[Darth Stewie]

(Original post by Guz2)
Um...Yes it was.

Not about the amount, if we were a country with the highest level of social mobility it doesn't diminish the fact that our monarchy is an institution based on social stasis.

People don't seem to mind it. If most people agreed with you then do you think that yesterday would have seen thousands of people lining the Thames, cheering and waving flags, and millions more watching at home? The Queen provides a public service - she has diplomatic and charitable duties as well as countless other roles - and she has fulfilled them flawlessly for sixty years. Just like any public servant, she gets her money through taxes: if she was doing any other job, the chances are she would have retired over two decades ago. If anything, being born into the Royal Family is more of a curse than a blessing: I would certainly not swap my quiet, private life for one of unwavering public scrutiny and a duty that only expired when I died.

I'm not under any illusion and know most people don't agree with the idea of getting rid of the monarchy and i don't really have any issues with the quality of her charitable or diplomatic work, but it's not a job she got because she was the best candidate or because she worked for it. If she was just a commodity the issue would be slightly lessened but she is our head of state, technically she has more power over the UK than any other person and when her son (or his son) comes to power that person will become the most powerful person in this country, not because they earned it or because we as a democracy chose them to lead us but because of who their parents were. Call me an idealist but i would like to have a say in who my head of state is rather than simply being told.

Personally i wouldn't want her life either, i also wouldn't want to be prime minister but that doesn't mean i don't want the best candidate to fulfill the role or that i don't want a say in who is in a significant role in the running of my country.

[DaveSmith99]

Republican. Hate the idea of a monarchy and hate the reality of a monarchy.


I also hate how I can't even watch the news at the moment when im revising, because there isn't any news on, its just the Jubilee celebrations

[Little Hobbit]

(Original post by Joshuabruno1)
I find the Queen and the whole royal family to be the only real part of British tradition left. .

Fixed it for you. Don't forget about the rest of us!

[Greenlaner]

(Original post by Cannotbelieveit)
Probably the Greatest Briton to have lived in a long time, puts her country before herself day in day out.

Even today, she stood in the wet and cold whether for a good few hours without even sitting down, something I would find very hard to do.

You say in your signature that you hope to join the army.... have you considered that you might be better suited as a hairdresser or maybe a flower arranger?

[monk_keys]

I Respect the Queen as a figurehead, especially for her commitment to her duties at her age. I don't consider it to be a desirable job or life and she's managed 60 years of it in complete dignity, most people these days couldn't manage 60 minutes without embarrassing themselves.

Some people seem to worship at the alter of democracy when deriding the monarchy as an institution but simultaneously gloss over it's mass appeal with the voters.

[marcusfox]

Why do anti-monarchists want to impose their minority view on the rest of the population?

Anti-monarchists, mostly being Labour supporters, just have to be taking the piss when talking about the cost of the monarchy – what about the cost of Brown and his cohorts to our nation?

The monarchy brings in millions in tourist dollars whereas a Labour government just brings in the bailiffs.

[jumpingjesusholycow]

I am a Republican.

The monarchy represents no part of me, and is something I feel nothing but shame for about this slimy rock.

I love my home, I love my nation, but I will never endorse any Queen, any King, any Prince or any Princess, be it the House of Windsor or the House of Saud.

I feel nothing but envy for the Republic which the French prize so dearly, and rightly so.

[jumpingjesusholycow]

(Original post by marcusfox)
Why do anti-monarchists want to impose their minority view on the rest of the population?

What have you got to be afraid of then? Let Elizabeth Windsor be the first elected head of state of the United Kingdom.

[jumpingjesusholycow]

(Original post by Darth Stewie)
Not about the amount, if we were a country with the highest level of social mobility it doesn't diminish the fact that our monarchy is an institution based on social stasis.



