Kings coronation bank holiday.

[Vinty]

There isn't much to stop the monarch dabbling in all political business,

He hasn't made a very good start as King.
He allowed himself to be used by Sunak.
As Monarch he shouldn't be seen to be endorsing one political faction over another.

Government under fire for allegedly roping King Charles into its efforts to sell Northern Ireland Protocol deal

Criticism has been heaped on the government for allegedly pressurising King Charles into being part of its efforts to sell the deal on the Protocol to sceptical unionists.

www.newsletter.co.uk

 

[cwhaley]

The last Monarch called Charles who tried the above got his head chopped orf.

One of the reasons I'm a Republican is because it runs in the family.

In the corner of the death warrant for Charles I is the signature of Edward Whalley, the fourth person to sign Charles' death warrant. That Edward is my grandfather fourteen generations back.

Unsure if this Charles will attempt the same, but he's had his fat fingers in all sorts of political pies.

 

[Ivor Windybottom]

Dodginess used to be hidden, behind closed doors.

These days it's all out in the open - bloke's mate gives loans the PM a pile of cash, he gets highly paid public service job. Nobody cares any more, they do what they like and know they will get away with it.

Charles will probably just be more of the same, given his previous form in meddling in various ways over lots of years, seemingly not caring about how bad it looks. We have a king who accepted carrier bags of cash from a rich foreigner. Hopefully he'll be so terrible that he'll actually be the perfect cheerleader for a new democratic system, rather than the half-baked pretend democracy nonsense we currently have. He may be our last ever king if he's as bad as seems likely. Or more likely William will still get the job but in a strictly ceremonial role alongside a proper elected head of state - leaving the king cutting ribbons, not signing laws, and minus several palaces.

The more terrible he is, the better the potential outcome. Perhaps after lots of problems and some severe upheaval.

 

[Deleted member 18243]

You are blaming subsequent Governments' decisions on a past PM?

Blair is responsible for the massive population increase we have seen in the past 25 years. He started it, and all subsequent governments have continued it - therefore he created the ugly modern Britain that we know and hate. He is still shaping the country - all the mad policies that our present government seem to conjure up from thin air come from think tanks and policy organisations, many of which he belongs to.

You've not really thought that one through have you.

No entirely, no, but many of us abstain from voting because there is no party that represents us. The system is rigged against us so that there never can be a party that represents us, therefore we need a different way of leadership. We were once a fabulously wealthy country until we had socialist governments. We need to reconnect with that glorious past and that can only be done by removing our political class in its entirety. I stated earlier that the monarch is the highest political authority in the country, but he / she never makes use of that power - and there would be trouble if he / she did. But if a popular, charismatic person were in the position of monarch, with a large chunk of the poulation in support, that could be changed.

 

[securespark]

Blair is responsible for the massive population increase we have seen in the past 25 years.

He is only "responsible" for the increase while he was in power.

BTW, have you got figures showing how much the increase was?

You can't blame him for anything that happened after he left office. Whatever subsequent Governments did, they made a decision on that.

You seem to contradict yourself when you say policies conjured up from thin air are suggested by think tanks.

It seems a fair stretch to blame one member of an organisation comprising several at the very least for an idea, policy or suggestion taken up.

Have you got any data showing which policies taken up by subsequent Governments were created by think tanks and how many of those involved TB?

 

[Brigadier]

......alongside a proper elected head of state....

Why the obsession with this at all?

What's wrong with just government with a Prime Minister? Presuming that the monarchy had been abolished?

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Why the obsession with this at all?

What's wrong with just government with a Prime Minister? Presuming that the monarchy had been abolished?

Agreed.

 

[Ivor Windybottom]

Why the obsession with this at all?

What's wrong with just government with a Prime Minister? Presuming that the monarchy had been abolished?

The prime minister is not selected by the people, but indirectly by MPs, who can change their minds between elections. Nobody voted directly or indirectly for Sunak, Truss, Boris (before his re-election) or Brown (who was booted out at the first electoral oppportunity).

We need to do what modern countries do and have a head of state (president) who is directly elected, who runs the country. The prime minister is then merely the head of MPs, who reports to the president.

Direct election of the president would allow outsiders a free run at the top job, it could be a good way of breaking the two-party domination of politics that is currently leaving many voters picking the least bad of the two very similar variations of the same policies, both parties are currently two cheeks of the same arse.

General elections are currently corrupted by our system. Many voters don't even know who their local MP is, but vote for them personally because they're associated with the voter's choice of PM. This is wrong, we should vote for our representative in parliament based on how good they will be at taking care of the issues that concern us locally. This is why we have so many MPs who don't take any more than a token interest in local issues and support the party line even if it's against the interests of the people who voted for them.

In several cases in the past, MPs have been elected on the strength of the party they represent. Then they switch parties after being elected. This is allowed by the current system, as most voters think they're voting for a party but in fact they're voting for a person who is currently a member of this party (but can do what they like after election).

When there are world leaders summits, our PM goes to represent us - not our head of state. He is one of the few at the summit who has not been elected by the people, and probably the only one who reports up to someone else above him. Those from other countries have the mandate to legitimately represent their population, as they were given their job by the people, and they are ultimately the person at the top.

We currently have an unelected head of state that nobody has voted for, and a PM that only a few MPs have voted for. Neither is directly accountable to the people of the country.

The presidential election should be for our choice of national leader, general elections should be for our local representative in parliament. The PM takes the concerns of MPs to the president.

