Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    You seem to see leadership as necessarily being some sort of reward for hard work, when in fact leadership need not be that. It is actually a job not a meaningless honour which should be shared among the public for the sake of it.
    Hello, we are democracy. This is 2005 not 1550. If we are an autocracy, dictatorship, one man rule, I wouldn't be complaining (partly because I'd probably be locked up) but we are a democracy. What part of democracy do you not understand? You brought up the point about the electoral system and I can start a discussion about the Upper Chamber, but this is not the topic of discussion. We are discussing the monarchy and whether we should have it or not. If you want to discuss the electoral system or anything else, open a new thread and I will be more than willing to discuss it there, not here.

    Once more I am going to ask, if two people can do the same job, and if that job does not have any direct effect on your every day life, why should it matter whether they are elected or not?
    Once more I am going to answer that if we are meritocratic, democratic state we should have a head of state that reflects that. I can understand why you don't agree with me or the others who don't agree with a monarchical system but to just ignore it means you aren't interested in hearing the other side. Why bring irrelevant discussions about leftwing/rightwing politics which has nothing to do with this discussion? It seems you are desperately trying to divert the issue.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zaf1986)
    Once more I am going to answer that if we are meritocratic, democratic state we should have a head of state that reflects that. I can understand why you don't agree with me or the others who don't agree with a monarchical system but to just ignore it means you aren't interested in hearing the other side. Why bring irrelevant discussions about leftwing/rightwing politics which has nothing to do with this discussion? It seems you are desperately trying to divert the issue.
    I think your answer boils down to 'it's the principle of the thing', no?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zaf1986)
    Hello, we are democracy. This is 2005 not 1550. If we are an autocracy, dictatorship, one man rule, I wouldn't be complaining (partly because I'd probably be locked up) but we are a democracy. What part of democracy do you not understand? You brought up the point about the electoral system and I can start a discussion about the Upper Chamber, but this is not the topic of discussion. We are discussing the monarchy and whether we should have it or not. If you want to discuss the electoral system or anything else, open a new thread and I will be more than willing to discuss it there, not here.



    Once more I am going to answer that if we are meritocratic, democratic state we should have a head of state that reflects that. I can understand why you don't agree with me or the others who don't agree with a monarchical system but to just ignore it means you aren't interested in hearing the other side. Why bring irrelevant discussions about leftwing/rightwing politics which has nothing to do with this discussion? It seems you are desperately trying to divert the issue.
    Come on zaf, you know that the examples I gave are not separate discussions but examples used to illustrate a point. We do not exactly need a separate thread for each point made here. Diverting the issue is the last thing I want. How am I ignoring the question? You have said several times that "this country is a democracy"; it is a Constitutional Monarchy.

    Are we really a meritocracy? People here tend to get the top jobs according to who they know rather than how well qualified they are. I will not try to to convince people of the merits of monarchy but I will now ask a fair question.

    How do you propose we replace the monarchy without shaking up the entire system? Who will safeguard our freedoms thereafter?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Golden Maverick)
    I think your answer boils down to 'it's the principle of the thing', no?
    One has to wonder, is the principle more important than the objective?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    [FONT=Arial]I think we should get rid of the Royal family because the UK will then have billions upon billions more money to improve things like the NHS and help deprived areas

    In my veiw the royals dont give a tick to us working class as they would put it[/FONT
    ]
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cymru)
    [FONT=Arial]I think we should get rid of the Royal family because the UK will then have billions upon billions more money to improve things like the NHS and help deprived areas

    In my veiw the royals dont give a tick to us working class as they would put it[/FONT
    ]
    The Royal family doesn't cost "billions". Or even hundreds of millions. As for their not caring, ever heard of The Prince's Trust?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chiron)
    You say one cannot judge the merits of a position by the current incumbents, when I think this argument is the other way around; one cannot denigrate the merits of a position judging by the incumbents.
    Exactly - to judge is not expressing a positive or negative view, but to denigrate is specifically expressing a negative opinion. As I say, the merits cannot be judged (either positively or negatively) by the current incumbent, or indeed her predcessors, and therefore you seem to have made a point of conflict from actual concurrence on this issue

