|
Post by Incubus on Oct 28, 2004 20:09:51 GMT
Since becoming more politically aware during my time at Higham Lane, I have almost always been against the Monarchy and what it stood for. I disliked the fact that they receive funding from the government to refurbish their various homes and places of work. I also felt that they no longer stood for what the monarchy should be: a dictatorship (and it did use to be a firm standing one before the Magna Carta) with the Monarch weilding supreme power (or sovereign, if you will).
However, since the recent edition of "Jenny Bond's Royals" a couple of days ago, I have begun to consider the other side of the argument. The program showed a clip form the celebrations of the Queen's Jubilee year, and I found myself questioning my views. Does the Monarchy, though losing its position as a serious part of governing the country, still have a position in today's society?
I now feel that, even though it is no longer a real part of British legal sovereignty, the Monarchy is a factor that should continue to exist. The Queen's face adorns our currency, the pound (though I feel I must stress to those who do not yet know - the pound is not actually British, but another item left by the Romans) and, from what I could see from the jubilee celebrations, a loved figure that represents the "old" Britain, that reminds us of such great figures as Elizabeth I and Henry VIII.
What other opinions are there?
|
|
|
Post by Thanatos on Oct 29, 2004 1:42:00 GMT
The monarchy is an undemocratic institution and a waste of money and should be scrapped.
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Oct 29, 2004 9:57:52 GMT
Well, I know that there was a topic on this before, and so if you'll allow me to bring up a couple of the best points made. Both by HStorm in this instance; I'd keep the Royal Family simply because we need a politically impartial head of state. The USA's head of state is the President, and although he can never stay in power for more than 8 years, he will never be politically impartial, and that does untold damage to its international relations. The UK's head of state is unelected and therefore has no mandate. Therefore it's easy to keep the monarchy politically impartial, and that undoubtedly makes a lot of other countries happier to deal with Britain than they otherwise would be. Given the UK's imperial history, I suspect many a country would have closed diplomatic relations with us decades ago if we'd had an elected head of state... And on the powers that the Queen still has; the Queen still has absolute authority over this country's armed forces (the Prime Minister has no authority without the monarch's approval, which she is free to withdraw at a moment's notice, and she is even entitled to order them into battle without consulting anyone!) and she is entitled to relieve a Prime Minister of his duties at the drop of a hat. There is also the fact that the monarchy and places connected to them do bring in a lot of tourists, tourism of course makes money. Just like when people go to London to see the Tower of London guards, tourists come to the country to see the monarchy related sights. My opinion now, after hearing some of the powers the monarchy has and other factors, is that the royal family should remain as they are a part of our heritage and do represent the 'old' Britain as you said, Liquidus.
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on Oct 29, 2004 13:06:29 GMT
The pound symbol, and the pound weight (lbs) are roman. The actual currency isn't.
The Monarchy is a terrible anacronism. I don't think we should get rid of it, but it should definately be updated. Maybe taking their income down to a sensible level, removing the clause in property documents that makes private land revert to the ownership of the monarch after 500 years, and remove all their powers save the ablitity to fire the PM. That'd do it.
That way, you keep the tourist attraction, you maintain the 'old' Britain thing (though I'm not sure why it's such a good thing. "Hey, Jeff, do you remember the good old days when you had to shit in the street?" "Yeah, and you'd die at thirty from the cholera. Happy days") and yet you remove the absurd over-expense, you could convert some of the palaces into housing/ hotels/ bricks, and you'd have eliminated some of the over-the-top powers.
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Oct 29, 2004 16:32:17 GMT
The Queen is basically an un-sackable Civil Servant these days, Yes, she should be weakened further than she currently is - especially she should have absolutely no powers over the armed forces - but we still need an impartial figure to 'oversee' the business of Government, more than is done at the moment, truth be told.
Interestingly, this in fact means that I'd prefer the Monarch to take a more pro-active and positive role in political life, essentially acting as a safety valve and 'chairman' for when Parliament runs into difficulties (like when Prime Ministers exceed their mandate - no prizes for guessing what I'm referring to there), even though he/she would have even fewer powers than she does now.