I'm not under any illusion and know most people don't agree with the idea of getting rid of the monarchy and i don't really have any issues with the quality of her charitable or diplomatic work, but it's not a job she got because she was the best candidate or because she worked for it. If she was just a commodity the issue would be slightly lessened but she is our head of state, technically she has more power over the UK than any other person and when her son (or his son) comes to power that person will become the most powerful person in this country, not because they earned it or because we as a democracy chose them to lead us but because of who their parents were. Call me an idealist but i would like to have a say in who my head of state is rather than simply being told.

If I could, I would buy you a drink, just for this.

And that means something considering I'm teetotal!

[marcusfox]

(Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
What have you got to be afraid of then? Let Elizabeth Windsor be the first elected head of state of the United Kingdom.

There's no need.

But then, you know this already, you just have had to have seen everybody on TV and out celebrating the last couple of days. If there wasn't widespread support for the monarchy, she would be out.

We've seen it already in other countries where the people have done away with rulers they don't want. And the Queen is hardly going to have the army on the streets shooting them, a la Syria, is she?

[jumpingjesusholycow]

(Original post by marcusfox)
There's no need.

But then, you know this already, you just have had to have seen everybody on TV and out celebrating the last couple of days. If there wasn't widespread support for the monarchy, she would be out.

We've seen it already in other countries where the people have done away with rulers they don't want. And the Queen is hardly going to have the army on the streets shooting them, a la Syria, is she?

Again, what's the problem then? If you're so proud of the democratic majority behind the Queen, let her have her mandate and the 'anti-monarchists' (or democrats as I call them), can have done with it.

[pol pot noodles]

(Original post by Darth Stewie)
It isn't a case of how much money they cost, how much tourism they bring in or how they are perceived around the world. It's a case of having a group of people who live a life of luxury on the back of every other person in this country because they happened to be born into a particular family and how it is completely hypocritical to tell everyone they are born equal and will be treat as such when our own head of state was not born equal and is treated better than everyone else.

You're making it sound like we all have to pay personal tribute to the Monarchy. The institution of the Monarchy in itself is financially self-sufficient.
And no one preached to me that we are born equal. Did that suddenly become our national motto and no one told me?
I know humans aren't born equal, and for you to think so is pretty idealistically naive. There will always be differences in intelligence, strength, morales, work ethic etc. and really British society has always been centred around family first where everyone tries to send their kid to private school or get them a cushy internship or job.

[marcusfox]

(Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
Again, what's the problem then? If you're so proud of the democratic majority behind the Queen, let her have her mandate and the 'anti-monarchists' (or democrats as I call them), can have done with it.

You're just going round in a circular argument. She (and the monarchy) already has the support of the people, that's her mandate.

The republican minority doesn't get to ask for an elected monarch or to demand changes to the status quo. That's because they are a minority. Also known as forcing their wishes onto the rest of us.

And what would be the point? You can't deny that if the circus you propose were to take place, it would not change the fact that the majority opinion is in favour of the monarchy and a yes/no referendum on the monarchy would see your lot being told to sod off.

Its just like the Lib Dems asking for an AV referendum to change the rules to suit themselves because they were rubbish at it the way things were.

The country already knew how it was going to turn out, and the only reason they got that referendum was that it was their major sticking point in going into coalition with the Tories. At any other time, if they'd come along and said, 'Hey, we're crap at elections, lets change the rules to suit us', they'd have been told to sod off as well. Only the Tories saw a nice little chance to kill several birds with one stone there

And it was the worst thing for electoral reform ever. Now whenever the subject of electoral reform comes up, opponents will look at that extremely poor referendum showing and point to that.

Are you a Lib Dem supporter by any chance?

[jumpingjesusholycow]

(Original post by marcusfox)
You're just going round in a circular argument. She (and the monarchy) already has the support of the people, that's her mandate.

No, the result of the vote is what demonstrates the 'support of the people' and provides the mandate. Whether you think so or not, until there is an election or some form of popular vote, no official support has been established and there is no mandate.

The republican minority doesn't get to ask for an elected monarch or to demand changes to the status quo. That's because they are a minority. Also known as forcing their wishes onto the rest of us.

