The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Reply 20
Original post by internetguru
When we have the time and resources to do so then let's do it but till then we should focus on the positions that are doable such as the head of state.


Why not now? When will we have the time and resources to do it? It seems a pretty weak answer, dude.

Don't you appreciate that the majority of other countries explicitly do not elect their Head of State, not because they can't, but because it's potentially constitutionally harmful?
Reply 21
Original post by gladders
Why not now? When will we have the time and resources to do it? It seems a pretty weak answer, dude.

Don't you appreciate that the majority of other countries explicitly do not elect their Head of State, not because they can't, but because it's potentially constitutionally harmful?


Well when people want to elect bin men we will start electing bin men. For now though I want to focus on the head of state.

They don't elect a head of state because I don't even know why they should declare referendums now.
Reply 22
"Should"

Why should you make your decision upon a matter just because of your political leanings. It is shows a distinct lack of the ability to be able to look at something objectively and decide upon the merits, rather than blindly following the party line. There is nothing wrong with being left wing on certain issues and right wing on other issues.
Reply 23
Original post by internetguru
They don't elect a head of state because I don't even know why they should declare referendums now.


The reason they don't is because having two elected officials - PM and President - runs the risk of a competition for power, to the detriment of both accountability and sound public policy.

Do you favour overusing a principle over sound government?
Reply 24
The Conservatives come from the old royalist Tory party which is why they support the monarchy.
Reply 25
Thing is, there's this myth going round that all left-wingers must oppose the monarchy, when there are a great deal of famous leftwing monarchists - George Orwell, for example.
Reply 26
That's Cameron out then cos' he a blue blood.
Original post by internetguru
The Queen recently invited and dined with dictators who oppose democracy and repress their own people. Do we really want to have a monarch who is at odds with our own views of freedom and democracy?


The Queen invited almost every Monarch in the world, whether or not you like someone in particular is irrelevant, it would be rude not too and could cause a pretty awkward diplomatic situation. First you don't invite Bahrain, then their Saudi Allies back out followed hastily by most of the other Muslim Monarchs either. Before you know it you're inviting all of the King of Swaziland's 14 wives just to make up numbers.
Original post by internetguru
the people would be able to vote for a head of state therefore it would be better.


loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool
Reply 29
Original post by gladders
'Conservative' OP doesn't seem to be actually Conservative.


This. All true conservatives in the true sense of the word like to preserve things as they are and have a great love of the monarchy.

tsr1.JPG

&

2788395_Create.gif

<3 x
Reply 30
Original post by internetguru
The people would be able to vote for a head of state therefore it would be better.


Then by the same logic why aren't the PMs of this country so wonderful?

<3 x
Reply 31
Original post by LETSJaM
Then by the same logic why aren't the PMs of this country so wonderful?

<3 x


Because you have different political views to them. I'm sure if the Queen's political views were made public you wouldn't be too fond of her either.
Reply 32
Original post by internetguru
Because you have different political views to them. I'm sure if the Queen's political views were made public you wouldn't be too fond of her either.

I'm talking in general, over the last two decades. And I'm pretty sure what the queen's political views are rather apathetic towards them. Also I respect the fact that while she has the right to vote, she doesn't choose to get engaged in such issues.

<3 x
Reply 33
Original post by LETSJaM
I'm talking in general, over the last two decades. And I'm pretty sure what the queen's political views are rather apathetic towards them. Also I respect the fact that while she has the right to vote, she doesn't choose to get engaged in such issues.

<3 x


She doesn't get engaged for good reasons

1) All mainstream parties are pro monarchy so it doesn't affect her.

2) If she expresses an opinion her popularity will decrease.

The secret to her high ratings is if she doesn't have opinions people can't dislike her.
Reply 34
Original post by internetguru
She doesn't get engaged for good reasons

1) All mainstream parties are pro monarchy so it doesn't affect her.

2) If she expresses an opinion her popularity will decrease.

The secret to her high ratings is if she doesn't have opinions people can't dislike her.


You can say 'If...' but she will never do it so that's just a flaw in your argument.

<3 x
Reply 35
Original post by LETSJaM
You can say 'If...' but she will never do it so that's just a flaw in your argument.

<3 x


Everything that hasn't happened is an if what is your point how is that a flaw?
Reply 36
Original post by internetguru
The old conservative definition no longer applies no conservative in their right mind would keep the country as it is now. An intelligent conservative always wishes to make the world the way it should be rather than simply keeping it the way it is. They can do this by preserving conservative economic policies and traditions; however, the monarchy is not a tradition it is an entity which is above all else which just happens to be old, so it is bunched together with traditional British values.

The idea that an active monarchy with powers over the government generate tourism is a joke and there is no evidence to support the claim.


so if, as you say, the monarchy "just happens" to be old, why exactly has it lasted so long? surely, from your explanation, nothing good comes of it and it just encourages people to be lazy, so why then does the Monarchy still exist? if there are so many "intelligent conservatives" out there, why havent they done something towards abolishing the monarchy?

what powers does the monarchy have over the government?? aside from the ceremonial roles? i dont recall seeing her at last week's PMQT or any other for that matter.

You see, we can argue on for days and weeks on end, fact is, the Monarchy is here to stay, whether you like it or not OP.
Reply 37
Original post by Patriot Rich
A Monarchy is far more exciting than any bureaucratic Republic.


Apart from Harry's bat **** crazy antics (which seem to be done with now), what the hell is exciting about the Monarchy?

The last time I was excited about the Monarchy in any sense was when I saw Pippa Middleton's arse. :cool:
Original post by AYO
so if, as you say, the monarchy "just happens" to be old, why exactly has it lasted so long? surely, from your explanation, nothing good comes of it and it just encourages people to be lazy, so why then does the Monarchy still exist? if there are so many "intelligent conservatives" out there, why havent they done something towards abolishing the monarchy?


You could've applied that 100 or so years ago to the female right to vote and, indeed, feminism as a whole, for prejudice and discrimination against women had, in those days, "lasted so long", even longer than the monarchy has today. Does that mean, like you seem to imply, that this discrimination against females is right? Just because it has lasted for thousands of year, and was an established fact back then, you would've opposed the women's right to vote, to work reasonably etc. because it had "lasted so long"?

what powers does the monarchy have over the government?? aside from the ceremonial roles? i dont recall seeing her at last week's PMQT or any other for that matter.


Theoretically, she has many powers. For instance, I'm sure you know that all legislation passed at Westminister requires "Royal Assent", which basically means the Monarch in question at the time giving it the go-ahead. Now, I'm the first person to say our current monarch wouldn't exercise said power in the wrong way (I hope), so this is really a ceremonial power, but could you tell me why she should have it?

Besides that, regular meeting with the PM and other international figures, a privilege which she is near-unrivalled for, could count too.

There's probably more I could list but I'm no expert and I'm sure others can mention them. Besides, what I really despise is the way she obtained these powers: through being born, which involved no real merit of her own which singled her out as the best in her field. Do tell how you can justify anything like this as hard work which we so want to encourage, when she is merely surviving (and surviving lavishly, it goes without saying) and automatically obtaining all this?

You see, we can argue on for days and weeks on end, fact is, the Monarchy is here to stay, whether you like it or not OP.


I'm sure people may have said similar things about the aforementioned female right to vote and feminism, or perhaps the slave trade, which I could've also applied to your earlier argument. You see, you never know...
(edited 11 years ago)
Reply 39
Original post by gladders
If it's that simple, why not have absolutely everything elected - including judges and binmen?


They're chosen for their quality, whereas the Monarchy are born into their position

Latest