I wouldn't say that the Monarchy is an outright waste of money as such, but at present it's awfully expensive for what we get out of it. But if nothing else, we should all salute in admiration the displays of determined, serene patience that the Queen manages to put out when forced to sit through two days and more of African folk dancing. ;D
It certainly would be a good idea to cut most of the rest of the Civil List. I especially can't see what the odious Duke Of Edinburgh has done to earn the degree of funding he gets.
|
|
|
Post by Incubus on Oct 30, 2004 10:51:27 GMT
What we have to remember here is that almost all of the Queen's power is controlled by conventions in the British Constitution. If she did sack Tony Blair, or refuse to sign a Parliament bill (which she is still allowed to do), she would be breaking convention. There would then be chaos, as the Queen would be accused of being un-constitutional (not good).
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Oct 30, 2004 11:17:43 GMT
Yes, such a course would open a can of worms for the monarchy, but at the same time the guards against it are far weaker than we often realise. In the end we don't have a written constitution and therefore the conventions are carried out simply by tradition and gentlemen's agreements. Such agreements, as someone American (well, what else?) once said, "ain't worth the paper they're written on..." so we shouldn't just assume that no future monarch will overstep the mark.
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Nov 1, 2004 11:47:25 GMT
There are many reports, but most conclude that the earnings generated from the existence of the monarchy significantly outweigh its costs.
While it is undemocratic, the position serves as a good check on the PM’s power, and do we think that Tony Blair is democratic? He dragged this country to war against its’ wishes, and STILL he will probably be elected for a third term.
So who would you rather had the power? The queen, who is more likely to make better judgements (experience – 50 years in office), or the PM with his personal vendettas and reactionary, poorly thought out policies.
The monarchs’ control of the army should remain, in my opinion. If it was necessary, she could intervene and withdraw this country’s troops from Iraq if things got too bad. Blair couldn’t be trusted to make such a decision.
And also, if we needed to go to war to protect this country (unlike Iraq), we would be able to take action whereas a PM may not.
Remember, democratic leaders only think about how they appear in the eyes of the people, and people can be very stupid. With the monarch, she doesn’t need to bother with prole-pandering.
So, in my opinion, the monarch would make a better international leader, and would better defend this country against outside (real) threats.
And the Queen is accountable to an extent. As said previously in this topic:
…and there would then be moves to abolish the monarchy.
Its just that she doesn’t have to stand for elections.
|
|
|
Post by The mekanik on Nov 1, 2004 13:45:24 GMT
Oh No! Not the old Tax payers money argument.
They really dont cost us that much, in comparison to other things.
I notice that a lot of people are complaining about the cost of a monarchy, but why is no one complaining about the shambolic waste of money that is the milenium dome? Many hundereds of millions of pounds worth of canvas sitting and rotting in london. A complete and utter shambles.
Think about it! The monarchy is the least of this countries worries. We can afford to keep them! They are doing this country a great service. We cannot afford, on the other hand to wast countless millions on pointless govenrment schemes andd the like.
Another topic will follow.
|
|
|
Post by Incubus on Nov 1, 2004 13:49:28 GMT
You mention that the Queen has 50 years' worth experience. Experience with what? She has no say in political decisions, and cannot use any of her "powers" without fear of breaking the constitutional barrier. She is hardly an experienced politician that can lead the situation.
Tony Blair may have gone against the public's wishes, but what he did was totally democratic. It was debated in the House of Commons, where the majority voted in favour of the war.
I suspect that the power the Queen has in the armed forces is minimal, and is again controlled by convention. There would be uproar if she were to actually take command of the armed forces.
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Nov 1, 2004 16:08:57 GMT
Mainly because this is a topic entitled 'The Monarchy' and also because if it was considered necessary then the Monarchy's costs could be drastically reduced, whereas the Dome has already failed and it now proving very difficult to actually find a buyer.
Actually no, the Queen has COMPLETE AUTHORITY over the armed forces as you will see from my first post's quote from HStorm, also the HStorm's last post answers what you said about uproar and measures in place to stop the Queen doing this.
Yes that much is true, but the evidence the Commons were given in that debate was mainly fabricated and false, 45 minute claim, WMDs? All of these have been admitted as lies. So you approve of democratically ignoring the public's wishes, lieing to one's country and using those lies to get majority favour?
I can agree that we can afford to keep the monarchy, especially if what Critique says about studies showing they bring in more money from tourism than expenses. However I do think what HStorm says about cutting down some of their funding, such as for the Duke of Edinburgh, is a good idea. As for another topic following, you could just make the topic and not plug it in this one. The arguement of scrapping the monarchy is impractical really, but Naselus' ideas of 'updating' the monarchy would work a lot better.
