[gladders]

(Original post by miser)
That's not what I meant; I meant that democracy as a system values public say over birthright. The fact that our public is using its democratic power to enforce inequality through birthright is neither here nor there, though perhaps ironic.

I think inequality is enforced through the functioning of capitalism and private enterprise too.

Democracy is silent on the nature of equality - it's nothing to do with it - except for the idea that each person has an equal vote. That's about it.

There's been an awful lot of confusion in the last few decades or so where democracy has been conflated with equality far much more than it actually is.

[green.tea]

(Original post by gladders)
I think inequality is enforced through the functioning of capitalism and private enterprise too.

Democracy is silent on the nature of equality - it's nothing to do with it - except for the idea that each person has an equal vote. That's about it.

There's been an awful lot of confusion in the last few decades or so where democracy has been conflated with equality far much more than it actually is.

People have an equal vote on paper. In reality people buy a paper because it has a picture of rihanna and in more cases than not are persuaded by its arguments. Therefore getting elected is an exercise in sucking up to them. What we have is an elitist democracy. I get one vote, you get one vote, the moron masses get no vote, murdoch gets several million, whoever owns the mail gets probably about half that and so on.

[miser]

(Original post by gladders)
I think inequality is enforced through the functioning of capitalism and private enterprise too.

Democracy is silent on the nature of equality - it's nothing to do with it - except for the idea that each person has an equal vote. That's about it.

There's been an awful lot of confusion in the last few decades or so where democracy has been conflated with equality far much more than it actually is.

Yes, I don't mean to imply anything about democracy itself being anything but neutral on the issue of equality over inequality, except that it demands a certain equality between voters.

You are right, capitalism and private enterprise also promotes inequality. The difference to me is that, in a democratic society, a corporation or other body should not have influence over the state except what influence is afforded to them by the voters (or by those whom the voters have given power of authority to over the issue). The head of state is, at this moment in time, supported because of the power of the voting public, so while I agree that the monarchy does derive its power from democracy (and so in that sense does not conflict with it), it is in my mind a conflict of interest against what, to me, democracy is supposed to be all about - a liberation of the people from supporting those whose claim to supremacy stems merely from tradition (or other means outside the causal influence of the general population).

[Chronist]

(Original post by marcusfox)
Don't have to elect the head of state to have a democracy. Currently, many countries in Europe have an unelected head of state and they are fully functioning democracies.

Indeed, in all of these countries without exception, this status quo is supported by the people, and the only country where there is the slightest opposition to this is the UK.

Nevertheless, this opposition is a clear minority, according to every opinion poll on the matter, and this has been the case ever since they have been doing opinion polls.

So the UK monarchy is clearly supported by the people.

You are totally wrong there.
The UK is not the only one and compared to other countries in Europe, the opposition to monarchy is minimal.

[soempty]

OP sounds like its impossible to get all a* at gcses and a-levels if you are in state school. Moan less work more. I am pretty sure by memorizing the textbook you can get at least an A at gcse.

[Chronist]

(Original post by Aeschylus)
No. All the other options for a head of state in Britain seem undignified. Anyway the Queen knows all about tradition and what happens to the King who get too uppity - her son has the same name.

What?

[Chronist]

(Original post by Roaroaroar)
Okay, want to play that game. Prove soldiers will follow their order even if it means killing citizens of their own country.

Merely them pleading allegiance doesn't prove it just like me saying I won't kill you doesn't prove I won't kill you.



Yes but large-scale human rights violation is exactly what will happen because the UK will be going from a democracy > authoritarianism and there will be a civil war. History has taught us that you don't change political systems without a lot blood being shed.

They would just be killing dissidents to the status quo (less than 50% of the population) so I think they could cope, also they have no choice. You underestimate the power of obedience in the Army.

[gladders]

(Original post by miser)
Yes, I don't mean to imply anything about democracy itself being anything but neutral on the issue of equality over inequality, except that it demands a certain equality between voters.

