Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
It does go back to my earlier point that if you create a vacuum, somebody will fill it, so be sure you’re ready with your replacement.Is anyone proposing a revolution?
It does go back to my earlier point that if you create a vacuum, somebody will fill it, so be sure you’re ready with your replacement.Is anyone proposing a revolution?
How long was he King for?
But there’s no need for a replacement. Removing the monarchy would not create a vacuum any more than removing an unsightly mole wouldIt does go back to my earlier point that if you create a vacuum, somebody will fill it, so be sure you’re ready with your replacement.
But there will be one, because it’ll be in somebody’s interests to have one.But there’s no need for a replacement
Why?But there will be one, because it’ll be in somebody’s interests to have one.
You don't think abolition of the monarchy would lead to all sorts of power plays by various factions; debates in Parliament; decisions as to what will replace it? Nobody will suggest we don't need a replacement, because everybody will a) fancy their chances as the replacement and b) be looking for the angles to get well-in with the replacement.Why?
You could say the same about Bruce Forsyth.
Sorry, but while I share your antipathy towards vested interests, I don’t understand your defence of an institution that is based and built on centuries of vested interest, privilege and holding down everyone else. The monarchy is the epitome of institutionalised vested interestYou don't think abolition of the monarchy would lead to all sorts of power plays by various factions; debates in Parliament; decisions as to what will replace it? Nobody will suggest we don't need a replacement, because everybody will a) fancy their chances as the replacement and b) be looking for the angles to get well-in with the replacement.
That's what I mean when I say you'd create a vacuum. It might not need filling, but there's so much vested interest out there you can bet it would be.
Then replace them with nothing, or at least something a lot cheaperI don't care much one way or the other but there is precious little confidence that UK politicians would replace the monarchy with something better.
This is what I mean by being misunderstood. I’m not mounting a defence of royalty. I’m simply urging care in deciding what comes next.Sorry, but while I share your antipathy towards vested interests, I don’t understand your defence of an institution that is based and built on centuries of vested interest, privilege and holding down everyone else. The monarchy is the epitome of institutionalised vested interest
As I said earlier, other countries have solved the Monarchy problem by specifying their role and funding without too many issues.I don't care much one way or the other but there is precious little confidence that UK politicians would replace the monarchy with something better.
The monarchy does not bring classes together into some sort of common ground, the very purpose on monarchy is to ensure compliance to an ordered society with an elite at the top and acceptance of vast and growing inequality.
Neither is monarchy a counterweight to the nutters in Parliament, the monarchy was silent on Johnson’s attempt to marginalise Parliament not so long ago, an attempt that was stopped in the end by Spider Woman, not Brenda
Nor has the monarchy provided democratic stability. Any good it might’ve done in for example the Great Reform Act has to be set aside the many examples of suppressing reform such as those only a decade earlier.
Finally, while it might be true that there has not been any royal communists, there have been fascist a plenty
Of course the monarchy’s purpose is compliance to a hierarchical society with privilege and vested interest at the very top. The compliance has be enforced with violence many times in the past and while the monarchy is no longer responsible for directing violence, compliance is how our hierarchical society with privilege, power and vested interest at its head is maintained.The very purpose of the monarchy is to ensure compliance? I don't see the British as empty vassals who would willingly accept day-to-day subjugation by the Queen and her cohorts, unless you see bowing at a gallery opening as compliance. And I would think most people in this country prefer an ordered society, and indeed a fairer one, but that's for the government and the legal system to sort out. But even compliance infers a common togetherness albeit one not as willing as I had suggested, but willing togetherness there is - a royal wedding and birth, for example, are testimony to that. Even patriotic Red Wall voters and the Conservatives have found common ground via the monarchy (and the flag, let's not forget the flag).
The monarchy has been described as the dignified branch of government, and the cabinet and civil service as the efficient branch of government. The Queen acts as a symbol of the state - just watch The Crown - and the government runs the country (or tries to). When the government screws up, the monarchy often becomes a source of comfort and guidance for many, in essence acting as sort of people's counter-balance to the nutters.
My point about Fascists and Communists was not that the country has been free of either rather neither has taken the reigns of power. The monarchy is pro-capitalist (which helps when dealing with Communists, for example) and it has, as in other advanced European democracies endured despite numerous challenges (e.g. Fascism and Communism - and even Boris's crude attempt to circumvent parliament).
The majority of people in the UK today are pro-monarchy/royal; that will not change for the foreseeable future. Even the Aussie's haven't figured out a way to get rid of the Queen, probably because she acts as a focus for national unity.
I realize you mean the pitchforks as a joke, but if that’s the automatic reaction to any speculative discussion of alternatives to monarchy, what hope is there? There are alternatives to royalty, monarchy and aristocracy that don’t automatically involve mobs and the guillotine. These alternatives are well established: just look around Europe for starters. (Let’s assume the Head of State is called President.)I don't disagree with any of this, I'm simply urging caution. The anti-monarchists seemed to be getting ready to march on Windsor, pitchforks akimbo, and the sort of constitutional earthquake being contemplated here by some is best not undertaken in haste, but after careful consideration.
So I'm rather more interested in knowing what would be best to replace the monarchy, and why, than in knowing what folk think is wrong with the existing system. The latter is well-trodden ground, but let's have a discussion about the former, and how we make sure we don't just trade a bad system for a bad, dysfunctional, corruptible system.
I realize you mean the pitchforks as a joke, but if that’s the automatic reaction to any speculative discussion of alternatives to monarchy, what hope is there? There are alternatives to royalty, monarchy and aristocracy that don’t automatically involve mobs and the guillotine. These alternatives are well established: just look around Europe for starters. (Let’s assume the Head of State is called President.)
Option 1: figurehead President, as in Germany. No real powers, represents the country abroad, inaugurates stuff, asks election winner to form a government... At best acts as a benevolent conscience of the Nation, at worst does nothing much. Essentially what QE2 does.
Why bother?
- Would do it at a fraction of the cost and with few immobilized assets.
- Can be removed in case of trouble, ill health, senility, impropriety, scandal, etc.
- Clear separation of Church and State
- Elected rather than anointed; by the upper house, or by the lower house. In the case of the UK possibly by the HoL, assuming that’s tidied up in the meantime (removal of bishops, hereditary peers, etc.). Or could be designated by rotation among heads of regions (as in Switzerland) or constituent nations...
- Fringe benefit: tabloids would hate it
Option 2: President with limited foreign and/or domestic powers added to option 1. See Finland, Ireland or Italy for interesting examples. The Finnish President is the Commander in Chief and has a vestigial foreign policy role (from the Kekkonen days) although this is shrinking as successive PMs carve out increasing prerogatives, the way they all do. The Italian President has a key role in asking prime ministers to form a government, not a trivial matter in Italy.
Why bother?
Option 3: President with more extended executive powers, with clear separation of competencies between President (“regal” matters) and PM (economy, domestic matters, etc.). To be researched...
- Limit the accumulation of power by PMs (such as the recent power grab vs. Parluament, Henry VIII powers and similar nonsense etc.)
- Guardian of the Constitution role as in IRL
- Can be directly elected by hoi polloi (as in Finland or Ireland) or by Parliament
Option 4: President with extensive executive powers, as in France. President steers policy in addition to being head of state. PM is designated by the President and serves at his mercy, essentially in an implementation role, and serves as a circuit breaker when the government becomes unpopular. Not a good option for the UK, assuming the country wants to maintain the preeminence of Parliament.
I’m sure it’s not difficult to come up with more.
A hierarchical society with institutionalised elitism and privilege established by birth is at odds with a meritocratic and democratic society and the devolution of power.
The monarchy has been described as the dignified branch of government, and the cabinet and civil service as the efficient branch of government.
"The masses of Englishmen are not fit for an elective government; if they knew how near they were to it, they would be surprised, and almost tremble."
"In fact, the mass of the English people yield a deference rather to something else than to their rulers. They defer to what we may call the THEATRICAL SHOW of society. A certain state passes before them; a certain pomp of great men; a certain spectacle of beautiful women; a wonderful scene of wealth and enjoyment is displayed, and they are coerced by it...The climax of the play is The Queen."
"There is in England a certain charmed spectacle which imposes on the many, and guides their fancies as it will."