A Presidential System for the UK

Who here thinks the UK should have a presidential system?
How do you think or propose it works out?
What must you say?
What would be your plans etc....?

Remember "Presidential System" is a very broad term. Prime-Minister,President and House of representatives/commons/senate etc.... can all still co-exist in a Presidential System

Why am I being negged for this? All I want is to gather people's thoughts and opinions. One could say it is taking a general interest in what others have to say

WARNING:

Do not insult other users
Do not belittle or try to make other users look like or feel like an utter piss-head
Do not Goad or nudge people into a flame war/unconstructive argument.
Do not tangent the thread into a seriously off-topic discussion (Natural change of topic over its natural course is okay)

I do want this thread to survive so we can learn from each other.

If you do not follow these rules (Hardly my own , they are basic forum rules) I will post report you. This is a debate and discussion thread to share opinion and fact etc......

(edited 13 years ago)

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

L i b

It could be done whilst retaining the monarchy too. Simply a directly-elected official under the Queen, who would then have both his own executive powers and be able to advise the Queen on the exercise of hers as the Prime Minister does currently.

I'm not averse to the idea either.

Reply 2

Aj12

What would a president do that the PM can't?

Reply 3

adam_zed

A "presidential system" means different things, which one are you suggesting?

Reply 4

Aj12

Original post by Warrior King

A presidential system is what this country has been crying out for so long. The monarcy is an outdates, elitist and instutionally racist organisation which doesn't reflect the ideals or ambitions of a forward thinking and progressive, dynamic, multicultural society. If an individual cannot aspire to become the head of system simply put because he/she was born into "the wrong family" or of a different social class or genetic makeup, then that is an undemocratic system.

Sure the monarchy do not have any power as such but the reigning monarch is still regarded as the head of state and the PM is technically making decisions on behalf of the monarch although not by direct influence of the monarch. A true head of state in a democracy should be one fairly elected by the people on his or her merits as an individual.

That's why I for one will be going into university on the day of this "Royal Wedding" even if just to study in the library. I have nothing personally against the Royal Family as people but I think the institution is an outdated one and the day we axe it will be the day this country can truly call itself a thriving democracy.

The royal family has no power and has nothing to do with our democracy other than some formality. So pretty much your entire post is void.

Reply 5

Warrior King

Original post by Aj12

The royal family has no power and has nothing to do with our democracy other than some formality. So pretty much your entire post is void.

Erm can you not read or something?

I pointed out that the monarchy have no power. My point was that I disapprove everything the monarchy symbolizes. So if anything my post wasn't void at all.

Reply 6

Aj12

Original post by Warrior King

Erm can you not read or something?

I pointed out that the monarchy have no power. My point was that I disapprove everything the monarchy symbolizes. So if anything my post wasn't void at all.

You say the monarchy makes our system undemocratic how can it do that if the monarchy have nothing to do with our democratic process and have no power?

How would not having the monarchy make us any more of a thriving democracy than we are already?

Reply 7

Aphotic Cosmos

Original post by Aj12

What would a president do that the PM can't?

A president in a Parliamentary system isn't meant to do anything, really. They're just meant to be a figurehead and the diplomatic head honcho. Presidents only have power in presidential systems where they are invested with executive authority; that authority is invested (de facto anyway, the monarch or president is legally the executive) in the government in parliamentary systems, rather than the head of state.

If we replaced the monarchy we would almost certainly keep the Westminster parliamentary system, not least because the Presidential system is deeply, deeply flawed. We would have a powerless president and a powerful PM.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 8

Aj12

Original post by Aphotic Cosmos

A president in a Parliamentary system isn't meant to do anything, really. They're just meant to be a figurehead and the diplomatic head honcho. Presidents only have power in presidential systems where they are invested with executive authority; that authority is invested (de facto anyway, the monarch or president is legally the executive) in parliamentary systems.

If we replaced the monarchy we would almost certainly keep the Westminster parliamentary system, not least because the Presidential system is deeply, deeply flawed. We would have a powerless president and a powerful PM.

So really there would be very little point?

Reply 9

username547863

Original post by Warrior King

Yes, axe a bit of our culture thats been in history for the past hundreds of years....

1) The monarchy have no power
2) They have no say who has power, they are voted by the electorate.
3) The benefits of having a royal family far outweigh the negatives.

Reply 10

Aphotic Cosmos

Original post by Warrior King

We will never adopt the presidential system - it would be a disaster. Far, far too much power in the hands of one person, elected or not. There's a reason why all European democracies bar France use the Parliamentary system.

