Turn on thread page Beta

Should we abolish the Monarchy? watch

  • View Poll Results: Should we abolish the Monarchy?
    Results hidden until poll closes.

    • Aston Villa FC Supporter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    Aston Villa FC Supporter
    Abolish it now!!!!
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SaucissonSecCy)
    She has great credibility and gravitas. No republican is talking that sort of time scale. I do think Charles will do serious damage to the monarchist side, he's an idiot.
    He's arguably one of the most industrious, motivated, and hard-working public figures in Britain, and will make a perfectly adequate King.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Onde)
    Yes.

    Such positions should be based on merit.
    If the position of head of state were based on merit or elections, there's a risk that the holder would feel he or she has the right to actually do something with it. History has shown us that, even in Western democracies, this is not sustainable in the long run. (In third-world countries, it's not sustainable in the short run either).

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Election is not a meritocratic mode of appointment.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The monarchy is an important constant running through the centuries of British and English history, and I think that it is important that we retain it.

    Monarchy is an institution that is always there, from year to year, generation to generation, century to century, providing incredible stability. Whatever happens with the democratic system, the monarchy will always be there to perform it's role.

    For all it's benefits, there are also many deficits in the democratic system. Elected politicians always have the next election to think about, and democracy delivers regularly changing governments. The combination of this will often result in:
    • Short-termist policies that deliver quick benefits, while delaying the pain until the next lot are in power.
    • Rushed projects due to the need to deliver before an election, and fear of termination if the opposition wins.
    • Frequent restructuring of government services (education, health etc.) because new governments want to put their stamp on the state.
    Hereditary monarchy provides leaders who can take decisions in the country's best interest, even it means short-term pain (since they don't have to worry about impending elections), and who can pursue policies over longer time frames of twenty or thirty years, without them being interrupted by a change of government.

    Elected politicians have every incentive to make trouble for their successors, since they are the people they are fighting against for power. Hereditary monarchs have an incentive to leave behind a country in good state, since they would presumably not want to leave a mess behind for their own son or daughter.

    In the context of a democratic system, such as in the UK, constitutional monarchs can provide important safeguards against the possibility of a brutal dictatorship, like so many countries experienced in the 20th century, since they can refuse to appoint a particular leader as Prime Minister in extreme circumstances. Constitutional monarchy also provides an institution for a country to unite behind, regardless of individual political views.

    In a Republic, it would be much easier for an autocratically minded government with a majority in parliament to assume absolute power, since there would be no impartial institution to prevent this happening, and the armed forces would presumably be answerable only to government, rather than to the Queen.

    Rather than talking about abolishing the monarchy, I think that we should be thinking about the relationship between different parts of Government, taking into account the points above, and questioning the hegemony of the House of Commons. The Lords and the Monarchy can provide long-term thinking, while the Commons provides democratic representation. The key question is, what kind of a combination do we want in this country? Does the current distribution of powers support this combination?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    He's arguably one of the most industrious, motivated, and hard-working public figures in Britain, and will make a perfectly adequate King.
    He's not very intelligent. It happens, being inbred.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    Don't assume all us monarchists are ultra-Tories. In fact I think it's safe to say it's completely wrong to assume even most of them are. The monarchy appeals to people of all classes, races and creeds, and that's its strength - the diversity and breadth of its support.

