villadude Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 I want a democratically elected head of state. Just out of interest, if it was your call, who would you like to see as the elected head of state? Tbh that is a silly and pointless question as it would depend on who was standing for election at the time surely and as such an election doesn't exist it would be impossible to say How is that silly? I'm asking him who he would like to see replace the monarch. Baz clearly feels passionate about this, so maybe he at least has an idea of who he would like to see doing the job, what kind of person or from what background the ideal candidate would come from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazdavies79 Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 Bicks has pretty much answered the question for me. Kirtsimonw, we're going around in circles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 I'm asking him who he would like to see replace the monarch. Haven't you missed the point though, mate? It isn't a case of putting forward a particular individual (or even a particular type of person) to replace the monarch but rather not wanting to have the position of head of state passed down a particular family line. In Baz's case, he would want to replace it with an elected head of state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 As normal some who subscribe to Right wing politics like the idea of elitism, not really surprising considering the elitist nature of "their" leaders. Funny how civil liberties and democracy are often used but when it comes to the idea of entitlement by nothing more than wealth or birth those are instantly forgotten about. The Royal family along with many others who obtain privilege just through who their parents and family are need a rethink. That is not a call for a removal of the monarchy before Mr Angry writes to the Daily Mail, but areas such as titles, e.g. Lord this, Viscount that bollox have no real place in the 21st Century. The Royals DO cost a lot of money and the obscene amounts that were paid out for that chinless wonder wedding earlier this year were disgusting at a time when other budgets are being severely cutback. A lot of other countries maintain a Royal Family and do so without a lot of the bollox and snobbery that some try to maintain in this country Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villadude Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 I was more interested in what kind of background the elected head of state would come from, ie, a politician, a famous ex sportsman, a respected mega businessman etc etc.. How would you whittle down the candidates, what would be their key skills in being able to perform a job like that. If we were to have an elected head of state, then how would Baz go about initiating the process of finding one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 I was more interested in what kind of background the elected head of state would come from, ie, a politician, a famous ex sportsman, a respected mega businessman etc etc.. How would you whittle down the candidates, what would be their key skills have to be in performing a job like that. If we were to have an elected head of state, then how would Baz go about initiating the process of finding one?Surely there should be NO criteria. As many other countries have shown, leaders have come from all walks of life. That is the main issue with the Royal Family and the whole titled thing. They are there through no other reason than blood, which really is not a good criteria for leaders. Privilege should not come from who your father was, what school your parents paid for etc, it should come as a result of earning it through many factors and not just certain criteria Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted December 28, 2011 VT Supporter Share Posted December 28, 2011 The Royal family along with many others who obtain privilege just through who their parents and family are need a rethink. That is not a call for a removal of the monarchy before Mr Angry writes to the Daily Mail, but areas such as titles, e.g. Lord this, Viscount that bollox have no real place in the 21st Century.Out of interest, has anybody on here ever met a member of the Royal Family? On a personal level, I'd quite like to. The Queen, for example, leads a life so bizarre and removed from most peoples' reality, I'd quite like to sit down with her over a cup of tea and hear what her experience of life is. But I know what happens when we plebs are introduced to them. We are told what we can and can't say. That we must refer to them as "Ma'am" or "Your Highness" and bow slightly, etc., etc. Now that, to me, is crazy - and offensive. The fact that we are expected to show deference to these people, just because of their inherited position. It's usually described as "having some respect". But (as I know I've said on this forum before), I see no reason why the Queen is more (or less) deserving of respect than the average nurse or squaddie or street cleaner. They do a useful job (let's leave out the argument as to whether the Queen does, too). I show respect to ANY stranger I meet, simply by being polite, and assuming that they are OK until experience proves otherwise. I certainly don't bow and scrape, and I wouldn't expect anyone to do so to me. It's just embarrassing and degrading, and it should have been abandoned long, long ago. TBH, I think the whole business of titles (Mr, Mrs, Miss - and the big "Ms" argument) is an anachronism. I would rather everybody called me "Mike", and I'd rather do likewise. "Mike Mooney - meet Elizabeth Windsor, who's here to open the new toilet block. I expect you've seen her on the TV". "Hello Elizabeth, welcome to the VT building. Can I get you a drink?" Why not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted December 28, 2011 Moderator Share Posted December 28, 2011 I was more interested in what kind of background the elected head of state would come from, ie, a politician, a famous ex sportsman, a respected mega businessman etc etc.. How would you whittle