Are political threads allowed?

Quote from FeelItComing

So you wouid prefer the American system and have a directly elected PM, How would that work? How would an MP be elected to Parliament and then elected as Prime Minister?

I wouldn't necessarily prefer it , but surely we can come up with something other than an ineffectual head of state whose only reason for getting the job is because he/she has been directly appointed by God. Personally I don't believe in God and even if I did I don't think I would think that God has ever really chosen our monarch. It's bizzare in this day and age. As is the unquestioned practice of handing state owned mansions to her family , Duchy of Cornwall , Duchy of Lancaster etc etc etc. I also think the American voting system is crazy if you can have a minority of the whole voting 1 person as President. We should have system of holding our executive to account. We could have an elected head of state that would not be forced into approving the use of the powers of the crown could be able turn down requests by the PM. Personally I would like the Billy Bragg option of having our parliament elected as it is and a PR elected upper house with teeth. I said in a previous post I think the US system is pretty poor and wouldn't like that. It's just that ours is even worse! As martinus has pointed out there are an awful lot of other systems , none are perfect, but surely we come up with something secular and better than this.

You are possibly being a bit too literal with the 'directly appointed by God' words; although the motto is Dieu et Mon Droit surely anyone with any knowledge of English history knows how the various dynasties got to be where they are.

If you had an elected head of state who could bypass or ignore the PM and the elected government (because the PM is the leader of the government, he or she doesn't possess all power) that is starting to sound somewhat like the French system.

Agree about the House of Lords, which now has 800 unelected members, the majority of whom are there because they donated to either Labour or the Tories.

I think I have a pretty decent knowledge of English history Dieu et Mon Droit , essentially God given right. Our Queens heritage is traced back all the way to William the Conqueror who gained power through .... conquering ! Those medievals genuinely believed that they wouldn't win battles and kingships, etc unless God willed it. Henry VII likewise stole those the crown from the .child murdering Richard III , who had stolen the crown himself, but he cheated because he didn't steal it in open battle where God would be given a chance to intervene! We are left now with this medieval legacy. Tweeked a fair bit by the civil war, but when they were stumped as to what to do after Cromwell, they turned back to someone with a God given right .

So if one doesn't believe that our Monarch has a God given right to have that position then by what other right do they have to hold such a position ? They are also head of the Church of England ( set up by themselves ) ensuring that those dasterdley Catholics and Atheists don't ever get get their hands on the crown. Religion is an essential aspect of our Monarchy. I don't believe that a head of state should be able to bypass a PM but our PM is effectively our head of state and acts very much as a President because all powers of crown are handed down to him/her which is wrong . I think there should be a check on our PM acting as President . I agree that the executive should make the decisions but the Head of State should approve their actions more than just rubber stamp any request. They should be able to hold the PM to account. Our Queen is nothing more than an overpaid administrator who has to do what she is told. Even if we kept the same system we currently have we could maintain it with a non secular elected administrator .

There is absolutely no reason to maintain this farcical circus of a Royal Family.

Quote from thefarmer

There is absolutely no reason to maintain this farcical circus of a Royal Family.

I totally agree. In an ideal world, when HMQ has died and Prince Charles accedes he'd oversee the dismantling of the monarchy. No chance of that happening, sadly. It is indeed a farce, and an anachronous one built on privilege and class-based oppression.

Quote from thefarmer

There is absolutely no reason to maintain this farcical circus of a Royal Family.

Except perhaps the income it generates from tourism, the kudos it brings on the world stage (Money can't buy you happiness, it can't buy you history either.) And moaning about the Monarch being head of state is a bit pointless when we are discussing how we choose who to run the country, for it isn't in any way the monarch. However we choose the PM, it is them, like it or not. Agree about reforming the House of Lords though, that is a farce, esp. when some of them don't even live here, just jet in to vote on things that don't affect them (no doubt claiming it on expenses.)

Quote from foxfeeder

Except perhaps the income it generates from tourism, the kudos it brings on the world stage

It also costs a shitload of money, and the tourism income is always over-emphasised as a benefit. The top tourist attractions in the UK aren't monarchy-related and those that are will still be there if the royal family weren't.

The world stage kudos thing is more nebulous but does have something to it.

Quote from Backdrifter

It also costs a shitload of money, and the tourism income is always over-emphasised as a benefit. The top tourist attractions in the UK aren't monarchy-related and those that are will still be there if the royal family weren't.

The world stage kudos thing is more nebulous but does have something to it.

