Monarchy or Republic? - Page 5

01-05-2011, 17:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kymmy

With the usual "I hate the monarchy" brigade I thought the poll results would be very different and not the current 60%/24%/16% split in favor of the Monarchy..

Yes a surprising result ,i thought it would have been a bit closer .I wonder if the result would have been different if there had been no wedding ?

Sirius · 01-05-2011, 17:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyh

Yes a surprising result ,i thought it would have been a bit closer .I wonder if the result would have been different if there had been no wedding ?

Not for me i would have still said Monarchy.

**Maggy** · 01-05-2011, 18:39

I think the result pretty much mirrors what the nation as a whole feels about the issue.

Pierre · 01-05-2011, 19:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maggy J

I think the result pretty much mirrors what the nation as a whole feels about the issue.

Quite right, what always happens in debates such as this is that the minority view always gets far more exposure than they are warranted. Whereas the silent majority are just that- silent.

Niles Crane · 01-05-2011, 19:22

It's not really a simple question and the results are somewhat misleading.

I'm a republican, but i wouldn't just get rid of the British monarchy now. They're synonymous with British culture and history and in turn valuable to many others, even if they're not to me.

Change a number of things about the British monarchy? Almost certainly. Get rid of them completely? No. If i was building a nation from scratch, would it be a monarchism? No.

My decision isn't based on my personal feelings or politics, it's what i think is best for the country as a whole.

01-05-2011, 19:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pierre

Quite right, what always happens in debates such as this is that the minority view always gets far more exposure than they are warranted. Whereas the silent majority are just that- silent.

Maybe it's time for that silence to be unsilenced

LONG LIVE THE QUEEN

Sirius · 01-05-2011, 19:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyh

Maybe it's time for that silence to be unsilenced

LONG LIVE THE QUEEN

May i second that

**Chris** · 02-05-2011, 09:38

She doesn't rule. She reigns. There's a great big constitutional difference.

**Maggy** · 02-05-2011, 09:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

Not to "Rule over us" though.

Poor old Charlie, if she's anything like her mother he ain't never going to get on that throne.

Maybe he's going to live until he is 100 as well..

Ignitionnet · 02-05-2011, 09:51

As I said earlier absolutely fine and delighted with the monarchy, however I do want to see some constitutional reform. Replace the house of lords with a house elected entirely by PR, increase the powers of the PM and make him directly elected to that job by the people rather than his own party, and I'm ecstatic.

**Maggy** · 02-05-2011, 10:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

As I said earlier absolutely fine and delighted with the monarchy, however I do want to see some constitutional reform. Replace the house of lords with a house elected entirely by PR, increase the powers of the PM and make him directly elected to that job by the people rather than his own party, and I'm ecstatic.

More money spent on more elections?Surely that's a waste of public resources?

Will21st · 02-05-2011, 12:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

As I said earlier absolutely fine and delighted with the monarchy, however I do want to see some constitutional reform. Replace the house of lords with a house elected entirely by PR, increase the powers of the PM and make him directly elected to that job by the people rather than his own party, and I'm ecstatic.

Sounds good to me!

beeman · 03-05-2011, 06:44

Quote:

increase the powers of the PM and make him directly elected to that job by the people rather than his own party, and I'm ecstatic.

Surly that would make him president then not prime (first) minister. Rather then going all the way to having directly elected president/prime minister i personally would like to see the torys honor their election pledge of forcing a general election if/when the governing party changes its leader. This would go a long way to preventing the problem of having a PM with no public mandate (ala brown) without the expense of having a presidential election on top of the general commons election.

**Chris** · 03-05-2011, 06:56

Being directly elected doesn't make someone a president. Boris Johnson is directly elected, that just makes him the directly elected holder of the office he was elected to ... in this case Mayor of London.

A president has the top job - head of state and in some cases also head of government. Our monarch has the job of head of state and our prime minister is head of government. He/she would still be the prime minister of the government if he were directly elected by us rather than by current means.

However, there are certain complexities in directly electing the PM. The convention is that the Queen appoints as her PM, the one who is most likely to command a majority in Parliament. Turning that on its head would require a great deal of careful planning and law-making, and all we would end up with is a system where the Prime Minister is more likely than at present not to have a commons majority, and therefore less able to pass legislation and more likely to have the annual pantomime of struggling to get a budget approved.

Ignitionnet · 03-05-2011, 07:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maggy J

More money spent on more elections?Surely that's a waste of public resources?

Accountability and transparency are priceless