not mean that a monarch will be impartial or that a politician cant be impartial, the fact that you pick a person who was raised to give loyalty to the nation rather than a set of ideologies.
2) Secondly, the Monarchy does serve the state and deserves the "welfare" you mention. Firstly, Every British citizen pays about a pound to support the queen. About 60 million pounds. Britain attracts some 24.8 million visiting in 2003. US$17.2 billion was spent in the UK by tourists. Many of which visit the UK due to the curiosity of the Monarchy. Think about it. How many people visit the UK to see a Royal Palace or Jewel. How many people visit Italy or Germany for Royal quirks? The Monarchy earns more for their own keep.
3) The Queen has a steady 70-80% approval rate throughout her reign, though it used to be higher. Only on a few occasions had it dropped. The Queen is a symbol of unity and adoration among many British people. She is a rallying point for the people and her popularity helps unite the nation. It is a life long loving relationship between the crown and the people.
A president, comes every few years. Repeatedly change and often do not hold the popularity as well as that enjoyed by the crown.
4) The Queen is an excellent diplomat. She has been to every member of the Commonwealth and 56 more non-commonwealth Countries. She might not conduct trade deals and make governmental agreements, but she is an awesome force when it comes to improving bilateral ties or upholding good relationships. Think about how the US exploded in pomp and frenzy on the last US visit by the Queen. The highest (technically) ranking official of this Nation is extending a warm and friendly visit to your nation, talking to your masses, accepting flowers and small gifts.
When she was in Singapore, she spent 1-2 hours in the apartment flat of a regular person, just talking. The crown is an effective way to thaw relationships.
Said this in the other thread:
Rigidly separated American style systems have led to coups and instability in most non-United States countries in which the system exists. The US is a stable outlier example.
Even when Australia becomes a republic, I want us to have parliamentary supremacy and a figurehead president. None of this quasi-monarchical executive president business.
Rigidly separated American style systems have led to coups and instability in most non-United States countries in which the system exists. The US is a stable outlier example.
Even when Australia becomes a republic, I want us to have parliamentary supremacy and a figurehead president. None of this quasi-monarchical executive president business.
That is totally wrong.
The monarch is part of the UK constitution. The Americans replaced a thinking person with an unthinking piece of paper.
Similar threads
