[quote="thundertaker]Further to that, and further to Lord Hargreave's post, not every facet of the British constitution needs to have a democratic mandate. Some elements which have influence over our laws actually need to be free of being beholden in any way to the mob.
And as Ssushi said, they are trained from birth to be within a certain bandwith of respectability. The role of head of state is not someone who should wield real political power, but who should be the representative and focus of the nation. In countries like the US, this is a politician, and I consider that to be most unhealthy.....[/quote]

Assuming that an individual has excellence in both statesmanship and political shrewdness is a massive assumption. They are very different skill sets.

Just as I'm interested Thunder - what elements are you talking about? Theoretically I agree - democracy is limited and I can percieve instances where some things should be kept out of mob influence... Politicians make many decisions based on how newspapers react and newspapers react based on how many copies they can sell... I give current drug policy as an example, but this is an aside really.

Ssushi wrote:

Assuming that an individual has excellence in both statesmanship and political shrewdness is a massive assumption. They are very different skill sets. Just as I'm interested Thunder - what elements are you talking about? Theoretically I agree - democracy is limited and I can percieve instances where some things should be kept out of mob influence... Politicians make many decisions based on how newspapers react and newspapers react based on how many copies they can sell... I give current drug policy as an example, but this is an aside really.

The House of Lords for example, which should be a revising chambre not subject to the whims of the mob nor beholden to an electorate whose job should be to elect the legislators in the lower house whose job is to introduce legislation.

The head of state should also not be a political partisan, which is why a monarch is ideal. Having some clapped-out politician as a head of state is not the best way of choosing someone who is supposed to represent the whole nation...

Clarino wrote:

Yse, considering how often bad people get themselves elected, having an hereditary monarchy seems much preferable to some of the "legitimate" world leaders that have been "elected" over the past century.

Yeah I totally agree. Hereditary unelected monarchs are the way forward just ask the people of Saudi Arabia-they luuurve it.

thundertaker wrote:

Ssushi wrote: Assuming that an individual has excellence in both statesmanship and political shrewdness is a massive assumption. They are very different skill sets. Just as I'm interested Thunder - what elements are you talking about? Theoretically I agree - democracy is limited and I can percieve instances where some things should be kept out of mob influence... Politicians make many decisions based on how newspapers react and newspapers react based on how many copies they can sell... I give current drug policy as an example, but this is an aside really. The House of Lords for example, which should be a revising chambre not subject to the whims of the mob nor beholden to an electorate whose job should be to elect the legislators in the lower house whose job is to introduce legislation.

totally agree.

democracy isn't perfect and is vulnerable to populism and demagogy and you need a non-democratic aspect to balance out those vulnerabilities.

Grandma Death wrote:

Clarino wrote: Yse, considering how often bad people get themselves elected, having an hereditary monarchy seems much preferable to some of the "legitimate" world leaders that have been "elected" over the past century. Yeah I totally agree. Hereditary unelected monarchs are the way forward just ask the people of Saudi Arabia-they luuurve it.

Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy, not a constitutional monarchy.
totally different system so totally pointless using it as an argument.

Britain has been one of the most stable democracies in the world for the past 300 years.

Even looking at other countries which have a reputation for being very stable politically; Australia, Canada, Sweden, Norway, Denmark etc are all constitutional monarchies.

Why would abolishing the monarchy necessitate the creation of a presidency?

Sol invictus wrote:

thundertaker wrote: Ssushi wrote: Assuming that an individual has excellence in both statesmanship and political shrewdness is a massive assumption. They are very different skill sets. Just as I'm interested Thunder - what elements are you talking about? Theoretically I agree - democracy is limited and I can percieve instances where some things should be kept out of mob influence... Politicians make many decisions based on how newspapers react and newspapers react based on how many copies they can sell... I give current drug policy as an example, but this is an aside really. The House of Lords for example, which should be a revising chambre not subject to the whims of the mob nor beholden to an electorate whose job should be to elect the legislators in the lower house whose job is to introduce legislation. totally agree. democracy isn't perfect and is vulnerable to populism and demagogy and you need a non-democratic aspect to balance out those vulnerabilities.

If anything I'd like the Queen to take a more positive role; in the expenses issue for example, IMO she could have openly spoken about it - the public would have supported her.

Ssushi wrote:

Sol invictus wrote: thundertaker wrote: Ssushi wrote: Assuming that an individual has excellence in both statesmanship and political shrewdness is a massive assumption. They are very different skill sets. Just as I'm interested Thunder - what elements are you talking about? Theoretically I agree - democracy is limited and I can percieve instances where some things should be kept out of mob influence... Politicians make many decisions based on how newspapers react and newspapers react based on how many copies they can sell... I give current drug policy as an example, but this is an aside really. The House of Lords for example, which should be a revising chambre not subject to the whims of the mob nor beholden to an electorate whose job should be to elect the legislators in the lower house whose job is to introduce legislation. totally agree. democracy isn't perfect and is vulnerable to populism and demagogy and you need a non-democratic aspect to balance out those vulnerabilities. If anything I'd like the Queen to take a more positive role; in the expenses issue for example, IMO she could have openly spoken about it - the public would have supported her.

I agree. Indeed, she could have dissolved Parliament and called an election and I think most people would have supported the move.

This has got Peter Dow written all over it.

bob.appleyard wrote:

Why would abolishing the monarchy necessitate the creation of a presidency?