We may adopt a president within the Westminster system. Even then there would be little more than a semantic difference, you wouldn't notice the change unless someone told you about it. The head of state in a parliamentary system is completely powerless. Since it doesn't really matter if we have a monarch or a president, I can't find a compelling argument to change it for the time being. If the monarchy wielded power then there would be a serious justification for getting rid of them, but they haven't blocked a bill since the reign of Queen Anne three centuries ago. It's not an important issue - more democratic nations than us such as Sweden, Norway, The Netherlands and Denmark, have constitutional monarchs. There are other things we can do to improve the quality of British democracy before we should even consider talking about the monarchy, such as having a full and frank debate about the voting system, reforming local government, etc.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 11

Aphotic Cosmos

Original post by Aj12

So really there would be very little point?

Pretty much. President or Queen/King, the PM will still control both the executive and legislature.

Reply 12

Smilingsam

OMG yes absolutly yes

the main difference between america and here apart from all the other jazz is that in this country only the rich and extremely educated can become Pm..
Replace that with a presidential system that means you can campain to go in to run the country is much fairer, there are people that deserve more respect than the gutter job that they are getting at the moment.
Yes education matters within leading a country however at the moment the main people that are in control dont know jack because they have only lived one side of the coin, e.g ema only affects 150k of students in the country so they cut it in england, they dont realise that in my college over 2/3 of a class was on ema.
Even education suffers because of the lazyness of the leaders.

Reply 13

Warrior King

Original post by NGC773

1) yes I know that read my post again
2) re-read my post again

3) go on then......?

And culture? lol Institutional racism was part of our culture at one time (still is in some quarters) so why don't we bring that back too?

Reply 14

username547863

Original post by Smilingsam

The grass isnt always greener on the other side.

Look at the backgrounds of past presidents. A lot of them have ivy league education, have money and the contacts to get them where they are. The presidential system in the US isnt fairer, the president can appoint non-elected officials in the cabinet. When a president is elected they are stuck with him/her for 4 years. With our system a no vote of confidence than change leadership.

The american presidential system is boring. I dont want to tune in every wednesday to a bunch of oiled car salesmen, i want to see a debate about the current issues that face our country.

Search "Senate debate" in youtube, then search "PMQ debate"

Reply 15

username547863

Original post by Warrior King

I read your post.

The monarchy isnt racist. Prince William could marry somone of african decent if he wanted too...

Reply 16

Smilingsam

Original post by NGC773

Yes ive watched them debates before and they are boring however it is more interesting than the house of commons being complete idiots and not having a clue what there voting on.

Also i agree that it might not be fairer especially with presidents having contacts but that is the same everywhere now you could have all the qualifications you can ever have at the highest grades but not get hired over someone that knows the right people. However a system near the middle would sort most of the problems out with being able to be elected as well as a former body still in control that hold the final key over the rule book.

Finally it doesnt really matter about the no vote of confidence it doesnt really affect anything as long as the people dont stand up and defend there rights. It would be a good idea to add the effect that if the public opinion get too high then the goverment will have to change.. I can seriously see what is happening in libya happen in this country if they are not carefull.

Everything is a scale and just needs the right weight to pull it crumbling down.

Reply 17

Will Lucky

I don't see much point whilst we have the Monarchy, but I am personally in favour of keeping the Monarchy as they do a good job.

I will say though if it comes to it....Come on Boris Johnson for president :biggrin:

Reply 18

Rob da Mop

Pros of replacing the monarchy with an elected president - an improvement in equality (the extent of which is debatable).
Cons - destruction of a British institute, huge cost of hiring the president and implementing a system for his election.

A president will just be a figurehead like a monarch but with a higher cost associated with him due to regular elections and a salary.

Reply 19

L i b

Again, you wouldn't need to get rid of the monarchy to introduce a presidential system of government.

Original post by Aphotic Cosmos

Cyprus? Others are semi-presidential as France is, such as Romania.

Anyway, it's certainly arguable that moving to a Presidential system would curtail the power of the executive in Britain. In reality, we have an electoral dictatorship, with an executive that completely dominates the legislature. At least in a presidential system, we could have meaningful opposition to the government in Parliament. This could, admittedly, be partially brought about by meaningful electoral reform in the House of Commons - but either way, the current set-up here hardly makes for particularly good government.

Original post by Aphotic Cosmos

Pretty much. President or Queen/King, the PM will still control both the executive and legislature.

Original post by Rob da Mop

A president will just be a figurehead like a monarch but with a higher cost associated with him due to regular elections and a salary.

That's not a presidential system then. There's more to a presidential system than having a president.

We're talking about abolishing the office of Prime Minister or rendering it rather more impotent in terms of executive power.