The vote in the House of Commons during the week to abolish hereditary peers from sitting in the House of Lords and to replace them with individuals who have been democratically elected marks a new stage of true democracy within the UK.
Will it follow from this as night follows day that we will soon be ready to replace the hereditary monarchy with an elected head of state in order to achieve a pure democratic state within Great Britain?
2007-03-10 09:52:11 · 19 answers · asked by pagreen1966 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Royalty
hope not ...what a scary thought...
2007-03-10 15:57:03 · answer #1 · answered by ;) 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I see no problem with abolishing the House of Lords, but having an elected Head of State?
If that happens, then it won't be for a while.
You really don't want it to be corrupt like the American system. The president could have too much power. Isn't a prime minister enough?
With the monarchy, the UK is still techniquely a democracy. There's really no reason to get rid of it.
2007-03-11 05:15:44 · answer #2 · answered by Sarah* 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
One point that doesn't seem to have been made yet is that when someone is born into royalty then they are that role from birth - they are effectively trained to be a head of state from the word go.
And elected person, therefore, will never live and breathe the role in the same way.
I don't think they should run the country - birth doesn't necessarily lead to intelligence and leadership skills (we have enough proof of that). But they are the perfect people to be ambassadors for the country - a role I think they have perfected.
Having had an inside view, I really think the system works, and is fantastic for the country.
2007-03-13 18:06:09 · answer #3 · answered by Serenthia 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Pagreen 1, judging by the answers so far it is obvious that not many watched channel 4 last night, The country is sick with sycophantic @rse lickers, the sooner the change comes the better, if you watched the programme last night you will agree that if this situation is allowed to remain for much longer the country will ultimately turn anarchy, and it will be caused by the very people who use "monarchy as a deterrent to this problem" it is the greatest scourge to mankind.
TO SERENITH BELOW I have had an inside wiew for more years than you have been on the planet, so you pay my tax to support this "scourge" and I will no longer comment
2007-03-12 23:59:46 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The royal family is a figurehead and a failsafe (though their role as this is ever decreasing).
If we had Hitler II become the prime minister, the Queen could theoretically step in and say 'piss off' to him, and sort out the problem (probably rehold the elections or similar).
She plays practically no part in affairs of government otherwise.
She must have respect for Britain because she 'is' Britain. Why should this position be elected? It would lose it's authority, and it's credulity, and become extinct.
Failsafes are lovely things to have, but no use if they don't exist.
2007-03-11 13:01:54 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
First of all, this business about an elected House of Lords is rubbish! It will never happen. An elected H o L would challenge the power of the H o C. And even if there was an elected H o L, there would NEVER be an elected Head of State. Never! And your suggesting that there might ever be is treasonous in itself!
2007-03-11 14:11:48 · answer #6 · answered by britguy09 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The reform of the Lords will not happen overnight, it may not even happen in your lifetime. Therefore the question of having an elected head of state is even further removed.
I will be the first to admit that our system of Constitutional Monarchy is outdated and seemingly strange to others, but it is what makes us British. Has no-one any pride in themselves anymore. I am glad to be English, I am proud of being a subject of Her Britannic Majesty. You can keep your presidential style head of state!
God Save Our Gracious Queen!
2007-03-11 00:50:04 · answer #7 · answered by Raymo 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The abolishment of heredity peers is a step in the right direction, now we need them to abolish the squalid monarchy before we can call ourselves a democracy
2007-03-10 10:07:11 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I think this is gone too far, the US president has too much power. It is a flaw you do not notice until you get a president like Bush. There are some things that are done well by executive action but I have discovered one thing; wars are started by individuals, rarely has their ever been a war by consensus.
2007-03-10 09:59:57 · answer #9 · answered by Ron H 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
What would not having a girl president might desire to do with superiority? i might desire to have a good president in line with their skills for the pastime, male or lady. i hit upon it exciting which you base superiority and enlightenment fullyyt on the gender of a Head of State. What approximately Margaret Thatcher, think of she grew to become into an enlightened ruler?
2016-10-18 01:40:51 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
They should turn the lights off and shut the door on the lords because they are toothless and it's costing the taxpayers money for nothing. Another way of making cronies rich without any effort.
2007-03-10 09:57:50 · answer #11 · answered by tucksie 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