Has King Charles III died?

[littlebabyjesus]

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?

Think sm is referring to a PM playing silly buggers.

 

[Silas Loom]

Think sm is referring to a PM playing silly buggers.

I think DLR understood that as well, and is playing silly buggers himself. He’s hardly going to have forgotten the proroguing.

 

[danny la rouge]

The argument would be that a non-executive president is there to guard against abuse of power.

Doesn’t seem to work. Hindenburg appointed Hitler. Victor Emmanuel III appointed Mussolini. Franco restored the monarchy in Spain.

 

[danny la rouge]

Think sm is referring to a PM playing silly buggers.

PMs do play silly buggers. Johnson did while PM.

 

[Silas Loom]

Doesn’t seem to work. Hindenburg appointed Hitler. Victor Emmanuel III appointed Mussolini. Franco restored the monarchy in Spain.

Hitler was elected fair and square: that’s an argument against democracy, not against non-executive presidents. A good argument, at that, but a separate discussion.

 

[MickiQ]

There are plenty of good (if no perfect) models out there for a state with an elected head, we can pick whichever we like or invent a completely new one. Whatever it might ultimately be it would be preferable to monarchism where the head of state gets picked by being born. In a democracy any kind of position which has power or even just influence should be filled democratically.
I've logged onto my Twitter account for the first in ages and it is awash with rumours (based entirely on no facts whatsoever) that Chucky has popped his clogs. I have to wonder why anyone working in the Palace (always with a capital P) would risk his job and possibly imprisonment to leak anonymous news to some no-mark hack on Twitter rather than say the BBC or CNN.

 

[danny la rouge]

I think DLR understood that as well

I didn’t.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

PMs do play silly buggers. Johnson did while PM.

Yes and the argument is that an elected president would be in a position to stop them. You are right of course that this doesn't always work.

 

[danny la rouge]

Hitler was elected fair and square: that’s an argument against democracy, not against non-executive presidents. A good argument, at that, but a separate discussion.

The point was made that non executive presidents and constitutional monarchs are supposed to (in theory) balance against abuse of power by elected prime ministers (or chancellors). I gave contrary examples.

 

[Artaxerxes]

No system is fool proof and the struggle for democracy is eternal.

It’s still better than being run by embedded fools and privilege

 

[Silas Loom]

In a democracy any kind of position which has power or even just influence should be filled democratically.

That’s where the US goes wrong, elected dogcatchers and suchlike.

What’s important is that all positions are contested fairly and openly, and that every office holder is accountable to somebody with teeth.

 

[Silas Loom]

The point was made that non executive presidents and constitutional monarchs are supposed to (in theory) balance against abuse of power by elected prime ministers (or chancellors). I gave contrary examples.

The balance is against abuse of constitutional power, not against abuses of rights or principles.

 

[danny la rouge]

The balance is against abuse of constitutional power, not against abuses of rights or principles.

In all three of those cases, constitutional powers were extended in summary fashion without electoral mandate.

 

[Silas Loom]

In all three of those cases, constitutional powers were extended in summary fashion without electoral mandate.

So, without the consent of elected representatives?

 

[danny la rouge]

So, without the consent of elected representatives?

Ah, you’re a fan of Edmund Burke? I’m not.

So how does “playing constitutional silly buggers” make sense to an adherent of representative democracy?

 

[Silas Loom]

Ah, you’re a fan of Edmund Burke? I’m not.

Not particularly. I’m just trying to work out how we can fix a particularly dodgy element of a sub-optimal system.

There isn’t much that can be done about the sovereignty of parliament. It’s a given.

E2A: Can’t be bothered with whatever you’re trying to do with the extra line you’ve inserted there. Johnson’s proroguing is a good benchmark for how a head of state should be able to do better than the Windsors.

 

[danny la rouge]

Can’t be bothered with whatever you’re trying to do with the extra line you’ve inserted there.

It’s a direct response to your point that democratically elected representatives are elected to represent, and do not need to be mandated on every point. (At least, I thought that was the point you were making). It’s why I brought up Burke. But I decided to expand in case I was being cryptic.

I’m not being difficult. We seem to be genuinely misunderstanding each other.

