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

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

    Offline

    7
    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?
    The death penalty for treason was abolished in 1998.
    Offline

    16
    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?
    The swan thing is centuries old and treason is against the crown, this includes government and I don’t think the death penalty still applies.

    The Monarch cannot seize absolute power because of Parliament; the PM cannot seize absolute power because of the Monarch, perfect system.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Psyk)
    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.
    That wasn't the point.

    The point was that you can't use a monarchy to defend us from the terror of a power mad leader, because there has been no institution more producing of power-mad individuals than the monarchy.

    I wasn't saying the Queen was personally responsible, but some monarch at sometime in the past was.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BlueRoses)
    To everyone saying it's ridiculous, it's basically the American system.
    Precisely :ninja:
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phugoid)
    That wasn't the point.

    The point was that you can't use a monarchy to defend us from the terror of a power mad leader, because there has been no institution more producing of power-mad individuals than the monarchy.

    I wasn't saying the Queen was personally responsible, but some monarch at sometime in the past was.
    True, but things aren't the same as they used to be. A lot of that has been effectively superceded. There's no way the Queen could assume absolute power these days, even if she supposedly has that power officially.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Renner)
    The swan thing is centuries old and treason is against the crown, this includes government and I don’t think the death penalty still applies.

    The Monarch cannot seize absolute power because of Parliament; the PM cannot seize absolute power because of the Monarch, perfect system.
    It's unnecessary, and all you have to do is look to the countries where a presidential system has been successful to see that we are keeping the monarchy as a fight against an non-existent threat.

    If you honestly think that any PM in the past 50 years was capable of becoming dangerously power-mad, and getting away with it if we didn't have a monarchy, then you are seriously deluded.

    I don't have much faith in the British public, but I don't think they'd let the likes of Gordon Brown become some Stalinist character.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phugoid)
    That wasn't the point.

    The point was that you can't use a monarchy to defend us from the terror of a power mad leader, because there has been no institution more producing of power-mad individuals than the monarchy.

    I wasn't saying the Queen was personally responsible, but some monarch at sometime in the past was.
    Not really, Britain’s monarchs have been a good bunch. I think Pol-Pot, Stalin or Mugabe would give George VI, Victoria or Elizabeth II a run for there money on the power hungry front.

    It's unnecessary, and all you have to do is look to the countries where a presidential system has been successful to see that we are keeping the monarchy as a fight against an non-existent threat.

    If you honestly think that any PM in the past 50 years was capable of becoming dangerously power-mad, and getting away with it if we didn't have a monarchy, then you are seriously deluded.

    I don't have much faith in the British public, but I don't think they'd let the likes of Gordon Brown become some Stalinist character.
    Presidential systems have also failed all over the world for the reasons we cite, one individual becomes too powerful. A PM cannot become power mad simply because there is a monarch in place, he can never have absolute power while there is somebody above him and while this is also the case in some presidential systems there is always the danger the PM and President will be from the same party then the PM can do what he likes, a good example of this is Hitler and the Chancellor of Germany. And I don’t think Stalinist dictators tend to listen to the public, do you?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I wouldn't have a problem with the removal of the monarchy but the idea of having a head of government that is also a head of state is as has been pointed out before dangerous.

    The reason countries don't do this is because of checks and balances. The legislature is set up in such a way that once a law passes through the houses of parliament it goes to the head of state to sign. In most cases this is a mere formality, but if you remove this sytem it makes it very easy for governments to pass whatever they want. The separate head of state is a prevenative check.

    If you have a head of government that is also a head of state, then it is very easy for governments to become dictatorial because there is nothing there to stop them when/if they go crazy.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Because it's bad enough that Brown is the prime minister without him being head of state. Plus, on a side note, the monarchy bring in millions in terms of tourism each year, I hardly think Gordon Brown would have the same appeal.
    Offline

    0
    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?
    Oh, so you want to give 10 Downing street MORE power?

    No ******* way.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The Monarch isn't sufficiently important nowadays, so it doesn't matter.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Renner)
    Not really, Britain’s monarchs have been a good bunch. I think Pol-Pot, Stalin or Mugabe would give George VI, Victoria or Elizabeth II a run for there money on the power hungry front.
    Look through the past 1000 years of history. There have been far more monarchist dictators than there have been political ones.

