Royal Family or Republic

[snowychap]

I think the irony lay in the idea that the 'best' dictatorships found power through democratic elections (and slightly less pertinent was the idea that most good dictatorships like to cover themselves with the veil of a false idea of democracy).

Hitler and the NSDAP 'did well' in both the Nov '32 election and the March '33 elections. They were the major party in both elections and though they were a minority government, they were still able to vote in the Enabling act through coalition with the Nationalists.

In the '33 election they got just under 44% of the popular vote.

The Labour party in 2005's general election won 40.7% of the popular vote.

Do not delude yourself that the NSDAP were not popular in the '30s Germany.

[El Zen]

Do not delude yourself that the NSDAP were not popular in the '30s Germany.

Err, no, I know exactly how popular they were. I didn't say they weren't popular, I just said they never held an absolute majority.

However, despite the electoral successes of Hitler, most dictatorships haven't come to power through elections. Now, you say the "best" dictatrships have - what do you mean by "best"?

[snowychap]

However, despite the electoral successes of Hitler, most dictatorships haven't come to power through elections. Now, you say the "best" dictatrships have - what do you mean by "best"?

It was supposed to be a light-hearted and slightly deprecating attack upon the great institution of democracy (by way of indicating that there were one or two dictatorships which abused the ballot box for their own, undemocratic end) rather than an appraisal of the pros and cons of the respective dictatorships. :wink:

[El Zen]

Gotcha, mate, I kinda figured you weren't hinting that Hitler was a nice little man with some good ideas though

[snowychap]

Gotcha, mate, I kinda figured you weren't hinting that Hitler was a nice little man with some good ideas though

Good. Was a shade worried that you were slipping me in to some ghastly political pocket - somewhere between Hitler and Stalin. :winkold: He was little . wasn't he.

I will admit to absolutley loving Liszt's Hungarian Rhapsody, though.

[snowychap]

Also, for those praising the Maoist rise to power - what does it mean for the British Army?

[ianrobo1]

I think the irony lay in the idea that the 'best' dictatorships found power through democratic elections (and slightly less pertinent was the idea that most good dictatorships like to cover themselves with the veil of a false idea of democracy).

Hitler and the NSDAP 'did well' in both the Nov '32 election and the March '33 elections. They were the major party in both elections and though they were a minority government, they were still able to vote in the Enabling act through coalition with the Nationalists.

In the '33 election they got just under 44% of the popular vote.

The Labour party in 2005's general election won 40.7% of the popular vote.

Do not delude yourself that the NSDAP were not popular in the '30s Germany.

I know they won a majority but the figures also show they were in decline and if the democratic parties had held their nerve and not done a deal, who knows ?

thing is snowy that is the ONE example of a dictatorship through elections, guess you could count zimbabwe and a few other African countries but the worse dictatorship in terms of numbers was the communists and they were not

[Jon]

anyone surprised to see Republic 49 -33 up, against Monarchy?

Not em.

I wonder how representative this poll is, on a fopotball message board. Certainly won't be many women voting in this poll. Would they be any more pro Monarchy than us blokes?

[ianrobo1]

good point and also not many people over say 50/60

[Jon]

good point and also not many people over say 50/60

who would, i would guess, tend to be slightly more pro - monarchy?

thingh is, without being sick about it, as the older generation "die off", support for the monarchy declines amongst the gen pub.

[ianrobo1]

not slightly Jon I think it is overwhelming ...

the Royals spotted a while back there were in trouble once the older generation leave us and the feelings for thmee amogst under 40's (which I guess is the majority on here) is less than overwhelming.

thats why the PR over William has been so heavily stage managed he is their hope to keep the support levels up and I suspect behiond the scenes they know Charles will cause problems for them.

[snowychap]

I know they won a majority but the figures also show they were in decline and if the democratic parties had held their nerve and not done a deal, who knows ?

Were you talking about the Nazis or the Labour party? :winkold:

I know this has gone off topic but what figures show you that the NSDAP were 'in decline'?

Apart from a slight dip in the Nov '32 elections, they gained in each election.

[Tazzy]

i really dont see the need for a royal family, theyre a waste of tax payers money, i dont see why one family should run a country, they do nothing!

(although it would be amusing to see us have a king and prime minister both as villa fans!)

[bill]

Another way of wording this thread would be to say "Do you think the British people should be entitled to choose their head of state." To say no to that would make me feel very uncomfortable indeed.Hereditary placement of any head of state is by its nature undemocratic and well past its sell by date. If we have an unpopular elected head of state, it is within the power of the electorate to vote them out. How would we remove a future monarch who turned out to be a drug using adulterer who doesn't give a toss about us. Quite a few of our previous monarchs fit this profile and worse. I prefer to be given a choice.

[Awol]

Also, for those praising the Maoist rise to power - what does it mean for the British Army?

Nothing stops the Gurkha's, if the Maoists try and get funny either the recruits will enlist from India - we'd just open a recruiting office at the consulate probably - or they will kill the Maoists then come.

Interesting point aside though is that the Gurkhas come to serve the Crown, not the State. Supposing the Monarchy could be peacefully retired - a big if - who would the Armed Forces swear their Oath to? It's to the people now through the Crown, the alternative is to a Blair clone.

Great plan.

[leviramsey]

Interesting point aside though is that the Gurkhas come to serve the Crown, not the State. Supposing the Monarchy could be peacefully retired - a big if - who would the Armed Forces swear their Oath to? It's to the people now through the Crown, the alternative is to a Blair clone.

The US oaths are all to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution", so I guess you could have the Forces swear their oath to... um.... some figment of the imagination?

[Though I suspect that if the monarchy is done away with, some sort of written constitution will probably come in... in for a penny, in for a pound...]

[Awol]

The US oaths are all to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution"

With respect, they don't seem to be doing a very good job. Oh and as for Constitutions yours is based on Magna Carta. We're the one's with the history mate :winkold:

[bill]

Also, for those praising the Maoist rise to power - what does it mean for the British Army?

Nothing stops the Gurkha's, if the Maoists try and get funny either the recruits will enlist from India - we'd just open a recruiting office at the consulate probably - or they will kill the Maoists then come.

Interesting point aside though is that the Gurkhas come to serve the Crown, not the State. Supposing the Monarchy could be peacefully retired - a big if - who would the Armed Forces swear their Oath to? It's to the people now through the Crown, the alternative is to a Blair clone.

Great plan.

No republic gives its oath to an individual. They all give their oath to the nation or the people. The crown does not embody the "people" .Our oath is to the monarch and they as always represent themselves above any considerations for anyone else.