Do you think that we need a royal family? Watch

This discussion is closed.
GreenMonstrosity
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#161
Report 14 years ago
#161
I think before you people make such unfounded accusations against the Queen, you may wish to find out more about her (please note: tabloids do not count as a source of information). A lot of you are being severely prejudiced and I have noticed several inaccuracies in your perception of the monarch and her/his role. The Queen pays part of her own way and pays income tax as well. Furthermore, what taxpayers pay is only for the official side of her job. If we had a president we would still have to pay the same amount or (most likely) more. Therefore, saying "they cost money" isn't really valid because whatever option we took to replace her would still cost money.
0
GreenMonstrosity
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#162
Report 14 years ago
#162
(Original post by MMA)
Chiron said:


Rubbish. Blair has an English parent and spent most of his formative years in England.
Blair was born in Scotland and went to school there. He is a Scotsman. He has only taken on the appearance of an Englishman.
0
GreenMonstrosity
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#163
Report 14 years ago
#163
Excuse my cut and paste, but this would be a summary of how the monarch works (for the benefits of those of you whothink she is a dictator):

The United Kingdom, usually described as a Constitutional Monarchy, is more precisely a Representative Monarchy whose integral relationships form a closed loop. Its People are sovereign; their sovereignty is represented by the Monarch whom they, the People, choose; the Monarch, as head of the People's Government, oversees the work of the Government; and the Government governs the People. The Government thus governs the People with the consent of the People ~ a closed loop.

The Monarch, the nation's chief executive, is responsible for the effective coordination of a triad ~ the legislature, the judiciary and the executive. (The chief executive summons Parliament and dissolves it, appoints prime ministers and dismisses them ~ and the retention of these four powers allows the final freedom of choice essential to protect the People from mischievous ministers.) By Magna Carta the Monarch's authorit is subject to the Law


So much to our dictatorial monarchy.
0
MMA
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#164
Report 14 years ago
#164
Chiron said:
Blair was born in Scotland and went to school there. He is a Scotsman. He has only taken on the appearance of an Englishman.
I know this is petty point but Blair only went to school in Scotland from ages 14-18. He spent most of his childhood in Durham, England where he moved to not long after birth and went to university in England.
0
Bastiat
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#165
Report 14 years ago
#165
(Original post by Chiron)
That is why the monarch doesn't rule.
We need a Head of State that does rule. This is exactly what I am saying

(Original post by Chiron)
If we need a monarchy to reflect our population's diversity, then perhaps we should have a Prime Minister who does so too?
The Prime Minister is not the issue here. I'm simply stating that for the last 1100 years the King or Queen of Britain has been an upper class, white, Church of England hereditary nightmare.

(Original post by Chiron)
The Queen has English, Scottish, Welsh, German and Moorish blood. How's that for multicultral?
Sorry, multiculturalism isn't what 'blood' she has. I'm asking for somebody who reflects who Britain is nowadays. Now, it's a variety of religions, races and classes, and she is not a leader of the people. She's richer than almost every British citizen; she, and all her ancestors, have been white Christians; and she has got to where she is because she was born into a ruling family. That's not multicultural.

(Original post by Chiron)
Our prime minister is a scotsman pretending to be an english man. Should we get a more mutlicultural PM?
Not true, and at least the people have, to an extent, had a say in who the Prime Minister is.

(Original post by Chiron)
I must ask however, why are you people so concinced of the merits of democracy?
If you mean 'concerned', it's because I live in a democratic country where power should be fundamentally in the power of the people, not some upper class ruling family.

(Original post by Chiron)
When was the last time you decided what laws are passed in parliament?
About a month ago, when people looked at Labour's manifesto (containing their proposed laws) and voted for them.

(Original post by Chiron)
Even mass protest could not prevent the government by delcaring an unpopular war on a foreign state.
The war had surprisingly strong support based on the 'dodgy dossier'. You're suggesting though, that we should just give up trying to improve our society, because we are, in effect, a futile, unnecessary bother to the Royal Family. Why's the Daily Mail editor never around when you spot an ideal journalist?
0
GreenMonstrosity
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#166
Report 14 years ago
#166
(Original post by thermoregulatio)
We need a Head of State that does rule. This is exactly what I am saying


The Prime Minister is not the issue here. I'm simply stating that for the last 1100 years the King or Queen of Britain has been an upper class, white, Church of England hereditary nightmare.


