NationStates Jolt Archive

The UK should either become an absolute monarchy or become a republic. Constitutional monarchs are pointless. If they have no power, why have them?

I say we should keep the Queen because she is awesome. Part of what makes the UK so great is its ridiculous history, and the monarchy is as integral to being British as having a cup of tea and not finding Friends funny

The only thing we should change is bring back the death penalty for treason.

Clearly the UK could do with some political excitementz as apathy fever continues to grip the nation. What would you change?

Abolish the Lords? Remove the Queen? Wait for the Queen to die and then cruelly snatch the monarchy from Charles' outstretched hands? Institute a different ceremonial person to take the role of the Queen? Institute a President a la the U.S with seperation of the different branches of government?

And, as ever, please indulge us with the details as to why you would do such a thing. And if you wouldn't change anything, you can tell us why you are such a crushing old bore.

Something like "The Federated Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". Not really a huge change. Maybe I'd change more if I were in charge, but it would be gradual, introduce a few changes at a time.

Edit: As for what the Monarchy should do - lead by example. And continue to provide a tourist attraction.

The UK should either become an absolute monarchy or become a republic. Constitutional monarchs are pointless. If they have no power, why have them?

Because they are better and cheaper than a presidency as well as supposedly limiting somewhat the government from going insane.

What can the British do for some excitement?

Try and reestablish their empire;)

What can the British do for some excitement?

Try to reestablish their empire;)

I think the Germans should help. They owe us because it's their fault it fell in the first place. Although it would've been stronger to begin with if the Americans hadn't broken away.

Wait, there's a written British Constitution?!?!?

When was this adopted? How does it differ from simple Acts of Parliament that can be easily overridden, but only by another Act of Parliament and not by any type of High Court? What does it say?

I'm not sure. I quite like the idea of a "primaries" system based upon the model of the USA, if only because it might actually involve and excite a little more than currently happens.

Oh, and break the Union with Scotland. Or, failing that, limit the rights of Scottish MP's to vote only at Holyrood, and for Scottish seats not to count towards English elections.

Edit: As for what the Monarchy should do - lead by example. And continue to provide a tourist attraction.

How does a monarch lead by example?

How does a monarch lead by example?

I am reminded of King George VI of Great Britain and Ireland, and his refusal to leave Britain during the Blitz.

The tourists would roll in regardless of the Queen, so all she is doing is costing money, so she should be kept as an advisor to the government only.

I don't like the idea of a monarch, it seems so archaic. "Lord Protector" is better. Yes sirree, "Lord Protector of the Commonwealth of England, Scotland, and Ireland" sounds much better than whatever the Queen is.

Click Stand;13489887']The tourists would roll in regardless of the Queen, so all she is doing is costing money, so she should be kept as an advisor to the government only.

Why should the government value her advice?

Why should the government value her advice?

Well one reason, and this only applies to her not the monarchy in general, is that she's had a private audience with the Prime Minister every week for more than 50 years, dating back to Winston Churchill himself.

It could be said that she's the most politically informed person in Britain.

Having said that, I see little need for a monarchy and I don't really buy into the tourism angle, it's a very weak reason for sustaining a privileged status.

Yet how should we replace the currrent system.

I don't believe in a static written constitution, I quite like evolving laws that maintain pace with a changing society but I do believe in enshrining basic rights so I'm happy for a Bill of Rights to be put in place.

As to the form of government, I also believe in a bicameral parliament, two houses and a separation of the judiciary. I also feel that a head of state without political power is fairly useless.

So, one house voted for by the public - H of P - another house voted by the H of P though required to have representation of scientists, lawyers and the like, essentially those who have done great service to the country, often though not limited to a specific area of expertise.

I'm also of a mind to ban any form of political party but I haven't fully thought out how that might work.

When I do, expect the revolution.

Well one reason, and this only applies to her not the monarchy in general, is that she's had a private audience with the Prime Minister every week for more than 50 years, dating back to Winston Churchill himself.

It could be said that she's the most politically informed person in Britain.



As to the form of government, I also believe in a bicameral parliament, two houses and a separation of the judiciary. I also feel that a head of state without political power is fairly useless.

So, one house voted for by the public - H of P - another house voted by the H of P though required to have representation of scientists, lawyers and the like, essentially those who have done great service to the country, often though not limited to a specific area of expertise.


What are the merits of having two houses when one is so powerless? Seems like keeping the Lords in any form is a pointless bow to tradition.

What are the merits of having two houses when one is so powerless? Seems like keeping the Lords in any form is a pointless bow to tradition.

Ah but I'd provide it with quite strong powers to act as a check on the popular vote, ultimately to stop the rise of totalitarianism but in practice to have a considered view on subjects, an educated view in terms of their areas of expertise. That's not to say the H of P is not educated, but the same sort of people are generally elected, generalists you might say - there's no incentive to vote for those of specific expertise.

It's not the Lords at all, it's a grouping of various experts and leading figures in our country and they're voted for by the H of P.

