A Level Politics Help

[Brovion]

Yorkshire Seagull: I can't be arsed to read the thread but I'm sure the forelock-tugging toadies (aka 'monarchists') will have put foreward two arguments which I will demolish forthwith:

1 - "Having a monarchy brings in lots of tourists. Getting rid of it will damage the economy." Bollocks. Tourists still go to Egypt even though there are no pharoes, they still go to Rome even though there are no emperers and they still go to places like Versailles in France even though the French very sensibly beheaded their royal family. Tourists will still come to Britain to visit the stately homes and royal palaces even if they and their inhabitants no longer have a constitutional function.

2 - "We'd end up with President Blair/Thatcher/Cameron etc". Again, bollocks. There is no rule that says we'd have to adopt the American model. We could keep the Prime Minister as the effective 'boss' for the day-to-day running of the country (as know) and the President would simply be the Head of State. Countries like Ireland and France run perfectly well like this.

Monarchists might say 'well why bother changing then?' The reason for change is we'd become a proper democracy as opposed to only half a one. Currently the queen's role in politics is purely ceremonial; she doesn't feel she can interfere (such as refusing to give the Royal Assent to a bill) simply because she knows she's unelected. A properly-elected President, knowing that they had a mandate from the people, could act as a legitimate counter-balance to an over-zealous or out-of-touch House of Commons. That is especially true at the present time where Labour have a massive majority in the Commons - but most people in the country hate their guts. Currently there is nothing to stop them from forcing through a bill that 'the people' all think is a terrible mistake, like, I dunno, declaring war on Russia. The queen couldn't stop that without causing a major constitutional crisis, whereas a properly-mandated President could.

 

[Stoo82]

What if the people, which is true in the UK's case, want to keep the Monarchy. Is this not Democracy?

Democracy does not mean elections, it mean for the people, by the people. If we really though we did not need her we would have got rid of them. But at the end of the day, it matters very little wether we have a Presedent or a Queen/King.

I want my Head of State to be A-Political. Bread into what it is to be a Head of State and have no ambion above the country. Which you can only get from a consticutional manarch.

 

[coventrygull]

Not a very good arguement otherwise you sink to the level where all property ownership is theft. Who gave the land to the peasants in the first place? Who decided who had the nice bit of land next to the river and who ended up with the shitty scrubland.

May be not but it dosen't alter the fact that a ruling elite, the monarchy stole the land from the peasants. The fast majority of our monarchs have been tyrants.

 

[Giraffe]

I bought some rather lovely raspberry jam at Windsor castle recently. I assume Liz sent Harry and William out to pick the berries, whilst she slaved over a hot stove to make the product. Suspect Edward worked on the packaging.

Anyway, it's a big yes from me. Generate millions in tourism and give us that "we're better than you" feeling when it comes to other nations such as France who took the rash step to get rid of theirs.

 

[drew]

Yorkshire Seagull: I can't be arsed to read the thread but I'm sure the forelock-tugging toadies (aka 'monarchists') will have put foreward two arguments which I will demolish forthwith:

1 - "Having a monarchy brings in lots of tourists. Getting rid of it will damage the economy." Bollocks. Tourists still go to Egypt even though there are no pharoes, they still go to Rome even though there are no emperers and they still go to places like Versailles in France even though the French very sensibly beheaded their royal family. Tourists will still come to Britain to visit the stately homes and royal palaces even if they and their inhabitants no longer have a constitutional function.

2 - "We'd end up with President Blair/Thatcher/Cameron etc". Again, bollocks. There is no rule that says we'd have to adopt the American model. We could keep the Prime Minister as the effective 'boss' for the day-to-day running of the country (as know) and the President would simply be the Head of State. Countries like Ireland and France run perfectly well like this.

Monarchists might say 'well why bother changing then?' The reason for change is we'd become a proper democracy as opposed to only half a one. Currently the queen's role in politics is purely ceremonial; she doesn't feel she can interfere (such as refusing to give the Royal Assent to a bill) simply because she knows she's unelected. A properly-elected President, knowing that they had a mandate from the people, could act as a legitimate counter-balance to an over-zealous or out-of-touch House of Commons. That is especially true at the present time where Labour have a massive majority in the Commons - but most people in the country hate their guts. Currently there is nothing to stop them from forcing through a bill that 'the people' all think is a terrible mistake, like, I dunno, declaring war on Russia. The queen couldn't stop that without causing a major constitutional crisis, whereas a properly-mandated President could.

So, who is the current president of Ireland, doubt if many can name him/her. On the one hand you are saying an elected president should be able counter-balance an over zealous Commons yet on the other you suggest a purely ceremonial role. I'd rather trust the decisions of the majority of an elected parliament rather than the whims of a figurehead. They won't always get it right but there is no guarantee that he/she will either. As for most people hating Labour's guts, that could equally be said of Cameroon and his cronies. It is not a question of who you think is best, but who you think is least worse.