    Class and social immobility are not symptoms of having a monarchy. They are a byproduct of the prevailing socioeconomic system, but there are republics that have it worse and monarchies that have it way less. The most socially mobile states in the world are the Scandinavian monarchies, after all. Removing the monarchy wouldn't do a jot to improving British social mobility.
    Well, I don't assume you are ultra conservatives, 'ultra -Tory' isn't the same thing, ( but I assumed that the former was what you really mean, people seem to confuse the modern Tories with being conservative which they are not, they are simply 'economically liberal' which I take to mean right wing, and serve to deepen inequality, again, not particularly conservative) the Tories are only conservative in terms of preservation of white upper class power and monarchism. Plenty of monarchists are into mass immigration, social liberalism, destruictive economic policies, have no problem with black friday, authoritarian police forces, guns on the street etc. Cannabis legalisation etc. In fact, if we could have a republic and left wing economics with social mobility at it's core, grammar schools and the removal of private school privilege, excellent national services, closer to the French model, (not to mention multi-racialism without multiculturalism) I think I would be a very conservative patriot. I am still a patriot, that is a matter of my heart that I cannot change, and I have suffered for it. It really irritates me that the sole way patriotism is defined is to be in the monarchist and class obsessed camp. Seemingly anyone who believes in anything changing, (or anything other than obedience to received wisdom), apart from in the ways permitted, like mass immigration or EU membership, is loathed as a traitor and moral degenerate. Is this the case, that anyone concerned deeply enough to really want to change things is such? Or is it, (given I and may others such people know the degree of patriotism I/we have), that this is a sham, and a load of moral hypocrisy, it's the type of patriotism referred to by Johnson as 'the last refuge of the scoundrel', and merely the path of least resistance, since when did opportunism and blind obedience to authority become the hallmarks of what made this country great and what it is to be patriotic. I'm sure there are individual monarchists with their own reasons who are good people, loads, but the reason I resent the institution and the fans of it as a demographic, a collective, is of because what it encourages and perpetuates, this nasty totalitarian fervour, beloved by right wing newspapers, where debate is reduced to triviality, and it's basest level, and anyone who doesn't think like this is abused, the press can't wait to use it against Corbyn, well if we are such a free thinking democracy stop haranguing the guy like a infantile mob over whether he is bowing and scraping appropriately to the monarch, when he is a republican anyway, what do they want from him, hypocrisy(and they would have called him out for that too) ? If they(and I know it's generalised) were remotely adult and of substance, they would only debate in policy terms, and recognise that if he's a republican that's what he did. My argument is that intellectualized justifications are for monarchy may be well and good, but to separate them(and the institution) from a base, mob mentality linked to socially damaging right wing papers, that wants to trivialize debate, seek non conformist but principled scapegoats('cranks ' probably)and is profoundly anti-intellectual and at the fundamental level anti-change, is disingenuous, it's impossible to separate them in my mind and they are all part of damaging things that hold our country back.

