Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
bail
thief
spiv
gull
For me what would be the alternative?
All countries have a “head of state” and the costs associated with that, as well as having to bear the costs of visiting “heads of state”.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20021841-503544.html
And although undoubtedly there is some tourism money offsetting some of the costs and people wanting to see heads of state it is not in the same proportion to those who come to see the pomp and ceremony of a royal ceremony.
To me the question is how would you replace our current monarchy with something more efficient/effective? I cant see a perfect system in any country so maybe we just need to make the best of what we have.
If we were to have a political president and then have we would still have to put up with their particular foibles on the world stage, Berlusconi, Sarkozy and Clinton to name a few. God forbid we would ever have President Blair or Brown (my politics are fundamentally socialist but those two acted more like old Tories wallowing in the elitist trough of power and privilege and are a disgrace to the socialist movement they purported to represent. You may discern I am not a fan of them)
At the other extreme we have people who have gained power and then turned their countries into dictatorships and act as the Monarchs of olden times where their whim is law. There is no point saying it could never happen here as history shows people like Mussolini, Hitler, Mao and Franco were all “elected” people who believed their policies were what was needed at that point in time. (“elected” being rather loosely used)
As it stands our current monarchial system is respected on the world stage, (and so is our parliamentary system) and although there have been numerous glitches along the line has proved to be effective, especially as it separates, to a degree, the identity of the state from its current politics . Perhaps its more a review of the civil list and minor royals and our attitudes to hereditary and honorific titles that should be overhauled rather than the titular head of state.
So what would you replace it with? If you look at the long drawn out attempt to reform the House of Lords in our parliamentary system you will see the difficulties. Regardless of the fact it is an anachronism – it works. The elected house recognise that replacing it with elected or life peers gives those currently in power the ability to stuff it full of sycophants who cannot be gotten rid of easily, or if we use an alternative “half term” election process then the likelyhood is we will end up with opposed majorities in each house ending in stalemate and nothing getting done by the primary house.
So in simplifying all of the above – if it aint broke – dont “fix” it. It might be wheezy and clunky but I cant see any new gadget that can do its job better, so I for one will be leaving it mostly alone bar some minor tweeks.
By the way I support those old commonwealth countries who want to replace our head of state with their own. That is their right of self determination and establishing their identity, it doesnt necessarily mean they dont like us – just that they want to be recognised in their own right.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZX0mcases4M
Justifed and Ancient – brill
I did post duck but then I edited to spare Mrs T’s Blushes as it was to open to err double entendres.
ruck
:oops: Mrs T! [-X
buck