As for you comment about forcing through an unpopular bill, what's to stop a president vetoing a popular bill just because he doesn't think it is right, especially if you had a system where they have a fixed terms of office and can't stand for re-election after the second as an example.

 

[User removed 4]

I bought some rather lovely raspberry jam at Windsor castle recently. I assume Liz sent Harry and William out to pick the berries, whilst she slaved over a hot stove to make the product. Suspect Edward worked on the packaging.

Anyway, it's a big yes from me. Generate millions in tourism and give us that "we're better than you" feeling when it comes to other nations such as France who took the rash step to get rid of theirs.

no, edward gets involved in the fudgepacking.

 

[skipper734]

May be not but it dosen't alter the fact that a ruling elite, the monarchy stole the land from the peasants. The fast majority of our monarchs have been tyrants.

Please read my post No. 59 for the historicaly challenged. :hammer:

 

[drew]

May be not but it dosen't alter the fact that a ruling elite, the monarchy stole the land from the peasants. The fast majority of our monarchs have been tyrants.

The point being made seems to have wafted right over your head. Suggest you read Skipper734's post.

Yes, they may have been tyrants but then times were different then and society itself was probably harsher for everyone. You can't compare today with how lives were lived 500 years ago.

 

[drew]

Please read my post No. 59 for the historicaly challenged. :hammer:

Beat me to it.

 

[coventrygull]

Please read my post No. 59 for the historicaly challenged. :hammer:

Its Ok I have read the "end of poverty" by Richard Hunt

 

[Brovion]

So, who is the current president of Ireland, doubt if many can name him/her. On the one hand you are saying an elected president should be able counter-balance an over zealous Commons yet on the other you suggest a purely ceremonial role. I'd rather trust the decisions of the majority of an elected parliament rather than the whims of a figurehead. They won't always get it right but there is no guarantee that he/she will either. As for most people hating Labour's guts, that could equally be said of Cameroon and his cronies. It is not a question of who you think is best, but who you think is least worse.

As for you comment about forcing through an unpopular bill, what's to stop a president vetoing a popular bill just because he doesn't think it is right, especially if you had a system where they have a fixed terms of office and can't stand for re-election after the second as an example.

Hmm. I don't think you've understood. To answer your points:

Firstly no I can't name the president of Ireland, so what? It's like being asked to name the chairman of Blackburn Rovers. They have a role. End of story.

Secondly I NEVER suggested a ceremonial role. Re-read my post properly, that is precisely what I'm opposed to! I want a Head of State with a proper constitutional role, not a hatstand with a rubber stamp.

Thirdly yes of course they could well say the same about Cameron, that's EXACTLY the point! It's about having checks, balances and accountability which is what we don't have.

Fourthly I haven't actually discussed the ins and outs of presidential terms etc but I'll work to your parameters. Assuming a President, approaching the end of their final, fixed term, does veto a 'popular' bill. The solution could be a) impeach the president or b) re-submit the bill after the president has left office. I don't think the details are totally relevent to a 'Monarch or President' debate, but it's good that we're discussing things like that as they are all things we will have to work out once we've agreed to ditch the monarchy.

 

[Gwylan]

So, who is the current president of Ireland, doubt if many can name him/her.

That's an easy one - Mary McAleese - but what's that got to do with the price of fish?

Brovion's spot on with analysis - there aren't any coherent arguments in favour of the monarchy. It's just the way that things have always been done so inertia wins out.

I'm pleased that an opinion poll last time, for the first time ever, showed a lack of majority support for a monarchy: I'm sure its support will gradually ebb away.

 

[beorhthelm]

1 - "Having a monarchy brings in lots of tourists. Getting rid of it will damage the economy." Bollocks. ...

2 - "We'd end up with President Blair/Thatcher/Cameron etc". Again, bollocks.

Monarchists might say 'well why bother changing then?' The reason for change is we'd become a proper democracy as opposed to only half a one. Currently the queen's role in politics is purely ceremonial; she doesn't feel she can interfere (such as refusing to give the Royal Assent to a bill) simply because she knows she's unelected. A properly-elected President, knowing that they had a mandate from the people, could act as a legitimate counter-balance to an over-zealous or out-of-touch House of Commons. That is especially true at the present time where Labour have a massive majority in the Commons - but most people in the country hate their guts. Currently there is nothing to stop them from forcing through a bill that 'the people' all think is a terrible mistake, like, I dunno, declaring war on Russia. The queen couldn't stop that without causing a major constitutional crisis, whereas a properly-mandated President could.