Sorry, multiculturalism isn't what 'blood' she has. I'm asking for somebody who reflects who Britain is nowadays. Now, it's a variety of religions, races and classes, and she is not a leader of the people. She's richer than almost every British citizen; she, and all her ancestors, have been white Christians; and she has got to where she is because she was born into a ruling family. That's not multicultural.


Not true, and at least the people have, to an extent, had a say in who the Prime Minister is.


If you mean 'concerned', it's because I live in a democratic country where power should be fundamentally in the power of the people, not some upper class ruling family.


About a month ago, when people looked at Labour's manifesto (containing their proposed laws) and voted for them.


The war had surprisingly strong support based on the 'dodgy dossier'. You're suggesting though, that we should just give up trying to improve our society, because we are, in effect, a futile, unnecessary bother to the Royal Family. Where's the Daily Mail editor when you spot an ideal journalist?
Why do we need a headt of state who rules? Seriously. As for variety in the premiereship, for nearly 300 years the prime minister has been "white, upper class (or upper middle class), christian" with few exceptions. Regarding democracy, you voted in the party you felt would safeguard your interests; you did not and never will vote on legislation unless it is a referendum vote. 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. This is even the case in the US which has a presidency. Simple fact is "Aristocracy" does continue and will continue for the foreseeable future, even if modern "aristocrats" are more varied than those who ruled previously. Take a look at our PM's cabinet; it's full of Oxbridge graduates, many of whom "got to where they are" because they happened to be friends with the PM, not because we voted them in.
0
Bastiat
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#167
Report 14 years ago
#167
(Original post by Chiron)
Why do we need a headt of state who rules? For nearly 300 years the prime minister has been "white, upper class (or upper middle class), christian" with few exceptions. You voted in the party you felt would safeguard your interests; you did not and never will vote on legislation unless it is a referendum vote. 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. This is even the case in the US which has a presidency. Simple fact is "Aristocracy" does continue and will continue for the foreseeable future, even if modern "aristocrats" are more varied than those who ruled previously. Take a look at our PM's cabinet; it's full of Oxbridge graduates, many of whom "got to where they are" because they happened to be friends with the PM, not because we voted them in.
No, but we had a say in whether or not the Labour government was elected. Therefore, it is immediately more democratic than a Head of State over whom we have no control whatsoever. The British people have chosen Tony Blair as their leader, and despite many poor features of our FPTP voting system, at least there is some input by the people.

Furthermore, you copmlain about the Cabinet - at least many of them are qualified Oxbridge politicians, and not members of a ruling family inheriting the title bestowed autocratically on their parents.

The Daily Mail really is missing a treat here.
0
GreenMonstrosity
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#168
Report 14 years ago
#168
Thermo I really cannot understand why you so vehemently disapprove of a monarch who has never had any negative impact on your life. The monarch is a Referee, and that is why an apolitical head of state is an advantage. I cut and paste once again:
The Monarch, the nation's chief executive, is responsible for the effective coordination of a triad ~ the legislature, the judiciary and the executive. (The chief executive summons Parliament and dissolves it, appoints prime ministers and dismisses them ~ and the retention of these four powers allows the final freedom of choice essential to protect the People from mischievous ministers.)

Without the hereditary Monarch, Parliament cannot in practice legislate, for although the Royal Assent is given by the three Lords Commissioners for the Monarch, that Assent has first to be authorised by the Monarch. Assent will not normally be withheld, but it is not impossible to imagine a situation in which the Monarch might be aware that the Sovereign People the Monarch represents have had their trust abused by the members they have elected to Parliament, and that the abuse has not been countered effectively by the Second Chamber, the House of Lords. The Monarch might then suggest to her first minister, the prime minister, that the Government seek a new mandate from the People for what is manifestly against the wishes of the People.