Your argument is that republicans are in a minority, and since you're ignoring my point continuously, I'll make it again. If you believe that we are no democratic threat, then what are you worried about? By insisting on having an unelected monarch, with no mandate, monarchists are foisting their wishes on the entire population, republican or otherwise.

And what would be the point? You can't deny that if the circus you propose were to take place, it would not change the fact that the majority opinion is in favour of the monarchy and a yes/no referendum on the monarchy would see your lot being told to sod off.

If by 'your lot' you mean democrats, I believe we'd be rather pleased at the very least considering we'd established a democratic mandate for a position that is otherwise unelected and in place not due to popular vote but by status quo.

Its just like the Lib Dems asking for an AV referendum to change the rules to suit themselves because they were rubbish at it the way things were.

Sure, if that's the argument you want to use then that's fine, nothing wrong with that. There was reason enough to ask out electorate for an opinion on AV given significant discourse (enough to produce a hung parliament), and we were presented with a democratic choice. If you are no opponent of democracy then you needn't be so frightened of free choice.

The country already knew how it was going to turn out, and the only reason they got that referendum was that it was their major sticking point in going into coalition with the Tories.

Not particularly. Given that less than 43% even turned out. It was granted because they earned the right to demand a vote in order to form a government. And they did so because of significant political upheaval.

At any other time, if they'd come along and said, 'Hey, we're crap at elections, lets change the rules to suit us',

You mean change the rules to make a more democratic government?

they'd have been told to sod off as well. Only the Tories saw a nice little chance to kill several birds with one stone there

I don't really see what this has to do with the discussion. I'll assume you're now trying to aim away from discussion involving your apparent fear of the democratic vote in favour of the good ol' strawman. To further my point, the AV referendum whilst spearheaded by the Liberal Democrats as part of the coalition agreement, was supported by both left and right alike including both the Green Party and UKIP as well as a majority of Labour party members. In all reality though, even AV wasn't what the Liberal Democrats wanted, acknowledged across the board as 'marginally better than first past the post' and not a form of direct proportional representation.

And it was the worst thing for electoral reform ever. Now whenever the subject of electoral reform comes up, opponents will look at that extremely poor referendum showing and point to that.

Not really. The public made their choice. Waiting for it to just naturally stroll along 'the next time' would have been moronic. The YES campaign gave it a go, and the public made their choice. Ironic that we democratically chose to have a less democratic parliament but hey - at least the people of this nation had their say. What is there to be afraid of if you're so sure of the majority you claim to hold? In fact, given that you've somehow arrived at the conclusion that demanding a vote on electoral reform was somehow terrible for advocates of electoral reform, wouldn't it be incredibly advantageous to you by your own logic to hold a referendum on the Queen? Honestly, your logic is about as consistent as runny porridge.

Are you a Lib Dem supporter by any chance?

I'm a card carrying member of the party actually.

[marcusfox]

(Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
No, the result of the vote is what demonstrates the 'support of the people' and provides the mandate. Whether you think so or not, until there is an election or some form of popular vote, no official support has been established and there is no mandate.

Don't need to vote, as I keep saying. The support for the monarchy is currently over 80%. That's more than the percentage that voted to keep FPTP.

(Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
Your argument is that republicans are in a minority, and since you're ignoring my point continuously, I'll make it again. If you believe that we are no democratic threat, then what are you worried about? By insisting on having an unelected monarch, with no mandate, monarchists are foisting their wishes on the entire population, republican or otherwise.

That's how majority government works. If you want to change the way the country is run, you need to all get together and form something called the anti-monarchy party, or republican party. If you get enough votes, then you can create your own laws to abolish the monarchy.

What, you mean there already is a republican party whose aims are exactly this? I wonder why it doesn't have the support of a mainstream political party?

(Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
If by 'your lot' you mean democrats, I believe we'd be rather pleased at the very least considering we'd established a democratic mandate for a position that is otherwise unelected and in place not due to popular vote but by status quo.