Loading the upper house is constrained by my ban on political parties, which, as I've said, I've yet to thoroughly think out.

Ah but I'd provide it with quite strong powers to act as a check on the popular vote, ultimately to stop the rise of totalitarianism... <snippy thing>

Pardon?

The way I see it "a check on the popular vote" is a step towards totalitarianism.

Here's a curious thing.

Elizabeth II is Queen of Australia as per Australian law. That means that if she is deposed as Queen of England she remains Queen of Australia. You never know, England may become a republic before Oz does. She might have emigrate here.

So so, much like today, there would be over ride powers on the upper house, what I'm aiming to affect is rash populism, not something Britain is that susceptible to but it has happened.

But it worries me who has the right to say when the electorate is being rash.

(Woops. Time warp.)

Pardon?

The way I see it "a check on the popular vote" is a step towards totalitarianism.

So so, much like today, there would be over ride powers on the upper house, what I'm aiming to affect is rash populism, not something Britain is that susceptible to but it has happened.

What are the merits of having two houses when one is so powerless? Seems like keeping the Lords in any form is a pointless bow to tradition.

I'm not sure. If used correctly, the Lords should act as a more moral and reasoned, and rather less politicised and demagoguic, source of opinion upon policy. Not that it will be, of course.

Here's a curious thing.

Elizabeth II is Queen of Australia as per Australian law. That means that if she is deposed as Queen of England she remains Queen of Australia. You never know, England may become a republic before Oz does. She might have emigrate here.

I'd pay good money to see Prince Phillip's reaction to his new abode.:D

the monarchy is not "archaic" because it is no longer in power. it is a figure head for the people to look to for tradition and to lead by example like george iv and the london blitz.

I'd pay good money to see Prince Phillip's reaction to his new abode.:D
Seconded!

Seconded!

"Blahdy convicts...."

Make military service mandatory for all royals. Hell, make it mandatory for anyone with a noble title! It's sort of like how the knights served their lord in return for land/power. Well, now the nobles and the monarchy can serve the people in return for land and power. Here's how it works:

Upon completing secondary school, anyone who has a noble title must choose from one of four options:
1. Enlist in the military.
2. Go to a military academy.
3. Join ROTC (or whatever you have) at a conventional British university.
4. Renounce their title.

On second thought, I'd permit a national service option as well.

Anyway, if a noble family finds itself with no heirs (maybe all potential heirs renounced their titles), the monarch grants the land to someone who would be eligible - maybe a decorated military officer, or a brilliant doctor.

It would make the system of nobility relevant in the modern era. Land and titles are granted as a reward for service to one's country.

Anyway, if a noble family finds itself with no heirs (maybe all potential heirs renounced their titles), the monarch grants the land to someone who would be eligible - maybe a decorated military officer, or a brilliant doctor.

Or the winner of Big Brother

I can't really seeing much changing in the near future. Perhaps at some point all royals will renounce their succession and we would change politically, but seems unlikely. I'd like the royals to have their privileges reduced significantly, they have no need or right to live in luxury their whole lives without earning it.

Because they are better and cheaper than a presidency as well as supposedly limiting somewhat the government from going insane.

are they really cheaper? I never get why we can't abolish the monarchy and just pay a president, elected by the parliament or something, without any actual power (pretty much the same power as the king has now) and pay him the same as we pay our prime minister or something. That would definitely be more cheaper than the monarchy is now and we could sell some of their land.

I say we should keep the Queen because she is awesome. Part of what makes the UK so great is its ridiculous history, and the monarchy is as integral to being British as having a cup of tea and not finding Friends funny

The only thing we should change is bring back the death penalty for treason.

What! We find Freinds plenty funny.

I can't really seeing much changing in the near future. Perhaps at some point all royals will renounce their succession and we would change politically, but seems unlikely. I'd like the royals to have their privileges reduced significantly, they have no need or right to live in luxury their whole lives without earning it.

They have the right by virtue of trading a whole chunk of land to the government in exchange for the civic list. And also a lot of their wealth comes from privately owned property etc.

are they really cheaper? I never get why we can't abolish the monarchy and just pay a president, elected by the parliament or something, without any actual power (pretty much the same power as the king has now) and pay him the same as we pay our prime minister or something. That would definitely be more cheaper than the monarchy is now and we could sell some of their land.
Compared to the French and Italian presidencies, at least, yes, they're cheaper.
Remember, a high proportion of their supposed cost actually covers the maintenance & staffing of the palaces and of Windsor Castle, which would probably be turned into presidential residences -- or, at least, kept as museums and so still need to have their upkeep paid for -- if there was a change of systems.
The only royals who actually receive living allowances from the state nowadays are the Queen herself and Prince Philip, with Her Majesty supporting those of the others who don't have adequate private incomes out of her own private money.
And the income from the most of their lands, the old 'Crown Estates', has been paid directly into the [government] Treasury since the days of George IV and is more than enough to cover these costs...