    (Original post by Chiron)
    Why do you say that the Queen inherits her title "against the will of the people"? When was this put to a referendum? Why should Prince Charles give up the throne?
    I did not specify that the Queen inherited her title against the will of the people, but that "For one of our rulers to inherit their title against the will of the people" is not democratic. I was specifically referring to Prince Charles, as public opinion, last time I checked, thinks that he should not hold the throne, as he is too detached from the people. If he does inherit the title, a flood of Republicanism will be unleashed from the Commonwealth, as seen by the increasing Republican attitudes of our former imperialist colonies, such as Australia, an event to which I look forward with great anticipation.

    (Original post by Chiron)
    To a lot of people who have been spoiled on the illusiory ideals of democracy, it seems to them that we should have the power to vote in the King or Queen. We don't and we shouldn't.
    Why not? If she is supposed to represent us, surely we should have a say in electing our representative?


    (Original post by Chiron)
    If you believe our monarchy is at variance with our role as defender of liberty and democracy then you should also criticise the electoral system.
    I have, and, as I have previously stated, I greatly disapprove of our First Past the Post System. Either a Proportional Representation List System should be introduced, or, was society more advanced and less reliant on others for decisions, an Egalitarian system.

    (Original post by Chiron)
    How is a monarch hypocritical or autocratic.
    The system of simultaneously allowing somebody to rule without a mandate from the masses whilst worldwide condemning regimes where political leaders terrorise their nations without public support is totally hypocritical.

    (Original post by Chiron)
    Do you know what autocracy actually means? Autocracy is "a system of government in which ALL power is in the hands of one person who rules alone".
    That is, I agree, one description of an autocratic system. It is also means, "having absolute sovereignty", which, when fully looked up via dictionary.com, allows me to change 'sovereignity' to 'royal rank, authority, or power.' Therefore, the Queen has "absolute royal rank, authority or power." Still disagree with my use of autocratic?

    (Original post by Chiron)
    The problem here is you are an idealogue who prefers the principle to the practicalities.
    I admit that democracy is not perfect, but allowing a leader to be Head of State without any official support or without enduring public challenge is undemocratic, and therefore against the most basic principles of democracy. Furthermore, it is your monarchical ideology that seems to have ignored the ancestry of the monarchy. You seem to think that the appointment of a tyrant, such as Henry VIII, as King is no longer possible, but your hereditary inheritance of the monarchy would enshrine his right to rule. Your ideology is that the monarch always has the interests of the public at hand, but in practice, the monarchy serves multiple groups, not only the British public.

    (Original post by Chiron)
    1. What is the ultimate end of democracy?
    There is no 'ultimate end' - democracy is a fair, continual process that cannot be defined by the traditional 'means or ends'. Democracy intends to give people their right to elect their leaders and have their say in the running of their country, which the monarchy fails to do.

    (Original post by Chiron)
    2. If that end can be achieved by a person who acts in the interests of the people, but not necessarily voted in by them, why is it wrong to have an unelected official safeguarding our interests?
    We have no guarantee that the monarch will safeguard our interests, and if she fails to do so, we cannot remove him or her and elect a more suitable candidate. This would not be the case with the President

    (Original post by Chiron)
    3. You are forgetting that the Monarch's ability to safeguard our interests specifically lies in the fact that she is not voted for. That way she has no political rivalries or populist policies to worry about, and rather can just get on with the job. As somebody put it "she is above the fight, [and is best able to keep it fair]".
    She should not be "above the fight", she should be subject to the same electoral process that each of our leaders undergos in our modern society.