    How do you think a monarch gets to be a monarch in the first place? Lots and lots of bloodshed.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BlueRoses)
    To everyone saying it's ridiculous, it's basically the American system.
    What? No it's not. It's nothing like that at all.

    We would have a man with all the power of a president but not directly-elected.

    It would be all the cons of a presidential system with none of the pros.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Psyk)
    True, but things aren't the same as they used to be. A lot of that has been effectively superceded. There's no way the Queen could assume absolute power these days, even if she supposedly has that power officially.
    And likewise, there's no way the PM could assume absolute power these days. Therefore the idea that we need the monarchy to stop that from happening is redundant.

    You can't have your cake and eat it.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phugoid)
    Look through the past 1000 years of history. There have been far more monarchist dictators than there have been political ones.

    How do you think a monarch gets to be a monarch in the first place? Lots and lots of bloodshed.
    The system has been around longer so of course there will be more, if we look at the 20th century then there have been far more 'democratic' states collapse into dictatorship.

    I edited my last post, you may find interesting.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Too much power in one place, both practically and morally.

    The PM is first among equals, not some sort of president.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    with a weak parliament he would be left to become a power mad dictator! (Much like he is now then).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Renner)
    The system has been around longer so of course there will be more, if we look at the 20th century then there have been far more 'democratic' states collapse into dictatorship.

    I edited my last post, you may find interesting.
    Yes, your entire point revolves around the notion that we need a monarchy to stop a PM getting too power-mad, and vice versa.

    And my refutation of this point is that if there is even one single presidential system out there that works without a monarchy, then that is proof that the system is capable of working.

    If we can find out whatever it is that makes this system successful, and immune to collapse, then we can adopt that, and get rid of a monarchy.

    Even if your notion of having two powerful parties who stop each other from becoming too power-mad, why does one of those parties have to be an unelected monarchy? Why does it have to be a random family who got to where they are because their ancestors committed genocide on anybody who opposed them?

    I would be willing to accept your idea that we need two separate institutions to stop each other from going mad with power, but only if both of those parties were elected, and definitely NOT if one of the parties is the monarchy.
    Offline

    1
    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.
    The Monarch is what separates us from other countries, such as America. It gives England a cultural identity and a figurehead, and thereforea greater sense of patriotism. - Would you really want Gordon Brown to be our main representative??
    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.
    The last paragraph about Parliament vetting appointees, might have some merit. But the rest, I think, is pointless.

    The function of our monarchy is to provide an outwardly apolitical Head of State so that the idea of nationhood is separate from politics. It's very difficult to get an apolitical Head of State via elections.

    Another bonus is in diplomacy. Nine-tenths of diplomacy is making someone else think that you believe they matter - sending a Head of State on a state visit is a good way doing this. A monarch, who might spend upwards of twenty years on the throne, will naturally accumulate a global reputation and standing. Sending a Head of State who has been a figure on the world stage for decades is going to be much more of an occasion, and much more of a diplomatic benefit, than sending a five-year president or prime minister, most of whom are virtual nobodies.

    This longevity also serves in HM's advice to the PM. With eleven PMs under her belt, HM has listened to the problems and discussed the solutions to most of Britain's problems over the last half-century, and that surely must give some advantage to having an advisor to talk to with that experience. Of course, the PM is under no obligation to follow that advice.

    How do you think a monarch gets to be a monarch in the first place? Lots and lots of bloodshed.
    This is the 21st Century calling; we abandoned the absolute monarchy hundreds of years ago. Now we have a constitutional one where HM does not rule. So no monarchical dictators coming our way.

    EDIT:
    If we can find out whatever it is that makes this system successful, and immune to collapse, then we can adopt that, and get rid of a monarchy.
    Adaptability, flexibility and relatively powerful and responsive legislative branch helps, as does a parliamentary system which entangles the legislative and the executive. In theory, it should ensure the executive is part of that responsive legislature, and so is responsive him/herself. It lets off the steam of discontent without it building up and exploding. A sense of continuity too, because continuity has an inertia of it's own that lends itself to stability and gradual change rather than rebellion and revolution. Probably more, but I can't think of them right now. But the monarchy is most certainly a help not a hindrance in this.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

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

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

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

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

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

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

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