    Yes there are monarchies that are more equal and republics that are less so. Though France, one of the two most famous republics, has always had very strong socialist ideals. You can't really compare Scandinavian monarchy in terms of wealth and power, it's just a different league, my Dad's met the queen of denmark ffs.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Ultimately I'm against the monarchy in principle - and I do think that the positive net income argument is a bad one, since in assessing the sine qua non for this income it makes all kinds of questionable assumptions about constitutional and property law. However, it's not something I really care that much about.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    Election is not a meritocratic mode of appointment.
    it's a heck of a lot more meritocratic than hereditarianism - the voters would be unlikely to vote for an incompetent person if there is a competent politician running, and, bear in mind, presidential elections in parliamentary republic are less politicised
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I do not believe in the idea of fairness therefore have no problem with the monarchy
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SaucissonSecCy)
    Well, I don't assume you are ultra conservatives, 'ultra -Tory' isn't the same thing, ( but I assumed that the former was what you really mean, people seem to confuse the modern Tories with being conservative which they are not, they are simply 'economically liberal' which I take to mean right wing, and serve to deepen inequality, again, not particularly conservative) the Tories are only conservative in terms of preservation of white upper class power and monarchism. Plenty of monarchists are into mass immigration, social liberalism, destruictive economic policies, have no problem with black friday, authoritarian police forces, guns on the street etc. Cannabis legalisation etc. In fact, if we could have a republic and left wing economics with social mobility at it's core, grammar schools and the removal of private school privilege, excellent national services, closer to the French model, (not to mention multi-racialism without multiculturalism) I think I would be a very conservative patriot. I am still a patriot, that is a matter of my heart that I cannot change, and I have suffered for it. It really irritates me that the sole way patriotism is defined is to be in the monarchist and class obsessed camp. Seemingly anyone who believes in anything changing, (or anything other than obedience to received wisdom), apart from in the ways permitted, like mass immigration or EU membership, is loathed as a traitor and moral degenerate. Is this the case, that anyone concerned deeply enough to really want to change things is such? Or is it, (given I and may others such people know the degree of patriotism I/we have), that this is a sham, and a load of moral hypocrisy, it's the type of patriotism referred to by Johnson as 'the last refuge of the scoundrel', and merely the path of least resistance, since when did opportunism and blind obedience to authority become the hallmarks of what made this country great and what it is to be patriotic. I'm sure there are individual monarchists with their own reasons who are good people, loads, but the reason I resent the institution and the fans of it as a demographic, a collective, is of because what it encourages and perpetuates, this nasty totalitarian fervour, beloved by right wing newspapers, where debate is reduced to triviality, and it's basest level, and anyone who doesn't think like this is abused, the press can't wait to use it against Corbyn, well if we are such a free thinking democracy stop haranguing the guy like a infantile mob over whether he is bowing and scraping appropriately to the monarch, when he is a republican anyway, what do they want from him, hypocrisy(and they would have called him out for that too) ? If they(and I know it's generalised) were remotely adult and of substance, they would only debate in policy terms, and recognise that if he's a republican that's what he did. My argument is that intellectualized justifications are for monarchy may be well and good, but to separate them(and the institution) from a base, mob mentality linked to socially damaging right wing papers, that wants to trivialize debate, seek non conformist but principled scapegoats('cranks ' probably)and is profoundly anti-intellectual and at the fundamental level anti-change, is disingenuous, it's impossible to separate them in my mind and they are all part of damaging things that hold our country back.

    Yes there are monarchies that are more equal and republics that are less so. Though France, one of the two most famous republics, has always had very strong socialist ideals. You can't really compare Scandinavian monarchy in terms of wealth and power, it's just a different league, my Dad's met the queen of denmark ffs.
    I don't know where you get this claim of a 'totalitarian fervour' in monarchists restricting your ability to express your patriotism and calling you a traitor. That's certainly not typical behaviour - I wonder if you're confusing internet trolls with real people?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    it's a heck of a lot more meritocratic than hereditarianism - the voters would be unlikely to vote for an incompetent person if there is a competent politician running, and, bear in mind, presidential elections in parliamentary republic are less politicised
    Which is why Donald Trump is doing so well among Republicans, right

    Most presidential elections in parliamentary republics are actually appointments made by the legislature - they tend not to be directly elected.

    And heredity has the advantage of meritocracy through longevity - they can train and prepare for the job for decades and be well-skilled in it through experience, rather than coming out of the blue.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SaucissonSecCy)
    He's not very intelligent. It happens, being inbred.
    Lame trope.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    Which is why Donald Trump is doing so well among Republicans, right

    Most presidential elections in parliamentary republics are actually appointments made by the legislature - they tend not to be directly elected.

    And heredity has the advantage of meritocracy through longevity - they can train and prepare for the job for decades and be well-skilled in it through experience, rather than coming out of the blue.
    1) "yes" - he has some qualifications for running for office, whether you love him or despise him. especially given the comparison to his competition. I mean, remember, elizabeth I came to "office" with practically no qualifications. she simply knew the last king quite well, you could say. and that former king wasn't meant to pass over the title quite as quickly as people expected, you might obviously say, so elizabeth had basically no experience yet to boast about. also, whether the monarch in question has merits/qualification or not, it means nothing - they practically don't have any tasks other than "shut up", "shake hands", "just stand there", "wave", etc
    2) "most", but not the obvious ideal that republicans favour.
    3) by technicality, but the initial appointment has nothing to do with that. we could, technically, have a monarchical republic whereby we elect a king based on their merits, and then they serve for life, like in the old roman monarchies - that owuld be better than what we've got now, accounting for the obvious presuppositions like political neutrality
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    1) "yes" - he has some qualifications for running for office, whether you love him or despise him. especially given the comparison to his competition.
    That main 'qualification' seeming to be simply bombast and telling people what they want to hear, and being pretty impatient of criticism and constitutional niceties.

