[News] Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II Passes Away - 08/09/2022

[Weststander]

I know, so what’s the point?

An elected President might actually be more useful

Who’d be hated by half the country. President Johnson, President Corbyn, President Blair. The UK doesn’t do consensus, always split down the middle on anything remotely political. Not a new phenomena, I was a kid in the 70’s with a daily diet of political and industrial strife on the news.

Nicky Campbell half-jokingly went through some candidates yesterday eg judges …. immediately all guests found major flaws such as considered a leftie, from the right.

 

[portlock seagull]

I disagree. The biggest strength in the Republican argument is democracy.

While one can only respect the Queen and the job she’s done over the last 70 years, and hoping that Charles will do the same for however long, they are not elected. But if one has to have an undemocratic head of state, we could do an awful lot worse.

I think the arguments around “better than a President Johnson…. Or a President Corbyn” are fatuous. I haven’t liked any of the PM’s who have been in post for the last 10 years plus, but at least they (or their) parties were elected. And if people don’t like them, they can be removed at the next election.

As is your right. However I will never be convinced there’s a better democratic alternative. Our monarchy has been a force for good generally over many centuries. Meanwhile over in Republican corner we’ve had Napoleon, Hitler, Trump to name just a few heads of state…

 

[portlock seagull]

Who’d be hated by half the country. President Johnson, President Corbyn, President Blair. The UK doesn’t do consensus, always split down the middle on anything remotely political. Not a new phenomena, I was a kid in the 70’s with a daily diet of political and industrial strife on the news.

Nicky Campbell half-jokingly went through some candidates yesterday eg judges …. immediately all guests found major flaws such as considered a leftie, from the right.

Exactly! At the end of our Civil War, Sir Jacob Astley famously said “well boys, you have done your work and may go and play - if you don’t fall out amongst yourselves” Which of course, is exactly what happened next.

 

[Hove Lagoonery]

The BBC made a blunder this morning with this typo...


This, however, is NOT a typo. The singular of phenomena is phenomenon...

. Not a new phenomena,

 

[GT49er]

One of the Shoreham McDonalds, by any chance?

Shoreham MacDonalds? Nay, no never! Speaking as one if the Brighton Campbells, we should have eradicated this bunch of mountebanks yonks ago!

 

[Guinness Boy]

I disagree. The biggest strength in the Republican argument is democracy.

While one can only respect the Queen and the job she’s done over the last 70 years, and hoping that Charles will do the same for however long, they are not elected. But if one has to have an undemocratic head of state, we could do an awful lot worse.

I think the arguments around “better than a President Johnson…. Or a President Corbyn” are fatuous. I haven’t liked any of the PM’s who have been in post for the last 10 years plus, but at least they (or their) parties were elected. And if people don’t like them, they can be removed at the next election.

The problem is, if you have two candidates who are awful and represent binary, partisan positions (let's call them Johnson and Corbyn or even Biden and Trump) then all you're ever doing is voting for the least worst candidate, with the country then beholden to a political position for the next x years that might actually be a minority view overall because of non-voting (let's call that "Brexit").

With a hereditary and ceremonial monarchy you know that you'll be getting a neutral Head of State who's largely there to bring in trade and tourist income. Have no doubt that some of Charles' outpourings as PoW were totally unsuitable to this role. There will have been men in black suits having a word with him about this for a lot longer than last week.

I like the current system in terms of Head of State as the least worst option (as opposed to electing the least worst president). Where I have an issue is using wealth and, quite possibly the public purse, to prop up wrong 'uns like Andrew. We should only be funding the Monarch, the Consort and the Prince (and Princess) of Wales as far as I'm concerned. Let the minor ones do something useful.

 

[Clive Walker]

The problem is, if you have two candidates who are awful and represent binary, partisan positions (let's call them Johnson and Corbyn or even Biden and Trump) then all you're ever doing is voting for the least worst candidate, with the country then beholden to a political position for the next x years that might actually be a minority view overall because of non-voting (let's call that "Brexit").