Something like "The Federated Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". Not really a huge change. Maybe I'd change more if I were in charge, but it would be gradual, introduce a few changes at a time.
I'd like to see a federal system similar to Germany, with Scotland, Wales and the Regions of England forming constituent states. There would have to (probably) special provisions for Northern Ireland, and for cooperation on areas of English national identity, but I think that could be worked on. I might create a system of Swiss direct democracy if I felt like it - there would have to be safeguards like a strong Bill of Rights.

Edit: As for what the Monarchy should do - lead by example. And continue to provide a tourist attraction.
If only they did...

The UK should either become an absolute monarchy or become a republic. Constitutional monarchs are pointless. If they have no power, why have them?

I can't speak for the UK, but I know that our (Dutch) queen brings in a lot of money for our economy (foreign trade missions).

What do people think of my idea regarding the monarchy and other nobles?

my three step program for constitutional change

1. abolish monarchy and instate an elected president a la France (if i understand correctly)

2. replace lords with something elected a la US (if i understand correctly)

3. cojoin fully into a Federal European Union with devolved powers to the Prime Minister and the President

Just a question, but I have always heard that quite a lot of presidents continue to receive payment, even after their term; hence, a monarchy would be cheaper - provided not the entire family lives off it.
Also, I think we should consider the iconic value of a monarchy; just as tradition, it is one of the things that a nation defines itself by. I think we could say that Belgium, has almost only the monarchy keeping it together, seeing our recent governmental crises.
I do agre, though, that they should have a function. On the other hand, i wouldn't want to trade places with them, as per their role as, wel, if you pardon my french, advertisement, they don't have any power, or hardly any, over their own lives.

Also, in my opinion, it adds an element of continuity, even with changing governments. It has an aura of stability that is, in my opinion, unequalled by a presidency.

Let's scrap the entire country and become a federation of independant city states like the Hanseatic League.

I can't speak for the UK, but I know that our (Dutch) queen brings in a lot of money for our economy (foreign trade missions).

a president or a 'minister of foreign trade' could do the same.

my three step program for constitutional change

1. abolish monarchy and instate an elected president a la France (if i understand correctly)

2. replace lords with something elected a la US (if i understand correctly)

3. cojoin fully into a Federal European Union with devolved powers to the Prime Minister and the President

1. Personally I think a president who is elected by parliament would be better. He or she shouldn't have much power anyway. I think it's bad to concentrate much power in one person. It would be stupid to elect someone with only a formal function (receiving foreign heads of state, sign laws, go on trade missions, etc).

2. I don't really know what the lords do but a quick glance at wikipedia learned me that they don't do much. Why not abolish it? I don't really understand why most parliaments have two 'houses'. In Belgium we have that too and I think in many other countries too. Why not just keep the house of commons and transfer the things the lords do to the commons? It seems cheaper and more efficient.

3. I agree on the condition that the EU will be made more democratic and it's powers are restricted to those areas where it would be beneficial to form a federation. (the military or trade for instance) I'm a little bit afraid that the EU will be used to further erode our social security and because it's so big will be more beneficial to lobbyists than to the people it's governing.

3. I agree on the condition that the EU will be made more democratic and it's powers are restricted to those areas where it would be beneficial to form a federation. (the military or trade for instance) I'm a little bit afraid that the EU will be used to further erode our social security and because it's so big will be more beneficial to lobbyists than to the people it's governing.

I have to agree on that, plus the fact that that would put the government at yet one more remove from the people. I mean, honestly, can we trust that someone elected from Spain, sitting in Brussels or Strasbourg, will put the same effort in solving problems in Riga as a chosen official from there will?
Call me old fashioned, if you will, but I like the idea of a nationstate. With international cooperation, of course, as isolation is eventually detrimental.

Oh yeah, I forgot; secession from the EU. As soon as possible, so as to pursue similar diplomatic links with the commonwealth.

you want to know what I'd do?

nothing, we have more important things to do than decide what goes on my money like how about housing the homeless and protecting the environment

Oh yeah, I forgot; secession from the EU. As soon as possible, so as to pursue similar diplomatic links with the commonwealth.
Why? Our trade and economy is centred on Europe, not the Commonwealth.

Make military service mandatory for all royals. Hell, make it mandatory for anyone with a noble title! It's sort of like how the knights served their lord in return for land/power. Well, now the nobles and the monarchy can serve the people in return for land and power. Here's how it works:

Upon completing secondary school, anyone who has a noble title must choose from one of four options:
1. Enlist in the military.
2. Go to a military academy.
3. Join ROTC (or whatever you have) at a conventional British university.
4. Renounce their title.


The heir to the throne already has to (or at least is traditional to) serve in all branches of the armed services. Charles has, William currently is, the Queen certainly served in WWII. Added to that most (but not all) royals do or have served in the military. Prince Harry is at the moment, Prince Andrew has had a long naval career including seeing active service in the Falklands. Prince Phillip had a military career too, Prince Edward (Duke of Kent, the Queen's cousin) had a long military career, Prince Michael of Kent has too

It's actually increadibly common within the royal family and is generally considered the 'done' thing, especially for those close to the line of succession

Why? Our trade and economy is centred on Europe, not the Commonwealth.

