As a lower 48 American, I have no skin in the game, have a certain fondness for the romance of it - but the actual royals themselves seem so base & trivial, I wonder if its time for you lot to pack them up, pay them off, and send them out into the world with all their heads intact, as a nice gesture. Maybe keep Princess Anne around, that's about it.
What say youse ?
No. I am ideologically opposed to monarchy.
But most British people do want the monarchy to continue. Those of us who do not would currently lose any referendum on the matter, so it'd be a waste of everybody's time and energy. Frankly, there are much more pressing matters than who rubber-stamps the legislation. You gotta choose your battles. People are quite rightly more interested in matters that have a direct impact on their own lives.
Constitutional monarchy works at least as well functionally as any other system of democratic government currently extant. It's stable.
And one of the main issues that those of us who would like to see the monarchy abolished face is that we haven't rallied around one suitable replacement system that we could sell to the British public. Nobody sensible here wants an American-style President.
What is more urgent than discontinuing the monarchy is reforming the monarchy. I'd favour it being more like the continental constitutional monarchies.
But the downsizing is already sort of happening. And there are certainly no reasons -- other than ideological ones -- to get rid. Pragmatically, it... works.
Thanks, that seems very reasonable.
shareThe founding fathers' anti-monarchism was entirely justified at that time in history.
I wonder, however, if they'd feel the same antipathy if they could have foreseen how the US Presidential system and European parliamentary systems with constitutional monarchies would each evolve. Hard, I think, to look at a system such as Sweden's and think 'Well, that needs smashing up immediately.'
The multi-party aspect of parliamentary systems is attractive, because it allows the possibility of more agility in organizing interest. In a two-party system, the entrenchment is stifling - also the reduction into simply one side or another, with powerful interests propping up the differences, or making them up.
It isn't the monarchy I envy, but the multiplicity you folks have. I'm not enough of a political analyst to understand the finer points of the various first-world systems of government, but looking at the results, am not of the opinion that ours is the best, or the most stable. Its our size, geographic insularity, economy, educational system & resources which actually sustains us, or has.
It's different for the devolved assemblies (Scotland, Wales, N. Ireland), but the UK is, in effect, a two party system due to the first past the post. If you're giving me a straight choice between abolition of the monarchy and proportional representation for British parliamentary elections, it's a complete no-brainer. It's another referendum we wouldn't currently win -- but you could make a much stronger case for that aspect of our politics being broken than you could for the monarchy. That would make a material difference to our politics.
Two party systems are a stitch-up. Huge swaths of the electorate get effectively disenfranchised through them. We have some of the same problems here as you have there with that: lobbyists, shady financing, controlling interests, &c, &c. Both the Conservative and Labour Parties are effectively large coalitions that need smashing up into smaller, more manageable and less corruptible chunks.
No system of government is or can be perfect. Ours certainly isn't. But I'd argue that ours has proven over the centuries to be more flexible and adaptive, simply because it is one that has been allowed to evolve rather than one that was designed by some admittedly very clever lawyers and idealists.
The US system is designed for gridlock. Which is understandable when your aim is to guard against tyrannical government. But it also makes reform much more difficult.
I wouldn't defend the monarchy. But I'd defend the parliamentary system.
Agreed. But your other parties, the liberals, etc., have no stake in the elections for PM & setting up of government ? I thought that relied upon coalitions from all parties - it seems to, at least, in the Israeli Knesset.
shareIn most parliamentary democracies, where they have PR, that's exactly how it works. They almost always have coalition governments.
In the UK, it rarely works out that way. We've only had one coalition government (2010-2015) since World War II. And only four or five such administrations in our entire history.
Almost always, either the Conservatives or Labour make it 'past the post' and hold a majority of seats in the house. When they don't, they can choose to form a minority government... which is, I suppose, in effect an unofficial coalition. But that rarely happens either. It's usually a zero sum, winner takes it all game.
Because of the voting system.
I see. So it devolves, in many respects, to the bifurcated mess we have here. Too bad. Otoh, it does give the party in power the means to enact their program. But PR would probably be a great improvement.
Lack of PR in our Senate, and the inflation of small state power in the electoral collage are the critical unrepresentative structural elements here in the US. We, as you rightly alluded to, are checked nearly into stasis.
Our judiciary has also become frankly partisan. In our states, the party in power ruthlessly gerrymanders representation, voter suppression is now en vogue. The wheels are starting to wobble, basic commitment to representative democracy is now somewhat a partisan issue itself, much of our presumed stability is no longer unquestioned.
I served Queen and country a long time ago, but in recent years my view has changed. I respected the Queen, I have huge respect for Anne, and I think Kate is becoming the best ambassador the Royals have had in a long while. As for Charles, we'll see. But if they passed a law tomorrow doing away with the whole thing I wouldn't shed any tears.
shareWho cares what a bunch of leftists on a little island think. Their empire is dead, they have no power, their economy is going down the drain too. Sinking ship of a "country"
shareI don't have strong views either way but I have no idea what their purpose is these days. They bring in huge amounts of tourism, but that would still happen without them, (probably moreso), if they opened up all their properties for people to walk around like all the National Trust places.
share