Turn on thread page Beta

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

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    I don't know where you get that from - it certainly wasn't intended.
    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.
    I don't know if it's need as such, but it is useful.
    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 I accept that Elizabeth II has been benign Head of State (as far as we know as her records of state will not be published until sometime after her death and the FOI laws do not apply to members of the royal family), but the problem with the Queen's non-interventionist stance is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.
    I certainly agree that the royal prerogatives need to be restrained a bit more.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shaniqua)
    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.
    Not necessarily - the palace of Versailles anyone? Nor would, going by the OP's preference for the PM to become head of state, the PM not find Downing Street and Chequers sufficient enough.

    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.
    I don't know what to think, other than tourism is not a good cause on its own for retaining the monarchy and that the National Trust is a very popular institution amongst tourists.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by libertin)
    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?
    Lol believe me I'm not a monarchist in the slightest, but I can see why they're there. Tourism is plausible, though. And it links in to national identity. Britain, bless it, doesn't have a hell of a lot in terms of national identity and the monarchy is one of the few things it does have. People genuinely are fascinated by that and will pay lots of visits to 'royal' places.

    I see what you're saying, and like I said I'm hardly a monarchist but quite simply I can see both sides of it.

    The other thing I'd say is that it's more sensible to have two institutions of power rather than just the one, because as I said earlier, one on its own can be dangerous.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I would feel degraded if Gordon Brown became my head of state.
    Offline

    3
    These sort of constitutional reforms seem like a lot of fuss over nothing, to be honest. Do you really think government policy is guided by concern for the views of the Queen?

    We are a republic in all buy name and attempts to change that would be a waste of government time and money when there are far more pressing issues that have actual real-life impacts.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    OK, a few points in response:

    - My system is not a strict presidential system. In the USA, Obama was elected independently from Congress. In my system, the PM has to rely on the support of the House of Commons. Congress cannot pass a motion of no confidence against Obama, and only can remove him by impeachment. In my system, the PM can either resign, die in office, lose a general election, or in some cases be impeached by parliament.

    - As for the PM possessing too much power, I don't see how. the constitution would limit his power, and to change the constitution he would need a 3/5th majority from both houses of parliament.

    - And as for tourism, well the monarchy is one factor. But surely Stonehenge, Stratford upon Avon, and London as arguably the major world city are other attractions to the country.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    How about the practical limitations, the PM would have to take on all the duties of the Monarch and still do all the work of Head of Goverment. The man cant be in two places at once
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Renner)
    How about the practical limitations, the PM would have to take on all the duties of the Monarch and still do all the work of Head of Goverment. The man cant be in two places at once
    The Queen's current political duties are to advise, consult and warn the PM, open Parliament, and receive diplomats. This isn't too much for a PM head of state to do.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    The Queen is busy everyday; people underestimate just how much the Queen does. I remember watching something on the BBC, there was this woman from the American government saying the greatest advantage of our system is the separation of duties. The Queen does all the official stuff, from meeting diplomats and dignitaries to making appearances at the Highland show, leaving the PM to get on with running the country.

    Why do you want to combine Monarch and PM exactly? There is no practical reason for doing so
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by libertin)
    Not necessarily - the palace of Versailles anyone? Nor would, going by the OP's preference for the PM to become head of state, the PM not find Downing Street and Chequers sufficient enough.
    The Palace of Versailles is on the same par with the Tower of London and Hampton Court Palace, both unoccupied and former royal residences. Thus, the same logic cannot be applied to Buckingham Palace (which you were clearly referring to) as it is the official residence of the British Head of State: Queen, President, Lord Protector, Führer or otherwise.

    I simply do not subscribe to the notion that Buckingham Palace would suddenly transform into a museum, when it is the perfect (and probably the most suitable) setting for state functions/entertaining, which would be one of the primary responsibilities of a new Head of State. I can't imagine a new British Head of State (who I doubt would retain the title of Prime Minister) would be content with living in the modest Downing Street setting, when his/her counterparts are living in grandiose palaces.

