Is a head of state necessary?

[Puddy_Tat]

I’m interested too. The standard response I get from people opposed to abolishing the monarchy is “we’d have ended up with Tony Blair as president” which is hard to argue with.

you can't have this argument with them.

if you ask them what the difference is between the powers of an executive president and the british PM (e.g. compare president trump and prime minister johnson), they say something about the monarch being there to influence and moderate. if you then question the legitimacy of the monarch having influence over elected politicians, they say it's all symbolic and the monarch doesn't have any real powers...

bring on the aspidistra...

 

[Pickman's model]

you can't have this argument with them.

if you ask them what the difference is between the powers of an executive president and the british PM (e.g. compare president trump and prime minister johnson), they say something about the monarch being there to influence and moderate. if you then question the legitimacy of the monarch having influence over elected politicians, they say it's all symbolic and the monarch doesn't have any real powers...

bring on the aspidistra...

Except for the power to influence what's in laws and where it's against their interests to get the laws changed before becoming acts. Except for the army and the police and every mp and lord swearing allegiance not to the country, not to the government, not to the people but to the monarch. They've a lot of power, a vast amount of influence, and if people don't think what's going on atm is a clear indication of that authority they're utterly blind to what's going on around them.

 

[NoXion]

I'm in the "if we have to have one, then it should be a democratically elected position" camp.

I was recently arguing with someone on Reddit who claimed that people have some kind of need for idols in pomp and circumstance. Even if that were true, heredity is a crapshoot when it comes to producing people with the necessary people skills and charisma to be truly effective and inspiring leaders. There's definitely a better way.

 

[Puddy_Tat]

Except for the power to influence what's in laws and where it's against their interests to get the laws changed before becoming acts

i think it's considered disrespectful to mention that bit...

heredity is a crapshoot when it comes to producing people with the necessary people skills and charisma to be truly effective and inspiring leaders. There's definitely a better way.

indeed. although when the choice at the next election might be liz truss or keir starmer, an aspidistra seems an attractive alternative...

 

[Pickman's model]

Fletcher Pratt and L Sprague de Camp wrote a trilogy of fantasy novels about the accidental King, who caught the head of his predecessor which made him king for five years. Of course, he does his best to escape. But the central point, that kingship does not necessarily mean a long and happy existence is one which might be turned to our own situation.

It is of course very unfair that people like Edward, like William, like Andrew have spent so many years in the ruling family without ever revealing their gifts. So perhaps we could have a five year monarchy - or even one year, if that was desirable - which would allow so many people with claims to the throne to show us what hidden depths they have. And the five yearly (or annual) execution could become a tourist attraction, drawing people from around the world.

 

[Puddy_Tat]

And the five yearly (or annual) execution could become a tourist attraction, drawing people from around the world.

i did post this on another thread, but...

a few years ago, and before i gave up on it, on a forum that was getting increasingly tory, i did suggest that, since the royals were one of the oldest public sector monopolies, full of restrictive practices and generally over-staffed, that the monarchy ought to be privatised.

i suggested a model along the lines of the great success of railway privatisation - have british palaces plc to do the infrastructure, a horse and carriage leasing company, then franchise the actual monarchy for 5 years at a time. you might not get as many jubilees, but there would be more coronations to make up for it.

for some reason, that didn't go down all that well...

 

[MickiQ]

Fletcher Pratt and L Sprague de Camp wrote a trilogy of fantasy novels about the accidental King, who caught the head of his predecessor which made him king for five years. Of course, he does his best to escape. But the central point, that kingship does not necessarily mean a long and happy existence is one which might be turned to our own situation.

It is of course very unfair that people like Edward, like William, like Andrew have spent so many years in the ruling family without ever revealing their gifts. So perhaps we could have a five year monarchy - or even one year, if that was desirable - which would allow so many people with claims to the throne to show us what hidden depths they have. And the five yearly (or annual) execution could become a tourist attraction, drawing people from around the world.

We could have a monthly draw where the name of every eligible adult in the country goes in the pool and one gets selected at random to do the ceremonial stuff for a month. No power just the ceremonial shit.
Could tag it on the end of the last lottery draw in each month.
"And next month's King will be Joe Bloggs, 22 Acacia Ave Leeds, if you're watching Joe phone us on the number below otherwise a letter will be in the post"

 

[Chilli.s]

or even one year, if that was desirable - which would allow so many people with claims to the throne to show us what

Top of the Toffs

 

[ska invita]

I'm in the "if we have to have one, then it should be a democratically elected position" camp.

But do we have to have one, is the bit im unclear on. Is there some potential ultimate check on the prime minister that the position could hold to help prevent dictatorship, for example

 

[moochedit]

But do we have to have one, is the bit im unclear on. Is there some potential ultimate check on the prime minister that the position could hold to help prevent dictatorship, for example

Italy was a monarchy before the war ended. Didn't stop Mussolini.