Absolutely. There is no evidence whatsoever that they that they do generate net profit for tourism. Sure the big events draw big crowds occasionally but so do lots of other events and we don't continually have to pay for them . Our history is rich and fascinating and will always be there to promote. It's pretty certain that the big royal houses would generate more money if they were open the public throughout the year with more areas available to see. It's also a.strange argument to me that our system of government should be based on what may or may not be good for tourism. If the finances of the royal family were open to public scrutiny in the same way other public figures are scrutinized I don't think they would last very long. Let's be honest the newspapers would be hounding anyone else ( not just have a few mentions) if they had accepted suitcases of cash from foreign donors to do with what they see fit for own charities , but we simply accept the word of Prince Charles that everything was fine and he won't do it again.

As for the world stage. I don't know what they do, other than get in the newspapers. I don't think many other countries would have them.

Quote from Backdrifter

It also costs a shitload of money, and the tourism income is always over-emphasised as a benefit. The top tourist attractions in the UK aren't monarchy-related and those that are will still be there if the royal family weren't.

The world stage kudos thing is more nebulous but does have something to it.

Oh, OK, I'll take that as a fact then. And Covid isn't real. And Donald Trump was right about everything.

Quote from foxfeeder

Oh, OK, I'll take that as a fact then. And Covid isn't real. And Donald Trump was right about everything.

Blimey, that's a bit much. Don't be sarcastic, if you think I'm talking bollocks look it up and correct me. From memory, the top attractions tend to be the British Museum, Tate Modern, Kew Gardens and Chester Zoo. I might be wrongly remembering or I had bad sources. But hey, maybe loads of tourists visit Chester in the hope of seeing the Cambridges wandering around Mongoose Mania.

Quote from Backdrifter

Blimey, that's a bit much. Don't be sarcastic, if you think I'm talking bollocks look it up and correct me. From memory, the top attractions tend to be the British Museum, Tate Modern, Kew Gardens and Chester Zoo. I might be wrongly remembering or I had bad sources. But hey, maybe loads of tourists visit Chester in the hope of seeing the Cambridges wandering around Mongoose Mania.

Well, they certainly come to Chester to visit lots of local ancient buildings, etc. (We have restaurants here older than the USA!) But yes, I think it's nonsense, the royals and their building cost millions, tourism rakes in billions, and much of it is in part driven by interest in Royal connected stuff. IE/ people might not come here JUST for that, but it's an added spur, which, if missing, might mean they'd go somewhere else.

Also, having mooted us adopting a US presidential elected leader, and that being deemed a bad move, we now seem to be suggesting deposing the Royals as the answer to all our problems. Yeah, that sure worked out well for Russia! I wonder how development of the all-electric Lada Riva is coming along!

Is it a bit much, though? And am I not free to use sarcasm if I choose? I must be forgetting my place!

Quote from foxfeeder

people might not come here JUST for that, but it's an added spur, which, if missing, might mean they'd go somewhere else.

It might. But given that the top attractions, ie those pulling in the most visitors, aren't royal-related I doubt it'd have a deleterious effect. The physical trappings of monarchy, the palaces etc, would still be there and probably do pretty healthy business.

Quote

we now seem to be suggesting deposing the Royals as the answer to all our problems.

I have a view on why the monarchy should go but I personally don't think it'd be a magical silver bullet solution to ALL our problems. If I've given the opposite impression it was unintended. And anyway, it's not going to happen. Not in our lifetime, sadly.

Quote

Is it a bit much, though? And am I not free to use sarcasm if I choose? I must be forgetting my place!

Yeah I think throwing in sarcastic covid and Trump references is a bit much. But you are of course free to use sarcasm, I suppose on reflection when I said "don't" I should've said it was a shame to do it when you could've checked the veracity of what I said about royal-related tourism revenue being overstated - I'm perfectly willing to accept I've got that wrong, I'm going by what I've read before but stand to be corrected and shown it's the nonsense you say it is.

While I'm not convinced by the tourism argument, in a way it doesn't matter. I think the monarchy has had its millennium, and we should let it die. Its bones will remain & can be used as the basis of de-whitewashing its history of brutality, colonisation & unearned privilege.