    ) "most", but not the obvious ideal that republicans favour.
    If most republics have non-elected presidents, then most republicans must favour that...

    3) by technicality, but the initial appointment has nothing to do with that. we could, technically, have a monarchical republic whereby we elect a king based on their merits, and then they serve for life, like in the old roman monarchies - that owuld be better than what we've got now, accounting for the obvious presuppositions like political neutrality
    Hmm, except part of that merit is through spending many previous years preparing for the role. Charles has had 60 years, his mother had about 20, and so on.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    That main 'qualification' seeming to be simply bombast and telling people what they want to hear, and being pretty impatient of criticism and constitutional niceties.
    that's a skill in a democracy, for better or for worse. more people liking you = more chance of victory for the candidate

    If most republics have non-elected presidents, then most republicans must favour that...
    that's like saying "most muslims countries have sharia law, therefore, they must favour that"...

    Hmm, except part of that merit is through spending many previous years preparing for the role. Charles has had 60 years, his mother had about 20, and so on.
    what do you even think the queen had to do to "prepare" for her role? did she take serious monarchy-classes or something? or did she just follow her daddy around all day, and ignore him when he said nazi-esque things?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    that's a skill in a democracy, for better or for worse. more people liking you = more chance of victory for the candidate
    That's not really meritorious, though, is it? It may help for being a national figurehead, but it's hardly helpful when you're meant to be making major decisions on the economy and defence.

    that's like saying "most muslims countries have sharia law, therefore, they must favour that"...
    Hmm not really, the republics that are parliamentary are mostly democratic, and sharia is not remotely universally applied in muslim states.

    what do you even think the queen had to do to "prepare" for her role? did she take serious monarchy-classes or something? or did she just follow her daddy around all day,
    The latter, actually. Observing, as well as participating as she was (from 1944) a Councillor of State. And being educated on her future role, the constitutional heritage of the position, and hammering in awareness of the enormous responsibility she has.

    and ignore him when he said nazi-esque things?
    Her dad said Nazi-esque things?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    That's not really meritorious, though, is it? It may help for being a national figurehead, but it's hardly helpful when you're meant to be making major decisions on the economy and defence.
    yes it is - it's a constructed merit - one's ability to satisfy a crowd is comparative to satisfying a market, for instance

    Hmm not really, the republics that are parliamentary are mostly democratic, and sharia is not remotely universally applied in muslim states.
    so your problem with my comparison is that there aren't enough sharia law countries for my example to be comparative? okay then - subtract sharia states with "dictatorships which generally have elements of theocratic principles, homophobia, excessive punishments, state censorship, etc" - muslims who live in these areas, therefore, with the same logic, must be saying "we as a group of people enjoy these kinds of systems because we aren't complaining loud enough or frequently enough" seeing as the benefits and the argument for a directly elected president are as clear as day yet not worth a fight over in those countries due to heavy path-dependence

    The latter, actually. Observing, as well as participating as she was (from 1944) a Councillor of State. And being educated on her future role, the constitutional heritage of the position, and hammering in awareness of the enormous responsibility she has.
    that's *really* not impressive at all - are we just going to brush aside that this was an individual who couldn't even *pass* maths at GCSE? considering she has a highly elite education, I'd say that's quite pathetic of a person given her inherited position

    Her dad said Nazi-esque things?
    yes? Edward VIII
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Yes, we say we are a democracy, yet the head of our state is not elected?!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    No.

    Long live the Queen!
 
 
 
Poll
Who is most responsible for your success at university
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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.