With a hereditary and ceremonial monarchy you know that you'll be getting a neutral Head of State who's largely there to bring in trade and tourist income. Have no doubt that some of Charles' outpourings as PoW were totally unsuitable to this role. There will have been men in black suits having a word with him about this for a lot longer than last week.

I like the current system in terms of Head of State as the least worst option (as opposed to electing the least worst president). Where I have an issue is using wealth and, quite possibly the public purse, to prop up wrong 'uns like Andrew. We should only be funding the Monarch, the Consort and the Prince (and Princess) of Wales as far as I'm concerned. Let the minor ones do something useful.

Why not have an elected ceremonial head of state in that case?

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

In what way? Give them executive powers and it's a different ball game - and maybe not a good one (see under Trump, Putin, Pinochet et al). Don't give them executive powers, but just a ceremonial role,and you have royalty without the tradition, experience and status. And wthout the tourists.............

Who’d be hated by half the country. President Johnson, President Corbyn, President Blair. The UK doesn’t do consensus, always split down the middle on anything remotely political. Not a new phenomena, I was a kid in the 70’s with a daily diet of political and industrial strife on the news.

Nicky Campbell half-jokingly went through some candidates yesterday eg judges …. immediately all guests found major flaws such as considered a leftie, from the right.

As is your right. However I will never be convinced there’s a better democratic alternative. Our monarchy has been a force for good generally over many centuries. Meanwhile over in Republican corner we’ve had Napoleon, Hitler, Trump to name just a few heads of state…

The problem is, if you have two candidates who are awful and represent binary, partisan positions (let's call them Johnson and Corbyn or even Biden and Trump) then all you're ever doing is voting for the least worst candidate, with the country then beholden to a political position for the next x years that might actually be a minority view overall because of non-voting (let's call that "Brexit").

With a hereditary and ceremonial monarchy you know that you'll be getting a neutral Head of State who's largely there to bring in trade and tourist income. Have no doubt that some of Charles' outpourings as PoW were totally unsuitable to this role. There will have been men in black suits having a word with him about this for a lot longer than last week.

I like the current system in terms of Head of State as the least worst option (as opposed to electing the least worst president). Where I have an issue is using wealth and, quite possibly the public purse, to prop up wrong 'uns like Andrew. We should only be funding the Monarch, the Consort and the Prince (and Princess) of Wales as far as I'm concerned. Let the minor ones do something useful.

Mostly it’s a matter of principle. I would prefer a system where a head of state is elected.
Secondly, if you name heads of state where it goes wrong - I.e Trump - with us it just goes down to the next level - Johnson, for example.
Thirdly, and most importantly for me, the monarchy is a symbol of most of what is wrong with this country - not the people who come to the fore as Queens and Kings, but the mere existence of the institution. Will Hutton wrote a book decades ago called “the State we’re in” which argued that it is part of the whole thing which includes deference to people who went to public schools and Oxbridge. It’s why we will never be a meritocracy.

 

[jackalbion]

Just looked out the window on the train to work to see the Queue for the coffin, its past Blackfriars and almost 8 hours long. Who is in this Queue? Do these people have work? Is there anything worth queuing 12 hours and 2.6 miles for?

 

[nicko31]

Just looked out the window on the train to work to see the Queue for the coffin, its past Blackfriars and almost 8 hours long. Who is in this Queue? Do these people have work? Is there anything worth queuing 12 hours and 2.6 miles for?

BHA in the cup final I'd do it

 

[portlock seagull]

Mostly it’s a matter of principle. I would prefer a system where a head of state is elected.
Secondly, if you name heads of state where it goes wrong - I.e Trump - with us it just goes down to the next level - Johnson, for example.
Thirdly, and most importantly for me, the monarchy is a symbol of most of what is wrong with this country - not the people who come to the fore as Queens and Kings, but the mere existence of the institution. Will Hutton wrote a book decades ago called “the State we’re in” which argued that it is part of the whole thing which includes deference to people who went to public schools and Oxbridge. It’s why we will never be a meritocracy.

Appreciate where you’re coming from. However l can’t ever see replacing the Monarchy as some cure all for inequality.