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on Nov 1, 2004 16:33:00 GMT
It's true that the Monarchy do earn us a decent spot of cash, but there's no reason whatsoever that they should recieve such a big share of it. And the money they get comes straight from the taxpayer, so they'd be paid even if they can't bring in the goods, if you will.
Oh, and Mekanik? We DID complain about the Millenium Dome being a total waste of money. We complained long and hard for about six years. However, it's clearly too bloody late to do anything about it now, since they built it anyway, and it's not going to cost us as much once we can finally find someone to off-load it too. Plus, the Dome does actually earn some cash back, too. It's got a number of companies paying to keep outlets in it, including the one I work for. It's still been a total waste of time, money, effort and yet more money, but it's too late to change it now. The Monarchy will continue to act as a drain on the treasury for as long as it exists, and it'll be about a lot longer than a silly dome in Greenwich.
Will, 50 years of being the queen doesn't mean she's going to make good decisions. She generally doesn't make any at all, she's even more out-of-touch with the people of the country than Tony Blair is (God help her), and if you want any more proof, look at the Greek prick she chose to marry. Her career has hardly been startlingly marvelous in it's good ideas, let's be honest.
Liq, the Queen is commander in chief of our armies, much as Bush is with the US forces. She doesn't use that power, or indeed any of her others, but she's got all the right to do so if she so wishes. Magna Carta was a rich man's tax break, and we've not bothered getting a new version of the contract. We're so bad at government it makes me sick.
As Rob saids, the democratic decision for war was based on a fabic of lies and bullshit. Tony isn't very democratic, no.
One of the reasons having someone who cares about his popularity in control of the army is so useful is it means we don't have a dictator, Will. Someone who can't be voted out should not have all the guns.
Merely because the present Queen is a weak and spineless monarch doesn't mean we won't have another power-mad zealot at some point in the future. Don't give unelected officials all the weaponary. It's a bad idea, and right of birth is not a good way to select ANYTHING.
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Nov 1, 2004 17:28:14 GMT
Think about it! The monarchy is the least of this countries worries. We can afford to keep them! They are doing this country a great service. We cannot afford, on the other hand to wast countless millions on pointless govenrment schemes andd the like. There have been plenty of monarchical schemes invented over the centuries that have been just as wasteful. In the case of the Dome, once they'd started on it, it would've cost even more not to finish it. It was a terrible waste of time and money, but once they were committed there was no way out. I do agree that the monarchy doesn't cost as much as it brings in, but there are still people on the civil list who shouldn't be. On the point about Magna Carta, it was indeed nothing but the bellyaches of a lot of rich aristocrats wanting to get some tax concessions, but its insubstantiality is even worse than that. What a lot of people don't realise is that the document is in fact completely unofficial, and that if a reigning monarch wanted to, he/she could cancel its articles at any time. As such, things such as parliament, abolition of taxation without consent, and the right to a fair trial for accused would evaporate into thin air.
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on Nov 1, 2004 18:11:17 GMT
I'm dreadfully sorry, I didn't see this delightful piece of fiction by Miar. Allow me to comment. [EDIT BY Nas 4/11 :Please note that Miar has withdrawn the aforementioned wonderful piece of fiction. Don't go mad looking for it, it's actually ALL in this post. None of it was missed. It's like a record of times long past.] I agree, the Monarchy does do an excellent job of keeping a balance of power. No, it doesn't. It does nothing save its actions for tourism. When was the last time the queen did ANYTHING political, actively rather than ceremonially? Perhaps Liquidus would prefer us to adopt a Republic system, whereupon there is one man in supreme control of the country? Right, best start off by saying Liquidus, in his first post, said that the monarchy should remain. So this tidy piece of nonsense is slander. [EDIT BY HSTORM, 4/11: Naselus, that's a scandalous allegation! Miar's words are clearly not slander. They're libel. Slander is spoken word only.] [EDIT BY NAS, later 4/11: Shit, you're right. My boundless hypocracy disgraces us all.] Secondly, a Republic isn't one man in supreme control of a country. That's called a DICTATORSHIP. Which is what a monarchy is meant to be. Say it with me, everyone: DICTATORSHIP. I would say no, the monarchy is an integral part of British society, and has been for the past 1,000 years. To remove it now would not only be destroying part of our heritage, but would also be removing part of our system that works. Well change my face and call me Susan, I could have sworn Oliver Cromwell was Lord Protector in the 1650's. Still, good of you to crown him King after all this time. Always felt he was treated unfairly. Historical and of great political importance, our monarchy is necessary for the running of this country. Besides, if we did not have a monarchy Britain would just become another faceless European country. Our Monarch does NOTHING to run the country. She draws in tourism, nothing else. And France isn't faceless, nor is Italy, nor even, dare I say it, Germany. Efficient, but not faceless. How about America? Faceless? Or is Bush a king now? You don't need a monarch to give a nation a 'face', and besides, why does it even matter if it has one? Poland's still a country even if you can't instantly imagine a 'face' to go with the name. There's about twelve thousand miles of it proving that, just near Danzig. The Monarch is not even remotely connected to power at the moment. She has a large number of constitutional abilities, but she never uses any of them, even when it would be a good idea (coughcoughIraqcough). She's not pointless, as she's a tourist attraction, but that'd be it, really. And any monarch who DID use their powers would be very much worse indeed.