Just to be clear I don't advocate a U.S style presidency and I don't know any republicans who do. It is not a choice between an inherited monarchy and US democracy. There's lots of choices. I said the US is better than ours to demonstrate how bad out system is. Remember PM has a lot more power within this country than the US president has in his. The U.S president has to get past 2 houses and supreme court , but our PM has unrestricted power. The Lords is ineffectual and the Queen does what she is told , maintaining a dignified silence!! And our PM who is also our president in all but name is ALWAYS put in position by less than 50% of the voters because British president is there by having majority MPs. I do like having our ruling executive being derived from parliament but our voting system is naff and there should be some check on the PMs power. (Just look at what BJ tried to do about suspending parliament just after he got in before the general election . He had a tiny majority with a number of pro Europe Tories. And Queen said OK! She had to.) Surely we can have a better system than this.

Quote from thefarmer

Just to be clear I don't advocate a U.S style presidency and I don't know any republicans who do. It is not a choice between an inherited monarchy and US democracy. There's lots of choices. I said the US is better than ours to demonstrate how bad out system is. Remember PM has a lot more power within this country than the US president has in his. The U.S president has to get past 2 houses and supreme court , but our PM has unrestricted power. The Lords is ineffectual and the Queen does what she is told , maintaining a dignified silence!! And our PM who is also our president in all but name is ALWAYS put in position by less than 50% of the voters because British president is there by having majority MPs. I do like having our ruling executive being derived from parliament but our voting system is naff and there should be some check on the PMs power. (Just look at what BJ tried to do about suspending parliament just after he got in before the general election . He had a tiny majority with a number of pro Europe Tories. And Queen said OK! She had to.) Surely we can have a better system than this.

The US is just the same but run differently.

All the world is run by the wealth not by the people who voted by their policies. Every President is a puppet. The real people are the rich!...

Quote from thefarmer

Just to be clear I don't advocate a U.S style presidency and I don't know any republicans who do. It is not a choice between an inherited monarchy and US democracy. There's lots of choices. I said the US is better than ours to demonstrate how bad out system is. Remember PM has a lot more power within this country than the US president has in his. The U.S president has to get past 2 houses and supreme court , but our PM has unrestricted power. The Lords is ineffectual and the Queen does what she is told , maintaining a dignified silence!! And our PM who is also our president in all but name is ALWAYS put in position by less than 50% of the voters because British president is there by having majority MPs. I do like having our ruling executive being derived from parliament but our voting system is naff and there should be some check on the PMs power. (Just look at what BJ tried to do about suspending parliament just after he got in before the general election . He had a tiny majority with a number of pro Europe Tories. And Queen said OK! She had to.) Surely we can have a better system than this.

I just don't agree the British PM has unrestricted powers. He/she is the head of a cabinet government which answers to Parliament.

As for the right of the monarch to hold the position, since James II was forced to abdicate Parlilament has had the power to decide on the monarch. William III invaded, but Parlilament offered him the monarchy (which by hereditary right should have gone solely to his wife Mary, James' daughter.

The tourism argument.

Quote from foxfeeder

Except perhaps the income it generates from tourism,

It's absolutely understandable that the vast majority of Brits believe that tourism revenue is a positive side effect of of our royal family as it's what we are constantly told. Alongside the fib about hard working royals. It stands to reason doesn't it? We are all better off for maintaining them in their opulence. Here is 12 minute video that blows this myth out of the water. I really urge you all to watch it. I cannot see how anyone with an open mind could still believe in this lie after seeing this.

Quote from foxfeeder

..........." Agree about reforming the House of Lords though, that is a farce, esp. when some of them don't even live here, just jet in to vote on things that don't affect them (no doubt claiming it on expenses.)"

AND ANOTHER THING!! If you're bothered about about public figures and their expense accounts try looking at the Royals. You will struggle to find much detail which is shocking in itself but what is available should be enough to convert the hardiest of Royal fans. If we decide not to be bothered about Royal expenses then we should also not be bothered about any other public figure.

We

Quote from FeelItComing

I just don't agree the British PM has unrestricted powers. He/she is the head of a cabinet government which answers to Parliament.

As for the right of the monarch to hold the position, since James II was forced to abdicate Parlilament has had the power to decide on the monarch. William III invaded, but Parlilament offered him the monarchy (which by hereditary right should have gone solely to his wife Mary, James' daughter.

The PM has to answer to parliament which is the supreme ruling authority in this country. The trouble is, parliament is controlled by the ruling majority party headed and controlled by that party's leader , who they decide is the PM giving the PM that power . The powers of the crown are devolved down to the PM giving the PM presidential powers. If the ruling party is split over issues and they hold only a small majority , parliament will then prevent certain decisions being made as we saw with Teresa May but this is very rare. If the ruling party think thier leader has become an electoral liability they will remove them as in Johnson and Thatcher but that's not parliament. Otherwise parliament generally gives the PM free reign to do what they wish. There is no other body or authority to stop him/her which is why our PM has more power in the UK than the U.S. president has in his .

