Monarchy or Republic?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

It's because, seeing as the head of the state represents the people, I expect to see them selected and held accountable by those people they represent.

Now why don't you think heads of state should be selected and held accountable by the public? Are you ashamed to voice your own reasons?

[C0ckney]

detail, context etc.? (i know we can't expect miracles, but still...)

i think the current system we have works well for our country and as no one (least of all you) has come up with anything better, i don't see a need to change it.

something does not need to be 'democratic' to be a vital and well functioning component of a democracy.

[Provost Harrison]

Re: more duck than donald...(what a surprise)

Originally posted by C0ckney
see the reason i wouldn't argue with you in a thread about biochemistry, or whatever it is you do, is that it would expose my near total ignorance of the subject.

you could learn a lot from me.

The reasons are obvious, the civil list costs one hell of a lot of money for what return? Tourism? They don't come to personally meet The Queen, so that is a moot point, so why? When they could be replaced with a much more loved and well respected ambassador to this country...and this is where David Attenborough is a good hypothetical example. So tell me, how are they not a waste of money?

And do not presume me to be ignorant. I usually try and conduct myself with a jovial manner, but never underestimate me...

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by C0ckney
i think the current system we have works well for our country and as no one (least of all you) has come up with anything better, i don't see a need to change it.

A democratically elected head of state? What particular aspect of this concept seems to be causing you difficulty?

something does not need to be 'democratic' to be a vital and well functioning component of a democracy.

It's a matter of principle. Because it is a democracy the head of state should be democratically elected.

[notyoueither]

Political offices should be elected, sure, but is the head of state of GB and the Commonwealth a political office? Should it be?

Is either PH or Laz fond of the American system of electing judges?

[notyoueither]

I have to grant that we get a bit of what Laz and PH are advocating. The Windsors are 'over there' and we get generally well regarded citizens appointed by the PM and rubber stamped by Buckingham Palace serving as GG.

We have the monarchy without the clan living here and annoying people.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Political offices should be elected, sure, but is the head of state of GB and the Commonwealth a political office? Should it be?

Is either PH or Laz fond of the American system of electing judges?

or for that matter police chiefs.

[notyoueither]

And prosecutors.

[GePap]

Still with this silly talk!?

A vote for Tyrany is a vote for sanity

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp


No.

What limits would you set?

[chequita guevara]

I voted: I live in a Monarchy, I want to live in a Republic.

[Zkribbler]

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Political offices should be elected, sure, but is the head of state of GB and the Commonwealth a political office? Should it be?

It is, and whether it should be is irrelevant, because it can't be anything else.

[C0ckney]

Re: Re: more duck than donald...(what a surprise)

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
The reasons are obvious, the civil list costs one hell of a lot of money for what return? Tourism? They don't come to personally meet The Queen, so that is a moot point, so why?

the monarchy costs very little in the scheme of things.

in any case, if a government department wastes money, which they all do, almost without exception, is that a reason to abolish the government. i think not.

once again, something does not have to be 'democratic' to be part of a democratic system. we don't elect the house of lords, or our judges, yet they play vital roles in our democracy. it’s your case to make, simply saying 'it's a matter of principle' is no substitute for an argument i'm afraid.

[Provost Harrison]

Re: Re: Re: more duck than donald...(what a surprise)

Originally posted by C0ckney


the monarchy costs very little in the scheme of things.

in any case, if a government department wastes money, which they all do, almost without exception, is that a reason to abolish the government. i think not.

once again, something does not have to be 'democratic' to be part of a democratic system. we don't elect the house of lords, or our judges, yet they play vital roles in our democracy. it’s your case to make, simply saying 'it's a matter of principle' is no substitute for an argument i'm afraid.

So because there are other wastes this one is acceptable...all wastes should be eliminated where possible, and the monarchy is one of them.

Besides, what do you define 'in the scheme of things'. The military, health and social security budgets? In that case, Bill Gates earns very little 'in the scheme of things'...your logic just doesn't stand up to scrutiny...