    (Original post by Chiron)
    The Queen has never ever appointed a prime minister off the top of her head so I am not sure where you got that from. If she did there must have been exceptional circumstances - and it is for such exceptions that the monarchy exists.
    1963, resignation of Howard Wilson - the Queen chose Lord Alec Douglas-Home as the new PM - why should she have the right to chose a democratically elected leader - surely that should return either to the British people or to the Conservative Party (the leading party at that time)?

    (Original post by Chiron)
    I am also unsure of where you got the idea that the Queen refuses to put herself up for election.
    If Prince Charles, or any member of the Royal Family put themselves up in a British Presidency election, they would be easily defeated - they're mostly cheating, swindling, Nazi-related toss pots, and wouldn't stand a chance against intelligent, experienced candidates.

    (Original post by Chiron)
    I don't recall the matter ever being put forward in parliament.
    Parliament cannot discuss any changes to the role of the monarch.

    [QUOTE=Chiron]We elect people to safeguard our interests not to tell them what to do.[/QUOTE
    I thought the Queen was supposed to 'safeguard' our interests, according to you?

    (Original post by Chiron)
    The problem is that to many left-wingers the monarchy is a candy laden stick, which nobody deserves if they are not having some. You seem to see leadership as necessarily being some sort of reward for hard work, when in fact leadership need not be that. It is actually a job not a meaningless honour which should be shared among the public for the sake of it.
    Patronising, again. I am certainly not left wing, and as you say "the monarchy is [something]... which nobody deserves". You fail to see how backwards your viewpoint is because you are blinded by allegiance to a monarch which contradicts every principle of our modern society

    (Original post by Chiron)
    Are you also against inheritance of wealth?
    No - the inheritance of wealth doesn't affect 60 million people, and nobody should be discouraged from attempting to achieve the best from their individual merits.

    (Original post by Chiron)
    Once more I am going to ask, if two people can do the same job, and if that job does not have any direct effect on your every day life, why should it matter whether they are elected or not? Surely a leader only needs approval and support where the interests of those they lead are directly affected by that leader's decisions? Should we now vote for our military chiefs as well?
    We can remove a leader who fails to 'safeguard our interests', but not a monarch, so a President is immediately better.

    By the way, how exactly does a monarch safeguard our interests? We choose a Parliament to represent us, not an inbred member of an ancient aristocratic family.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zaf1986)
    I can understand why you don't agree with me or the others who don't agree with a monarchical system but to just ignore it means you aren't interested in hearing the other side.
    Monarchists like to blind themselves to the reality of our modern society, preferring to think that they are superior by not responding to the wishes of the general people.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thermoregulatio)
    Monarchists like to blind themselves to the reality of our modern society, preferring to think that they are superior by not responding to the wishes of the general people.
    How does an anti-monarchist speak for all monarchists?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thermoregulatio)
    Exactly - to judge is not expressing a positive or negative view, but to denigrate is specifically expressing a negative opinion. As I say, the merits cannot be judged (either positively or negatively) by the current incumbent, or indeed her predcessors, and therefore you seem to have made a point of conflict from actual concurrence on this issue


    I did not specify that the Queen inherited her title against the will of the people, but that "For one of our rulers to inherit their title against the will of the people" is not democratic. I was specifically referring to Prince Charles, as public opinion, last time I checked, thinks that he should not hold the throne, as he is too detached from the people. If he does inherit the title, a flood of Republicanism will be unleashed from the Commonwealth, as seen by the increasing Republican attitudes of our former imperialist colonies, such as Australia, an event to which I look forward with great anticipation.


    Why not? If she is supposed to represent us, surely we should have a say in electing our representative?



    I have, and, as I have previously stated, I greatly disapprove of our First Past the Post System. Either a Proportional Representation List System should be introduced, or, was society more advanced and less reliant on others for decisions, an Egalitarian system.