 

[Silas Loom]

It’s a direct response to your point that democratically elected representatives are elected to represent, and do not need to be mandated on every point. (At least, I thought that was the point you were making). It’s why I brought up Burke. But I decided to expand in case I was being cryptic.

I’m not being difficult. We seem to be genuinely misunderstanding each other.

Burke is relevant to acts (and Acts) of Parliament.

We currently have an executive which exercises power with limited parliamentary scrutiny or control (and zero effective scrutiny from the HoS). The purpose of proroguing was to frustrate the ability of Parliament to thwart the PM’s will.

I don’t see how that can be misunderstood. We have a problem with executive power that is irrelevant to the question of whether MPs are representatives or delegates.

Which is why I still get the impression that you are splitting hairs. Or, to contrast with Burke, Hares.

 

[danny la rouge]

Burke is relevant to acts (and Acts) of Parliament.

We currently have an executive which exercises power with limited parliamentary scrutiny or control. The purpose of proroguing was to frustrate the ability of Parliament to thwart the PM’s will.

I don’t see how that can be misunderstood. We have a problem with executive power that is irrelevant to the question of whether MPs are representatives or delegates.

Which is why I still get the impression that you are splitting hairs. Or, by contrast with Burke, Hares.

I believed when you said “So, without the consent of elected representatives?” that you were saying that my point that “In all three of those cases, constitutional powers were extended in summary fashion without electoral mandate” did not stand if the people making the constitutional changes were elected representatives. In other words, elected to make decisions.

If that was the point you were making, it calls into question the sense in which you think elected representatives “playing silly buggers” is a coherent complaint. If you were not making that point, then I have misunderstood and I don’t really know what you’re on about (in that post).

 

[Silas Loom]

I believed when you said “So, without the consent of elected representatives?” that my point that “In all three of those cases, constitutional powers were extended in summary fashion without electoral mandate” did not stand if the people making the constitutional changes were elected representatives. In other words, elected to make decisions.

If that was the point you were making, it calls into question the sense in which you think elected representatives “playing silly buggers” is a coherent complaint. If you were not making that point, then I have misunderstood and I don’t really know what you’re in about (in that post).

Johnson did not play silly buggers in his capacity as an elected representative for Uxbridge, he did so in his capacity of prime minister. His authority to do so comes from “the king in parliament”, and that is what is problematic. If the HoC had voted on proroguing itself, there would not have been a problem.

So I’m asking whether the historic European equivalent electoral chambers rubber-stamped the decisions to extend the executive’s constitutional powers in the examples you referenced.

 

[Santino]

Can we take this fascinating discussion to that recent thread about republicanism, and leave this for speculation about Old Sausage Fingers?

 

[Silas Loom]

Can we take this fascinating discussion to that recent thread about republicanism, and leave this for speculation about Old Sausage Fingers?

Is he dead, btw?

 

[Santino]

Is he dead, btw?

It seems unlikely but you never know.

 

[PR1Berske]

I don't know how many Daily Mail staffers still lurk on these forums though I'd like to know if any of this speculation is getting through.

 

[Silas Loom]

I don't know how many Daily Mail staffers still lurk on these forums though I'd like to know if any of this speculation is getting through.

They are all busy googling Edmund Burke now.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Johnson did not play silly buggers in his capacity as an elected representative for Uxbridge, he did so in his capacity of prime minister. His authority to do so comes from “the king in parliament”, and that is what is problematic. If the HoC had voted on proroguing itself, there would not have been a problem.

So I’m asking whether the historic European equivalent electoral chambers rubber-stamped the decisions to extend the executive’s constitutional powers in the examples you referenced.

This stuff is always a danger, tbh, whatever the system. More recent examples of the abuse of power by changing or extending the executive's powers include the likes of Erdogan, Putin and Chavez. It's always bad for democracy, even if elected representatives have voted for it or it is approved through a plebiscite. Democracy can be undermined through democratic means!

 

[existentialist]

This just came up on my Telegram...but I can't find any corroboration anywhere else.

 

[Cloo]

Nah, there's just been a day or so of people on social media alleging there were half mast flags at palaces etc which is bollocks as they don't do that until after an announcement.

That said, I think King Chuckie definitely sounds as though he isn't as absolutely fine as the palace seemed to be implying after his recent hospitalisation.

 

[Artaxerxes]

 

[Sue]

View attachment 416377

Do we get a day off?