No, by your lot, I mean republicans. You can hardly call it democratic if you want to force your minority wish of a republic on the UK. France got its republic by majority wish of the people, it's not like a tiny minority wanted it there.

Don't kid yourself that if there was an nationwide referendum that voted to keep the queen, you'd quietly accept it and go away either, you've already said as much in this thread.

(Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
Sure, if that's the argument you want to use then that's fine, nothing wrong with that. There was reason enough to ask out electorate for an opinion on AV given significant discourse (enough to produce a hung parliament), and we were presented with a democratic choice. If you are no opponent of democracy then you needn't be so frightened of free choice.

We do have free choice of who to vote for, living in the UK. The Conservatives, holding the bulk of the vote are pro monarchy. So are Labour, (in spite of the far left socialists) and so are the Lib Dems.

(Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
Not particularly. Given that less than 43% even turned out. It was granted because they earned the right to demand a vote in order to form a government. And they did so because of significant political upheaval.

Ooh diddums. Everyone had a choice whether to vote or not. 65% turned out in the General Election and 22% voted for Lib Dems, that's 5.985m.

According to you, 43% turned out for the AV referendum and 67.9% said no. That's 13m people and over twice as many than voted for the Lib Dems.

Even if 15% more people had turned out and every single one voted for AV, it still wouldn't have been enough. That's how much of a landslide it was.

But you want to write off the result because according to you, not enough people voted for it. Should we write off the Lib Dems then? Because numerically more than twice as many people voted to keep the current system than voted for the Lib Dems as a political party.

(Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
You mean change the rules to make a more democratic government?

Yeah, you Lib Dems can't let it go, can you. You were given a chance, and the country has spoken with a fair and democratic result, yet you refuse to accept its validity. Don't like the result, it's natural to try and pick holes in it.

Perhaps if it was close, the rest of us would see your point. 51% vs 49%. But it wasn't even 60-40. You want to try and have a more democratic system, but as long as it's the type of 'democracy' that suits your views.

(Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
I don't really see what this has to do with the discussion. I'll assume you're now trying to aim away from discussion involving your apparent fear of the democratic vote in favour of the good ol' strawman. To further my point, the AV referendum whilst spearheaded by the Liberal Democrats as part of the coalition agreement, was supported by both left and right alike including both the Green Party and UKIP as well as a majority of Labour party members. In all reality though, even AV wasn't what the Liberal Democrats wanted, acknowledged across the board as 'marginally better than first past the post' and not a form of direct proportional representation.

Of course the minor parties are going to support AV. Anything that gives them a bigger slice of the pie. Labour did not support AV. They were terrified of it.

There are separate boundary commissions for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, all operating independently.

The number of seats for each is fixed and fixed in a way that provides disproportionate representation for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland at the expense of England.

In Scotland and Wales the disproportionate number of seats works heavily to Labour’s advantage.

This disproportion by design has always been accepted by Tory governments as the pragmatic price for their ideological support of the FPTP electoral system and because they are not only Tories but also Unionists.

However, since deluded Labour chose to open up the Pandora’s box of electoral reform, all bets are off.

Remember, Gordon Brown in his offer to form a Rainbow coalition put AV voting on the table without any referendum whatsoever and no doubt without any intentions to address the disproportionate boundaries so skewed in Labour’s favour.

Unfortunately for Gordon, he also further offered the Liberals a referendum on STV.

This proved to be a step way to far for the, no PR at any price, Labour backbenchers who then finally did the decent thing and put Brown out of his misery.

Truth is, there always was nowhere in British politics that you could find more deeply ingrained opposition to electoral reform than within the bowels of the Labour party.

(Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
Not really. The public made their choice. Waiting for it to just naturally stroll along 'the next time' would have been moronic. The YES campaign gave it a go, and the public made their choice. Ironic that we democratically chose to have a less democratic parliament but hey - at least the people of this nation had their say. What is there to be afraid of if you're so sure of the majority you claim to hold? In fact, given that you've somehow arrived at the conclusion that demanding a vote on electoral reform was somehow terrible for advocates of electoral reform, wouldn't it be incredibly advantageous to you by your own logic to hold a referendum on the Queen? Honestly, your logic is about as consistent as runny porridge.

