Monarchy or Republic?

[Gangerolf]

Originally posted by BlackCat


Nah, come back to mama, we have several hundred years of practice in handling you

You lost us because you thought the FRENCH were going to win the war in 1814.
The Finns are bound to have better judgement. And it's their turn now anyway.

BTW, the Monarchy is doing quite well in our little Apolyton poll

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Gangerolf


You lost us because you thought the FRENCH were going to win the war in 1814.
The Finns are bound to have better judgement. And it's their turn now anyway.

BTW, the Monarchy is doing quite well in our little Apolyton poll

Nah, reread your history. We were pretty neutral until Nelson made his blind eye trick at Copenhagen .

You are right about the poll - I actually is a little curious about those five that want to get a monarchy instead of the current republic - maybe they have seen some swedish pics

[BlackCat]

Edit : damn firefox 1.5 (can't be the redwine)

[Winston]

Might I add a brief comparison of some of the main impressions the ordinary citizen is likely to get from the two alternatives.

Monarchy:

Weddings!
Child births!
Baptisms!
Divorces!
Jubilees!
Anniversaries!
On occasion, a commendably short speech!

Republic:

Campaigns!
Pretzels!
Debates!
Interns with bruised knees!
Exit polls!
Recounts!
Endless speeches, all the time, on all of the above!

Monarchy, new and improved, makes 9 out of 10 people praise their Lord and maker that a bit of common sense still prevails.

[Provost Harrison]

Yeah Winston, and let's bring back serfdom whilst we are at it

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
And who determines whether they are sufficiently apolitical?

And what if they prove not to be so?

You think that elected people would be more above politics?

In the case of Britain and the Commonwealth, the sovereign and her representatives are furnished with advice about how to react to changing circumstances in parliaments. They make good 'apolitical' referees.

Now, replace them with elected party hacks (you know that's who's gonna get the jobs, especially if drawn from the ranks of local concils) and let them make decisions about invitations to government. It's just a really bad idea IMO.

[C0ckney]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
However I wouldn't put money on that happening. Would you?

i only just noticed this. tell you what, you go down the bookies and see what odds they'll offer you on your idea becoming reality, they'll be slightly longer than if you had a bet on ET landing on top of buck house tomorrow.

[C0ckney]

.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

You keep ducking the question, don't you? Why don't you like democracy?

Why do you think it's not a preferable way to select a head of state?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by notyoueither


You think that elected people would be more above politics?

Not in the slightest. However they would be accountable, and if their actions offend, they can simply be voted out at the next election.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Winston


Don't need to, that's the beauty of it.

I'm perfectly content with witnessing your blood pressure rise steadily with every post you make.

Ah, you've misunderstood those comic rants over the years, haven't you?

They're a balm to my soul. That's why I do them.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Now for something serious

Originally posted by notyoueither

In the case of Britain and the Commonwealth, the sovereign and her representatives are furnished with advice about how to react to changing circumstances in parliaments. They make good 'apolitical' referees.

Now, replace them with elected party hacks (you know that's who's gonna get the jobs, especially if drawn from the ranks of local concils) and let them make decisions about invitations to government. It's just a really bad idea IMO.

I forget his name, but one former PM noted that dear old QE2 has very little interest in anything other than racehorses. She is also noted for not being terribly bright, and rather divorced from reality as most of her subjects know it.

What exactly is her enlightened social/political input? As far as I can see, she's never done anything that couldn't be achieved with her replacement by a large and impressive rubber-stamp.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Winston
Might I add a brief comparison of some of the main impressions the ordinary citizen is likely to get from the two alternatives.

Monarchy:

Weddings!
Child births!
Baptisms!
Divorces!
Jubilees!
Anniversaries!

I understand it warms your heart to see the citizenry reveling in obsequious adulation (faked or not) at such occasions, but to us cursed with a modicum of taste, such events are offensive.

As for speeches and pretzels, we'd not have an American-style presidency, but one more along the lines of Germany's or Finland's.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
Now for something serious

I forget his name, but one former PM noted that dear old QE2 has very little interest in anything other than racehorses. She is also noted for not being terribly bright, and rather divorced from reality as most of her subjects know it.

What exactly is her enlightened social/political input? As far as I can see, she's never done anything that couldn't be achieved with her replacement by a large and impressive rubber-stamp.

You're right there's not much to the function when you have long lived and healthy majorities, but try living with minority governments for a while.

We've had two situations in the past 12 months where the GG may have been called upon to make tough decisions about government and dissolution.

The first was when opposition parties took over the Commons and refused to allow business to proceed pending an issue of confidence. The leaders sorted it out themselves, but we were very close to the GG having to chose between an election or another party being invited to govern.

This just completed election, the Liberals and NDP had enough seats to form a coalition and keep the Tories on the opposition benches. We were saved the mess by the leader of the Liberals resigning. The GG would have had worse choices in this case, as no matter how she decided significant numbers of people would have been very, very angry.

I am quite happy that we have a nonpolitical head of state. Having a politician making these decisions when they arise would only add heat to the fire, and quite possibly ignite some new flames.

[C0ckney]

expecting more duck than donald...

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
They're undemocratic and unaccountable. I could level many, many other criticisms, but let's make it simple and stick with those.

i think you and i have a pretty similar educational backgrounds, so i'm assuming you're not 'provost harrison' ignorant regarding the monarchy, its functions, its role in the government of this country etc.

bearing this in mind, lets hear your criticisms of the monarchy, go in to as much detail as you like, go nuts. as long as it's in relation to what the monarchy actually does.

simply crying 'undemocratic' and 'unaccountable' without context is wholly worthless.

the questions i originally asked are interlinked, because if want to replace the monarchy, then you've got to present a credible alternative to it (i.e. not your idea). again feel free to go in to detail.