The MOnarchy

[sideshowbob]

Originally posted by julian2002
i would say make the agenda and decisions made during these meetings public as long as disclosure doesn;t contravene national security or the privacy of individuals.

So, there's one tradition we can agree needs changing. The argument from tradition is insufficient then; traditions need justifying, and some of them are unjustifiable. I could spin this thread out endlessly with lots of similar examples, but I suspect we'd never agree on the conclusions, since I'm a republican and you aren't. I'll buy you a royal christening mug for your birthday...

-- Ian

 

[wadia-miester]

Julain, I do believe you are mosre passionate about of the House of Windsor, than the divine house of Sailsbury mate BTW did you get your brown packet this morning Tone

 

[julian2002]

actually i'm not particularly a royalist. it just seems fasionable these days to keep taking a shot at that family. i thought i'd do a spot of defence. also i'm rather passionate about personal freedoms and the thought of the state coming in and taking something away that has been owned by that family for centurys stuck in my craw.
also i think they do a reasonable job of giving the uk a profile abroad otherwise we'd be one step closer to a dreary little island off the coast of europe with nothing unique about it, and i object to that.
also who's to say that the queen and the pm aren't swapping tales and gossip to further the british cause in foreign affairs in their weekly meetings? surely a resource is a resource, just like mi5, mi6, gchq?

as for the divine house of salisbury, well i'm happy with my kit as it stands and don;t plan to go any further so arguing about this has distracted me from the crushing boredom of existance at present.

cheers


julian

 

[Paul Ranson]

The question is this: in a democracy, why does an unelected head of state have this weekly private access to the PM?

You assume that the UK is a democracy and that democracy is good.

Every so often the appointed cabinet holds a meeting and the minutes of that meeting are secret. Is this appropriate in a democracy?

More worringly we do not actually elect a Prime Minister. We might 'elect' Tony Blair at the next election, Gordon Brown then takes over and a socialist darkness pervades the land. There's nothing we can do for 5 years.

The current trend of disrespect for Parliament and democratic process by our appointed leaders isn't (IMO) a good thing. The monarchy really isn't the pressing problem, it's just a smokescreen. Good Republicans should be concerned for total reform. IMO.

Paul

 

[sideshowbob]

Originally posted by Paul Ranson
Good Republicans should be concerned for total reform. IMO.

I agree. What makes you think I'm not?

I'm a democrat, yes, and prefer democracy to the alternatives. A radical democrat, as it happens, with no particular adherence to parliamentarianism, but that's probably outside the scope of this particular thread, which is about the monarchy.

Policy differences in reality between Tony Blair and Gordon Brown are vanishingly small, so I think your fears of "socialist darkness" are unfounded.

-- Ian

 

[michaelab]

Originally posted by Paul Ranson
You assume that the UK is a democracy and that democracy is good.

You certainly have a point. The UK is very undemocratic in a number of ways. Democracy isn't perfect but it's the best there is. There are different kinds of democracies - I personally like the Swiss model with referenda on practically everything.

Benevolent dictatorship is also a good model for countries that require rapid change. One thing democracy is not is fast at doing anything.

I'll also add my favourite elitist saying which is: "the trouble with democracy is that 'the people' don't know what's best for them" :devil:

Every so often the appointed cabinet holds a meeting and the minutes of that meeting are secret. Is this appropriate in a democracy?

Possibly, possibly not. One problem IMO is the transparency and accountability of the government in the UK. The US has (surprisingly IMO) much more transparency and openness in its goverment.

More worringly we do not actually elect a Prime Minister. We might 'elect' Tony Blair at the next election, Gordon Brown then takes over and a socialist darkness pervades the land. There's nothing we can do for 5 years.

I don't think Gordon Brown is particularly any more left wing than Blair. In any case, what socialism has to do with darkness I have no idea. The UK system is that you elect a party and that party does what it sees fit (hopefully more or less what was in the manifesto) and chooses it's leader (and hence prime minister) accordingly. If you vote for a party you should do so on the understanding that the leadership may change.

The current trend of disrespect for Parliament and democratic process by our appointed leaders isn't (IMO) a good thing. The monarchy really isn't the pressing problem, it's just a smokescreen. Good Republicans should be concerned for total reform. IMO.

I agree. More than being a republican I'm also for openness, accountability and transparency in government. Blair in his disrespect for the democratic process is only following on from the example set by Thatcher who did more to erode the democratic process than any British prime minister in history. I don't see any future goverment of any persuasion (except perhaps Lib Dems) reversing that.

Michael.

 

[wadia-miester]

Originally posted by michaelab



More than being a republican I'm also for openness, accountability and transparency in government.
Michael.

