Britain: Dump the monarchy?

[PrinceOfLeigh]

So you agree that the Monarchy should be allowed to inflence the running of this country? You just destroyed your argument.

I said simply that they ought to have the ability to voice their opinion. I didn't say that any more weight should be added to their opinion than that of lobbyists, petitioners, me or you.

I don't see politicians scrambling to enact new legisation everytime Charles suggests some new Green policy.

 

[ComradeDavo]

Your saying that an unelected Monarchy, who you say should meet and great foriegn dignitaries and Heads Of States from all other the world as representatives of the British people, should be allowed to pubically express political views. No thankyou. That is incrediablly un-democratic.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

Your saying that an unelected Monarchy, who you say should meet and great foriegn dignitaries and Heads Of States from all other the world as representatives of the British people, should be allowed to pubically express political views. No thankyou. That is incrediablly un-democratic.

What is so horrific about that in real terms? What effective change has any recent Royal made without consent of the elected Parliament?

 

[ComradeDavo]

What is so horrific about that in real terms? What effective change has any recent Royal made without consent of the elected Parliament?

Your saying that unelected people should have the right to give opinions that may influence British and international politics!

 

[Kal'thzar]

they only have infulence if you beleive they do. Myself, I don't think they do.

They would not have infulence if there weren't so many people who think they did. (that was almost circular!).

 

[StarWorms]

An elected monarchy would be unworkable. People have known and embraced Queen Elizabeth as their queen for nearly 55 years now, which binds the commonwealth and international relations together.

 

[Mega Tsunami]

As for you democracy argument - pah! Lets have real democracy and actually elect a head of state. Poepel aren't being democratic in their support for the monarchy, their being apathetic.

How many people voted for Blair to be PM at the last election? Answer is none; many thought they did but they didn’t. Just as there will also be no-one voting for Brown to be PM in June.

That’s how our democracy works: we vote for a party and they elect the leader who becomes the PM if they win. This is part of their manifesto if you like, one of the things that will allow us to give them their mandate for the next 5 years. Also in (or implied in) their manifesto is that they will continue with the Monarchy as it is. By voting for the Labour party you are by default voting for the Monarchy too. Ditto Conservatives and LibDems. I am sure there is an anti-Monarchy party out there you could vote for if you wished.

Why is it you insist on having a direct vote for the powerless Head of State, but seem to be happy not to have a direct vote for the powerful Prime Minister?

 

[Mega Tsunami]

I'd call expressing political views in public a big enough blunder to ensure Charles is never King.

As for the ‘Meddling Prince’, he is not the Monarch and has stated quite categorically that he would shut up if he became King. Just as the Queen has done for 50+ years.
Whether he could keep to that we will have to wait and see of course.

I, for one, welcome his meddling because he keeps the various Ministers and Quangocrats on their toes, on our behalf. He has no power, just a bit of influence, and the people he writes to secretly can (and do) ignore him. But he still makes them think and I like that.
I dispute it is political interfering – the word is surely apolitical. He is scrupulously non party political and has treated Tory and Labour Ministers in the same way. No one knows what he would vote for but my guess it would be Lib Dem Not that he does vote of course.

Did you see that hatchet job by Dispatches a couple of weeks ago? It was just a joke as it was all so one sided – I don’t recall a single person coming on to give the other side and give it balance. That destroyed much of its impact.
They presented the program as if he was the King – and if he was I might have agreed with many of the criticisms they made because I too believe the Queen/King should be seen and not heard.
The point is Charles not the King and is ‘just’ a Prince and so his secret (and I stress the word secret) writing of letters to the powers that be is very welcome IMO.

Mind you I did agree with their criticisms of his profligacy…

Having said all the above, I suspect Charles will probably not be King and he either knows it or prefers not to be anyway. I suspect our next Monarch will be William and I am sure the great unwashed would prefer Queen Kate to Queen Camilla any day…

 

[ComradeDavo]

How many people voted for Blair to be PM at the last election? Answer is none; many thought they did but they didn’t. Just as there will also be no-one voting for Brown to be PM in June.

That’s how our democracy works: we vote for a party and they elect the leader who becomes the PM if they win. This is part of their manifesto if you like, one of the things that will allow us to give them their mandate for the next 5 years. Also in (or implied in) their manifesto is that they will continue with the Monarchy as it is. By voting for the Labour party you are by default voting for the Monarchy too. Ditto Conservatives and LibDems. I am sure there is an anti-Monarchy party out there you could vote for if you wished.

Why is it you insist on having a direct vote for the powerless Head of State, but seem to be happy not to have a direct vote for the powerful Prime Minister?