Parliament today, with its hereditary Monarch and Peers, gives stability and security, rules in the name of the British People, and is accountable to the British People. Dare the People now give aspirant dictators with a five-year mandate a licence to "reform" Parliament in such a way as to unbalance that stability and thus to reduce their security? The present blend of hereditary peers and life peers curb the excesses and abuses and silliness of the present Labour Government, as they did with the previous Conservative Government. Long may they continue to do so. If they are put at peril, if they are to be put at peril, we are at peril, liberty is at peril.


An elected head of state will often need to make ultimately unwise decisions simply in order to get back into office the next general election. A monarch doesn;t have that problem and that is why they are hereditary. A monarch is better placed to make decisions with only the people's interests in mind, whereas an elected head of state must often pander to populism however destructive it is. Let an unelected head of state balance our elected officials. It makes sense to me.
0
GreenMonstrosity
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#169
Report 14 years ago
#169
(Original post by thermoregulatio)
No, but we had a say in whether or not the Labour government was elected. Therefore, it is immediately more democratic than a Head of State over whom we have no control whatsoever.
Bu the monarch is controled by the Law, and by parliament. Part of her coronation oath is to admit this fact.
0
Bastiat
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#170
Report 14 years ago
#170
(Original post by Chiron)
Thermo I really cannot understand why you so vehemently disapprove of a monarch who has never had any negative impact on your life. The monarch is a Referee, and that is why an apolitical head of state is an advantage.
I'm not complaining about an apolitical Head of State. I believe, though, that a Head of State should not be as detatched from the people as the Queen is, should be selected by the people of her nation, should not have hereditary inheritance of their title and should have no direct control or influence in one particular religion, thus preventing a conflict of interest. I am similarly confused of why you vehemently support an undemocratic monarchy, when much more fair and reasonable government styles are available.

(Original post by Chiron)
An elected head of state will often need to make ultimately unwise decisions simply in order to get back into office the next general election.
There is no method of preventing the Queen from taking unwise or unfair decisions, but at least with an elected Head of State, we could remove somebody who was failing to achieve, thus strongly establishing a fair meritocracy.

(Original post by Chiron)
Let an unelected head of state balance our elected officials. It makes sense to me.
But as you said in your previous post
"Take a look at our PM's cabinet; it's full of Oxbridge graduates, many of whom "got to where they are" because they happened to be friends with the PM, not because we voted them in."
These people have got into power on political affiliations, not automatically receiving the title without doing any work to deserve it. The Queen has obviously failed to balance these elected officials, which can be seen by looking at certain examples: John Major - affair w/Edwina Currie, Prime Minister for 7 years; David Blunkett - affair w/that women from the Spectator, now Work and Pensions Minister; Peter Mandelson - dodgy business dealings, now Europe's Trade Commissioner; Jonathon Aitken - convicted of perjury.

In comparison, look at France - the Prime Minister fails to win a referendum, and he is replaced. The Queen would have no support to do that here, because we have not put her into her position of power, and thus the role of Head of State is weakened by the Monarchy in Great Britain.
0
GreenMonstrosity
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#171
Report 14 years ago
#171
(Original post by thermoregulatio)
I'm not complaining about an apolitical Head of State. I believe, though, that a Head of State should not be as detatched from the people as the Queen is, should be selected by the people of her nation, should not have hereditary inheritance of their title and should have no direct control or influence in one particular religion, thus preventing a conflict of interest. I am similarly confused of why you vehemently support an undemocratic monarchy, when much more fair and reasonable government styles are available.


There is no method of preventing the Queen from taking unwise or unfair decisions, but at least with an elected Head of State, we could remove somebody who was failing to achieve, thus strongly establishing a fair meritocracy.


But as you said in your previous post

These people have got into power on political affiliations, not automatically receiving the title without doing any work to deserve it. The Queen has obviously failed to balance these elected officials, which can be seen by looking at certain examples: John Major - affair w/Edwina Currie, Prime Minister for 7 years; David Blunkett - affair w/that women from the Spectator, now Work and Pensions Minister; Peter Mandelson - dodgy business dealings, now Europe's Trade Commissioner; Jonathon Aitken - convicted of perjury.

