View unanswered posts | View active topics
It is currently Fri Aug 22, 2025 1:43 am
Queen's diamond jubilee: what's to celebrate?
Author |
Message |
pcernie
Legend
Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2009 12:30 pm Posts: 45931 Location: Belfast
|
I can't help thinking the last big choice that was made was between Bonking Boris and Red Ken 
_________________Plain English advice on everything money, purchase and service related:
http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/
|
Tue Jun 05, 2012 2:48 pm |
|
 |
paulzolo
What's a life?
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:27 pm Posts: 12251
|
The president's role would be to detract attention away from the people who really wield the power.
The last few days have demonstrated that very well. Did you know about the pane crash in Africa? I didn't until I saw a John Stewart clip.
|
Tue Jun 05, 2012 4:17 pm |
|
 |
Linux_User
I haven't seen my friends in so long
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 3:29 pm Posts: 7173
|
I don't know why people are assuming we'd have to have a powerless President just because we have a powerless Monarch. We could easily adopt a system similar to the US whereby the President can veto bills.
|
Tue Jun 05, 2012 4:24 pm |
|
 |
rustybucket
I haven't seen my friends in so long
Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 5:10 pm Posts: 5837
|
Yes - we could absolutely adopt the US model. If we were idiots.
_________________Jim
|
Tue Jun 05, 2012 4:29 pm |
|
 |
ShockWaffle
Doesn't have much of a life
Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 6:50 am Posts: 1911
|
It was on the BBC website under the "most read" section on Sunday.
|
Tue Jun 05, 2012 4:36 pm |
|
 |
HeatherKay
Moderator
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:13 pm Posts: 7262 Location: Here, but not all there.
|
That hoary old argument again? If a president turns out to be completely rubbish, they can be voted out after their first term. If it's set up correctly, they can also be held to account by legal means if they do something wrong. You won't have that option with King Charles III. He'll inherit from mama, and will hold the post until he drops off his perch. Who knows what damage he might do before then...
_________________My Flickr | Snaptophobic BloggageHeather Kay: modelling details that matter. "Let my windows be open to receive new ideas but let me also be strong enough not to be blown away by them." - Mahatma Gandhi.
|
Tue Jun 05, 2012 4:38 pm |
|
 |
timark_uk
Moderator
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:11 pm Posts: 12144 Location: Belfast
|
Gimme an H Gimme an E Gimme a V
Gooooooooooooo Hev!
Mark
|
Tue Jun 05, 2012 4:39 pm |
|
 |
ShockWaffle
Doesn't have much of a life
Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 6:50 am Posts: 1911
|

Much better for them to adopt ours. When the avalanche of whine dissipates, we actually have a pretty good constitution as things are. Our judiciary is independent, our laws reasonably consistent in both content and application (which is why Russians doing business deals with each other hire London law firms to draw up the contracts). We rotate parliamentarians frequently, we are able to jettison a prime minister mid-term without needing impeachment hearings. But most importantly we are not subjected to parliamentary gridlock in the way other countries (especially the USA) are. None of our recent governments has actually been as bad as some professional drama queens would make them out to be, and the current lot aren't either. Stuff is getting done, and the degree to which is being done well is debatable, but the scale is realistically "quite well, on the whole, as good as we can expect under the circumstances" to "not all that well, could do better", more extreme judgments than those are indicative of a heightened sense of drama. That compares pretty well with most of our peers right now. Spain can't reform its finances because the local authorities control too much of their debt, Italy will surely soon be back in the hands of a venal maniac who wouldn't last 10 minutes in the UK but can change the law to suit himself, Greece is quite capable of having another civil war rather reform its tax base and the USA will probably have another intractable debt and tax crisis in January even if the Republican wins the election. American diplomats have been quoted saying that if America could borrow Britain's constitution for a couple of years they could easily fix their budget problems... And those guys take their constitution quite seriously. It's not uncommon for elected heads of state to wield no authority under normal circumstances, in such cases the speaker of the house is usually HoS with responsibility for signing laws, breaking tied votes and little else.
|
Tue Jun 05, 2012 4:58 pm |
|
 |
ShockWaffle
Doesn't have much of a life
Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 6:50 am Posts: 1911
|
Firstly, King Charles III won't do anything different from his mum, on ascending to the throne all he would do is shut the Fcuk up. It's accepted protocol that while heir to the throne he has certain leeway to talk about issues that he cares about, and do stuff that he thinks are important. But once on the throne he says and does nothing inappropriate to the office, really means saying and doing nothing of any substance ever again. The purpose of an American or French style president is to separate executive power from the legislative branch. King Charles won't be doing any such thing. So is this president supposed to be a like-for-like replacement for the sedated monarch, in which case why bother? Or are we talking about massively re-organising every principle of our democracy just to rid ourselves of a big eared man in a silly hat?
|
Tue Jun 05, 2012 5:05 pm |
|
 |
Linux_User
I haven't seen my friends in so long
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 3:29 pm Posts: 7173
|

