Diamond Jubilee

[Claw75]

LOL at elected head of state.

I like the fact that the HoS is not a position that can be campaigned for, or taken by the personally ambitious. Pretty sure we don't need another politician in charge, someone who panders to opinion polls and focus groups every 5 minutes.

very much this. give me queenie or charlie over President Blair any day.

[redarmi]

LOL at elected head of state.

I like the fact that the HoS is not a position that can be campaigned for, or taken by the personally ambitious. Pretty sure we don't need another politician in charge, someone who panders to opinion polls and focus groups every 5 minutes.

I don't think it neccesarily follows that an elected HoS would have to have massively increased political powers but the only check we have on our current government is the Queen (who, correctly, never uses her power of veto although she could and we will probably never know how close she came in 2010 to having to appoint a PM) and the House of Lords which can easily be maniplulated by government appointments.  An elected HoS could curb abuses of power legitimately without having to worry about not having a mandate like the Queen.  I see no problem is us continuing to have a monarch I just don't see why she should have any real powers.

[redarmi]

very much this. give me queenie or charlie over President Blair any day.

I never really get this argument.  If the Queen wanted to stand then she could and if she had enough support then she could be the HoS.  If you don't want President Blair then don't elect him but surely that is the point of democracy the people get who the people choose.

[Claw75]

very much this. give me queenie or charlie over President Blair any day.

I never really get this argument.  If the Queen wanted to stand then she could and if she had enough support then she could be the HoS.  If you don't want President Blair then don't elect him but surely that is the point of democracy the people get who the people choose.

I didn't want Cameron as Prime Minister either, but he is. 

If there was an election tomorrow and the Queen stood I think she'd run away with it.  Would she then be expected to be more vocal in her political opinions though?  It's also inevitable that if it became an elected position you'd end up with the career politicians having their eye on it at some point down the line.

[Jon MW]

It's fair enough if you believe in socialism and/or communism - but it would carry more weight if people knew exactly what they were fighting for and fighting against.

Do you have to be left wing to be anti monarchy or a republican?  The presence of the Queen as the head of state in the UK precludes the UK from having an elected head of state that could serve as a proper check and balance on the power of the government and that would be my major objection.  I also don't think that any powers of executive or government should be hereditary but that isn't a particularly left wing perspective.  I just think that the people would be better off electing a head of state that we can decide whther they are the best people for the job.  I don't have anything against the Queen or other royals and they all seem decent enough people but that alone isn't a reason for the monarchy as an institution to be head of state.  

No but they usually are.

But it was precisely what I was talking about.

A LOT of people commenting over the Jubilee weekend were promoting socialism and the Left - they're arguments were completely irrelevant to whether the Head of State was the Queen or an elected President.

As with others I'd prefer an apolitical Head of State with a loosely defined influence over policy rather than a political one whose priorities (at best) will be:

1. getting re-elected
2. what's good for their party
3. what's good for the country

(at worse other things like friends and allies go in at 3.)

Having an unelected Head of State might not be democratic - but it works, and it works well.

Democracy is the will of 'the people' - so it isn't necessarily a great thing when most of 'the people' are complete idiots.

You only have to look at the greatest democracy ever (no really it is) in Ancient Greece

They democratically voted to make an entire conquered nation into slaves - and they never went consecutive years where they didn't vote for war - 'the people' haven't got any better between then and now - so just how good is democracy?

[Claw75]

*shines 'Mond!' sign into the sky*

[Delboy]

It's fair enough if you believe in socialism and/or communism - but it would carry more weight if people knew exactly what they were fighting for and fighting against.

Do you have to be left wing to be anti monarchy or a republican?   The presence of the Queen as the head of state in the UK precludes the UK from having an elected head of state that could serve as a proper check and balance on the power of the government and that would be my major objection.  I also don't think that any powers of executive or government should be hereditary but that isn't a particularly left wing perspective.  I just think that the people would be better off electing a head of state that we can decide whther they are the best people for the job.  I don't have anything against the Queen or other royals and they all seem decent enough people but that alone isn't a reason for the monarchy as an institution to be head of state.  

Thing is we tried it once and it didn't work. Had to ask them back

[leethefish]

I like the royal family.
That's all I have to say!

[celtic]

I like the royal family.
That's all I have to say!

Just to add some balance... I fkin hate them.

[Woodsey]

I like the royal family.
That's all I have to say!

Just to add some balance... I fkin hate them.

Doesn't matter what u foreigners think 

[Honeybadger]

I don't want some staid aristocrat representing me when foreign dignitaries come to visit, nor acting as Head of State in any other way. If we really need to have someone in this role, then I want Lil'Dave.

Lil'Dave for Queen!!!

[mondatoo]

I neither like them or hate them, I'm definitely not a fan though. Sadly I am uneducated about them and despite the numerous threads that have been on blonde I've yet to learn much on here about them either. As far as I'm aware, other than their attraction of being Royalty which makes the country money, they seem to do very little.

*shines 'Mond!' sign into the sky*

Woosh ?

[redarmi]

Having an unelected Head of State might not be democratic - but it works, and it works well.

Democracy is the will of 'the people' - so it isn't necessarily a great thing when most of 'the people' are complete idiots.

You only have to look at the greatest democracy ever (no really it is) in Ancient Greece

They democratically voted to make an entire conquered nation into slaves - and they never went consecutive years where they didn't vote for war - 'the people' haven't got any better between then and now - so just how good is democracy?

I agree that democracy is flawed but I also cannot think of a better system.  I guess my issue is that I don't think that having an unelected head of state works and works well like you do.  I think it leads to the elected government in the country behaving as what Lord Hailsham described as an "elective dictatorship" and I don't think that is good for the country.  There are three parts to British Parliament.  House of Commons, House of Lords and the Monarch.  Two of them are unelected which means that whoever controls the HoC controls the country with basically no real checks or balances.

[The Camel]

I like the royal family.
That's all I have to say!

Just to add some balance... I fkin hate them.

I don't hate them exactly.

But if I ever met one of them, I'd lay 1000000/1 I bowed.

I hate all the forelock tugging and cow towing.

They are not special and do not deserve to be treated as such.

Fking hate Andrew though.

[AndrewT]

Fking hate Andrew though.

No need to throw a strop just because I didn't see your staking thread in time.

I'll buy a piece next time.