You know well that going into an election you know who the party leader is and that they will be 'leader' if elected. I'm not insiting on a direct vote for the posistion. I'm inisting that teh head of state have a democratic mandate - i.e. thatthe head of state should in effect be the ruling party, which is elected by a proportional representation system. The rulingparty can choose it's own figurehead before going into an election.

It is ridiculus to say that voting for a major party is supporting the monarchy. There are many issues on which someone votes, stop trivilialising it.

As for the ‘Meddling Prince’, he is not the Monarch and has stated quite categorically that he would shut up if he became King. Just as the Queen has done for 50+ years.
Whether he could keep to that we will have to wait and see of course.

I, for one, welcome his meddling because he keeps the various Ministers and Quangocrats on their toes, on our behalf. He has no power, just a bit of influence, and the people he writes to secretly can (and do) ignore him. But he still makes them think and I like that.
I dispute it is political interfering – the word is surely apolitical. He is scrupulously non party political and has treated Tory and Labour Ministers in the same way. No one knows what he would vote for but my guess it would be Lib Dem Not that he does vote of course.

Did you see that hatchet job by Dispatches a couple of weeks ago? It was just a joke as it was all so one sided – I don’t recall a single person coming on to give the other side and give it balance. That destroyed much of its impact.
They presented the program as if he was the King – and if he was I might have agreed with many of the criticisms they made because I too believe the Queen/King should be seen and not heard.
The point is Charles not the King and is ‘just’ a Prince and so his secret (and I stress the word secret) writing of letters to the powers that be is very welcome IMO.

Mind you I did agree with their criticisms of his profligacy…

Having said all the above, I suspect Charles will probably not be King and he either knows it or prefers not to be anyway. I suspect our next Monarch will be William and I am sure the great unwashed would prefer Queen Kate to Queen Camilla any day…

On our behalf bullfeathers. It's on his own selfish behalf, which is completely out of touch with my and every other bloody commoners life.

And I didn't watch dispatches.

 

[Lambert Simnel]

On our behalf bullfeathers.

To be fair, the poor dear probably does think he's acting on behalf of his people, though that is quite patronising in itself.

 

[bigfatron]

On our behalf bullfeathers. It's on his own selfish behalf, which is completely out of touch with my and every other bloody commoners life.

Bono was on my telly a few days back - an unelected individual influencing policy through hi popularity and position. Shocking! We should abolish Bono....

I think the emphasis on the monarch's influence is misplaced - I am far more concerned that all of our politicians are shite scared of Rupert Murdoch, who exercises a much stronger, more malign and more direct control over our political establishment than any dozen royals, lords, or others you could care to mention.

Let's start with the real influence peddlers first....
BFR

 

[ComradeDavo]

Bono was on my telly a few days back - an unelected individual influencing policy through hi popularity and position. Shocking! We should abolish Bono....

I think the emphasis on the monarch's influence is misplaced - I am far more concerned that all of our politicians are shite scared of Rupert Murdoch, who exercises a much stronger, more malign and more direct control over our political establishment than any dozen royals, lords, or others you could care to mention.

Let's start with the real influence peddlers first....
BFR

For a start Bono isn't British.
Secondly, he never claims to represent a country.
Thirdly, thats a really stupid comparison and translates as 'clutching at straws'.
And lastly, Rupert Murdoch is one of the main reasons we still have a Monarchy. I hate him to.

 

[bigfatron]

For a start Bono isn't British.
Secondly, he never claims to represent a country.
Thirdly, thats a really stupid comparison and translates as 'clutching at straws'.
And lastly, Rupert Murdoch is one of the main reasons we still have a Monarchy. I hate him to.

First - What, Bono is not British but telling British politicans what to do? Worse and worse...
Second - I've never heard Charlie boy claiming to represent the country when he offers an opinion either.
Third - your view, I thought it was pretty apt.
Fourth - Murdoch influences our political and social agenda immeasurably more than the Queen or Charlie - from observing those states that have a president it seems to me that politicising the head of state leads to greater, not less, cronyism and corruption. Take the revolutionary specatcles off and focus on what is important...
BFR

 

[Mega Tsunami]

You know well that going into an election you know who the party leader is and that they will be 'leader' if elected.

You mean like Brown will be in June? It appears not even Labour MPs are going to chose him, never mind us.

I repeat, we do not choose the PM.

In fact (and I am sure you’ll like this bit) it is the Queen who chooses the PM.
Of course her decision is invariably quite easy under FPTP but if we ended up with a coalition such as we might well get under PR, her choice might not be that easy.

I'm not insiting on a direct vote for the posistion. I'm inisting that teh head of state have a democratic mandate - i.e. thatthe head of state should in effect be the ruling party, which is elected by a proportional representation system.
The rulingparty can choose it's own figurehead before going into an election.