In comparison, look at France - the Prime Minister fails to win a referendum, and he is replaced. The Queen would have no support to do that here, because we have not put her into her position of power, and thus the role of Head of State is weakened by the Monarchy in Great Britain.
The Monarchy is not unfair. There is an attitude in modern society that democracy - no, Oclocracy - is the greatest good in the world. When one scrutinizes the various democratic systems more closely it becomes evident that democratic systems have some serious flaws. Why Should the head os state be elected by the people? I do not mean that as a rhetorical question but as a genuine question to you. You are wrong in your belief that we cannot control the queen. I have to say again: "Common Law, The Bill of Rights, Magna Carta and Parliament" (I hope you did read that "closed loop" thing I posted a couple of threads up).

On the other hand, an elected head of state can quite easily use presidential powers to declare a state of emergency and sieze control of government. Ths would not be difficult considering how the US Army for example, owes its obedience to the president not to the people. One reason why the monarchy is hereditary is because the rather narrow range of candidates reduces the pressure that an elected head of state might have to simply pander populism. Populism is bad. Consensus is good. Many of you are not acknowledging this. A supremely powerful and elected head of state, would have many of the same powers as the monarch with nobody to temper him or her. Furthermore, an elected head of state may decide to instigate policies which are ultimately done only to please the electorate and not necessarily with the future or the nation's best interests in mind.

When you attribute the mistakes and scandals of ministers of the crown as somehow the crown's responsibility you are on shaky ground. The monarch is not responsible for who her ministers sleep with. Her relationship with them ends in Westminster.

PS: In France isn't the president the Head of State as opposed to the prime minister.

Now, just some things I would like to know from you:
1. Is your opposition to the monarchy based on your dislike for the royal family, or the idea of an apolitical head of state? If you hate the royal family and are taking it out on the monarcy then remember that the monarchy is a concept and institution not a person or family.

2. In your mind, does spirit of meritocracy outweigh the practicalities and realities of such an ethos? There is no realistic way that a monarch could be elected, yet you are opposed to her being unelected.

You are opposed to hereditary priveledge, yet many of the people who "own" and run our economy have been the beneficiaries of hereditary priveledge. It is a sad fact that will always exist in any society so long as wealth exists. I personally feel your opposition to hereditary priveledge ought to be dealt with separately from your opposition to the institution of monarchy because I believe they are two different problems.

Since I think I have demonstrated fairly well, that the monarch simply cannot or does not do half the things anti-monarchists accuse her of doing, I am interested to know if your hatred for stability and continuity is more emotional/ ideological, or objective/logical.
0
Socrates
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#172
Report 14 years ago
#172
The monarchists here emphasise the need for an apolitical head of state. I see the merits of your argument, and cite Pakistan as an example. Now I know that Pakistan is hardly the beacon of democracy, however, the President, who is the head of the state, is apolitical and should the said person be a member of a political party he/she is forced to resign before taking up the post of the President. So, yes a President can be apolitical just as much as the monarch. The added bonus is that the President will be ELECTED by the people.
0
GreenMonstrosity
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#173
Report 14 years ago
#173
(Original post by zaf1986)
The monarchists here emphasise the need for an apolitical head of state. I see the merits of your argument, and cite Pakistan as an example. Now I know that Pakistan is hardly the beacon of democracy, however, the President, who is the head of the state, is apolitical and should the said person be a member of a political party he/she is forced to resign before taking up the post of the President. So, yes a President can be apolitical just as much as the monarch. The added bonus is that the President will be ELECTED by the people.
Now how is an elected head of state intrinsically better than an unelected one? They both do the same job don't they? Somebody is going to say "they are the people's choice", so in order to pre-empt that I will ask, how does "the people's choice" do the job differently from an unelected one? I am genuinely interested in your opinions on these questions.

I believe that, while we all have the right to temper and control the power of our rulers (as we do with the queen), the less the holder of ultimate power is tampered with, the better off we all are. The more permanent the holder of power, the less often we will have petty, divisive and destructive squabbles over who should be rule. The permanence of the monarch is a way of removing the conflict of interests that will so often affect an elected official's ability to make decisions. Quite simply, if the queen doesn't have to worry about winning elections, she can get on with the job, rather than making cheesy soundbites and empty gestures in order to garner popular support.
0
Socrates
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#174
Report 14 years ago
#174
Now how is an elected head of state intrinsically better than an unelected one? They both do the same job don't they? Somebody is going to say "they are the people's choice", so in order to pre-empt that I will ask, how does "the people's choice" do the job differently from an unelected one? I am genuinely interested in your opinions on these questions.