It's a pity you can't accept the results of the AV referendum, and still continue to whine about the irony of a 'less democratic system'.

Many on the left like the idea of PR because they believe it would deliver up centre left government every time, which is probably rather dangerous rubbish on their part.

PR is a fairer way to elect politicians into power but that rather misses the whole point of democracy, (one which you should be aware of, what with wanting to remove the Queen and all) which is that you also have to be able to get rid of them.

The only test of any voting system that matters should always be how good it is at removing politicians from power not how good it is at putting them in.

PR fails that test badly whereas FPTP is brilliant at it.

As the demise of Callaghan, Major and Brown testifies, all politicians that well deserved to bite the dust and be confined to the political wilderness forever.

I would only see the point in a referendum if there was a chance that there would be a change in the status quo and a referendum on the issue is what the majority of the people wanted and because the people in this country democratically support political parties that have pro-monarchy views. I've already told you how to get your referendum.

If the fact that there aren't enough people in this country that are voting for a political party that supports your aim, that is, the abolition of the monarchy, then unfortunately that's tough ****. Also known as democracy.

(Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
I'm a card carrying member of the party actually.

Stood out a mile...

[jumpingjesusholycow]

(Original post by marcusfox)
Don't need to vote, as I keep saying. The support for the monarchy is currently over 80%. That's more than the percentage that voted to keep FPTP.

When this is enshrined in law, that's when you'll have a point. I'll revise your statement. Support for the monarchy is currently untested, with no mandate established.

That's how majority government works. If you want to change the way the country is run, you need to all get together and form something called the anti-monarchy party, or republican party. If you get enough votes, then you can create your own laws to abolish the monarchy.

Except this argument is exactly the same argument used to suppress minorities in Sri Lanka, or women in Saudi Arabia. "Majority rule". This ethos contradicts the first article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Article 1.

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights

What, you mean there already is a republican party whose aims are exactly this? I wonder why it doesn't have the support of a mainstream political party?

There is a pressure group you tit
All members of all political parties are forced to swear an oath to the monarchy upon election.

No, by your lot, I mean republicans. You can hardly call it democratic if you want to force your minority wish of a republic on the UK. France got its republic by majority wish of the people, it's not like a tiny minority wanted it there.

As I've told you repeatedly, I, as a democrat am happy when the Queen has a legal mandate enshrining her as a representative of the people of the United Kingdom by way of democratic vote. Again, if you're so sure of your support, then there is nothing to be afraid of and the Queen will have her mandate.

Don't kid yourself that if there was an nationwide referendum that voted to keep the queen, you'd quietly accept it and go away either, you've already said as much in this thread.

I would do what all people who believe in a political ethos do. Continue campaigning until I no longer wish to. Either way, I'd be more satisfied with a head of state that had a form of democratic mandate.

We do have free choice of who to vote for, living in the UK. The Conservatives, holding the bulk of the vote are pro monarchy. So are Labour, (in spite of the far left socialists) and so are the Lib Dems.

We have a choice over our direct representative, and thereby our parliamentary government but otherwise the Monarchy is chosen based on the fact she was born, not because of a lack of people who 'voted for it'.

Ooh diddums. Everyone had a choice whether to vote or not. 65% turned out in the General Election and 22% voted for Lib Dems, that's 5.985m.

According to you, 43% turned out for the AV referendum and 67.9% said no. That's 13m people and over twice as many than voted for the Lib Dems.

Even if 15% more people had turned out and every single one voted for AV, it still wouldn't have been enough. That's how much of a landslide it was.

What I point out when I mention the fact that turnout was only 43% is that there is an un-polled 57% that are unspoken for, but fair enough. The people made their choice and that is what we as a democratic nation deserve.

But you want to write off the result because according to you, not enough people voted for it. Should we write off the Lib Dems then? Because numerically more than twice as many people voted to keep the current system than voted for the Lib Dems as a political party.

