Monarch or President? With Obama coming into his presidency and the effect that has had on the American economy, America is moving much quicker out of the recession than the UK. Is it time to drop the Monarchy and to start electing a British Presidents? The drunken behaviour of the young Royals, the money they cost and the way they act to incomers i.e. Diana, all point, for me, to removing them and allowing us to vote on who should be the countries figurehead.
I'm not sure that Obama's Presidency is all that related to the economic situation in the U.S. TBH third_man, as yet. I can't see how replacing an hereditary monarch with an elected Head of State will have any impact at all, given that she / soon-to-be-he has no real political power whatsoever? What powers would an elected figurehead have? None whatsoever, preferably. I don't believe in hereditary priveleges, but I don't believe there's a compelling reason to rip up the Constitution either. The democrat in me would tend to favour it on principle, but it would be a big change for little gain IMO, so not much point to it really. Presidents tend to have all the prestige, but no power, Prime Ministers have all the power, but little prestige, so there's always a tension between the two. Better to leave it as it is IMO, cos at least the Queen knows her limits, and doesn't continually try to test them. Neil x x x ;)
Obama is the first decent president they have had in years, that is any good, only then because he is first generation. What we need is a good strong monarch, one who would march down Downing Street pull Blair out and cut his head off. Who wants a guy power hungry, far better someone who is trained and takes on the role of head of state out of duty.
Actually I think Obama has had a huge effect on whats going on in the US. Speaking with American friends they tell me its like the country can breath again after years of oppression. Why would replacing the Monarchy with a President mean we would have a conflict of power? Surely a strong president would be able to work with the government in power, but even if it didn't wouldn't it be better to have at least someone who could call them to account. The Constitutional Monarchy we have is toothless and just a drain on the UK's fast dwindling funds.
What the hell has the monarchy got to do with it anyway? You've said yourself, it's a constitutional monarchy, with absolutely bugger all power vested in the position. What you're talking about is dismantling parliament. Totally different story.
What we need is a good strong monarch, one who would march down Downing Street pull Blair out and cut his head off.
Is Blair still there then???????????? :silly: God, I am more confused than I thought I was! :giggle: Sam xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNo but he should have been gone years back
Quote by The_third_man Why would replacing the Monarchy with a President mean we would have a conflict of power? <snip> The Constitutional Monarchy we have is toothless and just a drain on the UK's fast dwindling funds.
Because supreme power currently lies with Paliament, which is right and proper. Having an elected Head of State dilutes that power, which inevitably leads to conflict, assuming that Head of State actually has real power, because each would believe they have a democratic mandate from their electorate that legitimises their authority. You tend to end up with a President trying to convert their prestige into power, and a Prime Minister resisting encroachment on their territory. The main benefit of the monarchy is that they understand that they have no power, no responsibility to anyone, and no need to seek approval. They are toothless for a reason. As to the cost, it has been estimated that the cost of a President carrying out the same roles as the monarch would be far in excess of the current cost of the monarchy.
Surely a strong president would be able to work with the government in power, but even if it didn't wouldn't it be better to have at least someone who could call them to account.
They are held to account already. They are held to account by the rest of the Cabinet, the rest of the Legislature in the Commons and the Lords, by the Judiciary, by the media that scrutinises their every action, and ultimately, by the Electorate. How many more checks and balances on the power of the executive do we really need? Neil x x x ;)
Quote by neilinleeds The main benefit of the monarchy is that they understand that they have no power, no responsibility to anyone, and no need to seek approval. They are toothless for a reason.
So what exactly is the point of them being there? A head of state with no power may as well be an ordinary citizen. Why should the head of state just be the descendants of the family that just happened to be the most ruthless of all the waring tribes - the Mafia of their day. I would rather elect someone than have them foisted upon us.
Quote by The_third_man The main benefit of the monarchy is that they understand that they have no power, no responsibility to anyone, and no need to seek approval. They are toothless for a reason.
So what exactly is the point of them being there? A head of state with no power may as well be an ordinary citizen. Why should the head of state just be the descendants of the family that just happened to be the most ruthless of all the waring tribes - the Mafia of their day. I would rather elect someone than have them foisted upon us. You do elect someone - when you vote.
Quote by Freckledbird The main benefit of the monarchy is that they understand that they have no power, no responsibility to anyone, and no need to seek approval. They are toothless for a reason.
So what exactly is the point of them being there? A head of state with no power may as well be an ordinary citizen. Why should the head of state just be the descendants of the family that just happened to be the most ruthless of all the waring tribes - the Mafia of their day. I would rather elect someone than have them foisted upon us. You do elect someone - when you vote. no one voted for gordon brown though did they
Quote by bouncy332 The main benefit of the monarchy is that they understand that they have no power, no responsibility to anyone, and no need to seek approval. They are toothless for a reason.