You are right, capitalism and private enterprise also promotes inequality. The difference to me is that, in a democratic society, a corporation or other body should not have influence over the state except what influence is afforded to them by the voters (or by those whom the voters have given power of authority to over the issue). The head of state is, at this moment in time, supported because of the power of the voting public, so while I agree that the monarchy does derive its power from democracy (and so in that sense does not conflict with it), it is in my mind a conflict of interest against what, to me, democracy is supposed to be all about - a liberation of the people from supporting those whose claim to supremacy stems merely from tradition (or other means outside the causal influence of the general population).

In an ideal world, you're quite right. Unfortunately we don't live in one, and democratic politics is always going to be a matter of the people's will fighting against special interests.

The difference with the monarchy however is that there is no way in which a monarch can force a minister's hand. Murdoch has money and power through his control of a large portion of the media, which means he can have a degree of influence over how policies will be perceived and whether they will survive, and also how elections will turn out.

The monarch doesn't have any of this: all they can do is make their opinion known to the minister, who is entirely free to ignore it. In that sense, they are no different from us. There is nothing a monarch can offer or withdraw from a minister that will behove him to do what the monarch demands.

[paulmch]

If I could choose between a slimy, lying, cheating politician as president, or a monarch who's above politics, I'd choose the monarch every time.

[A Mysterious Lord]

(Original post by Chronist)
They would just be killing dissidents to the status quo (less than 50% of the population) so I think they could cope, also they have no choice. You underestimate the power of obedience in the Army.

And if they're all the sort of people that make up Republic's membership, I doubt we'd miss them.

[marcusfox]

(Original post by Chronist)
You are totally wrong there.
The UK is not the only one and compared to other countries in Europe, the opposition to monarchy is minimal.

Yes I know, read the followup to the post, I misread many and any in my source article a while back.

[miser]

(Original post by gladders)
In an ideal world, you're quite right. Unfortunately we don't live in one, and democratic politics is always going to be a matter of the people's will fighting against special interests.

The difference with the monarchy however is that there is no way in which a monarch can force a minister's hand. Murdoch has money and power through his control of a large portion of the media, which means he can have a degree of influence over how policies will be perceived and whether they will survive, and also how elections will turn out.

The monarch doesn't have any of this: all they can do is make their opinion known to the minister, who is entirely free to ignore it. In that sense, they are no different from us. There is nothing a monarch can offer or withdraw from a minister that will behove him to do what the monarch demands.

Yes, I agree with this. I'm not worried at all about the monarch exercising power over much of political importance these days, but I do believe that the actual concept of having a monarch does in principle conflict with democratic values, or at least my interpretation of what those are. In my mind, the monarchy as an institution holds the opposite values to democracy, and I do believe that any monarchy undermines the democratic freedoms of the people of nation. To me, our monarchy is an unnecessary relic that promotes outmoded conceptions of where right-to-rule comes from; conceptions contrary to those that democracy promotes.

[sclez1]

I don't get points like: "It's fine, she has no real power". It's true that she can't really control the country, but if you put forward an argument like that, you must surely advocate going all the way and entirely stripping her of any power. However, that position doesn't seem to be held. If you recognise that, were she to hold real power, it would be undemocratic to have a queen, then you concede that having power while unelected is undemocratic. Therefore, you must extend this to stripping her of all power, surely.

[Kafka]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtjka93L_hU&feature=plcp

[madders94]

Obviously it's not democratic because she isn't elected but I don't think it's a bad thing, I'm a monarchist/royalist/whatever you want to call it and I think the whole "we should be allowed to elect a head of state" argument is nonesense. Why? What's the point? It's an extra waste of money because whoever becomes elected king/queen/president/head hoohah/whatever you want to call it will only want the same amount of money as the royal family have at the moment, and there'll be the added cost of the whole voting process too. We already have an elected government who make the big decisions.

Anyway, if a referendum is called IRL and the public vote to retain the monarchy, then that is democracy and the republicans will be able to stop whinging. Most people are in favour of retaining the monarchy and the republicans are well aware of this, it seems as though they just want to waste even more taxpayer money going through expensive polls and referendums to teach us something we already know.