    (Original post by libertin)
    I don't know what to think, other than tourism is not a good cause on its own for retaining the monarchy and that the National Trust is a very popular institution amongst tourists.
    On its own, the tourism argument may not be sufficient evidence for retaining the monarchy. However, it is certainly a vital factor in the good causes that merge to form the reasons as to why we should retain the monarchy.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Renner)
    The Queen is busy everyday; people underestimate just how much the Queen does. I remember watching something on the BBC, there was this woman from the American government saying the greatest advantage of our system is the separation of duties. The Queen does all the official stuff, from meeting diplomats and dignitaries to making appearances at the Highland show, leaving the PM to get on with running the country.

    Why do you want to combine Monarch and PM exactly? There is no practical reason for doing so
    The Queen is busy doing ceremonial duties. These should not be difficult for a PM head of state to do.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rajandkwameali)
    The Queen is busy doing ceremonial duties. These should not be difficult for a PM head of state to do.
    Do you honestly believe a man like Gordon Brown could muster the same respect as the Queen? Ceremonial duties would become practically redundant, as I doubt people would give a damn if he was leading such events.

    I think the fact that he was severely booed at the recent D-Day events whilst veterans were wearing images of the Queen reinforces this notion.

    Trooping the Colour, the State Opening of Parliament and various other colourful state occasions would be dissolved, as I doubt Gordon Brown (or another man of his political caliber and popularity) would either want to or expect people to flock the streets whilst he sits in a carriage watching troops perform in his honor. I can't imagine the troops would be too enthusiastic in the first place.

    What a dull and uninteresting country we would become.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rajandkwameali)
    The Queen is busy doing ceremonial duties. These should not be difficult for a PM head of state to do.
    So you want the PM to carry out state visits abroad, host foreign diplomats and carry out the same ceremonial duties (openings etc) that the current system has a whole family to do, as well as be tied down to do PMQs, cabinet meetings, be in parliamentary sessions and generally running the country...?
    No leader in the world has this sort of workload - it's just not physically possible to do so much.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Student2806)
    So you want the PM to carry out state visits abroad, host foreign diplomats and carry out the same ceremonial duties (openings etc) that the current system has a whole family to do, as well as be tied down to do PMQs, cabinet meetings, be in parliamentary sessions and generally running the country...?
    No leader in the world has this sort of workload - it's just not physically possible to do so much.
    Why not?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Becasue there are only 24 hours in the day, you cant combine two full time jobs without making some cuts.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rajandkwameali)
    Why not?
    Because its not something one person could physically do!
    Cant be in 2 places at once.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shaniqua)
    Do you honestly believe a man like Gordon Brown could muster the same respect as the Queen? Ceremonial duties would become practically redundant, as I doubt people would give a damn if he was leading such events.

    I think the fact that he was severely booed at the recent D-Day events whilst veterans were wearing images of the Queen reinforces this notion.

    Trooping the Colour, the State Opening of Parliament and various other colourful state occasions would be dissolved, as I doubt Gordon Brown (or another man of his political caliber and popularity) would either want to or expect people to flock the streets whilst he sits in a carriage watching troops perform in his honor. I can't imagine the troops would be too enthusiastic in the first place.

    What a dull and uninteresting country we would become.
    I don't see why a PM head of state, as head of state and head of government, couldn't give a state of the country address (which would have more meat to it than the opening of parliament), host parades of the armed forces, and other duties.

    I guess the basic duties of the PM head of state could be chairing the Cabinet, answering questions weekly in the house of commons, receiving diplomats, and giving a yearly address to Parliament ahead of every parliamentary year. I don't see that as too taxing.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rajandkwameali)
    Why not?
    For the reasons I already said.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rajandkwameali)
    I guess the basic duties of the PM head of state could be chairing the Cabinet, answering questions weekly in the house of commons, receiving diplomats, and giving a yearly address to Parliament ahead of every parliamentary year. I don't see that as too taxing.
    In other words you want a president.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
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.