 

[Brigadier]

The prime minister is not selected by the people, but indirectly by MPs, who can change their minds between elections. Nobody voted directly or indirectly for Sunak, Truss, Boris (before his re-election) or Brown (who was booted out at the first electoral oppportunity).

We need to do what modern countries do and have a head of state (president) who is directly elected, who runs the country. The prime minister is the head of MPs, who reports to the president.

Direct election of the president would allow outsiders a free run at the top job, it could be a good way of breaking the two-party domination of politics that is currently leaving many voters picking the least of the two very similar variations of the same policies, both parties are currently two cheeks of the same arse.

General elections are currently corrupted by our system. Many voters don't even know who their local MP is, but vote for them personally because they're associated with the voter's choice of PM. This is wrong, we should vote for our representative in parliament based on how good they will be at taking care of the issues that concern us locally. This is why we have so many MPs who don't take any more than a token interest in local issues and support the party line even if it's against the interests of the people who voted for them.

In several cases in the past, MPs have been elected on the strength of the party they represent. Then they switch parties after being elected. This is allowed by the current system, as most voters think they're voting for a party but in fact they're voting for a person who is currently a member of this party (but can do what they like after election).

When there are world leaders summits, our PM goes to represent us - not our head of state. He is one of the few at the summit who has not been elected by the people, and probably the only one who reports up to someone else above him. Those from other countries have the mandate to legitimately represent their population, as they were given their job by the people, and they are ultimately the person at the top.

We currently have an unelected head of state that nobody has voted for, and a PM that only a few MPs have voted for. Neither is directly accountable to the people of the country.

The presidential election should be for our choice of national leader, general elections should be for our local representative in parliament. The PM takes the concerns of MPs to the president.

Some of the above good in theory, but no more likely to be better than what we currently have.


Presidential candidate:
- More likely than not, a raving narcissist.
- More likely than not, beholden to the financial backers with the deepest pockets.
- While directly voted for, likely still only by a minority of the electorate.
- While directly voted for, (in your own words), counselled by the PM who (again, in your own words), was not directly voted for.





I'll stick with what we have, thanks.

 

[Ivor Windybottom]

The first two on your list apply to Charles anyway, the other two are imaginary scenarios that could happen with any democratic process from parish councillors upwards. If these are genuine concerns then your suggestion appears to be that we just shouldn't bother with democracy.

Fear of change is our biggest enemy, we will end up sticking with an utterly broken system just because there are potential smaller risks with the alternative.

If the current system was perfect then we should stick with what we have. I'd be very happy with something better but still imperfect.

Perfection is often the enemy of the good, resulting in sticking with the terrible.

 

[blup]

One of the reasons I'm a Republican is because it runs in the family.

In the corner of the death warrant for Charles I is the signature of Edward Whalley, the fourth person to sign Charles' death warrant. That Edward is my grandfather fourteen generations back.

Unsure if this Charles will attempt the same, but he's had his fat fingers in all sorts of political pies.

Interesting fact.

What you omit to say is that this particular Wally was a cousin of Cromwell, so it looks like nepotism was at work even back then.

Blup

 

[blup]

Wealth built on land grabs and dubious taxes.

That was the British empire not the royal family per se.

Inherited wealth

Nothing wrong with inherited wealth, IHT is a pernicious tax on the fruits of peoples hard won savings and capital, which has already been taxed several times during life.

Blup

 

[Brigadier]

Perfection is often the enemy of the good, resulting in sticking with the terrible.

In your opinion.

The first two on your list apply to Charles anyway

He didn't seek his role though: presidential candidates, by definition, would have to.

the other two are imaginary scenarios

The first, happens at every election.

The second, you said it in your own post.

utterly broken system

That would be the parliamentary electoral system. I agree. PR would be an improvement.
Binning one Head of State for another would not alter that in itself.

If the current system was perfect then we should stick with what we have. I'd be very happy with something better but still imperfect.

That would be the parliamentary electoral system. I agree. PR would be an improvement.
Binning one Head of State for another would not alter that in itself.

 

[Ivor Windybottom]

PR would probably be an improvement over what we have now, but is really just a botch to work around the flaws of the system. It sounds good that every vote counts, but in reality it means you're still left voting for MPs you don't know or care about, and their primary responsibility remains to the party above, not the people below them.

It also means that some constituencies would end up with a different party to the one they voted for, in order to balance the vote share nationally. Potentially the stockbroker belt could get a loony lefty labour MP, the council estate gets a tory toff. Perhaps parties could end up deliberately sticking their most extreme candidates in such areas, knowing they could gain power without votes.

Fear of change will probably stop any change anyway. We had a referendum for changing to preferential votes when the lib dems were in coalition. This could have been a first step towards PR. My mum said she didn't understand it, it was too complicated and she voted against it. She wasn't alone, it was rejected.

The reality is that this debate is probably pointless. Everything will stay as-is, the elite will keep running and owning most of the country and people will keep moaning about it.

 

[Brigadier]

PR would probably be an improvement over what we have now, but is really just a botch to work around the flaws of the system.

.......whereas a President would solve it all?
Proper "sticking plaster on a broken leg" thinking, that is.

Potentially the stockbroker belt could get a loony lefty labour MP, the council estate gets a tory toff.

What was it you were saying, about "imaginary scenarios"?

Fear of change will probably stop any change anyway.

Didn't stop Brexit.

Everything will stay as-is, the elite will keep running and owning most of the country

And how would a President change that? They'd just be part of that elite.

people will keep moaning about it.

Some people.

The reality is that this debate is probably pointless.

You're probably correct.