Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Get Rid of Monarchy Watch

  • View Poll Results: Should we get rid of the monarchy?
    Yes
    41.07%
    No
    58.93%

    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by playingcards)
    Again. Not correct. You need to appreciate the difference between two different concepts: “legitimacy” and “democracy”. They are not the same thing. Read around Weber’s theory of authority.
    Oh, I know the difference, but unfortunately I am arguing with Tigers, who cannot separate the two, so I have to make the argument comprehensible to him.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tigers)
    I can't campaign on one point only.People vote for other points.Still the monarchy is not a democratic system
    Stop making excuses.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    Stop making excuses.
    you don't get it.By your logic,even MPs could be all from the Royal family and just because people let it happen it would be a democratic system.It still wouldn't be democratic even if people let them be MPs because they are royal members.In a democracy we must vote every 5 years
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tigers)
    I can't campaign on one point only.People vote for other points.Still the monarchy is not a democratic system
    If removing the monarchy would win more votes than it would lose the three main parties would immediately add it to their next manifestos.

    Currently, however, the monarchy is popular enough that advocating their removal would be politically harmful. Thus no party will go down that route.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tigers)
    you don't get it.By your logic,even MPs could be all from the Royal family and just because people let it happen it would be a democratic system.It still wouldn't be democratic even if people let them be MPs because they are royal members.In a democracy we must vote every 5 years
    Erm, the people have the complete ability to elect whoever they wish as MPs. They could elect Jim Davidson or David Tennant. If that's the people's choice, that's the very definition of democratic.

    It seems you're confusing 'democratic' with 'what I agree with'.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lampoon)
    If removing the monarchy would win more votes than it would lose the three main parties would immediately add it to their next manifestos.

    Currently, however, the monarchy is popular enough that advocating their removal would be politically harmful. Thus no party will go down that route.
    or maybe they don't go against the queen because she names the ministers
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    Erm, the people have the complete ability to elect whoever they wish as MPs. They could elect Jim Davidson or David Tennant. If that's the people's choice, that's the very definition of democratic.

    It seems you're confusing 'democratic' with 'what I agree with'.
    same for the head of State.But by your logic about the life-time queen being democratic, then a Royal family only parliament would be democratic too
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tigers)
    or maybe they don't go against the queen because she names the ministers
    She doesn't decide who fills ministerial positions. That is decided within the
    party itself, generally by the PM.

    Of course it could all be a national conspiracy with the Queen purging successive governments of dissenters like a miniature Stalin, however I personally doubt it.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tigers)
    same for the head of State.But by your logic about the life-time queen being democratic, then a Royal family only parliament would be democratic too
    I have already pointed out that most republics don't permit the electorate to choose the Head of State either. Are you calling them undemocratic, too?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lampoon)
    She doesn't decide who fills ministerial positions. That is decided within the
    party itself, generally by the PM.

    Of course it could all be a national conspiracy with the Queen purging successive governments of dissenters like a miniature Stalin, however I personally doubt it.
    named by the queen who officially leads the government
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tigers)
    named by the queen who officially leads the government
    Name a single occasion when the Queen has named a minister who Parliament did not want to be there.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    I have already pointed out that most republics don't permit the electorate to choose the Head of State either. Are you calling them undemocratic, too?
    voted by elected MPs and they stay only for a limited time.Also they are responsible for any mistake they do and can be forced to resign before the end of the term.Not a life time unelected Queen
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tigers)
    voted by elected MPs and they stay only for a limited time.Also they are responsible for any mistake they do and can be forced to resign before the end of the term.Not a life time unelected Queen
    The Queen is also responsible for any mistake. If she did a sufficiently serious one she'd be removed by Parliament. She is also there with Parliament's consent - it is open for Parliament to decide to end the monarchy whenever it likes.

    Think of it like a judge. We don't appoint them, but they are significantly more practically powerful than the Queen; but we don't complain about them not having a democratic mandate to exercise their office. Why not?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    I have already pointed out that most republics don't permit the electorate to choose the Head of State either. Are you calling them undemocratic, too?
    A system where stakeholders wishes are not directly (or indirectly) consulted is an undemocratic system. It can still be legitimate.

    The French president is chosen democratically. The British monarch is not. They are both still legitimate.
    A school governor might be democratically elected, or else undemocratically appointed by an unelected public official. They are both still legitimate.

    Stop. Conflating. Terms.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    Name a single occasion when the Queen has named a minister who Parliament did not want to be there.
    she still can.If you don't remember it doesn't mean it can't happen.For example I doubt the queen would name a minister who is against the monarchy
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    The Queen is also responsible for any mistake. If she did a sufficiently serious one she'd be removed by Parliament. She is also there with Parliament's consent - it is open for Parliament to decide to end the monarchy whenever it likes.
    Think of it like a judge. We don't appoint them, but they are significantly more practically powerful than the Queen; but we don't complain about them not having a democratic mandate to exercise their office. Why not?
    Not true. Judges are appointed by democratically-elected officials. The monarch is not appointed by democratically-elected officials, but by the system of primogeniture.
    Parliament sits at the monarch’s pleasure, not vice versa.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    The Queen is also responsible for any mistake. If she did a sufficiently serious one she'd be removed by Parliament. She is also there with Parliament's consent - it is open for Parliament to decide to end the monarchy whenever it likes.

    Think of it like a judge. We don't appoint them, but they are significantly more practically powerful than the Queen; but we don't complain about them not having a democratic mandate to exercise their office. Why not?
    oh dear.WRONG!The Parliament can't remove her for anything.It's the opposite.She can dismiss it for any reason she wants.Monarchy!It's her parliament, not the peoples.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by playingcards)
    A system where stakeholders wishes are not directly (or indirectly) consulted is an undemocratic system. It can still be legitimate.

    The French president is chosen democratically. The British monarch is not. They are both still legitimate.
    A school governor might be democratically elected, or else undemocratically appointed by an unelected public official. They are both still legitimate.

    Stop. Conflating. Terms.
    For the purposes of the debate at hand, I think it's perfectly okay to do so, as Tiger is incapable of grasping that it's alright to have an unelected Head of State. Unfortunately I have to argue at his level.

    Anyway, I challenge your claim that stakeholders aren't consulted in the UK over the monarchy. They are - constantly. Opinion polls take place and Parliament's political parties know that republicanism isn't a vote winner, or potentially a vote loser.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by playingcards)
    Not true. Judges are appointed by democratically-elected officials. The monarch is not appointed by democratically-elected officials, but by the system of primogeniture.
    Parliament sits at the monarch’s pleasure, not vice versa.
    I'd argue it's the other way round. The monarchy exists at the pleasure of Parliament and the Queen's formal pleasure is in reality largely subsumed by Parliament, whose MPs act as the Queen's ministers.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tigers)
    oh dear.WRONG!The Parliament can't remove her for anything.It's the opposite.She can dismiss it for any reason she wants.Monarchy!It's her parliament, not the peoples.
    Parliament has removed numerous monarchs in the past, and can do so in the future.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you rather give up salt or pepper?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.