Why should the head of state come from the ruling party? The results of the elections in France shortly will not necessarily bear any relation to ‘the ruling party’. And surely it's best if it isn't?

It is ridiculus to say that voting for a major party is supporting the monarchy. There are many issues on which someone votes, stop trivilialising it.

Well the 3 main parties support the Monarchy or they would have a ‘get rid of the Monarchy’ clause in their manifesto. Ask Blair, Brown, Cameron and Ming and they will confirm that they support the Monarchy.
You are therefore effectively supporting the Monarchy by voting LibDem.
If you don’t like the Monarchy, I am sure there is a party out there with ‘get rid of the Monarchy’ in their manifesto.
I am not trivialising it; I am simply stating facts you don’t happen to like.

 

[ComradeDavo]

First - What, Bono is not British but telling British politicans what to do? Worse and worse...
Second - I've never heard Charlie boy claiming to represent the country when he offers an opinion either.
Third - your view, I thought it was pretty apt.
Fourth - Murdoch influences our political and social agenda immeasurably more than the Queen or Charlie - from observing those states that have a president it seems to me that politicising the head of state leads to greater, not less, cronyism and corruption. Take the revolutionary specatcles off and focus on what is important...
BFR

Revoluionary spectacles? It's kind of hard to debate when your using terms like that.

Bono has never claimed to represent the Britsh people. The monarchy by default represent tne British people. So is there any basis in your comparison? No.

edit - i'll answer MT's points tommorow.

 

[ComradeDavo]

You mean like Brown will be in June? It appears not even Labour MPs are going to chose him, never mind us.

I repeat, we do not choose the PM.

In fact (and I am sure you’ll like this bit) it is the Queen who chooses the PM.
Of course her decision is invariably quite easy under FPTP but if we ended up with a coalition such as we might well get under PR, her choice might not be that easy..

But we know who is gonna be PM when we vote for a party if they win. You vote Tory, you know if they win Cameron will be PM. I would like a clause stating that if a party changes leader mid term there should be an election. That would be democratic.

And the Queen choosing the PM? What a bloody great democracy!! Screw it, lets just ditch the voting all together and let teh Monarchy run the place, you seem to love them so.

Under PR the MP's should vote. If it gets to complicated, they should vote in elimination rounds.

Why should the head of state come from the ruling party? The results of the elections in France shortly will not necessarily bear any relation to ‘the ruling party’. And surely it's best if it isn't?.

No it's not best, because then you get legislation deadlock and your government disagreeing with the countries leader. Hence i'd rather the head of state was from the ruling party.

Well the 3 main parties support the Monarchy or they would have a ‘get rid of the Monarchy’ clause in their manifesto. Ask Blair, Brown, Cameron and Ming and they will confirm that they support the Monarchy.
You are therefore effectively supporting the Monarchy by voting LibDem.
If you don’t like the Monarchy, I am sure there is a party out there with ‘get rid of the Monarchy’ in their manifesto.
I am not trivialising it; I am simply stating facts you don’t happen to like.

You are trivilising it. Your ignoring the fact every single other issue on which people vote. You'd think i'd vote someone is is pro-Iraq war and pro-tax cuts just because they wanted to abolish the monarchy? No. There is more than one issue when you vote. And besides, I think it's pretty much established than in private alot of Lib Dems want toget rid of the monarchy as part of wider voting reform. they just ain't dumb enough to say it and get branded traitors by papers like the Sun.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

No it's not best, because then you get legislation deadlock and your government disagreeing with the countries leader. Hence i'd rather the head of state was from the ruling party.

And yet you want an elected House of Lords

they just ain't dumb enough to say it and get branded traitors by papers like the Sun.

And they wouldn't get elected?

 

[ComradeDavo]

And yet you want an elected House of Lords

The House Of Lords is very different from the Head Of State. Thats not really relevant.

And they wouldn't get elected?

It's more complicated than that. You know how much of a stranglehold the media has on thw impressionbal British people.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

The House Of Lords is very different from the Head Of State. Thats not really relevant.

you get legislation deadlock and your government disagreeing with the countries leader House of Lords.

Look how legislation is passed and you'll find it's exactly the same except a little further along the food chain.

It's more complicated than that. You know how much of a stranglehold the media has on thw impressionbal British people.

Then why have elections at all if the media has such an impression? You do us all a disservice Dave.

 

[ComradeDavo]

Look how legislation is passed and you'll find it's exactly the same except a little further along the food chain.

Then why have elections at all if the media has such an impression? You do us all a disservice Dave.

Oh come on, you know well that the whole point of the House of Lords is to look at legislation and see whats compatiable with British law and practicalites and all that.

As for disservice, well it's hard not to when i see people getting angry at Blair for all the same reasons they love Cameron.