Frankly on 1 you're right but on 2 its more complex. it shows we must answer the Monarchy question by first deciding what to replace it with. A weak figure head President is no change but introduces another layer of policking and power struggles. A strong executive President may mean the will of the commons is overruled, or more dangerously the will of the sitting government is waved through. even a President-with-veto-or-ascent sort of middle ground will present problems in the same way, being biased towards their party or against their opponents in power. Essentially you need a independent with the power of veto or ascent... wait thats sort of what we have. And its not ceremonial other than by convention, the Monarch does actual have real powers that could be excerised (appoint a new Prime Minister; Dissolve parliment; not give ascent). There is a strong arguement to place the current powers on a clearer, firmer grounding rather than the current unwritten protocol system we have. We'd have to for a President, by which time we've removed a truely independent role.

What if the people, which is true in the UK's case, want to keep the Monarchy.

which sort of follows on, the Monarch is semi-democratic as we only have a monarchy by act of parliment. Ultimate power is held by the commons, and really we should be far more concerned with the erosion of that then who the figure head of state is. they are the Chairman of the board, the PM is CEO, the commons are the board. they are supposed to balance each other so that no one can act unanimously. we, the shareholders, vote in the board, who appoint their leader and the Chairman is the chap/chappet who's family founded the business. they might not be "democratically elected", but they have the best interests of the everyone in mind (and if not place something that allows removal/succession).

someone once said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the other we have tried, an acknowledgement that while its good, its not without its own problems. and since we dont even have a geniune democracy, but a representitive form, lets keep to some old arcane method of selecting the head of state that has served us well. the main argument against a monarch applies equally to a President (for their term) and new problems arise so we have no net improvement and potentially worse situation.

 

[cunning fergus]

I like the continual use of the term democracy on this thread and how important it is to some posters that the 'people' (or electorate) have their say. Out of interest then:

Was our current PM was voted into office by the people?
Was the second most powerful member of the Government voted into office by the people?
Are members of the European Commission (who essentially set the rules of the EU) voted into office by the people?
Under the Lisbon Treaty will the European President be voted into office by the people?
When the people are lucky enough get the opportunity to vote in referenda on EU policy matters (like has happened in Holland, France, Denmark, Ireland) are the results of the people honoured and policies amended or closed accordingly?

I could go on but we know the answers, although I guess some are still in denial. Therefore this conversation about changing the monarchy for a president is like arguing about whether we should place a cherry or a slice of pineapple on a turd.................its still a f***ing turd and my how it stinks.

Anyway, do carry on.

 

[Brovion]

beorethlem: I won't quote your post but I agree with a lot of what you say; certainly the implementation of a presidential democracy will require careful planning and like the USA and their Constitution we probably won't get it right first time. Building in an proper, planned evolutionary process will be important. However I do take issue with you a bit when you say the monarch has 'real powers'. Yes on paper she does but if she ever used them (like for example not giving the Royal Assent to a bill) then it would trigger a constitutional crisis. Ergo, they're not 'real' in a practical sense, it's all a bit of a charade.

cunning fergus: Absolutely spot-on.

 

[Highfields Seagull]

Can you give me an example of either a successful meritocracy or one that comes close (and doesn't involve power purchased by wealth)?

I can't. However, you can aspire to things that are damn near impossible - in doing so you may get nearer to that ideal even if you never actually reach it. The Monarchy is the embodiment of a system that says you get where you are depending on who your Mum and Dad are.

 

[Shizuoka Dolphin]

They are an irrelevance. Couldn't give a toss.

 

[Dandyman]

So, who is the current president of Ireland, doubt if many can name him/her.

Mary McAleese was inaugurated as the eighth President of Ireland on 11 November 1997. She is the first to be born in Northern Ireland. (I love a good pub quiz).

 

[drew]

I can't. However, you can aspire to things that are damn near impossible - in doing so you may get nearer to that ideal even if you never actually reach it. The Monarchy is the embodiment of a system that says you get where you are depending on who your Mum and Dad are.

I hear what you are saying but the alternative, in respect of the job of the head of state, is that it most likely goes to the person with the wealthiest friends, as per the USA. That means friends who have a vested interest and therefore an unfair influence on the 'Head of State'.

There is however a lot more that could be done to change the rest of the 'class' system in this country. Having said that, it probably is changing for the better but not just as quickly as most of us would wish.

 

[looney]

Dear NSC

I am two weeks into my course on A Level Politics.
Our first major debate, will be regarding the Monarchy.
So... I would like to here the consensus of the general NSC community.

Are you in favour and do you want to keep the Monarchy?

Many Thanks in advance

Billy

Unless you are at a bog standard poly, which I guess you are, the you will get an F for presenting pure polemic. Any idiot can do that. What do you intend replacing it with?

Comparative analysis?
Costings? Political, social and economic. If you would like to give me the e-mail of your tutor I will happily reprimand him of the poor quality of the course.