 

[ska invita]

Italy was a monarchy before the war ended. Didn't stop Mussolini.

Stopping a dictator coming to power is never easy in practice, but I'm thinking even on paper..

 

[NoXion]

But do we have to have one, is the bit im unclear on. Is there some potential ultimate check on the prime minister that the position could hold to help prevent dictatorship, for example

I've never been entirely convinced by the checks and balances argument. I'm more open to the possibility that there might be a general need for some kind of non-executive position, for such purposes as entertaining foreign dignitaries and/or handing out medals and awards and similar ceremonies. Perhaps the role could be advisory in some capacity.

 

[SysOut]

Germans have a decent constitution - and its federal one.
We need not only a federal republic, but England has to go back to ancient kingdoms - or whatever one wants to call them, for obvious demographic reasons.
German presidents are not directly elected, so that limits any claim to power.

 

[ska invita]

Germans have a decent constitution - and its federal one.
We need not only a federal republic, but England has to go back to ancient kingdoms - or whatever one wants to call them, for obvious demographic reasons.
German presidents are not directly elected, so that limits any claim to power.

what are the demographic reasons? do you mean regional identities?

 

[Sue]

It is of course very unfair that people like Edward, like William, like Andrew have spent so many years in the ruling family without ever revealing their gifts.

In fact, one might begin to wonder if they indeed have gifts to reveal.

 

[Pickman's model]

In fact, one might begin to wonder if they indeed have gifts to reveal.

i'm sure they'll think of something when they see the executioner start to sharpen his axe

 

[SysOut]

what are the demographic reasons? do you mean regional identities?

No. Because SE England has such a large population, comparatively. London has a population greater than quite a few countries.
But, of course, there are regional identities. Both factors strengthen the argument for subdividing England in the federal sense. England would still exist otherwise. Football....
If one doesn't do it, then federalisation won't work.

 

[Puddy_Tat]

but England has to go back to ancient kingdoms

complete with border controls on thames crossings east of the rotherhithe tunnel?

 

[Pickman's model]

Germans have a decent constitution - and its federal one.
We need not only a federal republic, but England has to go back to ancient kingdoms - or whatever one wants to call them, for obvious demographic reasons.
German presidents are not directly elected, so that limits any claim to power.

so more royal parasites not fewer. you might want to return to the drawing board

 

[Puddy_Tat]

complete with border controls on thames crossings east of the rotherhithe tunnel?

and a return of north woolwich to kent

 

[Raheem]

No. Because SE England has such a large population, comparatively. London has a population greater than quite a few countries.
But, of course, there are regional identities. Both factors strengthen the argument for subdividing England in the federal sense. England would still exist otherwise. Football....
If one doesn't do it, then federalisation won't work.

So you just mean England should be split up somehow it other, rather than that we specifically need to track down Boudicca's closest living descendent and reinstate the Iceni monarchy.

 

[SysOut]

i'm sure they'll think of something when they see the executioner start to sharpen his axe

Yes. Their military skills and those of their comrades in the armed forces.

 

[SysOut]

royal parasites

In a republic?

 

[Pickman's model]

In a republic?

oh you meant republican kingdoms

 

[SysOut]

oh you meant republican kingdoms

I shouldn't have used the word "kingdom". We could call call them lands, cantons or greatshires...

 

[Pickman's model]

I shouldn't have used the word "kingdom". We could call call them lands, cantons or greatshires...

... provinces ...

 

[Puddy_Tat]

I shouldn't have used the word "kingdom". We could call call them lands, cantons or greatshires...

one urbanite has already prepared

Although there could be potential for a civil war over the N Woolwich enclave and whether there ought to be a wall built between the historic Kent parts of S London and the historic Wessex bits

 

[redsquirrel]

But do we have to have one, is the bit im unclear on. Is there some potential ultimate check on the prime minister that the position could hold to help prevent dictatorship, for example

Of course I'm in the chil, DLR camp - capital and the state is the problem

There are reasons why it can be advantageous to separate the powers of the executive and legislative. But even within the framework of a liberal democracy that separation does not need to connected to the HoS functions.

 

[tim]

no, you don't need a president. if you look back to eg the roman republic you can have two people who for a year exercise power. if you have to have power exercised at all. there's loads of ways any republic can be organised - see, for example, the way the venetian republic operated. it's not one size fits all republics

San Marino has two regents who serve six-month terms with bank holidays twice a year to celebrate those terms. This didn't stop the American's organising a coup in 1957.

(San was formerly known as Sam)

 

[Pickman's model]

Sam Marino has two regents who serve six-month terms with bank holidays twice a year to celebrate those terms. This didn't stop the American's organising a coup in 1957.

Sam Marino lives in Brockley and sells ice cream