So what exactly is the point of them being there? A head of state with no power may as well be an ordinary citizen. Why should the head of state just be the descendants of the family that just happened to be the most ruthless of all the waring tribes - the Mafia of their day. I would rather elect someone than have them foisted upon us. You do elect someone - when you vote. no one voted for gordon brown though did they Nah, TB just got up one day, said 'eyup Gordie, take over for me, will ya?'. The Labour party was elected by the majority of the people who voted - the ministers elected their leader, didn't they?
Quote by Freckledbird The main benefit of the monarchy is that they understand that they have no power, no responsibility to anyone, and no need to seek approval. They are toothless for a reason.
So what exactly is the point of them being there? A head of state with no power may as well be an ordinary citizen. Why should the head of state just be the descendants of the family that just happened to be the most ruthless of all the waring tribes - the Mafia of their day. I would rather elect someone than have them foisted upon us. You do elect someone - when you vote. no one voted for gordon brown though did they Nah, TB just got up one day, said 'eyup Gordie, take over for me, will ya?'. The Labour party was elected by the majority of the people who voted - the ministers elected their leader, didn't they? exactly we don't elect um they do
I always thought that the house of lords are an extension of the monarchy, as many are members of the peerage and titled etc. That the house of commons was the link to the people. So that in effect the monarchistic system is deeply embedded in our culture, making a change something that could cause great problems. But I think we should move away from what has become the nanny state.
Quote by duncanlondon I always thought that the house of lords are an extension of the monarchy, as many are members of the peerage and titled etc. That the house of commons was the link to the people.
I thought they were Peers until the other day when I read that Labour got rid of the hereditary Peers and stuffed the Lords full of their mates. I even heard that Neil Kinnock was a lord........didn't he call them a lot of names? Some of them very rude as well? Dave_Notts
there are very different "kind" of presidencies.. with varying degrees of power, to name a few examples, the USA president who yields enourmous executive power, the french one who has less but is still strongly leading the direction in which the country moves, and the italian one, who's there merely as a representative of the state (he's actually elected by the parliament and not the citizens), and has the sole function of defending the constitution. changing from monarchy to presidency is something that is either done by revolution or by painstakingly slow process of modification of the law on virtually every major topic. I have the idea that the mp's right now have bigger and more pressing matters on their plate..and little time to spend changing the resident of buckingham palace.
Leaving aside Obama et al, we should get rid of the monarchy - nothing to do with money - its just pathetic how people line the streets for a glimpse of someone whose only there by accident of birth - it just encourages a culture of mindless obsequisness. People should get a life.
He did Dave,hes now Lord Kinnock of some daft place knows heard of. Personal thought,i was reading some stuff about Jean he became bored of being president for life,he invested himself as guy really knew how to run a he disliked we either eaten by himself or feed to his animals in is private would be one way to reduce MPs expenses
Quote by well_busty_babe He did Dave,hes now Lord Kinnock of some daft place knows heard of. Personal thought,i was reading some stuff about Jean he became bored of being president for life,he invested himself as guy really knew how to run a he disliked we either eaten by himself or feed to his animals in is private would be one way to reduce MPs expenses
There is a better way as already outlined in this thread.. restore the guillotine in Parliament square :grin:
Quote by Melting_pot there are very different "kind" of presidencies.. with varying degrees of power, to name a few examples, the USA president who yields enourmous executive power, the french one who has less but is still strongly leading the direction in which the country moves, and the italian one, who's there merely as a representative of the state
Actually, there is a lot of sense in what is written here. France is truly a Republic but there is a gathering inclination to the style of Monarchy found in Spain. With the Spanish Monarchy, it seems there is significant power delivered through elected representatives and parliament but the Monarchy provides a stability that a Presidency cannot. One political party in France is headed by descendants of the old Bourbonnais Monarchy (they didn't all have their heads chopped off!) from an earlier Republic and their party line is, if returned to power, to establish a new Republic disposing of the post of President (not the President himself!) and replacing with a new line of Royals (not Segolene Royal for those in the know about French Politics!) based on the modern aspects of Spanish succession. An interesting thread :thumbup:
Swinging Heaven features sexually explicit material. To access this site you must be of the legal age to engage with the material of an adult site.
By entering Swinging Heaven you agree to the following;
I am deemed an adult where I live, and I am at least 18 years old
I am allowed to access & view sexually explicit material
0 likes
What powers would an elected figurehead have? None whatsoever, preferably. I don't believe in hereditary priveleges, but I don't believe there's a compelling reason to rip up the Constitution either. The democrat in me would tend to favour it on principle, but it would be a big change for little gain IMO, so not much point to it really. Presidents tend to have all the prestige, but no power, Prime Ministers have all the power, but little prestige, so there's always a tension between the two. Better to leave it as it is IMO, cos at least the Queen knows her limits, and doesn't continually try to test them.