Mike, that will never happen here in the UK, unless there is serious civil unrest you can bet your bottom dollar, that those twho have the 'Power' sure as hell aint gunna give it up with out a fight' and as in Blairs dellisional state 'Absolute power, corrupts absolutey'
I agree with openiness in Government, but what about all those 'dark tucked away little secrets' that would bury most previous administrations?, are they really wanting those out at will ?, can you see everyone saying it's a fair cop, lets get it all out in the open
Utopia is a great place, however I don't know many people who've visited in the last few dozons Eons Tone

 

[Rodrigo de Sá]

Democracy is not good in itself - nor is the power to the people any good. If we could get enlightened government it would be better.

But there is no such thing as an enlightened dictator - or there are very few exceptions.

The merit of democracy is just that the same gang is not in power for long. That prevents long term reformations, for sure, but it also means power is not unduly abused.

You may say that if this is true let's just toss a coin and see who wins. But that wouldn't work: the people (we) must think they have a word in running the country (which of course they don't: to begin with, they don't listen to manifestos; and even if they do, manifestos are plain lies).

So the merits are just keeping gangs away from long term power and avoid revolutions by making the voters accountable for what the government does.

The Régime issue - monarchy versus republic is a non issue. It doesn't really matter if the head and symbol of the country is elected or not, because they don't really have power (unless under a President-centered Republic, as France or the USA). They must only behave properly. And if you think a democratically elected president behaves any better, just check the foreign section of the newspapers. Don't fool yourselves.

All this ranting about monarchy is just playing the games tabloids want people to play; and they make huge profits.

A cynical person is what naïve people call realists.

I'm fully aware this will not enhance my popularity, but please read carefully before reacting emotionally.

 

[cookiemonster]

A Monarchy is better than nothing
Nothing is better than Utopia
Therefore a Monarchy is better than Utopia

Syllogistic proof that Monarchy reigns.

Marvel at Mans prowess.

 

[sideshowbob]

Democracy is not good in itself

In itself, as a matter of principle, it is better than the alternatives. Don't reject democracy so easily, or confuse it with parliamentary government (they are not synonyms).

The Régime issue - monarchy versus republic is a non issue. It doesn't really matter if the head and symbol of the country is elected or not, because they don't really have power

You're being extremely naive if you believe that.

-- Ian

 

[michaelab]

All this reminds me of an interview with a tribal leader (can't remember from which part of the world) I saw on a documentary once. Asked what makes him the leader and why the people (his tribe) like him as the leader he said:

"I see where the people are walking and I just walk infront of them - that makes me the leader"

Michael.

 

[tones]

Originally posted by michaelab
I personally like the Swiss model with referenda on practically everything.

The only problem is, Michael, that the voters get bored and turnout in the many referendums is low (50% is extraordinarily good). However, it is the way to go.

I've nothing personally against Liz and the rest of the tribe, but now having lived without a monarchy for a long time, I think the whole shebang is simply outmoded. I sometimes wonder if they are secretly sponsored by "Paris Match" and the tabloids to keep them both in business. However, we've been here before, and much worse too - just over 100 years ago, the monarchy was highly unpopular and people really thought that Victoria (who paid her income tax by the way) would be the last monarch. However, they are survivors and they reinvented themselves (the unpopular Prince of Wales (although looking just like an ordinary whale) Bertie, who bedded every other woman in the Kingdom, became the enormously popular Edward VII). Perhaps it's time they did so again. The present lot are not so unpopular as the monarchy was then, but on the other hand, Britannia no longer rules the waves, the globe is no longer one-quarter red and those to whom the monarchy represents the sole connection with a more glorious past are now a lot thinner on the ground.

By all means keep 'em if you want, but make their role completely ceremonial (opening flower shows, that sort of thing) and reduce the big establishment.

 

[The Devil]

The Royal Family are great sports and enormous fun. Cheap at the price.

They are there to remind the others how lucky we are.

 

[Rodrigo de Sá]

Originally posted by sideshowbob
In itself, as a matter of principle, it is better than the alternatives. Don't reject democracy so easily, or confuse it with parliamentary government (they are not synonyms).



You're being extremely naive if you believe that.

-- Ian

Would you care to explain? Why is democracy good in itself and how come the Queen has power?

I'm not winding you up, I'm just interested in your views.

 

[sideshowbob]

RdS, I wouldn't presume to lecture somebody who lives in a country that as recently as 30 years ago was run by the regimes of Salazar and Caetano, but I think the benefits of democracy are pretty self-evident, provided you accept the principle that some kind of majority brake on the otherwise unchecked use of power is a good thing in itself, for reasons of natural justice (this is a very big question, and I've had a long day at work, so that's the best you'll get for now).