And how, pray tell, does any of that relate to the head of state in those countries? - The US faces legislative gridlock because Congress is in the grip of highly polarised politics. I would add, by the way, that the Presidency has vetoed many a terrible Bill put forth by Congress.
- Your criticism of Spain seems to imply that local government shouldn't be free to represent & spend on behalf of the local populace.
- Silvio Berlusconi was actually Italy's Prime Minister, not President, in case anyone here didn't notice.
The UK's uncodified constitution effectively says Parliament can do what it wants on a whim. That suits us when we don't have tyrannical maniacs in charge but I'm sure you'd be the first screaming for legal limits on Parliament's legislative abilities (or even a more effective second chamber/elected President with the power to veto) should the BNP or a similar party ever gain a majority. We could easily have a constitutional agreement whereby a party with a majority is allowed to implement its manifesto promises (such an agreement already exists between the Commons and the Lords), but anything they conjure up mid-term is fair game for a presidential veto. If the government really wants to implement it then they can stick it in their manifesto for the next term. As for whether the current government is doing a good job, well I suppose that depends if you like multiple policy u-turns, spooking business and consumer confidence, causing a double-dip recession, whether you buy into the austerity programme and whether you believe in social justice. No-one is proposing a ceremonial presidential role, the President would have some powers (power of veto, as outlined above for example). This does not involve a massive constitutional change and we can easily maintain the Parliamentary system of government.
|
Tue Jun 05, 2012 5:18 pm |
|
 |
HeatherKay
Moderator
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:13 pm Posts: 7262 Location: Here, but not all there.
|
Personally, I don't think we actually need a head of state. As someone else mentioned, the prime minister and members of the cabinet perform many of the functions now. I would like to see an end to the mediaeval institution passed down by accident of birth, purely because it isn't open to any citizen of the country, and doesn't strike me as fit for purpose in a 21st century world. If a HoS is required, especially to avoid accusations of politicisation of the post, why not go along the Irish lines? It's a titular head, meant for meeting and greeting other heads of state, with no real association with the governance of the country as such.
_________________My Flickr | Snaptophobic BloggageHeather Kay: modelling details that matter. "Let my windows be open to receive new ideas but let me also be strong enough not to be blown away by them." - Mahatma Gandhi.
|
Tue Jun 05, 2012 5:38 pm |
|
 |
ShockWaffle
Doesn't have much of a life
Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 6:50 am Posts: 1911
|

What I said was: I was talking about the British constitution being quite effective as things are. I didn't say that only presidential systems are suspect, nor did I say that all of them must be. I was commenting on the fact that our situation is far from dire and nothing more than that. Those other countries have constitutional setups that seem to prevent their politicians doing the thing that, ultimately, politicians must do: compromise. We managed to get a hung parliament and still get stuff done. Those countries have all managed to come up with ineffective majority governments, and in each case their constitution is a contributory factor. I wasn't accusing Berlusconi of being a president. But the fact that he was able to change the law for his personal gain must surely indicate that the Italian constitutional compact has not been working out too well, no? The Spanish constitution should not be splitting and devolving fiscal powers unless it can supply a conflict resolution process when local spending priorities and national ones are at such extreme odds that the nation faces ruin. The US constitution allows Congress and the President to both overrule each other endlessly until the government shuts down entirely and the nation goes bankrupt (at which point I don't know what comes next if still neither side backs down). What difference does that make? If we had a president from the BNP and a parliament full of BNP guys then the same thing would happen. If we had a constitution that prevented them doing their BNP thing, they would vote to amend it and that would be that. There's no avoiding the fact that democracy is ultimately the tyranny of the majority, sometimes it's bad, but it can't be helped. Sure. We could also easily have a law that trousers are forbidden on Tuesdays. Why we would really bother with either of these things is a mystery. I was pointing out that some of our governments are a bit bad, and some are a bit good. I honestly couldn't care less who chooses which governments for which labels. More importantly; I don't think U turns on pasty and caravan taxes can ever be the work of an authentic despotic regime, or that Social Justice is seriously affected by the fact that the Tories won more of the election than anyone else (as Labour would have done 95% of the current stuff in much the same way), and a minor double dipping that might have been reduced to the severity of a flat line at the expense of bunging an extra half a percent of GDP onto the national debt is not cause for declaring disaster. I'm sure somebody somewhere is proposing that thing, you happen not to be. I think the question of whether it represents massive constitutional change depends very much on details you haven't supplied (what powers other than veto are on offer). And I certainly don't see the point of a president of vetoing stuff. That just implies eventually that a president and a PM will one day find an issue of great importance over which they are incapable of agreement or compromise. Replacing an ineffectual but irrelevant organ of state with one that serves little extra function, but might one day bring government to a standstill, is like upgrading your appendix with an exploding alarm clock.
|
Tue Jun 05, 2012 6:25 pm |
|
 |
ShockWaffle
Doesn't have much of a life
Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 6:50 am Posts: 1911
|
As if by magic, we have somebody proposing a ceremonial presidential role. That didn't take long.
|
Tue Jun 05, 2012 6:27 pm |
|
 |
Linux_User
I haven't seen my friends in so long
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 3:29 pm Posts: 7173
|
Which is exactly the kind of situation a referendum is for. This is exactly what happens in Iceland - if Parliament and the President can't agree, the subject goes to a popular vote. As things stand Parliament can pass deeply unpopular measures and you have to rely on the next government overturning it, which can take up to 5 years.
|
Tue Jun 05, 2012 6:37 pm |
|
 |
l3v1ck
What's a life?
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 10:21 am Posts: 12700 Location: The Right Side of the Pennines (metaphorically & geographically)
|
If we did have a president (which I really don't want), it would have to be a non political one. The American system is stupid. Whether they have fixed terms or get voted in for life (based on previous good deed and lack of political/commercial alignment) would be interesting.
For me. The monarchy stays (Charles just needs to stop sticking his nose into politics when he's king.).
|
Tue Jun 05, 2012 6:53 pm |
|
|
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum
|
|