If you want a full discussion on the EU, wait a week or so for me to finish my open exams. Hmmm, two 24 hour long exams....

British trading patterns could be changed easily enough, and in comparison to India, the EU will soon be an economic lightweight.

I guess the real push was to tie service to the nobility. Rather than abolish the monarchy and House of Lords, make them earn their titles. I would go so far as to require several years of service to become eligible for the nobility. It wouldn't be just "a thing" that they go through in order to retain their titles. It would be a commitment, more or less restricting the lords to "service" careers.

Here's a more refined idea of what defines service:
Military (time spent at a military academy doesn't count, active duty counts double)
Medicine (cosmetic surgery doesn't count)
Law enforcement
Emergency services
Teaching

All of these must be full-time, and for a period of at least six years.

I would actually love it if the EU became one big state.

why?

I would actually love it if the EU became one big state.

Not to be blunt, but good for you. Have a gold star. I wouldn't, as I'll discuss later when I haven't got exams to avoid revising for.:D

I would actually love it if the EU became one big state.

If you want a full discussion on the EU, wait a week or so for me to finish my open exams. Hmmm, two 24 hour long exams....
Fair enough. I'm supposed to be writing an essay on how globalised the world was before 1914 and preparing for two seminars.

British trading patterns could be changed easily enough, and in comparison to India, the EU will soon be an economic lightweight.
Why would we want to change (and try to get Commomwealth states to change, which they wouldn't) our trading patterns? And why couldn't the EU as a whole negociate trade with India, as is already common practice between trading blocs?

Not that I want to distract you from your work.;)

I would actually love it if the EU became one big state.

Actually so would I, although not right now but maybe about 10 years along the line. As long as a) the government was drastically reformed to make it more democratic and less beaurocratic, and b) it was a confederacy, with significant powers devolved to regional governments for individual states. But in principle it would be nice.

In practice I don't think it's an unrealistic prediction that it will happen, but it'll not be for a long long time.

British trading patterns could be changed easily enough, and in comparison to India, the EU will soon be an economic lightweight.

Is there anything stopping us being in the EU and trading with India?

I guess the real push was to tie service to the nobility. Rather than abolish the monarchy and House of Lords, make them earn their titles. I would go so far as to require several years of service to become eligible for the nobility. It wouldn't be just "a thing" that they go through in order to retain their titles. It would be a commitment, more or less restricting the lords to "service" careers.

Here's a more refined idea of what defines service:
Military (time spent at a military academy doesn't count, active duty counts double)
Medicine (cosmetic surgery doesn't count)
Law enforcement
Emergency services
Teaching

All of these must be full-time, and for a period of at least six years.

Maybe we should require similar service before anybody can stand for election to the Commons, too, so that we would get MPs with more idea about how things actually work...

Clearly the UK could do with some political excitementz as apathy fever continues to grip the nation. What would you change?
The apathy exists because all of the parties are offering practically the exact same centre-right economic line, with minor differences on views on the NHS and civil liberties.
Abolish the Lords?
No, because they're often very wise, as anyone who has watched one of the debates on the BBC's Parliament channel affair (err Channel 504 on Sky) will realise.
Remove the Queen? Wait for the Queen to die and then cruelly snatch the monarchy from Charles' outstretched hands?
No, monarchies add a certainly stability to a country. Were it not for the monarchy of Belgium, for example, that country would be even worse run at the moment.
Institute a different ceremonial person to take the role of the Queen?
No.
Institute a President a la the U.S
We tried a republic. It banned Christmas and football.
with seperation of the different branches of government?
Our branches of government already work like those of the EU, US etc.

Cabinet thinks of legislation, House of Commons say "hurray" or "no ta", the House of Lords says "fine" or "woah there, kids, think of the unintended consequences!", and the HoC has to redebate it, and then the Queen basically has to say yes to the new legislation, or the Republican movement would go off on one, and nobody wants that.
And, as ever, please indulge us with the details as to why you would do such a thing. And if you wouldn't change anything, you can tell us why you are such a crushing old bore.
What I would change is that I'd bring back the death penalty for treason. That's about it, though.

From the responses so far it seems that democracy in Britain is on its last legs

Click Stand;13489887']The tourists would roll in regardless of the Queen, so all she is doing is costing money, so she should be kept as an advisor to the government only.


How much money? I was under the probably erroneous impression that the Windsors are extremely rich and able to pay their own royal expenses.

If it's a reasonable amount, then, consider the importance of of maintaining symbols and heritage. Why do the Chinese maintain the Forbidden City, no one lives there or works there anymore? Why does the UN designate UNESCO world heritage sites, mostly old buildings which are expensive to maintain and difficult to retrofit with modern conveniences? Every nation has a right to preserve some cultural distinctiveness and heritage. It so happens that in the UK, some of that heritage is embodied in the monarchy, rather than merely in architecture.

The apathy exists because all of the parties are offering practically the exact same centre-right economic line, with minor differences on views on the NHS and civil liberties.


