Why are some quarters so keen for Britain to become a Republic? Why is so much store set in 'Electing' a Head of State? To me, accident of birth (monarchy) seems the most truly democratic way of getting a HofS as none of us get a say in the matter whereas electing a HofS would involve someone other than me deciding which candidates could run. Also, looking at our electorial system for governments it is clear that whoever is elected rarely has an overwhelming majority. So Republicans, please explain the attraction but avoid reasons that only amount to social envy of the royal families wealth.
2007-02-01 05:07:01 · 13 answers · asked by Dr Watson (UK) 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
Ebby: I agree with your statitistics my point is, would an elected Head of State receive a more democratic mandate or would he/she just scrape in?
2007-02-01 06:21:02 · update #1
No, it should not. We've seen, over the last few years what an unholy mess the polititians have made and I dread to think what would happen if any of them had Presidential powers.
As far as I'm concerned I have enormous respect for the Queen and I believe the Royals are about the only thing in this benighted country that doesn't change. It provides stability and that is what we need.
2007-02-01 08:12:38 · answer #1 · answered by Beau Brummell 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Does Britain need a paid head of state at all? It our government that does everything. Saying "To me, accident of birth (monarchy) seems the most truly democratic way of getting a HofS" is very similar to saying that all rich people should be born as the children of rich people. This means others have no chance, no say.
Look at my 'would the us & uk be better off with a triangular voting system' for a solution to the minority govts point you have raised.
And if we were to choose an ideal outcome the "someone other than me deciding which candidates could run" issue would also be resolved, for example by getting all candidates who have the support of 100 people onto a large list, and the four parts of the Kingdom (eg Scotland, N-, S England, rest of UK) each vote among a quarter of them, then the four areas each vote between a quarter of the top three from each (12), and the four winners progress to the semi-finals, etc. I think this would be a good way of resolving the shape & form & powers of the House of Lords issue too.
I say Britain should be a republic. Does Britain need a paid head of state at all when our government does everything already. Let the Commonwealth employ any goodwill & p r icons, don't make us do it on our own.
2007-02-02 06:47:37 · answer #2 · answered by profound insight 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think we are better off as a monarchy, although I'm not a royalist, the Queen brings a lot of tourist into the country with all the pomp and ceremony, Plus she is respected throughout the world, can you imagine Tony Blair or any other political leader being able to bring that same respect ? The one reservation i do have is all the hangers on who live off our tax's, this should be cut down to the minimum. I don't think Charlie boy will do such a good job as the Queen, maybe she knows that too, and that could be the reason she hasn't abdicated !
2007-02-01 08:04:07 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No a constitutional monarchy, works on many different levels. Has the head of state with only limited political powers the Queen, His above party politics and so can visit country's where a Prime minister would not be welcome,and help to heal old wounds. My main argument though his with having a politician as president. Imaging Blair has President,and if that don't give you nightmares?
2007-02-01 15:14:04 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Britain should be a Republic if the majority of the British people wishe it to be so.Its no body else's business!
At the moment, the British people are rulled by a government elected by not more than 43% of the electorates. I am not saying that is undemocratic, no. But that is British democracy! And throughout the history, there has been never a government in power which has been elected by more than 45% of the electrorate. It means, UK has always been run by a government elected by a minority. The British people seem to accept that state of affairs. Good luck!
2007-02-01 05:12:18 · answer #5 · answered by Ebby 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
You are right. Democracy is a sham anyway. Who cares as long as its being run. Its all about control freaks and taxes anyway. It is my proposal that if there were no elections at all, the same people would end up running the country anyway. The statistics are there.
Congo - son of Kabila(Ex president) is president
Syria - son of Sadat - President
Jordan - son of Hussain - ruler
USA - son of Bush - President
North Korea - son of Kim president
you may have noticed that even in democracies, the son of whatever gets to be president as in USA and Congo. The list is much longer but I don't want to go on.
2007-02-01 08:08:06 · answer #6 · answered by K. Marx iii 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
as you are aware,no doubt that whoever governs britain, can be
as corrupt as hell.president, king , queen,general, prime minister
can all screw things up. lets look at the queen, for a moment, she
has been brought up to be famouse and rich, in theory she should be able to lead a country with grace, and her ego should not be overblown like tony blairs. she should be able to withstand corruption more than politicians who are new money and new fame and cannot handle it. If the queen organised a special
trustworthy followers that were loyal to the people and put herself up for election as a monarchy by choice of the people i recon she could do well, and maybe even win.she needs to dump all
politicians as we know them, and start fresh.On the money front
they say the queen costs one pound per person, per year. your council may fine you sixty pound for parking among all the outher taxes the blairites want to rob you of.The queens riches is an old left wing idea to slag the royals to fool the working class. at this moment the left are robbing us blind
2007-02-01 08:06:40 · answer #7 · answered by trucker 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Without doubt.
It should also be more democratic than it is at present in that bodies such as the House of Lords, the judiciary and other public bodies should be elected.
In fact there should be no unelected public body, so called quangoes should be dumped.
2007-02-01 20:11:16 · answer #8 · answered by Barrie G 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
most definitely YES. The cost of royalty is obscene, and antiquated. Countries who have dropped their ROYALS still bring in millions per year in revenue by opening the many palaces and stately homes. As here we never see any royals in residence, and i certainly don;t want to. A democratic republic please.
2007-02-01 09:34:56 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
no thanks imagine president blair or president brown at least at the moment they have to get past outher members of parliment anyway god save the queen and the last few british values we have once the muslims rule you will all wish we could go back to the way it is now
2007-02-01 07:00:29 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