Should the UK have a Monarchy?? Yes or No?

Scroll to see replies

I voted no, though this isn't a big issue for me as long as they keep well away from power. And I could do without having to hear about their thrillingly normal lives.

Reply 141

pol pot noodles

Original post by freedom1

Why do countries have a head of state and government, why not just merge the roles? having both is just pointless bureaucracy.

A head of state is supposed to keep an unbiased eye over the legislature, and safeguard the constitution, completely free from partisan party pressures and lobbying.

Reply 142

L i b

Original post by freedom1

Why do countries have a head of state and government, why not just merge the roles? having both is just pointless bureaucracy.

Not all of them do. Merging the roles is a Presidential system, similar to what they have in the United States (places like Ireland or Germany, although having presidents, are not presidential systems). We formally had something similar, where the monarch was head of state and government and had full executive authority.

Why do we have a parliamentary system? History, to an extent - but also, at the moment, I think it's rather positive to have a head of government accountable directly to Parliament.

Reply 143

Clumsy_Chemist

Original post by freedom1

Why do countries have a head of state and government, why not just merge the roles? having both is just pointless bureaucracy.

Because the head of government is too busy running the country to do things like support charities and tour foreign countries/host diplomats. Also, the country can rally around an impartial figure like the Queen for cultural occasions, whereas a head of government is too divisive figure for that due to politics.

Reply 144

geditor

Personally, I don't think it really hurts the UK in any way. I just see the monarchy as another way of saying Head of State and although usually prime minister's and presidents take this position, I think splitting these jobs works better as it results in a much more efficient government, especially considering the UK in a welfare state.

So my answer is none of the above; It doesn't matter in my opinion but if you rephrase the question as "Should the UK abolish the separation of the roles, 'Head of State' and 'Prime Minister'" then my answer is no.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 145

freedom1

Original post by Clumsy_Chemist

Support charities, party with diplomats what the hell is this! this is supposed to be a job not a doss get her doing something useful.

Reply 146

Clumsy_Chemist

Original post by freedom1

Support charities, party with diplomats what the hell is this! this is supposed to be a job not a doss get her doing something useful.

Exactly, these aren't particularly important roles at least in a political sense. That's why they should be given to a separate person and not the Prime Minister.

If you think that charity work and socialising with diplomats are wastes of time, then you're arguing against the idea of a head of state, rather than against a monarchy specifically.

Reply 147

freedom1

Original post by Clumsy_Chemist

I am arguing against our idea of a head of state. Obama does stuff so we should have a head of state that does stuff like him.

Reply 148

pol pot noodles

Original post by freedom1

I am arguing against our idea of a head of state. Obama does stuff so we should have a head of state that does stuff like him.

We have no need for that situation, because we have a powerful head of government (the prime minister). Our head of state is there to keep an eye on parliament, nothing more, nothing less.

Reply 149

freedom1

Original post by pol pot noodles

We have no need for that situation, because we have a powerful head of government (the prime minister). Our head of state is there to keep an eye on parliament, nothing more, nothing less.

Parliament needs an eye kept on it? seriously? I know they act like children and argue all the time but seriously?

Reply 150

pol pot noodles

Original post by freedom1

Parliament needs an eye kept on it? seriously? I know they act like children and argue all the time but seriously?

Parliament doesn't need an eye kept on it, no (well yes, it does, corruption and expenses fiddling and what not, but that's another subject), but the whole point is that there is a safeguard were there ever to be a situation where Parliament does get out of control. In a parliamentary democracy, the head of state and their officers are the ultimate and last defender of the constitution.

Reply 151

freedom1

Original post by pol pot noodles

In the real world if parliament were actually mad and had the backing of the people there is nothing the Queen could do.

Reply 152

pol pot noodles

Original post by freedom1

In the real world if parliament were actually mad and had the backing of the people there is nothing the Queen could do.

Well no kidding sherlock. In the real world if Congress went mental and had 'the backing of the people', there would be nothing Obama could do.
But for every other scenario that doesn't involve a popularist government revolution, my point still stands.

Reply 153

Rant

Typical TSR response.

Reply 154

freedom1

Original post by pol pot noodles

But the Queen doesn't intervene or do anything so how does your point stand? the whole point of checks and balances is to prevent crazy things happening. Like we pointed out they can't prevent crazies, this means checks and balances are pointless.

Reply 155

cid

Ok i asked this on page 2, i have read through this thread and i still feel this question needs answering.

Why would someone want to get rid of the Monarchy?

Is it harming our country? if so how?

Is the cost of maintaining them excessively high? if so please provide evidence?

Do you think its just unfair?

Reply 156

freedom1

Original post by cid

Yeah the unfair bit. Why does someone get to become King/Queen because they were born into the right family? I want to be King!!

Reply 157

yawn

Original post by Aleandcynicism

No monarchy plz.

And here are replies to every common argument for the monarchy.

Thanks for the link. Some very interesting facts which roundly undermine the pro-monarchy arguments.

Reply 158

yawn

Original post by cid

Your first question suggests that the monarchy is a passive institution that does no harm. If you read the link provided on the first page, you'll see how our system of monarchy is harmeful to both the country and its people.

While the monarch herself has little power, except on rare occasions when she can influence who gets to be Prime Minister, the institution of the monarchy is the source of all power in the land. The Crown is what gives parliament and government its power, the monarch hands most of her personal powers directly to the prime minister, or allows ministers to exercise her powers through the Privy Council.

So the problem isn't the power of the monarch, it is the role of the monarchy in giving unchecked power to the central government.

Regarding the cost of maintaining them:

The monarchy does not cost each person 67p a year, as the palace claims. This figure is part of the official spin. It is reached by dividing £40m (a woefully inadequate figure) by 60m people, which includes every man, woman and child in the country (rather than just every taxpayer).
Let's repeat the important point here: this is blatant spin. No other public expense is justified by dividing it among the total population. If it were then almost any government expenditure could be spun as 'cheap'.

The key figure is £150m, the estimated total cost for the maintenance and lifestyles of one family: 100 times the cost of the Irish presidency, 17 times the cost (per person) of members of parliament and without any return on our 'investment'.

To test whether something is 'value-for-money' we need to judge what we get for our money and whether we can get something better for less. The monarchy completely fails this simple test.

Do they come cheap? Depends upon your own thinking and attitude towards the monarchy. If you support them then you'll never be convinced that they are an expense we cannot afford. If you don't support them, the opposite will be the case.

Either way, in these times of grave austerity, we should be scruntinising all the associated costs such as policing etc before we can make a valid judgement.

Reply 159

cid

Original post by yawn

all i found was this...

The argument is based on the incorrect statement that the monarchy does no harm. It does do harm, it harms our democracy, it harms our society and it gets in the way of genuine reform.

could you please show me what you mean because i don't think this is what you were referring to.