I believe that, while we all have the right to temper and control the power of our rulers (as we do with the queen), the less the holder of ultimate power is tampered with, the better off we all are. The more permanent the holder of power, the less often we will have petty, divisive and destructive squabbles over who should be rule. The permanence of the monarch is a way of removing the conflict of interests that will so often affect an elected official's ability to make decisions. Quite simply, if the queen doesn't have to worry about winning elections, she can get on with the job, rather than making cheesy soundbites and empty gestures in order to garner popular support.
This is all well and great but an elected head of state is elected and hence democratic. An unelected head of state, permanant or otherwise, is not democratic. It seems like we are going in circles - yes an unelected head of state will do the same things as an elected head of state - but the fundemental difference is of democracy. If we are meritocratic, democratic state, we should have a head of state who upholds those ideals rather than standing for exactly the opposite.
0
GreenMonstrosity
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#175
Report 14 years ago
#175
(Original post by zaf1986)
This is all well and great but an elected head of state is elected and hence democratic. An unelected head of state, permanant or otherwise, is not democratic. It seems like we are going in circles - yes an unelected head of state will do the same things as an elected head of state - but the fundemental difference is of democracy. If we are meritocratic, democratic state, we should have a head of state who upholds those ideals rather than standing for exactly the opposite.
There is no intrinsic difference between an unelected head of state who is just an overseer, and an elected one who does the same job. In either case, our interests are not threatened - in fact they are protected - therefore, what makes one better than the other? If the person in such a position doesn't influence our lives in the same sense that the functional head of government does, then why should it matter how they acquire their position?

The only reason the monarch is hereditary is to keep the same person in that position for as long as possible and thus keep a measure of stability in a role that would otherwise be very hard to fill. The less complicated the selection procedure, the less difficulties will arise in choosing them. The longer the position is held, the less times you will have to go through the potentially difficult process of choosing a new incumbent for such an immensely powerful office. Britain is not America. Who would oversee the election of such a person? The Monarch in a sense oversees the election of the Prime Minister, and is a referee of sorts during the election process. Who would oversee the election of a president? The fact remains, here in Britain we have the best of both worlds. An elected prime minister, and an unelected person who is nothing more than a guardian of an ancient concept. It is simply convenient that the monarch doesn't change while politicians may come and go. The Monarch's permanence is intended to ensure a background of continuity against which political change can take place. In her permanence lies her independence. Her permanence is symbolic of her embodiment of the eternal and ultimate authority of the people. The Monarch holds more power than the US president but does not exercise it on a whim. The monarch holds power on behalf of the all the people. A president, is party-biased, but still has the functional exercise of immense (in the case of America, near monarchical) powers. We don't have that risk. The pedantic adherence to the principles of democracy is not always practical, regardless of how ideologically attractive it is. Whatever the problems of monarchy that have been experienced in the past, the truth is, currently we have a pretty good balance.
0
bikerx23
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#176
Report 14 years ago
#176
You guys do realise that that pole is actually promoting a royal family whichever way you vote...so 100% of people believe that the royal family should stay...how fantastic!
0
GreenMonstrosity
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#177
Report 14 years ago
#177
I think too many people are opposed to monarchy for the wrong reasons. Democracy is not simply a nice sounding concept, it is a means to an end, that end being the effective governance of societies. To many here it seems the objective of democratic government is being ignored and the principle of "power to the people" is far more important than safe and effective government. Democracy for democracy's sake is meaningless and ultimately ridiculous. In these post-existantial times everybody has grown up and been educated with the notion that any form of government other than mob rule is intrinsically and inherenly wrong. There is a reason why the queen is not elected and in my opinion this serves our best interests. Too many of you are not seeing the big picture here.
0
Bastiat
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#178
Report 14 years ago
#178
(Original post by Chiron)
Too many of you are not seeing the big picture here.
We live in a country that is supposedly a defender of freedom and liberty. For one of our rulers to inherit their title against the will of the people is fundamentally autocratic and therefore totally contradictory to our role as a civilised and democratic country. I admit, looking at the current monarch, that she has some beneficial aspects, but one cannot judge the merits of a position of power based on the actions of its current incumbent. When this present Queen dies, Prince Charles will automatically inherit her throne as monarch. This is not a popular move, and it is widely thought that Charles should abdicate to allow Prince William to become King. When people start making their decision about who they want as the leader, they are becoming Republicans, and as people begin to realise this, the intrinsic hypocrisy and autocracy of the monarchy will become apparent. The "big picture", as you call it, is not to look at the current monarch, but at the suitability of the system in our modern society, and, I'm afraid, it is time to change our Head of State.