As for monarchical power, the British Royal Family are more than a ceremonial institution, for a start they're landowners (and landlords) on an enormous scale, and there are many examples of Royal involvement in political debate, albeit not directly party political. They have an influence due to their wealth and privilege that goes far beyond their "talents" for opening museums or waving at crowds. If we had a purely ceremonial monarchy I would have no real issue with them (although I would be baffled by the need for the ceremony, but that's a different question).

-- Ian

 

[michaelab]

Originally posted by sideshowbob
RdS, I wouldn't presume to lecture somebody who lives in a country that as recently as 30 years ago was run by the regimes of Salazar and Caetano

30th anniversary of the April 25th revolution coming up next year :MILD: Should be some good parties here...sorry for trivialising it :shame:

Michael.

 

[Rodrigo de Sá]

Originally posted by sideshowbob
RdS, I wouldn't presume to lecture somebody who lives in a country that as recently as 30 years ago was run by the regimes of Salazar and Caetano, but I think the benefits of democracy are pretty self-evident, provided you accept the principle that some kind of majority brake on the otherwise unchecked use of power is a good thing in itself, for reasons of natural justice (this is a very big question, and I've had a long day at work, so that's the best you'll get for now).

Yes, I agree, but was my original point: you have to check the gangs in power, and democracy is a good way of achieving it.

Now concerning natural justice - a big issue, as you say - I don't think I agree.

Let's take the USA as an example. There democracy rules - I mean, people get what they want. So you get mass-culture and all kinds of absurdities. Let's face it: unless the people are educated what they want is not necessarily in the interest of the group. That is why there is always the need to impose bounds on freedom. Now if you suggest that such bounds be imposed, I might agree with you. Otherwise democracy just leads to capitalism and capital is not ethic: just self-enhancing.

Originally posted by sideshowbob
As for monarchical power, the British Royal Family are more than a ceremonial institution, for a start they're landowners (and landlords) on an enormous scale, and there are many examples of Royal involvement in political debate, albeit not directly party political. They have an influence due to their wealth and privilege that goes far beyond their "talents" for opening museums or waving at crowds. If we had a purely ceremonial monarchy I would have no real issue with them (although I would be baffled by the need for the ceremony, but that's a different question).
-- Ian [/B]

Again I agree, but every President has that kind of influence. Not necessarily because they are rich (which they often are, by the way) but because they have party connections that made it possible to be President in the first place. So their influence is, if anything, greater than a monarch's.

Also, electing a President and keeping a Presidential residence roughly requires the same amount of money as maintaining a sovereign.

I personally quite like Queen Elizabeth - she is a good symbol of England (and Britain, perhaps). Even the Prince of Wales may become a good King. Just consider Edward the VIIth: did you know he had a special chair made for himself in order to get French prostitutes to perform oral sex while he kept very confortable? And he was widely known in French high society brothels. Yet, he was very popular...

The real question is that what is required to be a good king has nothing to do with sexual activity.

All royalty has to do is to adapt itself to the tabloids. Which, in my opinion, are just a product of capitalist democracy, and often lead to bad governmental policies, just because PMs must catter for votes, and voters are influenced by the tabloids.

So, I state it again: the Régime issue is a non-issue. Capitalism and ensuing misinformation are the true issues.

The choice is a sim,ple one: you elect a polititian (often a disguised crook) or you get someone who was trained to be just a symbol; he may turn out an idiot, a normal person or he may even be quite bright.

As you said, I live in a Republic. Is there a big difference from monarchies? - the answer is a resounding NO.

In case you think I am pro Monarchy AND left wing, let me tell you that I am mildly Republican and moderately right wing... I wouldn't lift a finger to change a Régime: if I lived in a Monarchy I think I'd be quite happy about it. A good friend of mine, who is pro Monarchy has exactly the same views as I do...

Of course, all this is Diana's fault - now I'm winding people up :RdS:

 

[michaelab]

Originally posted by RdS
Let's face it: unless the people are educated what they want is not necessarily in the interest of the group.

That's a point I entirely agree with. But now you're getting into game theory You may get an individual (or group of individuals) decide to vote for what's best for them alone and screw society (the group). It's the old prisoners dilemma

Michael.

 

[Rodrigo de Sá]

Michael:

Spot on. (Have you read The Origins of Virtue by Matt Ridley?)

And that is the whole point why democracy sucks and still is the only way to go. And that's got nothing to do with Régime.

 

[sideshowbob]

I am mildly Republican and moderately right wing

Ah, we certainly differ then. I'm very republican and extremely left wing...

-- Ian