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

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rajandkwameali)
    no.
    you are talking about a presidential system, to say otherwise just proves what an ill thought out and ignorant piece your original post was
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phugoid)
    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.
    And visa-versa, there are many successful monarchy states out there which is proof the system works, so why change it?


    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.
    Why elected? The role of head of state is one that doesn’t require elections, our head of state doesn’t run the country so there is no real need for them (elections that is). Having an elected head of state and head of government means there is the potential for both the head of state and head of government to come from the same boat, which makes corruption and ultimately elective dictatorship more likely. And why does it matter what there ancestors did? My next door neighbour’s dad was a German soldier; he won the Iron cross for essentially killing British soldiers, so what?
    Offline

    1
    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.
    To be fair, Oliver Cromwell caused King Charles to be executed in order to make himself more powerful than the monarch.

    And things have never been quite the same since..

    'lots and lots of bloodshed' is inevitable in any ruling system, it seems.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    HM The Queen has the inalienable right to both reign and rule. You have monarchy, or you have communism - anything inbetween is middle-class hypocrisy, whereby one upholds the property principle except where it would disadvantage the emancipated bourgeoisie.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Renner)
    And visa-versa, there are many successful monarchy states out there which is proof the system works, so why change it?
    Well we can get rid of a drain on the treasury, for a start. And before you bring up the whole 'tourism' business, I can assure you that tourism would not decrease if we lost our monarchy. People don't come to see the Queen (anybody who comes to the palace expecting to have tea with the queen is a deluded moron), they come to see the palace itself, etc.

    Why elected? The role of head of state is one that doesn’t require elections, our head of state doesn’t run the country so there is no real need for them (elections that is). Having an elected head of state and head of government means there is the potential for both the head of state and head of government to come from the same boat, which makes corruption and ultimately elective dictatorship more likely. And why does it matter what there ancestors did? My next door neighbour’s dad was a German soldier; he won the Iron cross for essentially killing British soldiers, so what?
    Err. Why does being elected make you more likely to fall into dictatorship? It doesn't.

    And it absolutely doesn't matter what their ancestors did. But it works both ways. We shouldn't blame the current monarchs for the acts of their ancestors, but they also shouldn't be appointed to such a glorified public position just because their ancestors held it (and stole it).

    Why can't my family be the monarchy? Why not your family? They're just as qualified as the current monarchy? The only difference is that we didn't happen to be born into the family tree of a bunch of genocidal dictators who stole the crown through bloodshed.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    Get stuffed OP. God save the queen!!!
    Offline

    0
    How about an elective monarchy? Just think of the possibilities!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Simple answer:

    The Queen is a major driving force of the tourist industry to the UK. Without her, less people would come over and visit
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phugoid)
    Err. Why does being elected make you more likely to fall into dictatorship? It doesn't.
    If people are voting for a head of government with certain political ideas, chances are they will also vote for a head of state with similar political ideas. If both come from the same party, then that party effectively has absolute control.

    If you're saying that you need two positions so that neither one has too much power, then it's no good if they are just going to agree on absolutely everything.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phugoid)
    Well we can get rid of a drain on the treasury, for a start. And before you bring up the whole 'tourism' business, I can assure you that tourism would not decrease if we lost our monarchy. People don't come to see the Queen (anybody who comes to the palace expecting to have tea with the queen is a deluded moron), they come to see the palace itself, etc.
    The Monarchy is not a drain on the treasury, the whole institution pays for itself through tax's and crown estate revenue. I could equally claim the government is a drain on the treasury

    Err. Why does being elected make you more likely to fall into dictatorship? It doesn't.
    That’s not what I said, I’m saying if the head of state and head of government are from the same political party which is likely if both posts are elected then the Head of State is less likely to stop the Head of government and corruption is more likely. Likewise of the Head of Government and Head of state are from opposite ends of the political spectrum then what’s to stop the Head of state opposing the head of government on just about everything, leading to a political deadlock and nothing getting done.

    Why can't my family be the monarchy? Why not your family? They're just as qualified as the current monarchy? The only difference is that we didn't happen to be born into the family tree of a bunch of genocidal dictators who stole the crown through bloodshed.
    Genocide dictators hardly. Somebody has to be the Head of state and no system is perfect, I think constitutional monarchy is the best form of government and although it has its drawbacks a presidential system has far more. It seems to me people who oppose monarchy do so on principle while those who support it do so for practical reasons, I think practical comes before principle.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    F u c k da bossman
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Well we can get rid of a drain on the treasury, for a start. And before you bring up the whole 'tourism' business, I can assure you that tourism would not decrease if we lost our monarchy. People don't come to see the Queen (anybody who comes to the palace expecting to have tea with the queen is a deluded moron), they come to see the palace itself, etc.
    Drain? The Crown is in profit, thanks to the Crown Estates.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Instead of turning this into a monarchy debate, the real problem is that idea that the roles of head of state and leader of the legislature can be combined. They simply cannot. For one, who would appoint the Prime Minister if not a separate head of the executive?