True


No, because they're often very wise, as anyone who has watched one of the debates on the BBC's Parliament channel affair (err Channel 504 on Sky) will realise.


Whenever I've tuned into BBC Parliament I am more convinced that the Lords has to go. It's normally empty with a bunch of old men unconvingly going through the motions. It's an undemocratic joke.


No, monarchies add a certainly stability to a country. Were it not for the monarchy of Belgium, for example, that country would be even worse run at the moment.


Is there any evidence for this?


No.

We tried a republic. It banned Christmas and football.


It was also a dictatorship.


Our branches of government already work like those of the EU, US etc.

Cabinet thinks of legislation, House of Commons say "hurray" or "no ta", the House of Lords says "fine" or "woah there, kids, think of the unintended consequences!", and the HoC has to redebate it, and then the Queen basically has to say yes to the new legislation, or the Republican movement would go off on one, and nobody wants that.


Except that's not seperation becuase the cabinet are part of the commons.


What I would change is that I'd bring back the death penalty for treason. That's about it, though.

Why for treason and nothing else?

If it's a reasonable amount, then, consider the importance of of maintaining symbols and heritage. Why do the Chinese maintain the Forbidden City, no one lives there or works there anymore? Why does the UN designate UNESCO world heritage sites, mostly old buildings which are expensive to maintain and difficult to retrofit with modern conveniences? Every nation has a right to preserve some cultural distinctiveness and heritage. It so happens that in the UK, some of that heritage is embodied in the monarchy, rather than merely in architecture.

Yes, the monarchy is a symbol and thats why it should be abolished.

It's symoblic of inherited wealth and class privilege. Its heritage is that of feudal oppression.

The Queen does have some major power. She can't enact legislature but she is the supreme representative to the wprld. It is her job to deal with most of the international issues. If she says one thing wrong the entire country could be headed for political desaster. Plus, she is the commander of the mlitary. During a war he gives the big orders. Finally she can remove the Prime Minister. I wouldn't mess with the Queen. Remember she is the Queen for the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and about half of the carrabiean islands.

Is there any evidence for this?


That the King of Belgium is one of the few things keeping the country together ... yes.

Not only has he been cited by a number of prominent Belgian politicians as one of the only unifying factors within the country (along with their football team), but it was only through intervention of the King that an interime government was formed after well over 6 months of coalition talk deadlines:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7148143.stm.

And there is a good outcome, the issue has been resolved, thanks in part to the breathing room the interim government gave the negotiations:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7263246.stm

Disestablish the Church of England, remove the Monarchy, adopt the US Constitution (minus the 'right to bear arms part').

...adopt the US Constitution (minus the ‘right to bear arms part’).
No, no, no!

An uncodified, evolving constitution is a whole lot better; means we don’t get idiotic arguments over the exact meaning of an 18th century manuscript.

That the King of Belgium is one of the few things keeping the country together ... yes.

Believe me, if the king and our football team were the only thing keeping us together we would already have split. But I do agree that he played a unifying role.
Most people I know who are against a stronger regional government are also 'against' the king.

No, no, no!

An uncodified, evolving constitution is a whole lot better; means we don’t get idiotic arguments over the exact meaning of an 18th century manuscript.

Why can't the americans just update their constitution? And how exactly does a uncodified constitution work? Doesn't it have to be written down somewhere to actually have some power?

That the King of Belgium is one of the few things keeping the country together ... yes.


No, that a monarch makes things more stable.

No, no, no!

An uncodified, evolving constitution is a whole lot better; means we don’t get idiotic arguments over the exact meaning of an 18th century manuscript.

Personally I'd cheerfully put up with those arguments if guaranteed freedom of speech and secularism came out of it.

Why can't the americans just update their constitution? And how exactly does a uncodified constitution work? Doesn't it have to be written down somewhere to actually have some power?

Pretty much. As the constitution encompasses all treaties accepted by Parliament and all legislation adopted by Parliament, there is no real check on the power of Government.

From the responses so far it seems that democracy in Britain is on its last legs

But since nobody cares enough to kick it over, happy days all round!:p

Believe me, if the king and our football team were the only thing keeping us together we would already have split. But I do agree that he played a unifying role.
Most people I know who are against a stronger regional government are also 'against' the king.

Yes, I know I was over-exagerating (I was raised in Belgium), I was trying to make a point about the use of the monarchy :P, and yes everyone focused on my sweeping opening statemnt.... hmmm I guess I should learn somethign from this.

Clearly the UK could do with some political excitementz as apathy fever continues to grip the nation. What would you change?

Abolish the Lords? Remove the Queen? Wait for the Queen to die and then cruelly snatch the monarchy from Charles' outstretched hands? Institute a different ceremonial person to take the role of the Queen? Institute a President a la the U.S with seperation of the different branches of government?

And, as ever, please indulge us with the details as to why you would do such a thing. And if you wouldn't change anything, you can tell us why you are such a crushing old bore.