(Original post by Chiron)
In France isn't the president the Head of State as opposed to the prime minister.
Yes - which was the point that I was making. A Head of State with a mandate from the masses has much more influence and support than one who inherits their role automatically. Jacques Chirac, despite declining popularity now, won the Presidential election in France by 82% over Jean-Marie Le Pen, and therefore was in a position to act legitimately with the powers entrusted to him by the French people. On the contrary, the Queen's powers to appoint a Prime Minister, as she did in 1963, are not given to her by the people but by her ancestors, and she therefore lacks the support of the masses. I fail to understand if, as the monarchists say, the Queen is so popular, why she refuses to participate in a Presidential or Monarchical Election. That would prove at least that she has support from the public, but without that, her rule does not have sufficient authority to act decisively.

(Original post by Chiron)
1. Is your opposition to the monarchy based on your dislike for the royal family, or the idea of an apolitical head of state? If you hate the royal family and are taking it out on the monarcy then remember that the monarchy is a concept and institution not a person or family.
As zaf1986 said, an elected Head of State can be apolitical, so long as he or she is granted the powers of that office from the people, thus proving their support for him or her.

(Original post by Chiron)
2. In your mind, does spirit of meritocracy outweigh the practicalities and realities of such an ethos? There is no realistic way that a monarch could be elected, yet you are opposed to her being unelected.
I do not want an elected monarch, but an elected President. The roles differ, because the monarchy is hereditary, whereas the Presidency is meritocratic, thus symbolising our modern, democratic society. Obviously, a meritocracy is impossible to fully achieve, but that does not mean that we should abandon our attempts to do so, allowing this unchosen family to rule with unchalleneged executive power without any personal work or support from the public.

(Original post by Chiron)
Democracy for democracy's sake is meaningless
No it isn't. Democracy is needed in our modern country to satisfy the 60 million inhabitants of our islands, rather than allowing just one family to have positions of power without any public support.

(Original post by bikerx23)
You guys do realise that that pole is actually promoting a royal family whichever way you vote...so 100% of people believe that the royal family should stay...how fantastic!
That's not true - the idea of a Presidency is that anybody can get into that role, providing that they have public support. It doesn't matter who their parents are or who much money they are worth, but what they have personally acheived. In a Republic, there is no hereditary inheritance of a title, unlike in a monarchy. Almost all of the successful leaders of the world got into their positions by their own hard work, and not by their families. Look at
- Margaret Thatcher - daughter of a grocer
- Richard Nixon - son of a grocer
- Mohandas Gandhi - son of a grocer
- Martin Luther King Jr. - son of a pastor
- Tony Blair - son of a barrister
- Mikhail Gorbachev - son of a peasant family

All these people have, by their own hard work, achieved power and influence by support from the people, not by their family's background. This is an antiquated and anachronistic in our modern meritocracy.
0
GreenMonstrosity
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#179
Report 14 years ago
#179
(Original post by thermoregulatio)
We live in a country that is supposedly a defender of freedom and liberty. For one of our rulers to inherit their title against the will of the people is fundamentally autocratic and therefore totally contradictory to our role as a civilised and democratic country. I admit, looking at the current monarch, that she has some beneficial aspects, but one cannot judge the merits of a position of power based on the actions of its current incumbent. When this present Queen dies, Prince Charles will automatically inherit her throne as monarch. This is not a popular move, and it is widely thought that Charles should abdicate to allow Prince William to become King. When people start making their decision about who they want as the leader, they are becoming Republicans, and as people begin to realise this, the intrinsic hypocrisy and autocracy of the monarchy will become apparent. The "big picture", as you call it, is not to look at the current monarch, but at the suitability of the system in our modern society, and, I'm afraid, it is time to change our Head of State.