Er...no, we have elections for that. Are you always this incapable of a sensible debate/discussion? When there is significant political upheaval, we should ask the people - a democratic vote. It's the same principle used by "your lot" to demand a referendum on staying within the EU or ratification of new treaties.

Yeah, you Lib Dems can't let it go, can you. You were given a chance, and the country has spoken with a fair and democratic result, yet you refuse to accept its validity. Don't like the result, it's natural to try and pick holes in it.

Wow, chip on your shoulder much? I don't disagree, the people made their choice and that's fair enough. Where do you see me claiming that the referendum was somehow invalid?

Perhaps if it was close, the rest of us would see your point. 51% vs 49%. But it wasn't even 60-40. You want to try and have a more democratic system, but as long as it's the type of 'democracy' that suits your views.

Well actually Single Transferable Vote is the type of democracy that would suit my views. Though I don't believe it's a matter of suiting anyone's view. It's simply a matter of principle, and that principle is giving the people the fairest and most accurate representation possible, regardless of political affiliation.

Of course the minor parties are going to support AV. Anything that gives them a bigger slice of the pie. Labour did not support AV. They were terrified of it. There are separate boundary commissions for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, all operating independently. The number of seats for each is fixed and fixed in a way that provides disproportionate representation for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland at the expense of England. In Scotland and Wales the disproportionate number of seats works heavily to Labour’s advantage. This disproportion by design has always been accepted by Tory governments as the pragmatic price for their ideological support of the FPTP electoral system and because they are not only Tories but also Unionists. However, since deluded Labour chose to open up the Pandora’s box of electoral reform, all bets are off. Remember, Gordon Brown in his offer to form a Rainbow coalition put AV voting on the table without any referendum whatsoever and no doubt without any intentions to address the disproportionate boundaries so skewed in Labour’s favour. Unfortunately for Gordon, he also further offered the Liberals a referendum on STV. This proved to be a step way to far for the, no PR at any price, Labour backbenchers who then finally did the decent thing and put Brown out of his misery. Truth is, there always was nowhere in British politics that you could find more deeply ingrained opposition to electoral reform than within the bowels of the Labour party.

Okay, you go on a tangent the size of China because you're apparently unable to stick to a coherent argument that doesn't involve using a Strawman roughly the same width as the Caspian sea.

I'll make a few very basic points.

1. It's difficult to describe a party as 'terrified' of a system when their own leader was firmly in the YES campaign.
2. The 'rainbow coalition' was null from the get go without any speculation of AV referendums due to the fact that there weren't even enough MPs to sustain a government.
3. Brown was rightly 'put out of his misery', but it wasn't over some spat concerning electoral reform. It might have something to do with the fact that he was a terrible economist and a failure as a leader that led his party to its own demise.

It's a pity you can't accept the results of the AV referendum, and still continue to whine about the irony of a 'less democratic system'.

I have accepted the results, though it is a less democratic system. The reason you're so intent on going on about AV is because you know there is little defence against an undemocratic institution.

Many on the left like the idea of PR because they believe it would deliver up centre left government every time, which is probably rather dangerous rubbish on their part.

I like PR because, as I've said repeatedly, it is a fairer and more democratic way to govern.

PR is a fairer way to elect politicians into power but that rather misses the whole point of democracy, (one which you should be aware of, what with wanting to remove the Queen and all) which is that you also have to be able to get rid of them.

Wow, you're almost sounding like a Liberal democrat. I'm glad you like our policies.

The only test of any voting system that matters should always be how good it is at removing politicians from power not how good it is at putting them in.

Ah good ol' handy strawman rears it's head once again. I've never claimed to be supportive of the idea that MPs should reside permanently in the commons. But they should be more representative of the public.

PR fails that test badly whereas FPTP is brilliant at it.

As the demise of Callaghan, Major and Brown testifies, all politicians that well deserved to bite the dust and be confined to the political wilderness forever.