|
|
|
Post by The mekanik on Nov 3, 2004 11:21:54 GMT
Somebody said that if the queen used her powers to control the armed forces, there would be uproar.
From who? The majority of people in this country would like to see the monarchy in control again.
Must go now.
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on Nov 3, 2004 11:56:37 GMT
Where do you get that information from? I don't know anyone who'd like to be run by an unaccountable dictator. As I recall, most of the last thousand years have been spent trying to stop the monarchy having so much power, and most people are glad it doesn't any more. If you remember two civil wars, a 'glorious revolution', a number of shift gentlemen's agreements, a little tax-break I like to call 'magna carta'... all designed to free us from a birthright-based dictatorship. If you can give me a precise figure, like say 62% or some such, and a source where you got it from, then I'll believe most people want an unchosen leader.
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Nov 3, 2004 17:32:26 GMT
From who? The majority of people in this country would like to see the monarchy in control again. Oliver, where do you get your information from? You come up with so many obscure claims and I've no idea where they come from. Who told you that the majority want an absolute monarchy again?
|
|
|
Post by The mekanik on Nov 4, 2004 20:36:01 GMT
This is probably farther from the truth than i make it out to be, but it is certainly close. I think it would be good, if not to have the queen in power, then somebody who is not afraid to make a few decisions for themselves and run the country properly. One of the reasons why this country has so little money for the important things is becasue of the intense beauorocracy (i know i spelt that wrong so dont pick me up on it) and miles and miles of red tape, which slows down decisions and, as a result slows down the country.
Now for some real statistics:
While the Dept for work and pensions sacked 3000 civil servants in 'cost cutting exercises', it also SPENT £300,000,000 on 'External Consultants'.
And at the end of the day, that is all it boils down to. The government paying other people to do its job for it, and thats the root of the problem.
And for that, i have an answer, a 'Cure', if you like.
More will follow.
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Nov 4, 2004 20:46:16 GMT
But an Absolute Monarchy wouldn't be the answer because the Queen would still have to employ hundreds of thousands of people to sort out all the detail for her. In a country of nearly 60 million people, one person can't do everything. (Indeed one of the biggest complaints about Blair is that he's a control freak who won't allow freedom of action to his colleagues.)
As for bureaucracy, there's always been plenty of that. There was less in past centuries, true, but then that was because the population was smaller and the culture and institutions of the country were less diverse. (The population was just 8 million at the start of the Industrial Revolution, plus the economy was far less sophisticated or mechanised.) Proportionally though, it was just the same.
And you still haven't answered the question; on what did base the claim that the majority in the country want to restore the Absolute Monarchy?
|
|
|
Post by The mekanik on Nov 4, 2004 20:48:48 GMT
On my personal experience. Apart from the few freinds I have at school, more or less all the adults i know are 100% for the Monarchy.
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on Nov 4, 2004 21:09:01 GMT
Are you sure they're for an ABSOLUTE Monarchy, whereby the Monarch is essentially a despot, or for keeping the tourist attraction we currently have, which is reasonably sensible?
But in any case, you can't base the opinion of 60 MILLION people on a handful of ideas you've heard froma few friends and family. They probably have basically similar ideas, hence that's WHY they're friends. I tend not to hang out with Adolf Hitler, for example, because I disagree with his politics. Rather fond of dogs, too.