As for William III. Parliament did not officially boot James II and invite William . They couldn't bear the thought of a Catholic King. James didn't abdicate and always claimed his God given right to be King. Through plotting subterfuge by parliamentarians William knew he was wanted so invaded knowing there would be little opposition in England . With James on the run yes Parliament did invite William for the job and of course it's agreed this did establish finally parliament's supremacy with.him agreeing to their terms. Of course birthright remained essential. Good King Billy was King because Mary was Queen.. That's Good King Billy if your not an Irish Catholic who suffered some the worst atrocities ever seen on these islands by his rule.There is no doubt that our Monarchy and religion are intertwined , with a history of greed.and blood. Parliament do not appoint the King/ Queen . We've moved well beyond 1688, we have no need for a ruler by birthright . it's out dated and is about time its gone.

Quote from thefarmer

Just to be clear I don't advocate a U.S style presidency and I don't know any republicans who do. It is not a choice between an inherited monarchy and US democracy. There's lots of choices. I said the US is better than ours to demonstrate how bad out system is. Remember PM has a lot more power within this country than the US president has in his. The U.S president has to get past 2 houses and supreme court , but our PM has unrestricted power. The Lords is ineffectual and the Queen does what she is told , maintaining a dignified silence!! And our PM who is also our president in all but name is ALWAYS put in position by less than 50% of the voters because British president is there by having majority MPs. I do like having our ruling executive being derived from parliament but our voting system is naff and there should be some check on the PMs power. (Just look at what BJ tried to do about suspending parliament just after he got in before the general election . He had a tiny majority with a number of pro Europe Tories. And Queen said OK! She had to.) Surely we can have a better system than this.

You think that's better? I'd say it's much, much worse. US Pres can achieve almost nothing (A good thing when Trump was in!) but generally that's a big disadvantage. The current gun laws/abortion debates are proving that.

One of the more disturbing elements that broke out during the "Trump years" was the birth of numerous anti-government militia groups across the country, which were emboldened by Trump and other leaders of the Republican Party. Part of their agenda is to recruit members of the community and radicalize these people into holding grievances against the government, and they often express their conspiracy beliefs through intimidation and violence. They have recently started showing up in their military fatigues at wildfire sites as the affected communities are being evacuated, acting as though they've been recruited by the local authorities to assist in the evacuation. On one recent occasion, they set up camp in a parking lot and provided food and beverages for evacuees, but their agenda involved recruiting new members to their ultra-right wing anti-government militia. These groups act on their own and are not affiliated with any government groups, which frustrates local authorities as they try to legitimately coordinate order out of chaos during these emergency situations. Most states have National Guard and military groups ready to help during wildfires and the last thing they want is for these militia groups to show up uninvited and start recruiting citizens into their fold based on lies and unfounded conspiracy theories. It's a sad state of affairs that on top of everything else going on in the world you have asshole anti-government groups showing up during a natural disaster with the sole intent of recruiting victims as they flee their homes, instead of providing them with what they truly need.

Quote from thefarmer

The tourism argument.

It's absolutely understandable that the vast majority of Brits believe that tourism revenue is a positive side effect of of our royal family as it's what we are constantly told. Alongside the fib about hard working royals. It stands to reason doesn't it? We are all better off for maintaining them in their opulence. Here is 12 minute video that blows this myth out of the water. I really urge you all to watch it. I cannot see how anyone with an open mind could still believe in this lie after seeing this.

External Content youtu.be

Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.

Display all external content

Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

Well, that was massively convincing!

Apart from the slightly creepy "presenter" and his obviously massively biased youtube channel, there's the lack of any hard evidence based (One of his oft used phrases being "little evidence", which works both ways) "facts", he just lectures us on what he thinks. Convincing? I think not. Certainly, as I thought, there's talk of the monarchy costing us millions, and tourism being billions, but there's a couple of other points worth noting:

Chester Zoo: the "tourism" quoted is almost all domestic. The ratio of brits to foreigners in there is very much on the Brits side. same may be true of many other "top attractions" Many overseas visitors probably live amongst some of the zoos occupants cousins!

Happiness: Republicans are all so miserable. Do I want to be like them? No thanks. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a raving-Royalist, and I certainly agree that a lot of the hangers-on should be disenfranchised (as they have in recent years) but do I rather have the UK as a unique place. Yes.