Yes - which was the point that I was making. A Head of State with a mandate from the masses has much more influence and support than one who inherits their role automatically. Jacques Chirac, despite declining popularity now, won the Presidential election in France by 82% over Jean-Marie Le Pen, and therefore was in a position to act legitimately with the powers entrusted to him by the French people. On the contrary, the Queen's powers to appoint a Prime Minister, as she did in 1963, are not given to her by the people but by her ancestors, and she therefore lacks the support of the masses. I fail to understand if, as the monarchists say, the Queen is so popular, why she refuses to participate in a Presidential or Monarchical Election. That would prove at least that she has support from the public, but without that, her rule does not have sufficient authority to act decisively.


As zaf1986 said, an elected Head of State can be apolitical, so long as he or she is granted the powers of that office from the people, thus proving their support for him or her.


I do not want an elected monarch, but an elected President. The roles differ, because the monarchy is hereditary, whereas the Presidency is meritocratic, thus symbolising our modern, democratic society. Obviously, a meritocracy is impossible to fully achieve, but that does not mean that we should abandon our attempts to do so, allowing this unchosen family to rule with unchalleneged executive power without any personal work or support from the public.


No it isn't. Democracy is needed in our modern country to satisfy the 60 million inhabitants of our islands, rather than allowing just one family to have positions of power without any public support.


That's not true - the idea of a Presidency is that anybody can get into that role, providing that they have public support. It doesn't matter who their parents are or who much money they are worth, but what they have personally acheived. In a Republic, there is no hereditary inheritance of a title, unlike in a monarchy. Almost all of the successful leaders of the world got into their positions by their own hard work, and not by their families. Look at
- Margaret Thatcher - daughter of a grocer
- Richard Nixon - son of a grocer
- Mohandas Gandhi - son of a grocer
- Martin Luther King Jr. - son of a pastor
- Tony Blair - son of a barrister
- Mikhail Gorbachev - son of a peasant family

All these people have, by their own hard work, achieved power and influence by support from the people, not by their family's background. This is an antiquated and anachronistic in our modern meritocracy.
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. 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? 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. 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. How is a monarch hypocritical or autocratic. 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". Well, the Queen is not the sole exerciser of power, nor does she rule alone (ever heard the expression "The Queen in Parliament" which is the full title of our parliament). The problem here is you are an idealogue who prefers the principle to the practicalities. Tell me:

1. What is the ultimate end of democracy?
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?
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]".

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. I am also unsure of where you got the idea that the Queen refuses to put herself up for election. I don't recall the matter ever being put forward in parliament. At this point I must remind you again. You and I simply do not participate in the running of the country. The illusion of democracy is to make people believe they are. In the Roman and American republics, when leaders are voted in, they are entitled to do whatever they see fit without consulting the public, so long as they reach consensus with the houses of representatives. We elect people to safeguard our interests not to tell them what to do. This is not how democracy was envisaged, nor how it has ever worked. Democracy and Oclocracy are two different things. Democracy means you choose the leader, nothing more. We don't even vote in the ministers or civil servants of this country but you don;t seem to have a problem with that. You will say "they are not hereditary", but as I said before, there is a good reason why the monarchy is. Please read my above post and I would appreciate some comment on the reasons I gave for the hereditary nature of the monarchy.

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. The Monarchy is a job/institution, not a person as I said before. I get the impression that to you, in keeping with traditional left wing thinking, the idea that people should have power without asking you for it is anathema. Are you also against inheritance of wealth? 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?
0
GreenMonstrosity
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#180
Report 14 years ago
#180
Two more things Thermo.

1. How do you propose we elect an apolitical president, who does not face the conflict of interests that naturally arise between populism and practicality? What system do you reckon we might use?

2. Who controls the elected president if his or her powers are as extensive as a monarch, but witht he added authority of popular support? In short, "Who to bell the cat"?
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

Have you made up your mind on your five uni choices?

Yes I know where I'm applying (86)
67.72%
No I haven't decided yet (25)
19.69%
Yes but I might change my mind (16)
12.6%

Watched Threads

View All