To go back to the OP. I think the one thing I would definitely change in the UK is to introduce some form of proportional representation. It would shake up British politics, give real alternatives (and even the Lib Dems who are more different from Labour/Tories than they are from each other) a chance and make people feel that their vote actually matters. Now, if you're in a 'safe' seat and you don't support the party holding it, you may as well not bother to vote.

Clearly the UK could do with some political excitementz as apathy fever continues to grip the nation. What would you change?

Abolish the Lords? Remove the Queen? Wait for the Queen to die and then cruelly snatch the monarchy from Charles' outstretched hands? Institute a different ceremonial person to take the role of the Queen? Institute a President a la the U.S with seperation of the different branches of government?

And, as ever, please indulge us with the details as to why you would do such a thing. And if you wouldn't change anything, you can tell us why you are such a crushing old bore.

Let's see, publicise all hospitals, abolish private education, have outreach workers for those in extreme poverty.
I'm against the Trident idea, better to improve living conditions for military forces in UK and train them, than perfect weapons that won't be used.

I don't think i could abolish the House of Lords, or the Queen. I'd increase the minimum age for children to go to school to 7 years old rather than the current 4-5, as that's just too young. Reduce working hours for routine workers with families (or give them income support and advice) increase expendature on alternate fuels including wave-power and wind-power. I'd also have a law that states one day of the week where cars and large vehicles are banned from road travel other than emergency services.
Place a restriction on Funeral and Wedding costs (as in the people who provide the service).
Pay the public to become government workers (especially in run-down areas), to encourage people who struggle to find employment to help and support government policy, which in turn would reduce crime levels in the poorer income areas.
For benefits, i'd say the person has to find a job after 8 months (in which they would recieve support from local social workers, and train for better qualifications at their nearest College), after those 8 months they can't find work they would be conscripted into the military (unless they suffer from a mental condition which inhibits their activities, typically ones required in the military).
Decrease taxes slightly, which would encourage people to pay more taxes. Get rid of TV licenses, and wouldn't bother with ID cards.
well i could go on but i'm hungry, i'll think about this.

Whenever I've tuned into BBC Parliament I am more convinced that the Lords has to go. It's normally empty with a bunch of old men unconvingly going through the motions. It's an undemocratic joke.
Oh come on now. Where better to put our disgraced politicians, inbred toffs, corrupt donors and ex-political nobodies than in Parliament?:D

Oh come on now. Where better to put our disgraced politicians, inbred toffs, corrupt donors and ex-political nobodies than in Parliament?:D
PPF schemes? Brussels?

PPF schemes? Brussels?
Think-Tanks?

Whenever I've tuned into BBC Parliament I am more convinced that the Lords has to go. It's normally empty with a bunch of old men unconvingly going through the motions. It's an undemocratic joke.
Err so are most of the HoC debates, really, although they're a little younger. The fact that the House of Lords can't actually block legislation, merely send it back, also means that there's only so much damage it can do.
Is there any evidence for this?
The Belgian king got a coalition government together from what is an absolute car-crash of a set of parties.

The elections were basically a third for Flemish nationalism, a third for economic liberalism that doesn't give a toss either way, but nor do they really want to work with the NVA or PS due to their economic views, and a third for the socialists, who want to keep Belgium together.

That a coalition government has been formed, and then lasted for about six months is basically down to the King.
It was also a dictatorship.
Well yes.

You give people too much power and you get an executive commitee running the country, we already have that to an extent with Cabinet - when you make the 'proper' head of state into the leader of that executive, then you get too much power concentrated in the hands of one person.

A monarchy balances that out by being able to dissolve parliament when things go extremely obviously wrong.
Except that's not seperation becuase the cabinet are part of the commons.
Only nominally.
Why for treason and nothing else?
Treason is against the population as a whole. Murder and paedophilia, whilst utterly reprehensible, are not.

Yes, the monarchy is a symbol and thats why it should be abolished.

It's symoblic of inherited wealth and class privilege. Its heritage is that of feudal oppression.


You can say this about 95% of the world's historic structures, starting with the Pyramids.

Heritage is what you make of it.

Weird but highly relevant trivia: Opinions of historical monarchs in England are higher than opinions of past presidents in the USA.

Err so are most of the HoC debates, really, although they're a little younger. The fact that the House of Lords can't actually block legislation, merely send it back, also means that there's only so much damage it can do.


It also means that it's useless.


The Belgian king got a coalition government together from what is an absolute car-crash of a set of parties.

The elections were basically a third for Flemish nationalism, a third for economic liberalism that doesn't give a toss either way, but nor do they really want to work with the NVA or PS due to their economic views, and a third for the socialists, who want to keep Belgium together.

That a coalition government has been formed, and then lasted for about six months is basically down to the King.

Well yes.

You give people too much power and you get an executive commitee running the country, we already have that to an extent with Cabinet - when you make the 'proper' head of state into the leader of that executive, then you get too much power concentrated in the hands of one person.

A monarchy balances that out by being able to dissolve parliament when things go extremely obviously wrong.


I meant evidence that a monarch provides stability.

