I wouldn't expect her not carry on only if her health meant she couldn't perform her duties - I'm not a monarchist, but the alternatives President Thatcher, Blaire, Johnson, are too horrible to contemplate
So you are not a monarchist but you also don't want an elected head of state ? Dictator ? ;0)
I wouldn't expect her not carry on only if her health meant she couldn't perform her duties - I'm not a monarchist, but the alternatives President Thatcher, Blaire, Johnson, are too horrible to contemplate
If you have a largely powerless head of state, then who is it? If its elected it becomes politicised. With a monarch you have to weigh up the non-democratic, and class aspects, vs tradition and 'apoliticism' benefits, tourism, etc.
My own personal view the benefits of the latter outweigh the former. As someone above mentioned the power of the executive lies with the Prime Minister anyway, who can be removed fairly easily by Parliament, do we really want to be like America with a Presidential system, and end up with stalemate? No ta
I don't want a republic but the position of President doesn't have to be as politicised as you'd think. In lots of countries they have a largely ceremonial President such as in Ireland and Italy.
1'd rather have a monarchy that undertook exercise of power as a lifelong duty than an elected Head of State seeking to be elected to gain greater power and influence as a new way of life. What's more worrying is that most politicians relish the idea of exercising power over others. Those who would do it through a sense of duty and would't succumb to corruption wouldn't become politicians in the first place.
Anyone who thinks voting for a Head of State to represent them would be an improvement on a benign monarchy is just prejudiced against monarchy, because an elected Head of State would be simply different, not better. Just remember our monarchy is of immigrant stock and should be afforded the courtesies and respect for their culture just like all other minorities should enjoy in our country.
Anti monarchy, being a badge of honour for most socialists, wouldn't be seen as racist, but how different is it when personal insults are slung at individuals just because they are belong to the ethnic minority of monarchy with a culture which has evolved over generations and happen to be rich. Oh I forgot, it isn't fair they have more wealth and don't pay enough tax, even though they increase our GDP to a greater extent than they cost to run. Anti-monarchy is the purest display of base bigotry and racism you will find.
1'd rather have a monarchy that undertook exercise of power as a lifelong duty than an elected Head of State seeking to be elected to gain greater power and influence as a new way of life. What's more worrying is that most politicians relish the idea of exercising power over others. Those who would do it through a sense of duty and would't succumb to corruption wouldn't become politicians in the first place.
Anyone who thinks voting for a Head of State to represent them would be an improvement on a benign monarchy is just prejudiced against monarchy, because an elected Head of State would be simply different, not better. Just remember our monarchy is of immigrant stock and should be afforded the courtesies and respect for their culture just like all other minorities should enjoy in our country.
Anti monarchy, being a badge of honour for most socialists, wouldn't be seen as racist, but how different is it when personal insults are slung at individuals just because they are belong to the ethnic minority of monarchy with a culture which has evolved over generations and happen to be rich. Oh I forgot, it isn't fair they have more wealth and don't pay enough tax, even though they increase our GDP to a greater extent than they cost to run. Anti-monarchy is the purest display of base bigotry and racism you will find.
Being a monarch is not a protected characteristic as defined in the Equality Act!
I'm neutral on the argument for and against a monarchy but being against it has nothing to do with unlawful discrimination (I accept your comments were a bit tongue in cheek).
Do I agree with our Head of State being in that position through an accident of birth? No. Would I want a separately elected politicised Head of State? No. Would I accept the monarchy being retained purely as a ceremonial position but not as Head of State, and have as the official Head of State the elected Prime Minister? Yes - that's the reality now anyway.
And whilst we're at it let's also disestablish the CoE which now has no place in exercising power in the running of a secular society.
And whilst we're at it let's also disestablish the CoE which now has no place in exercising power in the running of a secular society.
TBH this doesn't bother me but an interesting stat: The only two nations to guarantee seats in the legislature to religious clerics is the UK and Iran.
I wouldn't expect her not carry on only if her health meant she couldn't perform her duties - I'm not a monarchist, but the alternatives President Thatcher, Blaire, Johnson, are too horrible to contemplate
Thatcher unlikely now. I seem to remember a thread on here about her dying.
1'd rather have a monarchy that undertook exercise of power as a lifelong duty than an elected Head of State seeking to be elected to gain greater power and influence as a new way of life. What's more worrying is that most politicians relish the idea of exercising power over others. Those who would do it through a sense of duty and would't succumb to corruption wouldn't become politicians in the first place.
