ParadigmShifter
Random Nonsense Generator
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
'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.
""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. "
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.
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?
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.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.
Did I mention Ireland? I'm pretty sure I mentioned Ireland. Smallish place, across the sea a bit? Have a thing about green? Remember?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.
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.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.
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!Most traditions are archaistic, but still culturally valuable. I don't believe in God, but many hymns are exceptionally beautiful.
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.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.
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 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.
To but it very bluntly, define "we".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.
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.
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.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'.
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.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 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".
I don't think we would need that.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.
The people of the United Kingdom Great Britain and Northern Ireland.If you have your Head of State sitting in Parliament, who will take responsiblity for keeping Parliament disciplined?
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.
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.
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.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?