The Queen To Abdicate?
Comments
-
Not a chance0
-
So you are not a monarchist but you also don't want an elected head of state ? Dictator ? ;0)razil said: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
1 -
What, people that we elect you mean?razil said: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
1 -
We elect the Prime Minister.0
-
We elect our local mp. The queen appoints the leader of the largest party in the commons prime minister on behalf of the people.WayneK said:We elect the Prime Minister.
If we started having presidents as heads of state I'd probably seriously consider emigrating.1 -
America ? Germany ? France ? Where exactly ?kentaddick said:
We elect our local mp. The queen appoints the leader of the largest party in the commons prime minister on behalf of the people.WayneK said:We elect the Prime Minister.
If we started having presidents as heads of state I'd probably seriously consider emigrating.
2 -
Meh1
-
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 ta0 -
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.0
-
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 - Sponsored links:
-
Being a monarch is not a protected characteristic as defined in the Equality Act!Dippenhall said: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.
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.5 -
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.bobmunro said:
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.1 -
Thatcher unlikely now. I seem to remember a thread on here about her dying.razil said: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
5 -
if we didn't have a monarchy then this country would be a lot poorer for it, financially I mean1
-
I know Freddie's dead, but this news still upsets me...1
-
Bigotry against a minority which has not been outlawed by parliament is still bigotry, where did I suggest it was illegal?bobmunro said:
Being a monarch is not a protected characteristic as defined in the Equality Act!Dippenhall said: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.0 -
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"-4
-
Just as well that it's still legal to be a racist bigot if it's not covered in the Equality Act.scidbox said: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"
0 -
Now that would be covered under the Equality Act!Dippenhall said:
Just as well that it's still legal to be a racist bigot if it's not covered in the Equality Act.scidbox said: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"
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.1 -
Speaking frankly, I think Liz has taken us as far as she can. It's time for a new face to come in and move us up to the next level...killerandflash said:
Curbs 16-1 to be King etc3 - Sponsored links:
-
Yeh... Someone from across the channel - viva l'empereur...0
-
I'm sure we're spending/wasting money on a lot more worse things in this country , than the royal family.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/cost-of-royal-family-rises-twice-as-fast-as-inflation-9563293.html0 -
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.1
-
"Your Majesty" if you don't mind.0
-
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.ShootersHillGuru said: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.
4 -
Dippenhall, my finger hovered over the Flag button for that remark - football not serious?2
-
Sorry, edited as required.Dippenhall said:
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 :-)ShootersHillGuru said: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.
0 -
No need - the :-) was missing from my comment. :-)Dippenhall said:
Sorry, edited as required.Dippenhall said:
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 :-)ShootersHillGuru said: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.
0 -
Why have you dug up a 2 year old Tweet from one of the most obnoxious cocks ever to draw breath?JollyRobin said:5