And I don't see that the U.S is suffering from the abscence of a monarch in the way you described.


Treason is against the population as a whole. Murder and paedophilia, whilst utterly reprehensible, are not.

I don't see how that has relevance as to how it should be punished.

You can say this about 95% of the world's historic structures, starting with the Pyramids.


But that's not why we value the Pyramids. If the Queen were any of the things that we value the Pyramids for than that might be a useful comparison.

The monarchy is a placeholder for non-democratic influence. After Lords reform, it should be generally unnecessary in legislation, but they're still worth keeping around for culture and tourism.

The tricky bit is how to reform the Lords such that it remains authoritative without being installed by specific corporate interests. My stance on this has for some time been to essentially transform the Lords into a glorified and empowered Union, represented by members of non-profiting professional and academic bodies. Each seat is picked not by election from the general public or by appointment from the Commons but by nomination (in a completely transparent and accountable way, of course) from their respective bodies. Each member can sit for some maximum period of time (say, 4 years) before they must relinquish their post for at least another 4 years. Obviously, nobody can be a member of both houses, but the Commons will itself be granted a few seats in the Lords (about as many as, say, the number of cabinet ministers) to represent their interests both as politicians and as popular representatives, and people in the Lords will have the same rights to vote and access to their MPs as anyone else.

Needless to say, Governance is cross-house. As such, there will effectively cease to exist a single Government as we know it.

I'm going to try to write a (probably slightly satirical) book on the suggestion. Keep an eye out for it!

It also means that it's useless.
Not at all.

They can send back legislation, which causes a second, third etc. round of debate on the matter, during which people might better understand the flaws of whatever legislation is trying to be passed and instead vote it down.
I meant evidence that a monarch provides stability.
Yes, that's exactly what I gave you.
And I don't see that the U.S is suffering from the abscence of a monarch in the way you described.
1) They only have two parties, and also use their extremely rubbish, but fairly decisive, system of Electoral College to decide who wins. (for anyone who disagrees that it's rubbish, you're wrong)

2) Nixon's government would probably have been completely dissolved for its wrongdoing, rather than having a few people shuffle off.
I don't see how that has relevance as to how it should be punished.
A shame.

Personally I think the Queen sits there just to take some of the blame off the parlament.

Not at all.

They can send back legislation, which causes a second, third etc. round of debate on the matter, during which people might better understand the flaws of whatever legislation is trying to be passed and instead vote it down.


There's no reason to suspose that the Lords are more capable than elected representitives. And there's no reason to believe that sending back legislation is a good thing (an example being the ban on hunting)


Yes, that's exactly what I gave you.


That's not evidence, that's an example.


1) They only have two parties, and also use their extremely rubbish, but fairly decisive, system of Electoral College to decide who wins. (for anyone who disagrees that it's rubbish, you're wrong)


There is more choice across the two parties than across the three British parties. And first past the post is equally as flawed.


2) Nixon's government would probably have been completely dissolved for its wrongdoing, rather than having a few people shuffle off.


And yet, somehow, the system survived. If that's the worst affect of not having a monarch then sign me up.


A shame.

Why not try and explain? If you don't go into your reasons it comes across as a totally arbitary distinction.

There's no reason to suspose that the Lords are more capable than elected representitives. And there's no reason to believe that sending back legislation is a good thing (an example being the ban on hunting)
With the Lords in the state its in, I'm inclined to agree. The problem with it, however, is not that its members are not elected. Rather, it's because they're a hash of career lawyers and politicians who're given the place as a result of being chummy with the parties that it's all gone wrong. It could be very effective as a counter-weight to the elected Commons if a decent system of nominating qualified people to it could be established.

There's no reason to suspose that the Lords are more capable than elected representitives.
And there's none to suppose that elected representatives are any more capable than the Lords. One is given essentially by birthright, the other by winning a popularity contest.

Neither is really based on actual merit in terms of decision-making, that only really happens at a Cabinet level, and even then the merits of some of Cabinet members are always dubious to say the least (Prescott, anyone?).
And there's no reason to believe that sending back legislation is a good thing (an example being the ban on hunting)
The ban on fox hunting was sent back to Parliament, who then basically kept sending back the same text until the Lords said "ok fine". For such a ridiculously unimportant piece of legislation, I don't know quite why it got so much press, but there we go.
That's not evidence, that's an example.
Right...

What would you term evidence, as opposed to an example?
There is more choice across the two parties than across the three British parties.
Not really, no.

Their system is basically the Lib Dems vs. the Conservatives. We have New Labour in the middle of the two.
And first past the post is equally as flawed.
No, it isn't.

Electoral College smacks of the rotten boroughs affair we dealt with a long time ago, and can lead to some leaders gaining majority consent for their rule, but not actually gaining power, due to them not gaining enough now-arbritrary points, see Al Gore in 2000.

First past the post is flawed in terms of how democratic it is, but on the other hand, it does give the winner a lot of power.