[madders94]

(Original post by sclez1)
I don't get points like: "It's fine, she has no real power". It's true that she can't really control the country, but if you put forward an argument like that, you must surely advocate going all the way and entirely stripping her of any power. However, that position doesn't seem to be held. If you recognise that, were she to hold real power, it would be undemocratic to have a queen, then you concede that having power while unelected is undemocratic. Therefore, you must extend this to stripping her of all power, surely.

No, because life isn't completely black and white. She doesn't have any real power but there is a certain tradition and ceremony to the state opening of parliament and the dissolution of parliament and the head of the elected political party going to the Queen and asking for permission to form a government, and it would be a shame to see that go. That's like saying "Well, if you're going to rape someone, you may as well go the whole hog and murder them too".

[gladders]

(Original post by sclez1)
I don't get points like: "It's fine, she has no real power". It's true that she can't really control the country, but if you put forward an argument like that, you must surely advocate going all the way and entirely stripping her of any power. However, that position doesn't seem to be held. If you recognise that, were she to hold real power, it would be undemocratic to have a queen, then you concede that having power while unelected is undemocratic. Therefore, you must extend this to stripping her of all power, surely.

Quite the opposite. There are certain constitutional powers that can't be used by the legislature or the executive, for fear these powers would be abused by the wielder for their advantage - for example, the power of appointing the PM. It wouldn't do for the outgoing PM to choose his successor, and it would be difficult for Parliament to choose a PM even to operate on a short-term basis, in some circumstances.

Placing the power in the monarch, separate from Executive and Legislature, is the practice of power denial: she is forbidden from abusing the power and must use it as little as possible, or run the risk of it being removed, or even of her being removed from power entirely.

It's easier to make a monarch follow this principle than an elected president, who would be tempted to argue that their elected origin gives them the right to use the power as they see fit.

It's a check-and-balance.

As for the other powers which are run exclusively on the advice of ministers - you could argue to remove them entirely from the monarch, but what benefit, exactly, would we gain? We'd be going through a very time-consuming and expensive legislative process just to return exactly where we are now: an expensive PR change, essentially.

[gladders]

(Original post by miser)
Yes, I agree with this. I'm not worried at all about the monarch exercising power over much of political importance these days, but I do believe that the actual concept of having a monarch does in principle conflict with democratic values, or at least my interpretation of what those are. In my mind, the monarchy as an institution holds the opposite values to democracy, and I do believe that any monarchy undermines the democratic freedoms of the people of nation. To me, our monarchy is an unnecessary relic that promotes outmoded conceptions of where right-to-rule comes from; conceptions contrary to those that democracy promotes.

I have to disagree, I'm afraid. The presence of the monarchy has in no way affected how people believe power flows. The very fact that the monarchy has remained is a testament to a long historical tradition of popular rule: a tyrannical monarchy in the modern day simply wouldn't survive for long. Other countries whose monarchies did try uphold the idea of their divine right were removed. Ours survives because it long ago abandoned such ideas.

[gladders]

(Original post by TheCrackInTime)
Actually, it doesn't. The Fixed-term Parliaments Act simply transfers the PM's ability to request a prorogation to Parliament, it has no effect on Her Majesty's power to prorogue Parliament of her own accord.

EDIT: Not that I'm saying she would of course, just that she could.

Actually, on closer inspection, it turns out we're both right: the Commons can ask the Queen to dissolve it if 2/3 of MPs vote for such a request; but if the Commons brings down a government with a vote of confidence, but cannot agree on a replacement within 14 days, the Queen can dissolve it.

[chiggy321]

No I don't think it does, and I think those who suggest it does have a misunderstanding about what the monarchy is and their purpose in modern Britain. The monarchy exist nowadays as an excellent reminder of British history and a wonderful part of our British identity - they're redundant of any political power whatsoever and therefore the fact they are unelected is utterly irrelevant. The role they do play does not warrant and would actually be undermined if they were elected. There are many arguments, all of which seem unconvincing to me, as to why we shouldn't have a monarchy - however, the suggestion that it undermines democracy is the weakest of the lot!