    (Original post by BlueRoses)
    To everyone saying it's ridiculous, it's basically the American system.
    It's really not. The American system is actually analogous to our old system where there was no Prime Minister at all.

    The main difference is separation of powers. The US would not countenance the head of its executive sitting in (and indeed, controlling) the legislature.

    (Original post by Phugoid)
    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.
    That's a rather arrogant assumption don't you think? Electing dictators and ne'erdowells is not only the preserve of weak-minded foreigners.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by malleablegrace)
    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.
    I really wish monarchists would come up with better arguments than tourism which is brought up every time there is a republic/monarchy debate. It is rather telling that monarchists use the tourism line as a serious point for retaining the monarchy. What about some crap about national identity or something more plausible than tourism?

    (Original post by Nora-FNE)
    Simple answer:

    The Queen is a major driving force of the tourist industry to the UK. Without her, less people would come over and visit
    Seriously, I despair at how the words from the monarchy PR machine are universally accepted as facts. France and Italy receive more tourism in Europe than the UK and neither countries have a monarchy. I doubt people visit England just to walk pass a palace that remains closed for the majority of the time.

    Also, the tourism argument, even if it was true, still doesn't mean that the Queen should remain the Head of State with the parliament working in her name.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I really wish monarchists would come up with better arguments than tourism which is brought up every time there is a republic/monarchy debate. It is rather telling that monarchists use the tourism line as a serious point for retaining the monarchy. What about some crap about national identity or something more plausible than tourism?
    Reply With Quote
    How about the ones I brought up earlier? Do they get a look in?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bagration)
    Wow, you want Gordo to be our head of state, what the **** is wrong with you?
    I like your avatar :awesome:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by libertin)
    Seriously, I despair at how the words from the monarchy PR machine are universally accepted as facts. France and Italy receive more tourism in Europe than the UK and neither countries have a monarchy. I doubt people visit England just to walk pass a palace that remains closed for the majority of the time.
    1) Buckingham Palace would remained closed (more so than now, if other European Presidential Palaces are to go by), as a new Head of State would most definitely take it up as his/her residence, as has been the custom within most post-monarchy countries.

    2) Do you honestly think that all the people flocking outside Buckingham Palace are there to see the somewhat unspectacular architecture? Not that they are likely to see the Queen (unless it's a state occasion, which usually has great numbers), but I can't see Buckingham Palace having the same charm with a President Brown in residence.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kuros)
    How about the ones I brought up earlier? Do they get a look in?
    Your post seems to be acting on the premise that the country and government would fall apart if it was not for the 'apolitical' Queen. As long as there is an acknowledgement that the desire to retain the monarchy is out of nostalgia and want not need, then I accept the appeal of an apolitical Head of State and the continuity the Queen offers.

    However, I do think you are wrong to assume that the Queen is powerless or that any future King/Queen will not use the royal prerogatives to further their own interests. I accept that Elizabeth II has been benign Head of State (as far as we know as her records of state will not be published until sometime after her death and the FOI laws do not apply to members of the royal family), but the problem with the Queen's non-interventionist stance is that the PM is free to 'advise' the Queen to do whatever he wishes with neither of them being accountable to the consequence of the said actions. I concede that a lot of this is hypothetical and that it is unlikely that we will have a King/Queen who takes a more intervenionist role in politics (which the current powers technically do allow him to) nor will we have a completely passive King/Queen who will blindly follow an elected Hitler in making far-reaching changes without the approval of parliament or the electorate. Nevertheless, the royal prerogative powers do remain in my eyes, a loose end that should be tied up at some point.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The queen is better and more patriotic than any politician could hope to be. The only people against her are povos who moan about having to pay £1 tax to her a year or w.e.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oculist)
    HM The Queen has the inalienable right to both reign and rule. You have monarchy, or you have communism - anything inbetween is middle-class hypocrisy, whereby one upholds the property principle except where it would disadvantage the emancipated bourgeoisie.
    [IMG]http://msp305.photobucket.com/albums/nn232/Andeyhollawho/WTF/*****_slap.jpg[/IMG]
 
 
 
  • 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
    Have you ever participated in a Secret Santa?
    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.