jamesmahon
Yes, good afternoon to you too! Let's get cracking...
Perhaps to throw it back to you are you saying that the electorate is too stupid to pick someone who could do the job of head as state as well (or better) than the Queen.
No, I'm not doubting the electorate at all. Besides, the electorate wants the Queen. I'm purely against changing the constitution that has served us so well for centuries. My mantra is "if it ain't broke, don't fix it!" Also, do you really want a referendum on the monarchy? What do you think the outcome might be?! Before answering, go on YouTube and watch some footage of the Jubilee Celebrations, and then come back to me.
It doesn't and I was not arguing this. I am merely stating that once elected the power that the Government has does not have appropriate checks and balances commensurate with that power. Even the commons does not provide this as MPs will usually follow the party line otherwise they will have the whip removed and lose their seat at the next election as the party will select someone else.
The recent defeat over Lords reform is a perfect and very recent example of how this isn't always the case. There are also mechanisms in place to provide for cross-party discussions on key issues, as well as reports, consultations, parliamentary sub-committees, public inquiries, etc - all of which play a role in the legislative process. We have a fine and well-established democracy, and I'm very proud of it indeed.
It is not about how many checks but rather a sharing of executive power between different branches of Government so that in contentious areas compromise has to be reached to failure represent the differing views in the country and stop a minority view dominating decision making. This is why the American system was set up in the way it was.
Yes, and you never hear the Americans complaining about their political system, do you!?! Please refer to my previous comment on "The grass is always greener....."
You don't need a general election every year to make this happen, just more than one elected body with no one having absolute power.
Sounds like a very diluted and convoluted power base in which hardly anything would get done. Please refer to my previous comment on "utter mayhem" and "total anarchy".
I don't pretend to have the answers to exactly how this would work. But at a time when people have lost respect for politicians, they feel disenfranchised from the political process (see voter turnout as evidence of this) and successive governements force through increasingly unpopular policies that are difficult to change by a new Government to argue the status quo works just doesn't seem reasonable.
People may have lost respect for politicians, but respect for the Queen has never been higher in recent years - and yet you rope her in to your calls for reform? What did she do wrong?
And if they are useless at the job what is the mechanism to remove them?
Thanks to the way our constitution is configured, there isn't too much that could go drastically wrong if they WERE useless at their job. However, the very fact that we live in an open and democratic society where people are free to debate the continuance of the monarchy is, when you think about it, a "check and balance" in itself. The likes of Charles and William know that if they don't follow the Queen's excellent example during their own respective reigns, they face a public uprising and the end of the monarchy. So if you look at it that way, the monarchy itself IS elected (because the British people want it), even if the individuals aren't.
No you have not mentioned the Queen's accomplishments. Please do.
Yes, I have. Scroll up and re-read the pages.
And I have not resorted to personal attacks on the Royal Family,
Yes, you have. Scroll up and re-read the pages.
Come on now. You know the public has no legitimate mechanism to remove the monarchy.
Don't be silly, you know how these things work. If enough people felt the way you do about the monarchy, then it would have been painfully obvious during, say, the Diamond Jubilee! The Queen would have sailed down the Thames to angry crowds, and there would have been national uproar, with all the papers calling for a referendum - which would be perfectly lawful if there was a need for it. As it was, there was only a handful of anti-monarchy protesters (who were largely booed, if memory serves), and thousands upon thousands of grateful subjects showing their support. Not only have you not been reading this thread properly - it also appears you haven't been watching the news.
If we have an election every ten years and the majority still wants whichever Windsor is the incumbent that is fine by me.
That would be like holding an election every ten years to answer the question "Who likes living in a strong and stable democracy? Please vote yes or no!" It would be boring, meaningless, and an absolute waste of public money. You seem to entirely misjudge the level of support the Queen enjoys from her subjects. Just because you feel strongly for removing her, doesn't mean the rest of the nation feels the same way as you do. You don't seem to be very adept at guaging the public mood, which is ironically what this discussion is about - i.e. making the government more responsive to the public mood in its legislating.
As I don't like any form of mystic mumbo jumbo I don't see why anyone of sane mind would argue that there is some spiritual connection (not neccessarily religious but somehow connected in a way that can not be described as logical) between a family and the role of head of state. Which is what it all boils down to.
Again, you've completely lost me. Are you suggesting that those who support the monarchy (i.e., me and the majority of the UK) are supporters of spiritistic mumbo-jumbo? Having called into question the personal integrity of the royal family, are you now turning on their supporters?
I feel disenfranchised and I am allowed to argue my case.
I never said that you weren't. I, in turn, am allowed to argue my case. It's called a debate!
I will say this though... in calling for an end to the monarchy, you surely realise and acknowledge that you are in the minority? Even on this thread, so far the only people to leap to your defence are those who aren't British. At least one of your supporters comes from a country that actually invaded British territory in the past 35 years. Does that not tell you something?
Surely you can see the irony that you are calling for the government to be more "in tune" with what the public wants, but you yourself want something to happen that is NOT in tune with what the public wants? I do find that element of this discussion intriguing, even if you seem to miss the irony altogether.
Cedars