    The system of simultaneously allowing somebody to rule without a mandate from the masses whilst worldwide condemning regimes where political leaders terrorise their nations without public support is totally hypocritical.


    That is, I agree, one description of an autocratic system. It is also means, "having absolute sovereignty", which, when fully looked up via dictionary.com, allows me to change 'sovereignity' to 'royal rank, authority, or power.' Therefore, the Queen has "absolute royal rank, authority or power." Still disagree with my use of autocratic?


    I admit that democracy is not perfect, but allowing a leader to be Head of State without any official support or without enduring public challenge is undemocratic, and therefore against the most basic principles of democracy. Furthermore, it is your monarchical ideology that seems to have ignored the ancestry of the monarchy. You seem to think that the appointment of a tyrant, such as Henry VIII, as King is no longer possible, but your hereditary inheritance of the monarchy would enshrine his right to rule. Your ideology is that the monarch always has the interests of the public at hand, but in practice, the monarchy serves multiple groups, not only the British public.


    There is no 'ultimate end' - democracy is a fair, continual process that cannot be defined by the traditional 'means or ends'. Democracy intends to give people their right to elect their leaders and have their say in the running of their country, which the monarchy fails to do.


    We have no guarantee that the monarch will safeguard our interests, and if she fails to do so, we cannot remove him or her and elect a more suitable candidate. This would not be the case with the President


    She should not be "above the fight", she should be subject to the same electoral process that each of our leaders undergos in our modern society.


    1963, resignation of Howard Wilson - the Queen chose Lord Alec Douglas-Home as the new PM - why should she have the right to chose a democratically elected leader - surely that should return either to the British people or to the Conservative Party (the leading party at that time)?


    If Prince Charles, or any member of the Royal Family put themselves up in a British Presidency election, they would be easily defeated - they're mostly cheating, swindling, Nazi-related toss pots, and wouldn't stand a chance against intelligent, experienced candidates.


    Parliament cannot discuss any changes to the role of the monarch.


    Patronising, again. I am certainly not left wing, and as you say "the monarchy is [something]... which nobody deserves". You fail to see how backwards your viewpoint is because you are blinded by allegiance to a monarch which contradicts every principle of our modern society


    No - the inheritance of wealth doesn't affect 60 million people, and nobody should be discouraged from attempting to achieve the best from their individual merits.


    We can remove a leader who fails to 'safeguard our interests', but not a monarch, so a President is immediately better.

    By the way, how exactly does a monarch safeguard our interests? We choose a Parliament to represent us, not an inbred member of an ancient aristocratic family.
    Thermo, it is difficult to respond to your fragmented posts. It would be easier if you put all your thoughts together. I will reply to you in more detail shortly.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chiron)
    How does an anti-monarchist speak for all monarchists?
    By analysing your replies. You refuse to accept the reality that we are in a modern democratic society. As you have previously said
    Democracy for democracy's sake is meaningless
    You and I simply do not participate in the running of the country. The illusion of democracy is to make people believe they are.
    The pedantic adherence to the principles of democracy is not always practical
    the less the holder of ultimate power is tampered with, the better off we all are.
    There is an attitude in modern society that democracy - no, Oclocracy - is the greatest good in the world.
    Something a lot of you will never accept is that since the beginning of political insitutions, it has always been the rich who have rules.
    Perhaps if you were a little less cynical and actually responded to my complaints regarding the monarchy, rather than just quoting my entire reply and then ignoring its contents, the debate may move onwards.

    P.S. I'm not an "anti-monarchist". I'm a Republican - I have an idea what to do when we depose this monarchical system.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thermoregulatio)
    By analysing your replies. You refuse to accept the reality that we are in a modern democratic society. As you have previously said

    Perhaps if you were a little less cynical and actually responded to my complaints regarding the monarchy, rather than just quoting my entire reply and then ignoring its contents, the debate may move onwards.