It wouldn't, obviously. I'm not personally against a presidency per se, but it seems fairly certain that any real and meaningful republican change of the constitution would entail a far greater debate than simply choosing to vote in the head of state over having a hereditary line of succession

And notice how whenever anyone suggests a debate over serious constituional reform it all automatically descends into the dirt. Look at this thread, we have:

Abolishing the monarchy = President Blair (hes a bad egg don't you know!), Britain's Got Talent! style voting, the mob ruling the streets (presumably hanging people from lamposts) etc.

i.e. its the same old reactionary crap.

The wider point against this is precisely that republicans are talking about widespread institutional change, involving the public in democratic decision making to a much greater extent than they are now, and so presumably we would not simply have the same mob or brain-dead Simon Cowell fan influences on policy, since we would have a more educated public.

But even if this were completely dismissed, it still doesn't address the more fundamental question of legitimacy: its all well and good arguing from a utilitarian standpoint that a Queen would be "better" than a democratic body of some kind, but this assumes that it is somehow up to you to make that call. It isn't. The democratic position is that the people are sovereign, and if they want to f*ck themselves over, then that is their right

Lord Hargreaves wrote:

But even if this were completely dismissed, it still doesn't address the more fundamental question of legitimacy: its all well and good arguing from a utilitarian standpoint that a Queen would be "better" than a democratic body of some kind, but this assumes that it is somehow up to you to make that call. It isn't. The democratic position is that the people are sovereign, and if they want to f*ck themselves over, then that is their right

Persuade the democratically-elected House of Commons to bring forward a bill for the abolition of the monarchy in a referendum, then win the referendum.

I guarantee you this issue will not get a democratic mandate because the monarchy enjoys popular support.

In fact, given the recent Parliamentary Expenses scandal, its pretty clear that having the Queen as head of state is far more edifying than providing yet another trough for a scumbag politician to bury his or her porcine snout into.....

Regarding the question of legitimacy, the only thing that needs democratic legitimacy at the national level is the major house in the bicameral legislature (i.e. the Commons), whose members are elected to represent our views. The people need to have some influence over the government, but this should not be all-encompassing, as the mob is too ignorant and whimsical to be the final word on every aspect of government. At least the monarch and members of the House of Lords are much more experienced and capable when it comes to matters of state, and provide a useful role in putting the brake on bonkers populist policy in your pure democracy, were matters of state would be decided with about the same level of consideration and knowledge of the facts as your average 'Sun' phone-in poll....

thundertaker wrote:

Lord Hargreaves wrote: But even if this were completely dismissed, it still doesn't address the more fundamental question of legitimacy: its all well and good arguing from a utilitarian standpoint that a Queen would be "better" than a democratic body of some kind, but this assumes that it is somehow up to you to make that call. It isn't. The democratic position is that the people are sovereign, and if they want to f*ck themselves over, then that is their right Persuade the democratically-elected House of Commons to bring forward a bill for the abolition of the monarchy in a referendum, then win the referendum.

As you know, this is an unlikely scenario, but I don't think such a thing is impossible. I would say, bring on the challenge

thundertaker wrote:

I guarantee you this issue will not get a democratic mandate because the monarchy enjoys popular support.

I'm fairly confident that if people knew anything at all about the monarchy, its history and the role it plays in the constitution, such a margin of popular support would surely narrow

thundertaker wrote:

In fact, given the recent Parliamentary Expenses scandal, its pretty clear that having the Queen as head of state is far more edifying than providing yet another trough for a scumbag politician to bury his or her porcine snout into.....

And yet, in my opinion, all royal expenses are a scandal

Besides, this hatred of politicians you hold - how exactly does the monarchy protect us from them? Is President Blair really that much worse than Prime Minister Blair? I don't get it. Perhaps since we get so many lousy politicans we should go back to an absolute monarchy with no politicans - since, obviously, there has never been a less than excellent, altrustic, public spirited monarch, history has taught us that if nothing else......

thundertaker wrote:

Regarding the question of legitimacy, the only thing that needs democratic legitimacy at the national level is the major house in the bicameral legislature (i.e. the Commons), whose members are elected to represent our views. The people need to have some influence over the government, but this should not be all-encompassing, as the mob is too ignorant and whimsical to be the final word on every aspect of government. At least the monarch and members of the House of Lords are much more experienced and capable when it comes to matters of state, and provide a useful role in putting the brake on bonkers populist policy in your pure democracy, were matters of state would be decided with about the same level of consideration and knowledge of the facts as your average 'Sun' phone-in poll....

I can't follow your logic here - who is to say when the need for democratic legitimacy ends and when it begins? It just so happens that this moral cut-off point is exactly mirrored by the current institutional arrangements that we have here today? All this is just not credible, imho

Lord Hargreaves wrote:

I'm fairly confident that if people knew anything at all about the monarchy, its history and the role it plays in the constitution, such a margin of popular support would surely narrow

what aspect of the monarchs role in the constitution or parliament do you think the public would not like?

Lord Hargreaves wrote:

I can't follow your logic here - who is to say when the need for democratic legitimacy ends and when it begins? It just so happens that this moral cut-off point is exactly mirrored by the current institutional arrangements that we have here today? All this is just not credible, imho

I don't think there is a definitive answer to this & I don't think the system we have is perfect in this regards. I do think however that our system is better than most, if not all, other sytems. We have been one of the most politically stable countries for 300 years. We've had unbroken democracy for 300 years. Until republicans can come up with a system which can be shown to be better, then leave it as it is.