 

[Bold Seagull]

As is your right. However I will never be convinced there’s a better democratic alternative. Our monarchy has been a force for good generally over many centuries. Meanwhile over in Republican corner we’ve had Napoleon, Hitler, Trump to name just a few heads of state…

World War I was pretty much created by monarchies. World War II and Hitler only existed due to World War 1. Napoleon crowned himself emperor in a coup d'état - how on earth is that in the democratic republic corner?

 

[portlock seagull]

Just looked out the window on the train to work to see the Queue for the coffin, its past Blackfriars and almost 8 hours long. Who is in this Queue? Do these people have work? Is there anything worth queuing 12 hours and 2.6 miles for?

Waited longer for concert tickets. Younger people have no stamina, and are used to instant click culture and constant entertainment. I’m sure waiting 12hrs is almost an violation of their human rights by comparison!

 

[Bold Seagull]

The problem is, if you have two candidates who are awful and represent binary, partisan positions (let's call them Johnson and Corbyn or even Biden and Trump) then all you're ever doing is voting for the least worst candidate, with the country then beholden to a political position for the next x years that might actually be a minority view overall because of non-voting (let's call that "Brexit").

With a hereditary and ceremonial monarchy you know that you'll be getting a neutral Head of State who's largely there to bring in trade and tourist income. Have no doubt that some of Charles' outpourings as PoW were totally unsuitable to this role. There will have been men in black suits having a word with him about this for a lot longer than last week.

I like the current system in terms of Head of State as the least worst option (as opposed to electing the least worst president). Where I have an issue is using wealth and, quite possibly the public purse, to prop up wrong 'uns like Andrew. We should only be funding the Monarch, the Consort and the Prince (and Princess) of Wales as far as I'm concerned. Let the minor ones do something useful.

You've pretty much described the German Head of State, who is elected every 5 years and can only serve a max of 2 terms.

 

[Brovion]

I disagree. The biggest strength in the Republican argument is democracy.

While one can only respect the Queen and the job she’s done over the last 70 years, and hoping that Charles will do the same for however long, they are not elected. But if one has to have an undemocratic head of state, we could do an awful lot worse.

I think the arguments around “better than a President Johnson…. Or a President Corbyn” are fatuous. I haven’t liked any of the PM’s who have been in post for the last 10 years plus, but at least they (or their) parties were elected. And if people don’t like them, they can be removed at the next election.

Exactly. And you can always tell when a monarchist has lost the debate because either they start going on about tourists, or they start talking about President Blair, President Thatcher, President Corbyn etc. No one is talking about abolishing the role of Prime Minister and no one is saying we should copy America. The PM will still be elected as at present and would still be in charge of the day-to-day running of the country, they would simply serve under an elected, and therefore democratically-legitimate, head of state. .

Anyway, sorry for helping to take the thread O/T. This IS a momentous occasion regardless of our political views. However no monarchist will change their mind, especially not at this time and I don't expect them to. I'll leave it there

 

[Guinness Boy]

Why not have an elected ceremonial head of state in that case?

Even better. Why not get the candidates to do an audition with the "best" 16 of them confined to a single residence. Every Saturday night at, say, 8pm they could perform a party piece live on ITV with the audience then shown their "best bits" from the house. One by one they'd be voted off (or "going home" as I like to think of it) by a national poll using the internet and a phone line. Last one standing gets to be a neutral President with no powers for a year, then off we go again! Democracy at it's finest. I'm sure the Yanks will be queuing up to go and visit Billericay and get a view of President Chardonnay in her Pink Palace.

 

[Your Mum]

Let the minor ones do

...your mum

 

[Guinness Boy]

...your mum

More likely "your kids".

 

[Gazwag]

Waited longer for concert tickets. Younger people have no stamina, and are used to instant click culture and constant entertainment. I’m sure waiting 12hrs is almost an violation of their human rights by comparison!

Or FA Cup final replay tickets

 

[Bakero]

As is your right. However I will never be convinced there’s a better democratic alternative. Our monarchy has been a force for good generally over many centuries.