Turn on thread page Beta

Instead of a monarch, why not have a PM head of state? watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I couldn't care less about the monarchy, but in its place why not have a PM who still chaired the Cabinet, but was also head of state?

    As an example, in a general election, the leader of the party which commands the support of the House of Commons becomes the PM, and hence chairs the Cabinet. The Cabinet is drawn from the House of Commons and the upper house, but from the majority party (or parties, if it's a coalition).

    The difference is that the Prime Minister wouldn't report to any monarch/sovereign, but would be both head of state and head of government.

    Another thing is that in our Westminster system the PM has to much unchecked powers. Can the monarch stop him from appointing whoever he wants, in any position, without a constitutional crisis happening? I think only Cabinet ministers, junior positions in the government, perhaps top judges and diplomats, should be chosen by the PM. All other positions should be subject to parliamentary free votes, where MPs and upper house members can vote as they please.
    Offline

    10
    Aren't you just talking about a Presidential system?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lefty Leo)
    Aren't you just talking about a Presidential system?
    no.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rajandkwameali)
    I couldn't care less about the monarchy, but in its place why not have a PM who still chaired the Cabinet, but was also head of state?

    As an example, in a general election, the leader of the party which commands the support of the House of Commons becomes the PM, and hence chairs the Cabinet. The Cabinet is drawn from the House of Commons and the upper house, but from the majority party (or parties, if it's a coalition).

    The difference is that the Prime Minister wouldn't report to any monarch/sovereign, but would be both head of state and head of government.

    Another thing is that in our Westminster system the PM has to much unchecked powers. Can the monarch stop him from appointing whoever he wants, in any position, without a constitutional crisis happening? I think only Cabinet ministers, junior positions in the government, perhaps top judges and diplomats, should be chosen by the PM. All other positions should be subject to parliamentary free votes, where MPs and upper house members can vote as they please.
    That's pretty ridiculous. ^

    Allowing anybody to become supreme leader of the country; official head of state as well as head of government, even if just for a predetermined period of time such as 5 years, would be waaay to dangerous. He would obviously go power-mad and cause havoc!

    An elected president instead of a monarch to be head of state is a much more sensible alternative. (Though I remain a diehard monarchist personally.)
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DJkG.1)
    That's pretty ridiculous. ^

    Allowing anybody to become supreme leader of the country; official head of state as well as head of government, even if just for a predetermined period of time such as 5 years, would be waaay to dangerous. He would obviously go power-mad and cause havoc!

    An elected president instead of a monarch to be head of state is a much more sensible alternative. (Though I remain a diehard monarchist personally.)
    How so?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The monarch allows us to maintain a clearly-defined nation state, against the pressures of globalisation and European integration.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Wow, you want Gordo to be our head of state, what the **** is wrong with you?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I think the word you might be looking for is dictator?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Tourism.
    Lots of people come to England because they are fascinated with the royalty. If a monarch wasn't head of state, some of that appeal would be lost due to the fact that they had little power. Plus it's tradition, and if that changed I'm sure quite a lot of people would feel embittered.

    Also, as someone else said, too dangerous. Look at Hitler and Stalin.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Being a monarchy is what makes Great Britain truly British, I wouldnt change it for the world. God save the Queen
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    That would make him a sort of president, right? I think the monarchs are somewhat cryptocratic (have power in secret) and it just doesn't go as simple as getting rid of them. Plus, it makes the UK more intimidating to other nations. It makes it special and it gives it a sort of chilly powerful status.

    Forget it, I'm rambling =]
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rajandkwameali)
    Another thing is that in our Westminster system the PM has to much unchecked powers.
    And you think that making them absolute head of state would be a good thing?

    Perhaps it's worth pointing out that Cromwell had more power than even Charles I and look how that ended up.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DJkG.1)
    That's pretty ridiculous. ^

    Allowing anybody to become supreme leader of the country; official head of state as well as head of government, even if just for a predetermined period of time such as 5 years, would be waaay to dangerous. He would obviously go power-mad and cause havoc!
    Are you trying to say that under our current system the PM isn't power mad?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    To everyone saying it's ridiculous, it's basically the American system.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    I don't think it would make a great difference. The PM is already very powerful, and the role of head of state is a ceremonial role.

    I do think we need dramatic constitutional reform in Britain though.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    if we got rid of the monarchy would places like canada and new zealand still have the queen?
    that would be confusing
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wombat678)
    Being a monarchy is what makes Great Britain truly British, I wouldnt change it for the world. God save the Queen
    No, the thing that makes Great Britain truly British is the fact that it is Britain:p:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DJkG.1)
    That's pretty ridiculous. ^

    Allowing anybody to become supreme leader of the country; official head of state as well as head of government, even if just for a predetermined period of time such as 5 years, would be waaay to dangerous. He would obviously go power-mad and cause havoc!

    An elected president instead of a monarch to be head of state is a much more sensible alternative. (Though I remain a diehard monarchist personally.)
    You mean the type of power-mad individual who lays claim to all the swans in the country, and provides the death penalty for anybody committing 'treason' against her?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 1721)
    if we got rid of the monarchy would places like canada and new zealand still have the queen?
    that would be confusing
    Well I suppose there's no reason why she would automatically lose her status as monarch in those countries. But I suppose it's fairly likely that if the UK abolished the monarchy, they would follow suit.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phugoid)
    You mean the type of power-mad individual who lays claim to all the swans in the country, and provides the death penalty for anybody committing 'treason' against her?
    I don't think the Queen is personally responsible for that. They were presumably in place before she became queen. And anyway, it's not like the death penalty is actually used in practice even if someone commits treason against her.
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

1,726

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
Do you want your parents to be with you when you collect your A-level results?
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.