To guess at the opinion of the population, you have to have a sample that represents a balanced cross-section of the nation as a whole. No group of friends does this. No family will, either. If you really want to test, go and ask 500 random people in a shopping centre what they think of the monarchy. And by random, I mean totally random. Ask everyone who goes through a door until you have 500 answers. Don't just choose the people who you think would be best to ask. You even have to ask scallies, since they make up a decent sized part of the population.
The last survey on the Monarchy was done in 2002 for the Queen's jubilee. From that, only around 70% of the country wants to have ANY form of Monarchy at all, and only about 6% want an increase in the queen's powers. Not a huge increase, just a little one to keep Tony on his toes. Probably less than 1% or so think that going back to the system we had in the 1300s is a top plan for the nation as a whole. So the idea that the whole nation, aside from some doubting Thomases like me and Storm, want an all-powerful, all-singing, all-dancing monarch with superpowers and the ability to take my house off me for looking funny, is bull.
Worse, you usually get much MORE bureaucracy under a dictatorship. If she's making all the decisions, how many years will it take to do anything at all?
Not to mention the idea of birthright. Can you, in any sensible way at all, tell me birthright is a good idea? Have you ever heard of George the, well, any of the Georges, really? Twits to a man. Birthright my arse.
Check back to the 'British Empire' thread, and also the 'British political sytem' one as well. Both point out just how appallingly BAD at running things a dictatorship generally is. And a Monarchy is a dictatorship, Mek, it's just got a silly name.
The Government, incidently, is a bunch of people the queen pays to do HER job for her. She's just only too well aware she'd be shit at it.
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Nov 4, 2004 22:01:14 GMT
I suspect your idea for a 'cure' for this nation's ills is actually nothing very new or original, Oliver, but I'd still be more than prepared to hear it. For the time being though, all I'll say is that your main bone of contention is with unnecessary bureacracy. For what it's worth, that's a big bone for most people to contend with.
But you're making an enormous, and I daresay dangerous, leap of logic in your apparent belief that bureaucracy and democracy are essentially the same thing, or that if you have a less inclusive form of Government you'll automatically have less red tape.
Bureaucracy isn't a Democratic thing especially, it's just part and parcel of Government as a whole, and no remotely sophisticated nation-state in history has been without it. The most bureaucratic nations in history have been military republics and Marxist regimes, none of which have had even the most tenuous resemblance to Democratic societies.
Sadly, certain amounts of bureaucracy are just a necessary evil and we have to accept it as it's the only check that keeps the movers and the shakers in politics and commerce from taking corrupt liberties. In the final analysis, if human beings could be trusted, and if power didn't corrupt so easily and completely, we could cope without bureaucracy. But human beings can't be trusted and power does corrupt, so we have to have checks and balances.
Trying to stop human nature is like trying to turn back the tide with your voice. An Absolute Ruler once tried the latter and failed, so why should we assume another Absolute Ruler would be able to do the one either?
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Nov 11, 2004 19:40:39 GMT
One comes to mind; birthright would mean that the young are brought up to be good leaders (if parents are leaders, what better upbringing for a future leader?), and would be more prepared for the job.
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on Nov 11, 2004 21:34:11 GMT
Three words: George Walker Bush.
His daddy was a leader. Both were arseheads. Why exactly is having your parent as a leader good training to be a leader yourself?
It's actually very bad training indeed. Do you not think that running a country takes up quite a bit of time that might be better spent parenting? Worse, the kids are born to the purple, and so no-one's willing to rule them strongly. Look at Prince Harry; he's turning into an absolute shit.
Anyway, you will always get unsuitable leaders only four or five generations down the line, even with the best guidance in the begining. No matter how well you aim to guide someone into a leadership role, some people will never be suited. Look at the third king of Saudi Arabia, king and son of kings, but no control at all over his spending. Wasted masses of cash before being forced to abducate. Birthright is an unbelievably DUMB way to choose a leader. Why exactly should the kid listen to it's parents ideas? It's going to be king anyway. Democratic choice is, sadly, probably the right way to do it, since any other way is even worse.
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Nov 14, 2004 12:22:25 GMT
Anyone who has absolute power never gets the kind of guidance or advice he needs as his underlings will always be falling over themselves to tell him what they think he wants to hear, rather than the truth. And it goes without saying that the dictator's offspring will be above reproach for their entire lives, so they are brought up with the ludicrous idea in their heads that they can't possibly be wrong about anything.
In other words, power by birthright leads nine times out of ten to spoilt brats ruling entire countries. Not good at all. This is why the great majority of monarchs in Europe have been looked on by history as failures.
|
|