    P.S. I'm not an "anti-monarchist". I'm a Republican - I have an idea what to do when we depose this monarchical system.
    I am not being cynical, this is the truth. I would appreciate replies to the specific questions I asked, because from those replies I will be able to continue. I cannot reply to you point by point because the argument becomes badly disjointed. Because to me this is a genuine interest I would not mind continuing this discussion with you in private as this would make it easier to keep track of who says what. Nonetheless, you cannot "analyse my responses" and use them to reach a conclusion about all monarchists. Democracy and monarchy are not mutually exclusive. The problem with many your objections to monarchy is that they are nearly all emotional rather than analytical.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Exactly - to judge is not expressing a positive or negative view, but to denigrate is specifically expressing a negative opinion. As I say, the merits cannot be judged (either positively or negatively) by the current incumbent, or indeed her predcessors, and therefore you seem to have made a point of conflict from actual concurrence on this issue.
    judge (v) - To form an opinion about. An opinion can be negative or positive, so yes you are judging by denigrating. The merits can be judged by the principle, in which case I believe monarchy has an even stronger claim to being a sound form of government. As I said before, we ae a Constitutional Monarchy.


    Why not? If she is supposed to represent us, surely we should have a say in electing our representative?
    This is one of the problems of democracy. An elected government represents a majority vote (although not quite in the FPTP system here - but I am a strong exponent of the system mind you). The Monarch represents the people through her oath to uphold common law, the magna carta and the bill of rights, not just those who voted for labour/conservative/lib dems.


    The system of simultaneously allowing somebody to rule without a mandate from the masses whilst worldwide condemning regimes where political leaders terrorise their nations without public support is totally hypocritical.
    Which regime did the Queen condemn?



    That is, I agree, one description of an autocratic system. It is also means, "having absolute sovereignty", which, when fully looked up via dictionary.com, allows me to change 'sovereignity' to 'royal rank, authority, or power.' Therefore, the Queen has "absolute royal rank, authority or power." Still disagree with my use of autocratic?
    Come on Thermo, your argument thus far has had far more cogency without relying on arbitrary meanings of words. Autocracy is exactly what I said above - the oxford dictionary definition. I would prefer not to argue about something as trivial as this, but The above statement is just your spin on it. Soveriengty in the semse of "soveriengty of a nation" and soveriengty in reference to a Monarch mean differentthings. Let's please not get bogged down here on semantics and arbitrary meanings of words. Your view of Autocracy is simply not consistnt with our form of government, or indeed the monarch's role in government.


    I admit that democracy is not perfect, but allowing a leader to be Head of State without any official support or without enduring public challenge is undemocratic, and therefore against the most basic principles of democracy. Furthermore, it is your monarchical ideology that seems to have ignored the ancestry of the monarchy. You seem to think that the appointment of a tyrant, such as Henry VIII, as King is no longer possible, but your hereditary inheritance of the monarchy would enshrine his right to rule. Your ideology is that the monarch always has the interests of the public at hand, but in practice, the monarchy serves multiple groups, not only the British public.
    Which Multiple groups are these?



    There is no 'ultimate end' - democracy is a fair, continual process that cannot be defined by the traditional 'means or ends'. Democracy intends to give people their right to elect their leaders and have their say in the running of their country, which the monarchy fails to do.
    There is an end to all systems of government. That is the effective control of our societies and the protection of our interests. We have an elected prime minister, why are you complaining? You make it sound as if the Queen has recently passed some greatly oppressive legislation which contravene Common Law or The Bill of Rights. What has she actually done to you that was so bad? If it is just the principle you disagree with then let us deal with it in the theoretical context of political philosophy not use straw men arguments to defeat it. You are treating the monarch here as though she is actually the ultimate authority in this country when she does not. The simple fact is she holds her authority on behalf of the people - if you don't believe me please, please feel free to read the Acts of Settlement. As long as she holds this power on behalf of the people, tyrants cannot take it away from the people.