For the problems caused by too many branches of government and also Proportional Representation simply look at, say, Italy. They might as well have a set of revolving doors on the office of the presidency. See also Greece, Belgium et al.
And yet, somehow, the system survived. If that's the worst affect of not having a monarch then sign me up.
You'd rather have a president who quite frankly takes the piss getting off basically Scott-free in return for not having a monarchy, an idea essentially without any benefits?
Why not try and explain? If you don't go into your reasons it comes across as a totally arbitary distinction.
OK -

(High) Treason is the act of attacking the country, and hence the public at large, as a whole. I find this extremely distasteful, and it genuinely merits the death penalty.

Murder, Paedophilia etc. is the act (generally) of attacking one or two people, which is reprehensible, but does not really merit death.

(High) Treason is the act of attacking the country, and hence the public at large, as a whole. I find this extremely distasteful, and it genuinely merits the death penalty...
You have, effectively, confirmed his suspicion that your distinction is arbitrary. "Distasteful" is not grounds for exception.

Their system is basically the Lib Dems vs. the Conservatives. We have New Labour in the middle of the two.


Arguably I'd put Democrates closer to Labour than the Lib Dems, even with New Labour. I'd realistically (and looking at analysis from the Political Compass etc) say that the difference between Labour and Conservatives, at the moment, is about the same as between Democrates and Repubilicans, ie not that much. We do have the Lib Dems offering somewhat of a balance (although it does amuse me, in a scary sorta way, that they went from being the economically central to the left-wing party over the last decade or so, without actually themselves changing their underlying policies).

Can I also point out that the US does use the first-past-the-post system for iit's legistlative bodies (ie Congress and Senate). So I wouldn't really argue that there's any underlying system difference that gives you greater choice because you use the same system for your legislative Houses (and since at lot of Presisdential candidates have been senators/congresmen inevitably the party lines will carry into the legislative branches).

In all honesty though, I think we need some form of proportional representation to realistically make the political system work.

Arguably I'd put Democrates closer to Labour than the Lib Dems, even with New Labour. I'd realistically (and looking at analysis from the Political Compass etc) say that the difference between Labour and Conservatives, at the moment, is about .
Funnily enough, at the grass roots, the Labour party is still very left wing. It just doesn't seem to translate too well up to the rest of the party, sadly. I imagine it's because these MPs are too happy awarding themselves bigger paycheques and pensions.

Reconquer the thirteen original colonies, plus the other 36, except Utah. :)

I'd rebuild the British Empire, starting with the current nations that currently have the Queen as their Queen (IE Canada) and go from there.

Reconquer the thirteen original colonies, plus the other 36, except Utah. :)

Have fun with that. We beat the brits when we were a bunch of upstart colonists and they were the greatest military power in the world. Britain had to have its ass saved by the US twice in the last century. I would wager California ALONE against Britain, assuming we got a few years to build up an independent military. And even if you did manage to hurt CA, we would just let you eat a few Minutemen, then go back to our In-N-Out Burger. :D

And why not Utah? Are you afraid of Mormons?

Have fun with that. We beat the brits when we were a bunch of upstart colonists and they were the greatest military power in the world.
Never mind the fact that in said case we had the help of the #2 European military power of the time. :rolleyes:
And why not Utah? Are you afraid of Mormons?

Why would they want them?

Have fun with that. We beat the brits when we were a bunch of upstart colonists and they were the greatest military power in the world. Britain had to have its ass saved by the US twice in the last century. I would wager California ALONE against Britain, assuming we got a few years to build up an independent military. And even if you did manage to hurt CA, we would just let you eat a few Minutemen, then go back to our In-N-Out Burger. :D

And why not Utah? Are you afraid of Mormons?

Take a history lesson, it'll help you in the long run.

Why would they want them?
We already have them. Oldest surviving branch of the church is in fact in Preston, UK. Some 190,000 of them in the UK in total.

There is so much Wrong with Calvin College's post I could be here until I have Granchildren explaining whats wrong with it. But I'll sum it up as : That is completely made up apart from a vague implied notion of who won the War of American Independence.

There's no reason to suspose that the Lords are more capable than elected representitives. And there's no reason to believe that sending back legislation is a good thing (an example being the ban on hunting)


There is every reason, the commons are full of populists (mostly) because they are elected, it really is only populists that are elected. It's good to have the people represented in parliament, but it is also good to have an alternative point of view not bound by popular opinion also represented in government.

There is every reason, the commons are full of populists (mostly) because they are elected, it really is only populists that are elected. It's good to have the people represented in parliament, but it is also good to have an alternative point of view not bound by popular opinion also represented in government.

Shock Horror!

That's almost Democratic.

Shock Horror!

That's almost Democratic.

The House of Lords is somewhat of an anachronism. What it can be is with the growing trend of career politicians is that the Lords can be filled with experts from areas who can ensure (or try to) that laws make genuine sense and are not just designed for populist approval.

We already have them. Oldest surviving branch of the church is in fact in Preston, UK. Some 190,000 of them in the UK in total.

Which would be a reason to not want Utah, you already have your own Mormons... No need to add more of them.