And of course, using proportional representation would mean they'd be enshrined in gold Eesh, the utter nonsense you're coming up with.

I would only see the point in a referendum if there was a chance that there would be a change in the status quo and a referendum on the issue is what the majority of the people wanted and because the people in this country democratically support political parties that have pro-monarchy views. I've already told you how to get your referendum.

I believe that voting to elect your head of state is a human right.

If the fact that there aren't enough people in this country that are voting for a political party that supports your aim, that is, the abolition of the monarchy, then unfortunately that's tough ****. Also known as democracy.

It's the opposite of democracy. Until then, you don't have any support.

Stood out a mile...

Good, I should hope so.

[marcusfox]

(Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
When this is enshrined in law, that's when you'll have a point. I'll revise your statement. Support for the monarchy is currently untested, with no mandate established.

Every opinion poll since they started doing opinion polls, in fact.

(Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
Except this argument is exactly the same argument used to suppress minorities in Sri Lanka, or women in Saudi Arabia. "Majority rule". This ethos contradicts the first article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Article 1.

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights

Except they aren't really. No matter how much we'd like it to be true, they aren't. Not even in this country.

In any case, I don't see you standing outside these countries respective embassies, shouting the odds. At least in this country you are allowed to have an opinion and won't face sanction for expressing it, (even if you do invite ridicule) which is more than can be said for people in these countries.

I don't see you complaining that the Spanish are somehow oppressed, or the Norwegians, or the Swedish.

(Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
There is a pressure group you tit
All members of all political parties are forced to swear an oath to the monarchy upon election.

It doesn't prevent people joining together to form a party with that aim. Oh, look, here we go...

The Republican Party is a British political party that promotes Republicanism in the United Kingdom.

http://republicanparty.org.uk

Registered with the electoral commission 1 February 2012. Seems you are a bit out of date with current events.

On their front page they have a policy 'An End to a Head of State Chosen by Royal Bloodline'

Good to go for the next election, but pretty much pissing into the wind.

(Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
As I've told you repeatedly, I, as a democrat am happy when the Queen has a legal mandate enshrining her as a representative of the people of the United Kingdom by way of democratic vote. Again, if you're so sure of your support, then there is nothing to be afraid of and the Queen will have her mandate.

Again this talk of 'democratic mandate' yet you continue with the hypocrisy of a minority pressure group.

Currently the democratic mandate consists of electing a pro-monarchy parliament.

It's not unheard of to have an anti-monarchy parliament you know.

(Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
I would do what all people who believe in a political ethos do. Continue campaigning until I no longer wish to. Either way, I'd be more satisfied with a head of state that had a form of democratic mandate.

Campaign away. You are able to do so in this country, unlike Sri Lanka and Saudi Arabia, two countries you likened the UK to earlier. What next, a comparison with North Korea?

(Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
We have a choice over our direct representative, and thereby our parliamentary government but otherwise the Monarchy is chosen based on the fact she was born, not because of a lack of people who 'voted for it'.

Your nationality and eligibility for voting is chosen on the fact of where you and your parents were born, so what of it?

If enough people were against the monarchy it would end, as they did in France, with Louis Philippe, just before the Second Republic. Very civil affair, no chopping off of heads whatsoever.

(Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
What I point out when I mention the fact that turnout was only 43% is that there is an un-polled 57% that are unspoken for, but fair enough. The people made their choice and that is what we as a democratic nation deserve.

Yep, you get the opportunity to vote, and if for whatever reason you don't, you can't complain about not having a chance.

I like to look at it as 57% abstained, and aren't bothered either way.

(Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
Er...no, we have elections for that. Are you always this incapable of a sensible debate/discussion? When there is significant political upheaval, we should ask the people - a democratic vote. It's the same principle used by "your lot" to demand a referendum on staying within the EU or ratification of new treaties.

The people are asked regularly, it's called an opinion poll. They have been polling for years and not one of these has come close to favouring booting the Queen off the throne. If there were enough people calling for a referendum on the monarchy or clamouring that their wishes on the matter are being ignored, as Labour did with Lisbon, we might get one. But there aren't. Again, more democracy hypocrisy from you.

(Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
Wow, chip on your shoulder much? I don't disagree, the people made their choice and that's fair enough. Where do you see me claiming that the referendum was somehow invalid?

When you said this in response to my comment that given public opinion, the result was already clear as day before anyone voted: 'Not particularly. Given that less than 43% even turned out.'

(Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
Well actually Single Transferable Vote is the type of democracy that would suit my views. Though I don't believe it's a matter of suiting anyone's view. It's simply a matter of principle, and that principle is giving the people the fairest and most accurate representation possible, regardless of political affiliation.

There are advantages and disadvantages to STV. Everyone has their own views.

(Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
Okay, you go on a tangent the size of China because you're apparently unable to stick to a coherent argument that doesn't involve using a Strawman roughly the same width as the Caspian sea.

I'll make a few very basic points.

1. It's difficult to describe a party as 'terrified' of a system when their own leader was firmly in the YES campaign.
2. The 'rainbow coalition' was null from the get go without any speculation of AV referendums due to the fact that there weren't even enough MPs to sustain a government.
3. Brown was rightly 'put out of his misery', but it wasn't over some spat concerning electoral reform. It might have something to do with the fact that he was a terrible economist and a failure as a leader that led his party to its own demise.

Not a straw man, I was demonstrating Labour's reasons for not wanting AV.

1 - Gordon Brown was not representing the wishes of the Labour party on this, it was entirely self serving. Evidenced by the fact that they booted him out as their leader PDQ

2 - He was proposing going into government with anybody and everybody as long as he could make up the numbers somehow for a majority coalition government in order for him to stay in power. Unworkable due to all the different interests involved, of course.

3 - He was left as leader for some time after the election to negotiate a coalition government settlement, he wasn't booted out as soon as the results came in.

(Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
I have accepted the results, though it is a less democratic system. The reason you're so intent on going on about AV is because you know there is little defence against an undemocratic institution.

Its a system democratically rejected by the people of this country. Democracy hypocrisy from you again.

(Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
I like PR because, as I've said repeatedly, it is a fairer and more democratic way to govern.

You like PR because you support the Lib Dems and they like PR because it gives them a better chance than the one they had.

Whether they have any chance at all now that they have lost the student vote remains to be seen

(Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
Wow, you're almost sounding like a Liberal democrat. I'm glad you like our policies.

Some of them aren't bad, and I'd definitely choose them in second place over Labour.

(Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
Ah good ol' handy strawman rears it's head once again. I've never claimed to be supportive of the idea that MPs should reside permanently in the commons. But they should be more representative of the public.

I never said they should. By removing politicians, I mean removing a particularly rubbish political party from power come election time, which FPTP is brilliant at doing, but AV is rubbish for.

(Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
And of course, using proportional representation would mean they'd be enshrined in gold Eesh, the utter nonsense you're coming up with.

PR is very good if you want to undermine popular governments making them weak, but then hopeless at removing the unpopular ones.

(Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
I believe that voting to elect your head of state is a human right.

Good for you. Pity that view is at odds with the current view of UK society.

Oh, and Spanish society, Norwegian society, Swedish society and Danish society and dozens of others. But of course these poor people in fully functioning western democracies are all oppressed, just like those unfortunate women from Sri Lanka and Saudi Arabia you mentioned earlier.

Of course, Belgium and the Netherlands and a number of others would hate to be left out of that list too.

(Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
It's the opposite of democracy. Until then, you don't have any support.

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on who to eat for dinner. Just because you happen to be the sheep, doesn't make it any more or any less democratic than it would if you were a wolf.

I think you find that it is your Republican views that don't have support.

[Carter78]

Can't we have a thread about "Queen" instead? Long Live Brian May!

[gladders]

Social equality is inevitable. At least we've directed one obvious point of inequality (an inherited monarchy) to positive, productive ends, rather than let social inquality run rampant everywhere else.