down the candidates, what would be their key skills in being able to perform a job like that. If we were to have an elected head of state, then how would Baz go about initiating the process of finding one? Do you watch that X-Factor thing a lot? See in the real world you don't need to "whittle down" candidates, you vote for them and the one that wins… wins. How do you go about finding candidates, I'm fairly sure there'd be rather a large queue, just like every other election, people stand, the population votes, thats just about how it works in every democratic country that has an elected head of state. Background? does it matter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ads Posted December 29, 2011 Share Posted December 29, 2011 I like the 350 years of stability that we have had within these shores and would not want to change it to further strengthen the executive within this country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted December 29, 2011 Moderator Share Posted December 29, 2011 I like the 350 years of stability that we have had within these shores and would not want to change it to further strengthen the executive within this country. 350 years of stability? Because of the royal family? What? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted December 29, 2011 Share Posted December 29, 2011 Always best to have stability over equality and fairness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ads Posted December 29, 2011 Share Posted December 29, 2011 I like the 350 years of stability that we have had within these shores and would not want to change it to further strengthen the executive within this country. 350 years of stability? Because of the royal family? What? ... due to the constitutional settlement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted December 29, 2011 Share Posted December 29, 2011 TBH, I think the whole business of titles (Mr, Mrs, Miss - and the big "Ms" argument) is an anachronism. I would rather everybody called me "Mike", and I'd rather do likewise. "Mike Mooney - meet Elizabeth Windsor, who's here to open the new toilet block. I expect you've seen her on the TV". Windsor is an assumed name, something solidly English chosen to try to deflect anti-German sentiment during WW1. I gather the name is actually Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidlewis Posted December 29, 2011 Share Posted December 29, 2011 If choosing a royal was down to a public vote you do know it would be King David Beckham right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazdavies79 Posted December 29, 2011 Share Posted December 29, 2011 I like the 350 years of stability that we have had within these shores and would not want to change it to further strengthen the executive within this country. 350 years of stability? Because of the royal family? What? ... due to the constitutional settlement.My history ain't that good, but the act of settlement was brought about after centuries of feuding between nobility, and even then only as a reluctant compromise by a King who had no other choice but to accept. The act of settlement upheld parliament and made the monarchy constitutional only. It was the increased role of parliment which brought stability and over time democracy to the country as far as I am aware. How the monarchy can come out of that with any credit at all is beyond me. If the resulting constitutional monarchy has performed an important role in the past, they certainly don't now. They're no more than celebrity tittletattle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted December 29, 2011 Moderator Share Posted December 29, 2011 I like the 350 years of stability that we have had within these shores and would not want to change it to further strengthen the executive within this country. 350 years of stability? Because of the royal family? What? ... due to the constitutional settlement. So something that took away power from the monarchy is now being cited as a reason to keep them? I find that rather confusing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ads Posted December 29, 2011 Share Posted December 29, 2011 It’s quite simple, I don’t believe there is anything wrong with the political and constitutional settlement that we have had over the past 350 years or rather what it has evolved into over that time. We’re a people free from tyranny or even the threat of it, with the gap between the rich and poor no more or less wide than the vast majority of the Western world. I do not see what positive effect will come of explicitly vesting the powers of the Crown, in the royal prerogative, through the dissolving of the Monarch and bestowing them on the executive to weild yet even greater power at the expense of parliament. The likely effect of these being codified, and ramped up, into one single document. You want to make government stronger, why is this of benefit to me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIW Posted December 29, 2011 Share Posted December 29, 2011 Not really fussed one way or the other I see the pros and cons of both. I'm not a monarchist but its what makes England England. We tried teh revolution once before, didn't like it so reverted back. This current lot are no better or worse but I pay no interest in what they do so cannot get as enraged as a militant 6th former. I'm not sure I'd like a president as we also tried that (Blair) and that didn't work out either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted December 29, 2011 Moderator Share Posted December 29, 2011 You want to make government stronger, why is this of benefit to me? Whoever said this? AFAIC its got nothing to do with making govt stronger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ads Posted December 29, 2011 Share Posted December 29, 2011 You want to make government stronger, why is this of benefit to me? Whoever said this? AFAIC its got nothing to do with making govt stronger If you honestly believe that to be the case, then I don’t think you’ve thought your argument through a great deal then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts