Has King Charles III died?

[Artaxerxes]

A rumour that she ''purred with delight'' is going to be a difficult prosecution in any court of law.
Nor did it influence anything since it was after the referendum anyway.
The simple fact that it is the only example we have of her expressing a political opinion shows how seriously she took her responsibilities.
There is likely no more scrutinised a position in the country, if not the world.

It's all very understandable to oppose the idea of monarchy but you'll have to come up with an alternative system that isn't worse if you want to replace it as a method of selecting our HoS.

Much easier to criticise than come up with a better idea.

I'd love to have someone like Stephen Fry as our head of state but I doubt he would want the job and his political opinions are well known and would alienate half the population.

I think you underestimate the code of omertà and tactful silence that exists around them.

You are simply not able to dig deeply enough without a wall of silence or money blocking your way. The press can do a little but it’s not in their interest to bring them down or press to closely.

 

[NoXion]

A rumour that she ''purred with delight'' is going to be a difficult prosecution in any court of law.
Nor did it influence anything since it was after the referendum anyway.
The simple fact that it is the only example we have of her expressing a political opinion shows how seriously she took her responsibilities.
There is likely no more scrutinised a position in the country, if not the world.

It's all very understandable to oppose the idea of monarchy but you'll have to come up with an alternative system that isn't worse if you want to replace it as a method of selecting our HoS.

Much easier to criticise than come up with a better idea.

I'd love to have someone like Stephen Fry as our head of state but I doubt he would want the job and his political opinions are well known and would alienate half the population.

Do they not record these meetings or what? That doesn't sound very scrutinised to me.

There are plenty of alternative systems to choose from. You've just rejected them out of hand because you don't like Tony Blair or some such bollocks. Fine then, don't vote Tony Blair for president. At least with a republican system you get that choice. No such choice for those of us stuck with fucking kings and queens though.

The whole point of having someone in an elected position is that they get voted in by a majority. That's less divisive than continuing to have a system whereby nobody gets a say and some nob gets the position because they were pushed out of the right womb.

 

[Pickman's model]

Sure but they are not allowed to state an opinion on political matters.
I could meet my MP and tell him exactly what I think if I chose to.

Oh you could could you but the prime minister pops round to see the king. Of course they'll state bloody opinions on political matters - the prime minister of course heads his majesty's government. You're really something of a credulous wally. I hope you don't start bothering your mp, they've surely better things to do than listen to the facile whining of the wilfully ignorant.

 

[Pickman's model]

Plenty of countries do just fine without monarchies.

And almost all survive without the puerile points made by the mendacious monte

 

[ID47]

That's a rather shallow interpretation of the points I've tried to make. I can only assume you haven't read them or don't understand them.
I abhor right wing politics and the Daily Mail.
All I'm really saying is be careful what you wish for.

Note taken, I will be careful wishing for democracy from now on.

 

[Monte]

Do they not record these meetings or what? That doesn't sound very scrutinised to me.

There are plenty of alternative systems to choose from. You've just rejected them out of hand because you don't like Tony Blair or some such bollocks. Fine then, don't vote Tony Blair for president. At least with a republican system you get that choice. No such choice for those of us stuck with fucking kings and queens though.

The whole point of having someone in an elected position is that they get voted in by a majority. That's less divisive than continuing to have a system whereby nobody gets a say and some nob gets the position because they were pushed out of the right womb.

Who decides on the list of candidates for president?
What happens if the HoS is right wing and the PM is left wing? How is that less divisive than a constitutional monarch?
What happens if the HoS is from the same political wing as the government and does their bidding? How would the members of the population who voted for someone else react to Boris or Blair if they were elected?

I just don't see it as less divisive. I think it has the potential to be far more divisive.
By having a non-political HoS you ensure that all the power is in Parliament which is where it should be.

 

[Silas Loom]

Do they not record these meetings or what? That doesn't sound very scrutinised to me.

There are plenty of alternative systems to choose from. You've just rejected them out of hand because you don't like Tony Blair or some such bollocks. Fine then, don't vote Tony Blair for president. At least with a republican system you get that choice. No such choice for those of us stuck with fucking kings and queens though.

The whole point of having someone in an elected position is that they get voted in by a majority. That's less divisive than continuing to have a system whereby nobody gets a say and some nob gets the position because they were pushed out of the right womb.

There are lots of ways of getting a head of state who is accountable to the public without resorting to presidential elections, which pretty much always mean party political appointments and dodgy funding interests.

 

[Monte]

And almost all survive without the puerile points made by the mendacious monte

There's no need for ad homs.
I haven't resorted to them and neither should you.

 

[Silas Loom]

Who decides on the list of candidates for president?
What happens if the HoS is right wing and the PM is left wing? How is that less divisive than a constitutional monarch?
What happens if the HoS is from the same political wing as the government and does their bidding? How would the members of the population who voted for someone else react to Boris or Blair if they were elected?

I just don't see it as less divisive. I think it has the potential to be far more divisive.
By having a non-political HoS you ensure that all the power is in Parliament which is where it should be.

As above, very easy to appoint a head of state without party politics playing a part. They might, for instance, be elected from the ranks of citizens who have been called up by lot to serve in the Upper House for two years, and who have then been reselected by their peers for a five year appointment.

 

[klang]

What happens if the HoS is right wing and the PM is left wing?

We'll shoot the right winger, of course.

 

[ID47]

Who decides on the list of candidates for president?
What happens if the HoS is right wing and the PM is left wing? How is that less divisive than a constitutional monarch?
What happens if the HoS is from the same political wing as the government and does their bidding? How would the members of the population who voted for someone else react to Boris or Blair if they were elected?

I just don't see it as less divisive. I think it has the potential to be far more divisive.
By having a non-political HoS you ensure that all the power is in Parliament which is where it should be.

Absolute rubbish, do you even know the names of the Presidents of Germany, Italy or Ireland without looking it up? They are elected by a proven system and have by and large held their position without exerting political interference. In a situation of a fascist right wing coup such democratic presidents would be removed whereas our appalling monarchy would be there without change.

Words fail me as to how much I despise the RF.

 

[Pickman's model]

There's no need for ad homs.
I haven't resorted to them and neither should you.

thats phallacious too

 

[NoXion]

Who decides on the list of candidates for president?
What happens if the HoS is right wing and the PM is left wing? How is that less divisive than a constitutional monarch?
What happens if the HoS is from the same political wing as the government and does their bidding? How would the members of the population who voted for someone else react to Boris or Blair if they were elected?

I just don't see it as less divisive. I think it has the potential to be far more divisive.
By having a non-political HoS you ensure that all the power is in Parliament which is where it should be.

There are plenty of working examples of non-monarchical states if you're interested in the details. Why are you talking as if this is some kind of insoluble paradox that can only be resolved by keeping around a bunch of parasitic feudal relics? It's something that many political systems have been successfully dealing with since the French Revolution.

You're so concerned about the head of state being "divisive", but a monarch doesn't actually represent anyone. They inherited the position, there by the grace of god, all that tedious backwards bollocks. If power is to be invested in Parliament, then we don't actually need a monarchy and can abolish the freak show already.

 

[klang]

wrt charles being an environmentalist: being the head of the monarchy and campaigning for meaningful and sustainable change in environmental policy is not compatible. they are mutually exclusive. the climate catastrophe we are about to face is a direct result of existing power structures, and / eg capitalism.

 

[Pickman's model]

Who decides on the list of candidates for president?
What happens if the HoS is right wing and the PM is left wing? How is that less divisive than a constitutional monarch?
What happens if the HoS is from the same political wing as the government and does their bidding? How would the members of the population who voted for someone else react to Boris or Blair if they were elected?

I just don't see it as less divisive. I think it has the potential to be far more divisive.
By having a non-political HoS you ensure that all the power is in Parliament which is where it should be.

Bollocks. Your words are wind, with no substance to them. Have you never considered things the other way round, eg what happens if the govt is of the same political view or wing as the monarch?

 

[JimW]

The Swiss Federal Council is held up as another alternative, produces presidents who serve on an annual basis IIRC.

 

[steeplejack]

By having a non-political HoS you ensure that all the power is in Parliament which is where it should be.

Black Spider memos

Lobbying of Scottish government (letters still secret)

There's no such thing as a "non-political" head of state. The only difference between an elected head of state and sausage fingers is that I can get rid of an elected head of state in a ballot, should I not like their work.

There are plenty of working examples of constituional republics across the world where a "right wing" president signs off laws written by a "left wing" government. It's not abnormal.

In the twenty first century only monarchy is backward and abnormal.

 

[Artaxerxes]

wrt charles being an environmentalist: being the head of the monarchy and campaigning for meaningful and sustainable change in environmental policy is not compatible. they are mutually exclusive. the climate catastrophe we are about to face is a direct result of existing power structures, and / eg capitalism.

It’s easy to be an environmentalist when your a billionaire

(Also he’s the one cultivating pacific oysters in a conservation area - leading to ecological issues and also winning a case saying “his estate is not a public authority so doesn’t need to reveal data on the matter”)

 

[ID47]

The Swiss Federal Council is held up as another alternative, produces presidents who serve on an annual basis IIRC.

San Marino changes its leaders every 6 months IIRC.

 

[danny la rouge]

Who decides on the list of candidates for president?
What happens if the HoS is right wing and the PM is left wing? How is that less divisive than a constitutional monarch?
What happens if the HoS is from the same political wing as the government and does their bidding? How would the members of the population who voted for someone else react to Boris or Blair if they were elected?

I just don't see it as less divisive. I think it has the potential to be far more divisive.
By having a non-political HoS you ensure that all the power is in Parliament which is where it should be.

There is a difference between an executive president (like the US has) and a non executive president (like Ireland has).

If there is an executive president and a prime minister, like France has, then there is the potential for conflict, although the powers there do seem well enough defined that it isn’t a problem. But in most cases where there is a president and a prime minister, the president is non executive.

The question arises, why do we need a titular head of state? (A monarch or a non executive president). In the case of our monarch, the constitutional theory is that it is the monarch whence power and legitimacy emanates. Certainly, this is by magical transference these days, but it is nevertheless the case that the concept of “Crown-in-Parliament” says ultimate authority rests with the monarch but is delegated to Parliament. Thereby the basis of the legal status of our government is anti democratic. Ministers are ministers of the crown, not of the people. Laws are given legitimacy by royal assent, not by popular mandate. And the government sets out its programme for the parliamentary session by the pomp and ceremony of the King’s Speech, all of which is designed to give legitimacy via a bloodline and a magic hat, rather than by the will of the people.

Why do we have that? Why is it needed at all?

And outside of the Crown-in-Parliament nonsense, do we actually need someone to cut ribbons and host banquets? If visiting dignitaries want to meet the prime minister, can they not just do that? Why do they need to be wined and dined as well by a dude who lives in a palace? And if they’re not here to meet anyone from the government, why are we wining and dining them anyway? Can’t get just take in dinner and a show out of their own pocket if they just fancied a trip to London?

I personally think we should get rid of the monarchy and not replace it. It doesn’t do anything we need doing.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

San Marino changes its leaders every 6 months IIRC.

Everyone gets a go!

The nature of a system will depend on a country's various political and social legacies. So in Switzerland as a relatively loose confederation, a council makes sense. Here, by far the easiest way to get rid of the monarchy would be to change to an Ireland/Germany-style system. A directly elected president with no executive power. Quite aside from it not necessarily being desirable, a switch to a France or US style system would involve upending the whole parliamentary system.

 

[Silas Loom]

There is a difference between an executive president (like the US has) and a non executive president (like Ireland has).

If there is an executive president and a prime minister, like France has, then there is the potential for conflict, although the powers there do seem well enough defined that it isn’t a problem. But in most cases where there is a president and a prime minister, the president is non executive.

The question arises, why do we need a titular head of state? (A monarch or a non executive president). In the case of our monarch, the constitutional theory is that it is the monarch whence power and legitimacy emanates. Certainly, this is by magical transference these days, but it is nevertheless the case that the concept of “Crown-in-Parliament” says ultimate authority rests with the monarch but is delegated to Parliament. Thereby the basis of the legal status of our government is anti democratic. Ministers are ministers of the crown, not of the people. Laws are given legitimacy by royal assent, not by popular mandate. And the government sets out its programme for the parliamentary session by the pomp and ceremony of the King’s Speech, all of which is designed to give legitimacy via a bloodline and a magic hat, rather than by the will of the people.

Why do we have that? Why is it needed at all?

And outside of the Crown-in-Parliament nonsense, do we actually need someone to cut ribbons and host banquets? If visiting dignitaries want to meet the prime minister, can they not just do that? Why do they need to be wined and dined as well by a dude who lives in a palace? And if they’re not here to meet anyone from the government, why are we wining and dining them anyway? Can’t get just take in dinner and a show out of their own pocket if they just fancied a trip to London?

I personally think we should get rid of the monarchy and not replace it. It doesn’t do anything we need doing.

What would stop a Johnson from acting on the advice of a Cummings, and playing constitutional silly buggers? Non-executive presidents stay aloof until they are needed.

 

[Pickman's model]

Everyone gets a go!

The nature of a system will depend on a country's various political and social legacies. So in Switzerland as a relatively loose confederation, a council makes sense. Here, by far the easiest way to get rid of the monarchy would be to change to an Ireland/Germany-style system. A directly elected president with no executive power. Quite aside from it not necessarily being desirable, a switch to a France or US style system would involve upending the whole parliamentary system.

Given what preceded the changes to ireland and Germany's systems some upheaval may be expected

 

[klang]

Given what preceded the changes to ireland and Germany's systems some upheaval may be expectes

let's get on with it then.

 

[Pickman's model]

There is a difference between an executive president (like the US has) and a non executive president (like Ireland has).

If there is an executive president and a prime minister, like France has, then there is the potential for conflict, although the powers there do seem well enough defined that it isn’t a problem. But in most cases where there is a president and a prime minister, the president is non executive.

The question arises, why do we need a titular head of state? (A monarch or a non executive president). In the case of our monarch, the constitutional theory is that it is the monarch whence power and legitimacy emanates. Certainly, this is by magical transference these days, but it is nevertheless the case that the concept of “Crown-in-Parliament” says ultimate authority rests with the monarch but is delegated to Parliament. Thereby the basis of the legal status of our government is anti democratic. Ministers are ministers of the crown, not of the people. Laws are given legitimacy by royal assent, not by popular mandate. And the government sets out its programme for the parliamentary session by the pomp and ceremony of the King’s Speech, all of which is designed to give legitimacy via a bloodline and a magic hat, rather than by the will of the people.

Why do we have that? Why is it needed at all?

And outside of the Crown-in-Parliament nonsense, do we actually need someone to cut ribbons and host banquets? If visiting dignitaries want to meet the prime minister, can they not just do that? Why do they need to be wined and dined as well by a dude who lives in a palace? And if they’re not here to meet anyone from the government, why are we wining and dining them anyway? Can’t get just take in dinner and a show out of their own pocket if they just fancied a trip to London?

I personally think we should get rid of the monarchy and not replace it. It doesn’t do anything we need doing.

We might find there are additional people who'd be better relieved of the weight of their head

 

[littlebabyjesus]

There is a difference between an executive president (like the US has) and a non executive president (like Ireland has).

If there is an executive president and a prime minister, like France has, then there is the potential for conflict, although the powers there do seem well enough defined that it isn’t a problem. But in most cases where there is a president and a prime minister, the president is non executive.

The question arises, why do we need a titular head of state? (A monarch or a non executive president). In the case of our monarch, the constitutional theory is that it is the monarch whence power and legitimacy emanates. Certainly, this is by magical transference these days, but it is nevertheless the case that the concept of “Crown-in-Parliament” says ultimate authority rests with the monarch but is delegated to Parliament. Thereby the basis of the legal status of our government is anti democratic. Ministers are ministers of the crown, not of the people. Laws are given legitimacy by royal assent, not by popular mandate. And the government sets out its programme for the parliamentary session by the pomp and ceremony of the King’s Speech, all of which is designed to give legitimacy via a bloodline and a magic hat, rather than by the will of the people.

Why do we have that? Why is it needed at all?

And outside of the Crown-in-Parliament nonsense, do we actually need someone to cut ribbons and host banquets? If visiting dignitaries want to meet the prime minister, can they not just do that? Why do they need to be wined and dined as well by a dude who lives in a palace? And if they’re not here to meet anyone from the government, why are we wining and dining them anyway? Can’t get just take in dinner and a show out of their own pocket if they just fancied a trip to London?

I personally think we should get rid of the monarchy and not replace it. It doesn’t do anything we need doing.

The argument would be that a non-executive president is there to guard against abuse of power. Some mechanism is needed to 'protect the constitution' if you're going to grant power to a government. In the US, that's the unelected Supreme Court, which isn't ideal. France can have problems when there is 'cohabitation' - hostile pres and PM.

 

[danny la rouge]

What would stop a Johnson from acting on the advice of a Cummings, and playing constitutional silly buggers? Non-executive presidents stay aloof until they are needed.

I don’t understand the question. Do you mean were Johnson elected non executive president? Then what would stop him is that it’s a ceremonial post without the powers to do anything.

Personally, I wouldn’t have any such thing. We don’t need a monarchy. If you have something that isn’t needed, once rid it it, why would you replace it?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

What would stop a Johnson from acting on the advice of a Cummings, and playing constitutional silly buggers? Non-executive presidents stay aloof until they are needed.

Yes, and the point here is that, due to its illegitimacy, a monarchy cannot even perform this limited role. Constitutional monarchies are wide open to constitutional abuse, as Johnson showed.

 

[Silas Loom]

I don’t understand the question. Do you mean were Johnson elected non executive president? Then what would stop him is that it’s a ceremonial post without the powers to do anything.

Personally, I wouldn’t have any such thing. We don’t need a monarchy. If you have something that isn’t needed, once rid it it, why would you replace it?

No, of course I don’t mean that.

 

[Silas Loom]

Yes, and the point here is that, due to its illegitimacy, a monarchy cannot even perform this limited role. Constitutional monarchies are wide open to constitutional abuse, as Johnson showed.

Absolutely.