    We have no guarantee that the monarch will safeguard our interests, and if she fails to do so, we cannot remove him or her and elect a more suitable candidate. This would not be the case with the President
    We do have a guarantee. The Queen swears it at her coronation oath. She swears to uphold Common Law, Respect the Bill of Rights and The already existing laws of the land. In any case, we have no guarantee that an elected leader will respect our rights. How do you remove a president from whom the armed forces take orders? This is a question I would really like an answer on because to me this is the fundamental problem with a president; he or she has the power of a monarch with the authority of an elected official. In short, who will bell the cat?


    She should not be "above the fight", she should be subject to the same electoral process that each of our leaders undergos in our modern society.
    A referee has to be above the fight if they are to be fair and impartial.



    1963, resignation of Howard Wilson - the Queen chose Lord Alec Douglas-Home as the new PM - why should she have the right to chose a democratically elected leader - surely that should return either to the British people or to the Conservative Party (the leading party at that time)?



    If Prince Charles, or any member of the Royal Family put themselves up in a British Presidency election, they would be easily defeated - they're mostly cheating, swindling, Nazi-related toss pots, and wouldn't stand a chance against intelligent, experienced candidates.
    Yes and there you highlight another inherent fault in democracy. Populism. If you do things just t make people like and vote for you, then it becomes difficult to act solely with the nations interests in mind.



    Patronising, again. I am certainly not left wing, and as you say "the monarchy is [something]... which nobody deserves". You fail to see how backwards your viewpoint is because you are blinded by allegiance to a monarch which contradicts every principle of our modern society
    Stability and protection of our freedoms is never outmoded.




    We can remove a leader who fails to 'safeguard our interests', but not a monarch, so a President is immediately better.
    President owns armed forces, How do you bargain with her or him if s/he chooses to use them to support the regime with force?



    By the way, how exactly does a monarch safeguard our interests? We choose a Parliament to represent us, not an inbred member of an ancient aristocratic family.
    I explored that a couple fo threads up. Look for the threads with the cut and paste. The whole "closed loop" idea. I've been through this already.


    I am not being patronising in my views on the way democracy is (mis)understood. In the end, ultimate power must rest in somebody or something which is independent and unchanging. If ultimate power rested on the whim of a majority vote, that could be dangerous. This is why a president can declare a state of emergency in times of national crisis. The Monarch is completely harmless, she "looks after" the power of the people, so that tyrants may not get it.


    PS: You got the whole Douglas-Home thing wrong. The Queen was advised to appoint him she did not do it on a whim, and as I said before, those were exceptional circumstances. MacMillian made the mistake not the Queen.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    And thermo, Please answer each of the questions I asked on top of any other comments you may want to make. Thank you in advance.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    They have not done a decent days work in there lives and they expect us to fund their trips. They were just born to the right person at the right time...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Amlea)
    They have not done a decent days work in there lives and they expect us to fund their trips. They were just born to the right person at the right time...
    Please read some posts before posting your own unfounded views. They do not cost the taxpayer money, in fact the Queen gives a net £90 million to the taxman, this net includes all of the money paid to the civil list.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Amlea)
    They have not done a decent days work in there lives and they expect us to fund their trips. They were just born to the right person at the right time...
    Amlea the Queen does work hard. She does actual work, besides opening shops and naming ships. She signs Acts into law, she reads literally boxfulls of state papers from all departments, she advises, warns and meets with her ministers regularly, and she monitors the goings on of government. She is also the country's most senior dimplomat. If we had a president we would still have to fund his or her trips.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chiron)
    One has to wonder, is the principle more important than the objective?
    The principle is the most important as far as I am concerned.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chiron)
    One has to wonder, is the principle more important than the objective?
    Well, I believe that with something of this magnitude, it very well could be.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zaf1986)
    The principle is the most important as far as I am concerned.
    The principle is riddled with loop holes for abuse.
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

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.