Anyone who thinks voting for a Head of State to represent them would be an improvement on a benign monarchy is just prejudiced against monarchy, because an elected Head of State would be simply different, not better. Just remember our monarchy is of immigrant stock and should be afforded the courtesies and respect for their culture just like all other minorities should enjoy in our country.
Anti monarchy, being a badge of honour for most socialists, wouldn't be seen as racist, but how different is it when personal insults are slung at individuals just because they are belong to the ethnic minority of monarchy with a culture which has evolved over generations and happen to be rich. Oh I forgot, it isn't fair they have more wealth and don't pay enough tax, even though they increase our GDP to a greater extent than they cost to run. Anti-monarchy is the purest display of base bigotry and racism you will find.
Being a monarch is not a protected characteristic as defined in the Equality Act!
Bigotry against a minority which has not been outlawed by parliament is still bigotry, where did I suggest it was illegal?
F#ck her and her German offspring. Bunch of freeloaders. As Carter USM said "send em down and bang em up in a south London maisonette"
Just as well that it's still legal to be a racist bigot if it's not covered in the Equality Act.
Now that would be covered under the Equality Act!
But it is absolutely not automatic bigotry to be against the concept of a monarchy. Definition of bigot - a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions. Hmmm - I'll say no more.
The concept of having a royal family is quite absurd though isn't it. Even the term "Your Highness" just think about it. If it wasn't so serious it would be hilarious.
The concept of having a royal family is quite absurd though isn't it. Even the term "Your Highness" just think about it. If it wasn't so serious it would be hilarious.
Yes. So is spending your life dedicated to a football club, creating and worshipping legends and putting up statues to men who are good at kicking a football. They even get paid as much as royalty. Lets ban football, it isn't even serious.
The concept of having a royal family is quite absurd though isn't it. Even the term "Your Highness" just think about it. If it wasn't so serious it would be hilarious.
Yes. So is spending your life dedicated to a football club, creating and worshipping legends and putting up statues to men who are good at kicking a football. They even get paid as much as royalty. Lets ban football, it isn't even serious :-)
The concept of having a royal family is quite absurd though isn't it. Even the term "Your Highness" just think about it. If it wasn't so serious it would be hilarious.
Yes. So is spending your life dedicated to a football club, creating and worshipping legends and putting up statues to men who are good at kicking a football. They even get paid as much as royalty. Lets ban football, it isn't even serious :-)
Sorry, edited as required.
No need - the :-) was missing from my comment. :-)
Comments
If we started having presidents as heads of state I'd probably seriously consider emigrating.
My own personal view the benefits of the latter outweigh the former. As someone above mentioned the power of the executive lies with the Prime Minister anyway, who can be removed fairly easily by Parliament, do we really want to be like America with a Presidential system, and end up with stalemate? No ta
Anyone who thinks voting for a Head of State to represent them would be an improvement on a benign monarchy is just prejudiced against monarchy, because an elected Head of State would be simply different, not better. Just remember our monarchy is of immigrant stock and should be afforded the courtesies and respect for their culture just like all other minorities should enjoy in our country.
Anti monarchy, being a badge of honour for most socialists, wouldn't be seen as racist, but how different is it when personal insults are slung at individuals just because they are belong to the ethnic minority of monarchy with a culture which has evolved over generations and happen to be rich. Oh I forgot, it isn't fair they have more wealth and don't pay enough tax, even though they increase our GDP to a greater extent than they cost to run. Anti-monarchy is the purest display of base bigotry and racism you will find.
I'm neutral on the argument for and against a monarchy but being against it has nothing to do with unlawful discrimination (I accept your comments were a bit tongue in cheek).
Do I agree with our Head of State being in that position through an accident of birth? No. Would I want a separately elected politicised Head of State? No. Would I accept the monarchy being retained purely as a ceremonial position but not as Head of State, and have as the official Head of State the elected Prime Minister? Yes - that's the reality now anyway.
And whilst we're at it let's also disestablish the CoE which now has no place in exercising power in the running of a secular society.
But it is absolutely not automatic bigotry to be against the concept of a monarchy. Definition of bigot - a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions. Hmmm - I'll say no more.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/cost-of-royal-family-rises-twice-as-fast-as-inflation-9563293.html